Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-27-25-WSPUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONAL This is an opportunity for citizens to respectfully bring to the Council ’s attention any items which are relevant to the City. In addressing the Council, you must first state your name and address for the record. Comments shall be limited to three (3) minutes or less. Written documents or other materials should be handed to the City Clerk for distribution to the Council prior to or during the meeting. Council will generally not respond at the same meeting where an issue is initially raised by a member of the public but the Council may refer the issue to staff for further research and possible report or action at a future Council meeting. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC INQUIRIES AGENDA ITEMS Flock Safety Cameras Discussion Undersheriff Jeff Ramacher MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF Public Works Design Manual - Lighting David Swearingen, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF Proposed Booster Station (TCAAP) David Swearingen, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF 75th Anniversary Planning Subcommittee Discussion Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator MEMO.PDF Twin Cities Gateway Funding Discussion Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator MEMO.PDF Rice Creek Commons/TCAAP Discussion Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator MEMO.PDF Agenda Planning Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS ADJOURN Mayor: David Grant Councilmembers: Brenda Holden Emily Rousseau Tena Monson Kurt Weber City Council Work Session Agenda May 27, 2025 5:30 p.m. City Hall Address: 1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills MN 55112 Phone: 651 -792 -7800 Website : www.cityofardenhills.org City Vision Arden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play. Members of the public may attend a meeting in -person at City Hall or they may view the meeting remotely on the City ’s website using the below link. Meetings are also broadcast on Cable Channel 16 for those that live in Arden Hills. https://cityofardenhills.org/320/Watch - City -Meetings This meeting will be streamed live on local Cable Channel 16 and available for playback on our website. CALL TO ORDER 1. 2. 3. 3.A. Documents: 3.B. Documents: 3.C. Documents: 3.D. Documents: 3.E. Documents: 3.F. Documents: 3.G. Documents: 4. PUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONALThis is an opportunity for citizens to respectfully bring to the Council ’s attention any items which are relevant to the City. In addressing the Council, you must first state your name and address for the record. Comments shall be limited to three (3) minutes or less. Written documents or other materials should be handed to the City Clerk for distribution to the Council prior to or during the meeting. Council will generally not respond at the same meeting where an issue is initially raised by a member of the public but the Council may refer the issue to staff for further research and possible report or action at a future Council meeting.RESPONSE TO PUBLIC INQUIRIESAGENDA ITEMSFlock Safety Cameras DiscussionUndersheriff Jeff Ramacher MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF Public Works Design Manual - Lighting David Swearingen, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF Proposed Booster Station (TCAAP) David Swearingen, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF 75th Anniversary Planning Subcommittee Discussion Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator MEMO.PDF Twin Cities Gateway Funding Discussion Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator MEMO.PDF Rice Creek Commons/TCAAP Discussion Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator MEMO.PDF Agenda Planning Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS ADJOURN Mayor:David GrantCouncilmembers:Brenda HoldenEmily RousseauTena MonsonKurt Weber City Council Work Session Agenda May 27, 2025 5:30 p.m. City Hall Address:1245 W Highway 96Arden Hills MN 55112Phone:651 -792 -7800Website:www.cityofardenhills.orgCity VisionArden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play.Members of the public may attend a meeting in -person at City Hall or they may view the meeting remotely on the City ’s website using the below link. Meetings are also broadcast on Cable Channel 16 for those that live in Arden Hills.https://cityofardenhills.org/320/Watch -City -MeetingsThis meeting will be streamed live on local Cable Channel 16 and available for playback on our website.CALL TO ORDER1.2.3.3.A. Documents: 3.B. Documents: 3.C. Documents: 3.D. Documents: 3.E. Documents: 3.F. Documents: 3.G. Documents: 4. PUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONALThis is an opportunity for citizens to respectfully bring to the Council ’s attention any items which are relevant to the City. In addressing the Council, you must first state your name and address for the record. Comments shall be limited to three (3) minutes or less. Written documents or other materials should be handed to the City Clerk for distribution to the Council prior to or during the meeting. Council will generally not respond at the same meeting where an issue is initially raised by a member of the public but the Council may refer the issue to staff for further research and possible report or action at a future Council meeting.RESPONSE TO PUBLIC INQUIRIESAGENDA ITEMSFlock Safety Cameras DiscussionUndersheriff Jeff RamacherMEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFATTACHMENT C.PDFPublic Works Design Manual - LightingDavid Swearingen, Public Works Director/City EngineerMEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFATTACHMENT C.PDFProposed Booster Station (TCAAP)David Swearingen, Public Works Director/City EngineerMEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDF75th Anniversary Planning Subcommittee DiscussionJessica Jagoe, City AdministratorMEMO.PDFTwin Cities Gateway Funding DiscussionJessica Jagoe, City AdministratorMEMO.PDFRice Creek Commons/TCAAP DiscussionJessica Jagoe, City AdministratorMEMO.PDFAgenda Planning Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS ADJOURN Mayor:David GrantCouncilmembers:Brenda HoldenEmily RousseauTena MonsonKurt Weber City Council Work Session Agenda May 27, 2025 5:30 p.m. City Hall Address:1245 W Highway 96Arden Hills MN 55112Phone:651 -792 -7800Website:www.cityofardenhills.orgCity VisionArden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play.Members of the public may attend a meeting in -person at City Hall or they may view the meeting remotely on the City ’s website using the below link. Meetings are also broadcast on Cable Channel 16 for those that live in Arden Hills.https://cityofardenhills.org/320/Watch -City -MeetingsThis meeting will be streamed live on local Cable Channel 16 and available for playback on our website.CALL TO ORDER1.2.3.3.A.Documents:3.B.Documents:3.C.Documents:3.D.Documents:3.E.Documents:3.F.Documents:3.G. Documents: 4. Page 1 of 3 AGENDA ITEM – 3A MEMORANDUM DATE: May 27, 2025 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator SUBJECT: Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office Flock Safety Camera Discussion Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A $4,183.80 General Fund Council Should Consider Council should review and discuss the proposal by the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office for the installation of Flock LPR Safety Cameras as a budget amendment in 2025 for