8.4. SR 06-21-1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ITEM 8.4. '"'~ty of TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL I ~l . PAT KLAERS, CITY 1~~ I r FROM: RATOR DATE: JUNE 16, 1993 . J r SUBJECT: WATER UTILITY DISCHARGE POND The Water Utilities have requested that the City reconsider its position on the discharge pond associated with the new well and water treatment building in Orono Park (old E & 0 Tool land) near the apartment complex. The Park and Recreation Commission and city Council have both rejected the initial request from the Water Utilities based on the location and appearance of the discharge pond. A factor related to this request includes the overall cost for a storage tank in the water treatment building versus what it would cost to construct a pond. The net savings to the Utilities is anticipated to be approximately $60,000 if the storage tank is not required and the pond can be constructed. Another issue is the fact that a discharge pond is environmentally appropriate as it replenishes the ground water. However, if the building is constructed without a storage tank, then the opportunity to treat this water and recycle/reuse the water is essentially lost forever. Another factor to consider is the fact that the water in the storage tank underneath the building would be discharged into the sewer system and there is a price associated with this water flowing through our sanitary sewer system. This discharge into the sewer system would end at sometime in the future if the water is required to be treated. Treatment is a federal government requirement and it may be up to five years or more before we are required to add chlorination to the water system. The water in the storage tank cannot be reused until the water is treated and, until that time, the water would be flushed into the sewer system. This sanitary sewer cost or contribution to the water department is estimated at $25,000 per year until the water is treated and reused. I advised the Utilities Superintendent, Bill Birrenkott, that if the pond could be located in a less visible area of the park and in an area that would not eliminate recreation opportunities, then the pond proposal would see less opposition from the staff. In this regard, I suggested that maybe the pond could be located west of the apartments near the proposed location for the water tower. According to the City Engineer this can be accomplished and we are still looking at whether or not the pond could be north or south of a proposed tower. We will certainly try to locate the tower and pond in the very northern part of this area of the park as close to the apartment complex property line as possible. Please see the P.o. Box 490 @ 13065 Orono Parkway e Elk River, MN 55330 $ (612) 441-7420 4) Fax: (612) 441-7425