the contract cities. Background At the May 12th Work Session, the City Council reviewed the 2025 budget amendment proposal from the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office (RCSO) for the installation of 19 Flock license plate reader (LPR) cameras in the contract cities. Of those, three (3) would be installed in Arden Hills. Safety camera locations were identified in high traffic areas/retail areas. The RCSO has stated that this proposal provides good initial coverage and is representative of patrol allocation. Safety cameras are located on the borders of the contract cities to provide for maximized coverage. Council direction was given to table the LPR discussion to the next Work Session with a request to the RCSO to provide additional information on the following items (RCSO responses provided in italics): • Policy or procedure for Flock cameras (i.e., use, access, data retention, auditing)? o Provided by RCSO and included with this memo as Attachment C. • Who has access to the data? o Supervisors and investigators. Flock does not look at the data. o Distinction Between Personal Information Captured Via this Website and Customer Data Captured by Flock Hardware - Flock Hardware captures footage of license plates via Flock devices. This is referred to in our terms and conditions as Customer Data. Flock devices do not use facial recognition or capture any personally identifiable information such as name, phone number, or address. Rather, Flock captures such images in public spaces where there is no Page 2 of 3 expectation of privacy. While many privacy laws regulate the use of Personal Information (i.e., access, deletion, etc.), it is important to distinguish those rights from non-personal information. Since Flock devices do not capture any Personal Information and rather capture the license plate data itself, Flock cannot verify any information captured in order to process any data subject request. • End-to-end understanding of data flow? o Flock’s Security Practices Regarding Customer Data - Flock’s security posture for Customer Data starts before the devices are even installed. Flock has a dedicated team, which maps out the best location for installation - all of which require that installations are in accordance with constitutional rights. This means that Flock’s devices are never placed in a location where there is an expectation of privacy. Once captured, Customer Data is securely transmitted to the cloud with encryption in transit, stored for thirty (30) days with a customer only S3 bucket, and then permanently deleted. It is encrypted throughout its entire lifecycle and securely stored with AES256 encryption with our cloud provider, Amazon Web Services. On the device itself, Customer Data is only stored temporarily for a period no longer than thirty (30) days until it is uploaded to the cloud, at which point it is removed automatically from the local device. This means that Customer Data is secure from when it is on the Flock device to when it is transferred to the cloud, using a secure connection to Flock servers. While stored in the cloud, all data (both footage and metadata) is fully encrypted at rest. Flock defaults to permanently deleting all Customer Data after thirty (30) days on a rolling basis. • Who owns data? o Flock’s customers own 100% of their data and determine who is an Authorized End User on the account. Flock does not share the footage/data with any third- party entity, including any repossession companies, towing companies, companies related to traffic enforcement, revenue collection and unpaid fines, or any other third party entity for any commercial use. Any license plate data that may be searched by authorized law enforcement requires justification to verify the legitimacy of the search and create an audit trail. Lastly, Authorized End Users from law enforcement undergo training to properly use our system and communicate with their dispatch teams. Such users must learn how to enter legitimate reasons for search and how to audit searches as necessary. As a result, Customer Data is captured in a location with no expectation of privacy, Customer Data does not collect Personal Information, Customer Data is securely stored, transmitted, and deleted, and any law enforcement access is contingent on training to ensure proper use. For more information on how Flock prioritizes your privacy, please visit our Trust page at Flock Safety Trust Center. • Data collected with LPR cameras, what is it being combined with? Is the collection of license plate/vehicle data being combined with individuals or other personal data? o LPR only collects license plates. That info is then ran against the BCA hotlist which will provide hits. • Is data collected subject to or compliant with Statute 13 or Statute 169? o All data collected is Subject to Statute 13 - ALPR Audits / Data Practices Office Page 3 of 3 • What happens if an individual submits a data request to RCSO for a license plate # that would have been photographed on a Flock camera? Is that subject to public access to these records? o This request would be handled according to Statute. • Are there other RCSO-owned LPR cameras that are not part of the contract group? o Fixed license plate readers must be reported to the state of MN and is posted on the DPS website - Agencies that use License Plate Readers (LPR) | Minnesota Department of Public Safety. The Council is being asked to consider the implementation of LPR cameras as a budget amendment for 2025 so that installation could begin mid-summer. Flock contract/lease rates would be prorated for this year. At the May 12th Work Session, the City Council scheduled a Special Regular Meeting on May 28th to take the necessary action on the budget amendment request from RCSO for Flock LPR cameras. Budget Impact For 2025, the City would need to approve a budget amendment for our prorated cost share of $4,183.80, which would be brought back to the Council at a future meeting. These cameras can be absorbed within the General Fund - Other Services & Charges. Attachment Attachment A: RCSO Flock Safety Cameras Proposal Attachment B: May 12th Work Session Memo Attachment C: RCSO Policy Manual LPR Addendum Overview This budget addendum is proposed for the 2025 Contract Communities budget for Flock Safety Cameras. Flock Safety is: •An end-to-end solution that helps to reduce crime and criminal activity as well as keep communities safe through the use of license plate reader (LPR) technology. •Available for use by individuals, businesses, non- profits, property managers, homeowners’ associations, and government organizations. This includes public schools, colleges and universities, retail and shopping areas, healthcare settings, and law enforcement agencies. •Able to record license plate data and vehicle characteristics, which can be crucial information in assisting investigators in solving crimes and enabling deputies to prevent future criminal activity. •Secure and the data recorded is in compliance with the state data practices law. The data recorded by law enforcement agencies can only be accessed as authorized by statute for official use only. Put simply, there are safeguards in place to protect an individual’s privacy. •Already widely used across various organizations, including Anoka County, Anoka, Belle Plaine, Brooklyn Center, Champlin, Maple Grove, Minnetonka, Mounds View, New Hope, North Oaks, Orono, Richfield, University of Minnesota, Rogers, Roseville, Woodbury, Stillwater, and the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office. Public Safety Impact If funded, this addendum will help to increase safety with use of LPR technology. More specifically: •Cameras will be installed in select and strategic high-traffic, high volume areas at fixed locations, such as commercial areas and major entrances and exits to the Contract Communities (i.e., county roads, etc.). The attached map provides location information. •Coverage will be available 24 hours a day with real-time alerts. Responses to crimes can occur more quickly and this accelerates investigations •Examples of use include: (1) identifying a stolen car in real-time and enabling the recovery of the vehicle and arrest of the thieve; (2) providing notice if a registered sex offender has been in the area a school; (3) locating a vehicle that may have been involved in a real theft and arresting suspects; and, (4) reviewing locations of a suspicious vehicle that was called in by a resident (i.e., potential burglar observing and studying a property, etc.). •Flock is easy to expand and grow based on the ever-changing needs of the community. Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office Contract Law Enforcement & Public Safety Services Budget Addendum: Flock Safety Cameras 1 Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office Contract Law Enforcement & Public Safety Services Budget Addendum: Flock Safety Cameras Minnesota state law requires every law enforcement agency utilizing license plate readers to “arrange for an independent, biennial audit.” This is to ensure compliance with statutory requirements. All data is managed in accordance with state law and independently audited. Fiscal Impact The total of this budget addendum is $41,500, of which $28,500 is charged to the Contract Communities. The attached provides financing details. •Costs are proposed to be allocated following the patrol allocation used as part of the Contract Communities budget. •In 2025, charges are pro-rated by the vendor and include a Sheriff’s Office contribution for installation. •For long term fiscal planning, projected costs include a minimal increase each year and an anticipated increase in the number of cameras each year starting in 2027. Approval A motion was made for approval and recorded as follows: Community Yes No Arden Hills Little Canada North Oaks Shoreview Vadnais Heights White Bear Township Updated: 4/20/2025 2 Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office Contract Law Enforcement & Public Safety Services Budget Addendum: Flock Safety Cameras Camera Patrol Total 2025 Prorated Long Term Fiscal Planning Add 4 cameras Add 4 cameras Add 4 cameras Add 4 cameras Starting Community Count Allocation Cost RCSO Communities 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Allocation Arden Hills 3 14.68% $ 8,367.60 $ 1,857.02 $ 4,183.80 $ 8,646.52 $ 10,804.48 $ 13,079.88 $ 15,472.72 $ 17,983.00 15.79% Little Canada 3 17.04% 9,712.80 2,155.56 4,856.40 10,036.56 12,541.44 15,182.64 17,960.16 20,874.00 15.79% North Oaks 1 8.15% 4,645.50 1,030.98 2,322.75 4,800.35 5,998.40 7,261.65 8,590.10 9,983.75 5.26% Shoreview 6 31.07% 17,709.90 3,930.36 8,854.95 18,300.23 22,867.52 27,683.37 32,747.78 38,060.75 31.58% Vadnais Heights 4 16.78% 9,564.60 2,122.67 4,782.30 9,883.42 12,350.08 14,950.98 17,686.12 20,555.50 21.05% White Bear Twp. 2 12.28% 6,999.60 1,553.42 3,499.80 7,232.92 9,038.08 10,941.48 12,943.12 15,043.00 10.53% Total 19 100.00% $ 57,000.00 $ 12,650.00 $ 28,500.00 $ 58,900.00 $ 73,600.00 $ 89,100.00 $ 105,400.00 $ 122,500.00 100.00% 3 Arden Hills (3 Cameras) 4 Little Canada (3 Cameras) 5 North Oaks (1 Camera) 6 Shoreview (6 Cameras) 7 Vadnais Heights (4 Cameras) 8 White Bear Township (2 Cameras) 9 Flock Safety Cameras Long Term Fiscal Planning Camera Patrol Total 2025 Prorated Add 4 cameras Add 4 cameras Add 4 cameras Add 4 cameras Starting Community Count Allocation Cost RCSO Communities 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Allocation Arden Hills 3 14.68% $ 8,367.60 $ 1,857.02 $ 4,183.80 $ 8,646.52 $ 10,804.48 $ 13,079.88 $ 15,472.72 $ 17,983.00 15.79% Little Canada 3 17.04% 9,712.80 2,155.56 4,856.40 10,036.56 12,541.44 15,182.64 17,960.16 20,874.00 15.79% North Oaks 1 8.15% 4,645.50 1,030.98 2,322.75 4,800.35 5,998.40 7,261.65 8,590.10 9,983.75 5.26% Shoreview 6 31.07% 17,709.90 3,930.36 8,854.95 18,300.23 22,867.52 27,683.37 32,747.78 38,060.75 31.58% Vadnais Heights 4 16.78% 9,564.60 2,122.67 4,782.30 9,883.42 12,350.08 14,950.98 17,686.12 20,555.50 21.05% White Bear Twp. 2 12.28% 6,999.60 1,553.42 3,499.80 7,232.92 9,038.08 10,941.48 12,943.12 15,043.00 10.53% Total 19 100.00% $ 57,000.00 $ 12,650.00 $ 28,500.00 $ 58,900.00 $ 73,600.00 $ 89,100.00 $ 105,400.00 $ 122,500.00 100.00% $ 41,150.00 Goals is 35 cameras over 5 year Year 2025 Cams Cost per Cam total # of cameras --> 19 $ 3,000.00 <-- per camera cost $ 57,000.00 ---> INSTALL COST ONE-TIME $ 12,650.00 Year 2026 total # of cameras --> 19 $ 3,100.00 <-- per camera cost $ 58,900.00 Year 2027 total # of cameras --> 23 $ 3,200.00 <-- per camera cost $ 73,600.00 Year 2028 total # of cameras --> 27 $ 3,300.00 <-- per camera cost $ 89,100.00 Year 2029 total # of cameras --> 31 $ 3,400.00 <-- per camera cost $ 105,400.00 Year 2030 total # of cameras --> 35 $ 3,500.00 <-- per camera cost $ 122,500.00 10 Page 1 of 2 AGENDA ITEM – 3C MEMORANDUM DATE: May 12, 2025 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator SUBJECT: Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office Flock Safety Camera Discussion Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A $4,183.80 General Fund Council Should Consider Council should review and discuss the proposal by the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office for the installation of Flock LPR Safety Cameras as a budget amendment in 2025 for the contract cities. Background Last November, the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office (RCSO) had a representative from Flock Safety present to the contract cities on license plate reader (LPR) camera technology that was being considered for future installation. Since that presentation, the RCSO has been refining the budget costs, contract terms, and recommended camera locations. For 2025, the RCSO is proposing to install 19 cameras within the contract cities. Of those, three (3) would be installed in Arden Hills. Safety camera locations were identified in high traffic areas/retail areas. The RCSO has stated that this proposal provides good initial coverage and is representative of patrol allocation. Safety cameras are located on the borders of the contract cities to provide for maximize coverage. As part of the work session discussion, the Council is being asked to consider the implementation of safety cameras as a budget amendment for 2025 so that installation could begin mid-summer. Flock contract/lease rates would be prorated for this year. Additional information shared by RCSO regarding the LPR cameras: •Alerts can be set for those license plates on custom hot lists or Amber Alerts. •Vehicle Fingerprint Technology o Vehicle characteristics o Search body type, color, make, top racks, etc. •Not facial recognition, not tracking speeds, not parking violations. •Solar Powered Technology Page 2 of 2 •State Statute requires users to get rid of data every 60 days. Flock gets rid of data every 30 days. •Permission from other agencies needs to be given to those who use the Flock system to view their agency collected LPR data. •Deputies would be given access to alerts, but not searches. The ability to search will be initially limited within RCSO to top command leadership for the protection of data. Accessing the system is audited and there will be a log retained. •Viewing window of LPR cameras is about 75 feet so there are factors like tree coverage, width of roadway, etc. that were considered in the selection of locations by RCSO. With the Flock system there is an installation cost for each camera. The RCSO has stated they intend to pay for the cost of installation. Then there is an annual lease cost per camera of $3,000 (2025 rate) which would be paid for by the contract cities. They are looking at a ½ year implementation in 2025 of $28,500 for 19 cameras ($57,000 – 2025 full year). For Arden Hills, the RCSO has identified three (3) camera locations (approx. 16% of the total number of cameras). Those locations would be Highway 96/Round Lake Road, Highway 96/Lexington Avenue, and Lexington Avenue/Grey Fox Road. Our prorated cost share for 2025 would be $4,183.80 or a cost share allocation of 15.79%. Flock cameras would be allocated for costs based on the allocation formula. RCSO is looking to negotiate a 3-5 year contract for the Flock camera safety system and lease rates would increase annually up to $3,500 per camera in year 2030. If operational this year, the RCSO would look to include these cameras in their growth plan and would then build into budgets year after year for the addition of cameras, as shown in their proposed long-term fiscal planning. Budget Impact For 2025, the City would need to approve a budget amendment for our prorated cost share of $4,183.80, which would be brought back to the Council at a future meeting. These cameras can be absorbed within the General Fund - Other Services & Charges. Attachment Attachment A: RCSO Flock Safety Cameras Proposal Page 1 of 3 AGENDA ITEM – 3B MEMORANDUM DATE: May 27, 2025 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator FROM: David Swearingen, P.E. Public Works Director / City Engineer SUBJECT: Arden Hills Public Works Design Manual – Lighting Palette Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A Council Should Consider Council should consider the lighting palette options proposed to be included in the Arden Hills Public Works Design manual. Background/Discussion The Arden Hills TCAAP Redevelopment Code references a street and trail lighting palette to be followed within the Arden Hills Public Works Design Manual. Currently, this lighting palette does not exist. Xcel Energy provides outdoor lighting options for Arden Hills, which can be seen within Attachment A. City staff has provided recommendations for these options as follows: • The Cobra luminaire with Pole Style A – Aluminum, will be used on streets (boxed in green). • The Traditional, Lantern and Modern luminaires are being considered for trail lighting (boxed in yellow). • The Fiberglass, Style B – Columbus, and Style C – Washington pole styles boxed in yellow are being considered for along trails. All lighting is proposed to be Light Emitting Diode (LED) with typical lumens for street lighting at 14,000 and trail lighting at 4,000. All electrical is proposed as underground installation. Page 2 of 3 Xcel Energy provides two types of service rates, Standard Service vs. Pre-Pay For the Standard Service rate, the customer (Arden Hills) pays a lower initial installation cost compared to the Pre-Pay option but a higher monthly operational cost. With the Standard Service rate, Xcel Energy repairs all damage to the equipment of the lighting unit, including full replacement, at no additional cost to Arden Hills for the life of the service agreement. The life of the service agreement is in place for as long as the lighting unit exists. For the Pre-Pay rate option, the customer (Arden Hills) pays a higher initial installation cost compared to the Standard Service option but a lower monthly operational cost. With the Pre-Pay rate, Xcel Energy repairs all damage to the equipment of the lighting unit at no additional cost to Arden Hills for the first 25 years of the lighting unit. After 25 years, if any damage occurs and/or repairs are needed due to the age of the equipment, Arden Hills is responsible for the cost for full replacement of the lighting unit. Once the unit is replaced, the 25-year timer restarts. The intention of this option is for the customer to budget for these replacements during the first 25 years of the lighting unit. Staff is requesting direction from the City Council on the lighting palette and rate option to include within the Public Works Design Manual. Below are the different combinations of options available. Budget Impact For the TCAAP development, specifically, the responsibility of costs is dependent on the location of the lighting unit. Ultimately, the City will be billed by Xcel Energy for all of the lighting. The City would be able to recoup some of these costs through development agreements or other charges/fees. Street Light – Cobra/Aluminum Pole Pre-pay option - $10,000 for initial installation; $7.92 monthly rate for operating. Standard Service - $7,000 for initial installation; $27.87 monthly rate for operating. Trail light options: Style A – Fiberglass/Traditional Pre-pay option – $8,000 for initial installation; $5.59 monthly rate for operating. Standard Service - $6,000 for initial installation; $23.91 monthly rate for operating. Style B – Columbus/Lantern or Modern Pre-pay option only – $10,500 for initial installation; $5.59 monthly rate for operating. Style C – Washington/Lantern or Modern Pre-pay option only – $10,500 for initial installation; $5.59 monthly rate for operating. Attachment C, shows the cost of each option over a 26-year period for each of the above options. Provided with direction from City Council, City Staff will update the lighting palette and rate option within the Public Works Manual accordingly. Page 3 of 3 Attachments Attachment A – Lighting Options Attachment B – Xcel lighting rates and rules Attachment C – Lighting unit costs INFORMATION SHEET MINNESOTA OUTDOOR LIGHTING OPTIONS LED LUMINAIRE STYLES Traditional Displays the old-fashioned charm of traditional area lighting, enhancing any setting with distinctive styling. Downlight configuration delivers uniform and efficient illumination to pedestrian and roadway applications. • Colors: Dark Bronze, Black • Available on 14-foot pole Style A only • Dark Sky Friendly • Available in LED Type A, B, and C Eligible Rate(s): – Rate Code: A30 – Standard Service Underground with direct buried fiberglass pole. – Pre-Pay Option with direct buried fiberglass or aluminum pole. Acorn – opaque or clear top Add historic sophistication with one of the many globes that found their way onto the city streets of North America in the early 20th century. • Colors: Dark Bronze, Black, Federal Green • Available on pole Styles A (fiberglass), B or C • Available in LED Type A, B, and C Eligible Rate(s): – Rate Code: A30 – Pre-Pay Option with fiberglass or aluminum pole. Lantern One of the most versatile luminaires offered with acrylic lens or no lens, the beauty of yesteryear with the superior lighting performance standards of today. • Colors: Dark Bronze, Black, Federal Green • Available on pole Styles A (fiberglass), B or C • Dark Sky Friendly without lens • Available in LED Type A, B, and C Eligible Rate(s): – Rate Code: A30 – Pre-Pay Option with fiberglass or aluminum pole. Cobra Appreciated for function and form that contributes to the safety and security of well-lit streets for your residents and business patrons. • Colors: Gray, Dark Bronze, Black, Federal Green • Available on 30-foot pole Style A only • Dark Sky Friendly • Available in LED Type A, B, C, D, and E Eligible Rate(s): – Rate Code: A30 – Standard Service Overhead with wood pole. – Standard Service Underground with direct buried fiberglass pole. – Pre-Pay Option with direct buried fiberglass pole or base mounted aluminum pole. Page 1 of 3 24-02-510 Contemporary Optical assembly designed for maximum performance. Die-cast aluminum housing and spun aluminum hood for long-life performance. • Colors: Light Gray, Black • Available on 14-foot pole Style A only • Available in LED Type A, B, and C Eligible Rate(s): – Rate Code: A30 – Pre-Pay Option Modern High-performance optics and elegant form factor provide a modern lighting option. • Colors: Light Gray, Dark Bronze, Black, Federal Green • Available on 14-foot pole Style A only • Dark Sky Friendly • Available in LED Type A, B, and C Eligible Rate(s): – Rate Code: A30 – Pre-Pay Option Evans The LED Evans intelligent design will revitalize any community roadway with a sophisticated style. • Colors: Dark Bronze, Black, Federal Green • Available on pole Style D only • Available in LED Type A, C, and D Eligible Rate(s): – Rate Code: A30 – Pre-Pay Option Nightwatch To request a Nightwatch installation and/or receive information on installation criteria, please contact us via email OutdoorLighting@xcelenergy.com. Nightwatch lights are also referred to as Automatic Protective Lighting Service in Xcel Energy’s rate schedule and in billing. • Standard Nightwatches are available in LED Type A, B, and C • Directional Nightwatches are available in LED Type C, D, E, and F Eligible Rate(s): – Rate Code: A07-A for Standard Nightwatch Lights – Rate Code: A07-D for Directional Nightwatch Lights Page 2 of 3 24-02-510 LED LUMINAIRE STYLES continued MINNESOTA xcelenergy.com | © 2024 Xcel Energy Inc. | Xcel Energy is a registered trademark of Xcel Energy Inc. | 24-02-510 INFORMATION SHEET OUTDOOR LIGHTING OPTIONS POLE STYLES STYLE A A round, smooth tapered shaft available in varying heights, foundation mounted or direct buried. Fiberglass – 14 or 25-foot mounting height, direct buried Aluminum – 30 feet, foundation mounted • Colors: Dark Bronze only • Colors: Dark Bronze, Black and Federal Green Eligible Rate(s): Eligible Rate(s): – Rate Code: A30 – Rate Code: A30 – Standard Service Underground – Standard Service Underground – Pre-Pay Option – Pre-Pay Option STYLE B – Columbus An aluminum decorative pole with a 15-foot fixture mounting height. • Colors: Dark Bronze and Black Eligible Rate(s): – Rate Code: A30 – Pre-Pay Option STYLE C – Washington A fluted base mounted pole with a 14-foot fixture mounting height. • Available in fiberglass and aluminum • Colors: Dark Bronze, Black and Federal Green Eligible Rate(s): – Rate Code: A30 – Pre-Pay Option STYLE D – Evans A decorative base mounted fluted aluminum pole with a 28-foot fixture mounting height. • Colors: Dark Bronze, Black and Federal Green • Available only with the Evans fixture Eligible Rate(s): – Rate Code: A30 – Pre-Pay Option STYLE E – Wood A reliable, sturdy direct buried wooden pole available at 30, 35, or 40 feet. • Poles are embedded 5 or 6 feet Eligible Rate(s): – Rate Code: A30 Questions? We’re here to help. Contact us at OutdoorLighting@xcelenergy.com. The Customer may not make any attachments, including but not limited to, banners, flags, signs or holiday lighting, to the poles without the express written permission of the Company. Approval of any such attachments will be at the sole discretion of the Company. Lighting Unit Option Installation Cost Monthly Rate Year 26 Total Street Lighting: Cobra/Aluminum Pole Pre-Pay $10,000 $7.92 $33,941 (assumes replacement at year 26 with 3% inflation of installation costs) Standard Service $7,000 $27.87 $15,695 Trail Lighting: Style A/Fiberglass Pole/Traditional Luminaire Pre-Pay $8,000 $5.59 $26,427 (assumes replacement at year 26 with 3% inflation of installation costs) Standard Service $6,000 $23.91 $13,460 Style B - Columbus/Lantern or Modern Pre-Pay only $10,500 $5.59 $34,821 (assumes replacement at year 26 with 3% inflation of installation costs) Style C - Washington/Lantern or Modern Pre-Pay only $10,500 $5.59 $34,821 (assumes replacement at year 26 with 3% inflation of installation costs) Page 1 of 2 AGENDA ITEM – 3C MEMORANDUM DATE: May 27, 2025 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator FROM: David Swearingen, P.E. Public Works Director / City Engineer SUBJECT: Proposed Booster Station (TCAAP) Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: $0 $1,500,000 Water Availability Charge ($250,000 is Engineering Services) Council Should Consider Council should consider initiating design of plans and specification for the proposed booster station needed for the TCAAP development. Background Ramsey County has moved forward with a project to complete plans and specifications for construction of Spine Road through the TCAAP property/Rice Creek Commons Redevelopment Site (RCC). Kimley Horn, with Bolton & Menk as a sub-consultant, was contracted to complete these plans and specifications and all associated tasks necessary to provide a biddable contract documents plan set. One of the tasks in the scope of work requires updating the 2015 Preliminary Design Report for the sanitary sewer and potable water systems. The full Rice Creek Commons Water Distribution System Modeling Results Update can be reviewed in Attachment A. This discussion is focusing on the proposed booster station related to the potable water system. On page 11 of the updated report, under Infrastructure Phasing, it states: “It is recommended that the proposed west booster station be constructed at the same time as the Spine Road project, therefore design should occur simultaneously with the Spine Road design. The west booster station would provide a redundant supply route for the north pressure zone and proposed TCAAP/RCC site. This is considered crucial in the event the existing east booster station malfunctions or experiences a watermain break that would prevent it from being able to supply the north pressure zone.” Page 2 of 2 And on page 12, under Recommended Improvements, it states: “Construct a new west booster station along Old Highway 10 (Old Snelling Ave N). The booster station may be constructed on the north or south side of I-694. This booster station may have pumps with the same design point as the existing east booster station’s pumps. Construction of the booster station is recommended to occur concurrently with the Spine Road project. The booster station will provide redundancy to the north pressure zone, as the entire north pressure zone is fed solely from the existing booster station. Additional SCADA controls and security features will be included in the final design”. Discussion City staff is requesting direction to move forward with the design of plans and specifications for the proposed booster station as recommended by the updated report in Attachment A. Staff’s recommendation is to order plans and specifications to the point of preparing biddable documents which will allow for flexible timing with the bidding of the County’s Spine Road construction project. The County is planning and on schedule to bid the Spine Road construction project in January/February of 2026; therefore, the proposed booster station project should have biddable documents along that same timeline. If the Spine Road construction does not move forward as anticipated, the proposed booster station plans and specs can be shelved and used when the time comes. To complete construction of a booster station is approximately 18-months, this period does not include design. Staff recommends selecting Bolton & Menk for the engineering services as they are the consultant that prepared the Rice Creek Commons Water Distribution System Modeling Results Update report and can provide a team that is familiar with Arden Hills. With direction from the City Council, staff will request a proposal for the design services, then review it for appropriate scope of work and related fees. If deemed acceptable, staff will provide a recommendation for approval at a future regular City Council meeting. Budget Impact The total project cost including construction and engineering services is estimated at $1,500,000, with design services accounting for roughly $250,000. Funding for this project will come from the City’s Water Availability Charge based on analysis provided by Ehlers. A utility rate discussion has been scheduled for the June 9th work session. An updated fee schedule would then be presented to Council for consideration at a future Regular Council Meeting. Attachments Attachment A - Rice Creek Commons Water Distribution System Modeling Results Update H:\KIMLEYHO_PR\0T4133552000\2_Preliminary\C_Reports\Preliminary Design Report Update\Report Update\Water Preliminary Engineering Analysis\Memo-Rice Creek Commons Water Distrib Sys Modeling Results Update Final Draft 01.24.2025.docx MEMORANDUM Date: January 24, 2025 To: David Swearingen, City of Arden Hills – Public Works Director John Mazzitello, Ramsey County – Deputy Director of Public Works Eric Fosmo, Kimley Horn TCAAP/Rice Creek Common Project Manager From: Mitchell Swanson, P.E. – Environmental Project Engineer Ryan Peterson, P.E. – Senior Project Manager Subject: Rice Creek Commons Water Distribution System Modeling Results Update Kimley-Horn Project No.: 0T4.133552 2024 Water Distribution System Modeling Results Update Introduction Ramsey County has moved forward with a project to complete plans and specifications for construction of Spine Road through the TCAAP property/Rice Creek Commons Redevelopment Site (RCC). Kimley Horn, with Bolton & Menk as a sub-consultant,was contracted to complete these plans and specifications and all associated tasks necessary to provide a biddable contract documents plan set. Task 5 of the work plan requires updating a 2015 Preliminary Design Report for the sanitary sewer and potable water systems. A few land use changes have also been adopted since 2015 that impact the potable water system demand that will be generated by the site upon future development, and subsequent water model results. This memo provides the update of the Water Distribution System Modeling Results. A sister memo will be provided for the Sanitary Sewer System Preliminary Engineering Analysis. Technical Memorandum Format To help any user of this memo understand the original report, this memo includes the original memo text in blue italics for easy referencing. The updated analysis is in standard text format. The report will follow this format for each section. The format will be: Section Title Updated engineering analysis text… Original engineering analysis text… Introduction The purpose of this technical memorandum is to update the original Water Distribution System Modeling Results for the proposed potable water system design needs for the TCAAP Site/Rice Creek Commons development project (RCC) that was originally completed in June 2015. Further modeling analysis is required based on the changes to the development planning since the original study was completed. Since the original study, the model was converted to Infowater Pro modeling software. The Attachment A MEMORANDUM Rice Creek Commons Water Distribution System Modeling Results Update January, 2025 Page 2 H:\KIMLEYHO_PR\0T4133552000\2_Preliminary\C_Reports\Preliminary Design Report Update\Report Update\Water Preliminary Engineering Analysis\Memo-Rice Creek Commons Water Distrib Sys Modeling Results Update Final Draft 01.24.2025.docx City of Arden Hills water distribution system model was received and updated based on recent construction projects using Infowater Pro. Previous analysis reports that are referenced in this update report are provided in Appendix D. The purpose of this technical memorandum is to present and discuss the findings of the water distribution modeling performed to predict and analyze the adequacy of the water distribution in Arden Hills, particularly its extension into the proposed TCAAP site redevelopment area. The software program WaterCad V8i was used to develop the distribution model. Information obtained from Arden Hills provided the pipe sizing and locations, pumping facilities and water storage facilities making up the City’s existing distribution system. Historical water usage data were also provided by Arden Hills and the City of Roseville. This information was used to estimate demand data to be input into the model. Model Development A meeting was held between the City of Arden Hills, Bolton & Menk, and the previous water model consultant to discuss the state of the water model.The consensus was that the model was up to date, except for two recent improvement projects. The distribution system layout, pipe size, demands, and pump controls are considered up to date. The recent watermain improvements along Hamline Ave N and the improvements along Old Highway 10 (Old Snelling Ave) were implemented into the updated model for this study. The inherited water model had an average daily demand (ADD) of 1.0 million gallons per day (MGD) and maximum daily demand (MDD) of 2.5 MGD for the existing 2024 distribution system of Arden Hills, these demands are based on the revised demands in the 2019 Water Distribution System report and model analysis by AE2S. This equates to a peaking factor of 2.5 between ADD and MDD. Based on the latest development planning for the TCAAP/RCC project, the total demand for the proposed site will be 0.565 MGD at ADD. Using the 2.5 peaking factor, the MDD for TCAAP/RCC is 1.412 MGD. Peak hour demands are estimated at six times the ADD and are only used for sizing watermain, it is not used for sizing of storage reservoirs. Peak hour demands are not typically used in modeling analysis since these flows do not occur for extended periods of time, maximum day demand flows plus fire flow are typically used to simulate peak flow of a system. The information provided was used to develop the system layout, locations of storage facilities and booster station. Following the construction of the layout and system facilities, demands were calculated and imposed on the modeled system. The data provided by Arden Hills and Roseville was used to develop the average day water demand (ADD) and the maximum day water demand (MDD) to be used in the model. Metered data from the City of Roseville from the years 2004 through 2011 indicated ADD’s ranging from 1.10 to 1.27 million gallons (MG) per day. A higher-end value of 1.25 MG per day was selected as the ADD for the existing system. To allow for a little future growth within the existing developed area of Arden Hills, the average day demand used for the model was increased to 1.5 MG per day (a 20% increase). The amount of increase for future growth will be further considered as part of final design, and may potentially be reduced. A factor of three times the average day demand was used to develop the maximum day demand resulting in a demand of 4.5 MG per day. A peak hour demand multiplier was also used to determine the peak hour water usage for the model. The peak hour demand factor was two times the maximum day demand, or six times the ADD. Kimley-Horn has MEMORANDUM Rice Creek Commons Water Distribution System Modeling Results Update January, 2025 Page 3 H:\KIMLEYHO_PR\0T4133552000\2_Preliminary\C_Reports\Preliminary Design Report Update\Report Update\Water Preliminary Engineering Analysis\Memo-Rice Creek Commons Water Distrib Sys Modeling Results Update Final Draft 01.24.2025.docx determined that the average day demand anticipated for TCAAP would add, approximately, an additional 0.75 MG per day to the water system. Using the same multiplier factors, the maximum day demand anticipated for the TCAAP development is 2.25 MG per day, with 4.5 MG per day for a peak hour demand. The next step in model development was to determine the accuracy of the model compared to the actual system. A model analysis was performed to replicate the existing system. Using the results of this analysis, modeled pressures were compared to pressures from field collections obtained from provided data. The references used for pressure comparisons were from multiple hydrant tests performed at various locations throughout the City and from the Water System Master Plan prepared for the City of Arden Hills by Maier Stewart and Associates, Inc., 1990. No new field data was collected during the development of this model. Comparison of Model to Available Data The updated model was compared to hydrant test data from the Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model Calibration and System Evaluation Report by AE2S in December 2019. Twelve of the hydrant tests from the 2019 report were checked with the updated model. No new field data was collected during this analysis and report update. Comparing model results to the field data presented in the 2019 Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model Calibration and System Evaluation Report , indicates that the updated water model had similar calibration results and is a reasonable representation of the distribution system. The model results and field data were compared by their respective static pressures and residual pressures. Model data was analyzed at model nodes representing the hydrant locations of the field data. Table 1 summarizes the comparison results of the updated model. Updated model results differed slightly from the 2019 evaluation’s results due to the recent improvements that were implemented into the model, and because the exact tower water levels and booster station pumping rates during each hydrant test are unknown for this update analysis and calibration. Test no. 6 and no. 21 had residual pressure differences between the model and field data above desired tolerance levels, this difference was also noted in the 2019 report for the same hydrant tests and was attributed to isolations valves being closed or partially closed during the tests. MEMORANDUM Rice Creek Commons Water Distribution System Modeling Results Update January, 2025 Page 4 H:\KIMLEYHO_PR\0T4133552000\2_Preliminary\C_Reports\Preliminary Design Report Update\Report Update\Water Preliminary Engineering Analysis\Memo-Rice Creek Commons Water Distrib Sys Modeling Results Update Final Draft 01.24.2025.docx Table 1 – Comparison of Field Pressure to Model Pressures Test No. Static/ Residual Node Static Pressure Residual Pressure Field Data (psi) Updated Model Data (psi) Pressure Difference (psi) Field Data (psi) Updated Model Data (psi) Pressure Difference (psi) 2 Hyd_392 63.9 66.1 2.2 50.9 51.7 0.8 4 Hyd_464 66.6 68.1 1.5 53.7 53.6 -0.1 6 Hyd_436 78.5 80.8 2.3 43.8 57.3 13.5 (1) 8 Hyd_520 91.3 94.5 3.2 75.1 74.5 -0.6 10 Hyd_541 94.4 96.4 2.0 78 72.5 -5.5 12 Hyd_320 72.7 72.1 -0.6 55.6 53.4 -2.2 15 Hyd_98 68.3 69.0 0.7 50.1 47.6 -2.5 16 Hyd_10 68.6 68.6 0.0 38.2 34.5 -3.7 17 Hyd_65 68 67.6 -0.4 59.4 59.0 -0.4 20 Hyd_259 68.8 69.4 0.6 51.4 46.1 -5.3 21 Hyd_247 62.9 63.7 0.8 35.4 41.8 6.4 (1) 23 Hyd_196 73.2 73.2 0.0 39.6 37.0 -2.6 (1)The 2019 Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model Calibration and System Evaluation Report noted that Test No. 6 and Test No. 21 possibly had closed isolation valves during the field hydrant testing. Comparing the model results to the field data information presented in the Water System Master Plan indicated that the model reasonably represents the distribution system. The comparison between model results and field data were performed by comparing pressures at nodes within the model representing locations at or near the locations of the field data. The results of this comparison are shown below for an average day demand simulation of the existing system: MEMORANDUM Rice Creek Commons Water Distribution System Modeling Results Update January, 2025 Page 5 H:\KIMLEYHO_PR\0T4133552000\2_Preliminary\C_Reports\Preliminary Design Report Update\Report Update\Water Preliminary Engineering Analysis\Memo-Rice Creek Commons Water Distrib Sys Modeling Results Update Final Draft 01.24.2025.docx Test *Measured Static Pressure *Modeled Static Pressure Modeled Static Pressure Model No. Location (PSI)(PSI)(PSI)Node 1I35W & HWY96 95 94 98 J-170 2 I35W & TransferRd 100 100 99 J-17 3 Snelling Ave. & McClung Dr 85 87 90 J-114 4 Royal Lane & FloralDr.70 72 70 J-407 5 Pleasant Lk. Dr. & Darth LkDr 78 73 78 J-292 6 Lexington Ave & Red FoxRd 58 54 59 J-620 7 Chatham Ave W of Chatham Ct.62 63 68 J-332 8 Cty Rd F & Moundsview HS 70 71 72 J-298 9 Cty Rd E & Tony Schmidt Park 83 84 88 J-111 10 Cleveland Ave & Kattie Lane 71 71 70 J-378 11 Hamline Ave. & Tiller Lane 79 78 86 J-364 12 Lexington Ave. & LakeviewAve.62 64 69 J-437 13 Cleveland Ave. & Glen PaulAve 75 75 75 J-458 14 Lake Johanna Ave. & Glen Paul Ave.68 67 69 J-100 15 Hamline Ave. & Glenhill Rd.76 84 77 J-46 *Obtained from Exhibit 3 in the 1990 Water System Master Plan by Maier Stewart and Associates, Inc. Comparisons were also made to numerous hydrant tests provided by Arden Hills. Generally, the model results were similar to the information contained in the hydrant tests. However, some of the supplied hydrant tests were very old and, in some cases, significant modifications to the distribution system have been constructed since the hydrant testing was accomplished, which could significantly affect the interpretation of theseolder results. Another general uncertainty with hydrant test data is that tank levels, pump operations, and flow conditions were not recorded at the time of the field data collection, which could also significantly affect the interpretation of these results. These results indicate a reasonable comparison between the model results and the provided field data. The model was then used to evaluate the integration of the proposed TCAAP redevelopment site to determine the system’s ability to meet consumptive water use and its ability to provide water for firefighting purposes on the expanded system. As part of the evaluation, pipe sizes, new storage facilities and improvements to the existing system were analyzed to develop all of the components required to meet the demands of the system. Modeling for Evaluation of TCAAP Redevelopment Site The TCAAP/RCC development site was added to the updated model based on the latest land use (included in Appendix B), demand estimates, planning layout, and development phases. The TCAAP/RCC development site was examined under steady-state and extended period simulation (EPS) to determine MEMORANDUM Rice Creek Commons Water Distribution System Modeling Results Update January, 2025 Page 6 H:\KIMLEYHO_PR\0T4133552000\2_Preliminary\C_Reports\Preliminary Design Report Update\Report Update\Water Preliminary Engineering Analysis\Memo-Rice Creek Commons Water Distrib Sys Modeling Results Update Final Draft 01.24.2025.docx the required infrastructure to serve the area and develop a phasing plan time reference to construct the required infrastructure. The updated model has three watermains supplying flow to the TCAAP/RCC site, two crossing County Road 96 W on the southeast side of the development area, and the other crossing Hwy 10 on the west side of the development area, see Figures 1 & 2 in Appendix A. The model assumes looping of all trunk watermain; therefore, Outlot A “the Thumb” on the north side has two watermains supplying that area, both running parallel in the Thumb Rd roundabout, then diverging to the east and west sides of Outlot A. Similarly, the 122-unit residential area on the northeast end of the development area was given two watermains to allow looping. Looping is recommended to provide redundant supply routes in the event that one breaks, and looping provides higher fire flow capacities. Previous reports concerning the development of the TCAAP/RCC site suggest that a new water tower and booster station be constructed to supply the north pressure zone with the addition of the TCAAP/RCC development site. The previous studies assumed the development site would have higher demand than the latest land use planning does and recommended the construction of a 1.0 MG water tower. This analysis allows for some background growth within Arden Hills, the current TCAAP RCC development plan as shown in Appendix B, and some intensification of development beyond this development plan. With these assumptions, we are recommending that a 0.75 MGD tower be constructed within the TCAAP site. The original report recommended 1.0 MGD tower. The reduction in size is primarily due to the reduced intensity/water supply need of development within the TCAAP site when compared to the maximum AUAR development plan from 2015. As previously stated, the 0.75 MGD allows for some background growth in other parts of Arden Hills and additional development within TCAAP if proposed and approved. Multiple scenarios were examined to determine what infrastructure is needed to provide fire protection to the north zone and particularly the TCAAP/RCC development site. Scenarios examined 1) the existing system to establish a baseline of water tower cycling rates (the rate water levels fall and rise based on demand and pumping rates.) 2) the TCAAP/RCC site without a new tower or new west booster station, 3) the TCAAP/RCC site with a new west booster station, but not a new tower, and 4) the TCAAP/RCC site with both a new water tower and new booster station. A scenario with a new tower but not a new booster station was not considered because a new west booster station is considered an essential, redundant supply route for the north pressure zone if the existing east booster station is down or experiences a watermain break that would prevent it from functioning. Extended period simulations lasting for a 5-day period were conducted for each scenario. During some scenarios, a 3-hour, 3,500 gpm fire is simulated on the northeastern end of the Thumb, as this location is furthest from the proposed tower site and is a commercial area that would necessitate higher fire flow capacities. The 3-hour, 3,500 gpd fire flow is standard for the types of land uses proposed and is used in the latest model studies provided by the City. Additional controls were added to the model to allow the second booster pump of the existing east booster station to turn on if the water level in the north tower continues to fall while the primary booster pump is running. To evaluate the system’s ability to provide water under several different conditions, the extended period simulation (EPS) function of WaterCad was used. This type of allows the modeling of tank level MEMORANDUM Rice Creek Commons Water Distribution System Modeling Results Update January, 2025 Page 7 H:\KIMLEYHO_PR\0T4133552000\2_Preliminary\C_Reports\Preliminary Design Report Update\Report Update\Water Preliminary Engineering Analysis\Memo-Rice Creek Commons Water Distrib Sys Modeling Results Update Final Draft 01.24.2025.docx operations, the system’s pressure and flow rate changes and pump station operations under varying demand conditions. For the purposed of this model, the maximum day demand was used as the basis for the EPS analysis. A diurnal curve was developed to provide the demand multipliers in a stepwise manor with a different multiplier for each hour over a period of 24 hours, with the highest multiplier equal to two times the maximum day demand (as noted previously). This method essentially predicts tank levels, pump function, pipe flows and resulting system pressures at each hour of a single maximum water usage day. The results of several EPS simulations were evaluated and used to determine several key system requirements to adequately provide water and firefighting supplies. Initially it was assumed that the target requirement for the system would be to meet target fire flows in the proposed development and that if the fire flows were able to be satisfied, the consumptive water use would also be met. Since the development plan includes the potential for industrial sites along much of the Spine Road and through Outlot A (the “thumb”), in essence from north to south, an industrial fire flow has been targeted through much of the development. For initial modeling purposes, the selected target for industrial development was a 3-hour, 5,000 gpm fire flow, which is also consistent with the prior (1990) water plan. This fire flow criteria will be evaluated during final design, and may potentially be reduced. To determine the required system components to meet the fire flow, a worst case scenario was developed. To develop the worst case scenario, an EPS simulation was performed. Assuming that a fire would place the largest burden on the system at a point when the storage volumes within the system were at their lowest levels, the period of time in which the total stored volume was at its lowest became the start time for the fire flow simulation. This corresponded to starting a fire flow EPS when the storage tanks were approximately half full. Results The following is a summary of results for the scenarios that were examined. As stated above, these scenarios assume the 2024 development plan shown in Appendix B, and allows for both some background growth in other areas of Arden Hills and some intensification of development within TCAAP/RCC. Each scenario was examined at ADD and MDD. ADD starts with the water towers 2-ft from full, and MDD starts with the water towers at half-full to simulate a stressed condition. Scenario No. 1 – Existing System (No TCAAP/RCC) The existing system was analyzed to establish a baseline of tower cycling rates, see Figures 3 and 4 in Appendix A. The system performs well with regular cycles for both ADD and MDD. Note that during ADD conditions, both towers cycle above 80% full. During MDD conditions, the towers overcome the initial stressed condition of being half-full, and cycle above 70% full for the south tower and 80% full for the north tower by the end of the simulation period. Scenario No. 2 – TCAAP/RCC with No West Booster Station and No New Water Tower The TCAAP/RCC development area was added to the existing distribution system without the addition of a new water tower or new booster station to see if the existing infrastructure could supply adequate fire flow capacities. This scenario performed well during ADD conditions but failed during MDD conditions and during the fire simulation (see Figures 5, 6, and 7, respectively, in Appendix A.) Figures 6 and 7 show MEMORANDUM Rice Creek Commons Water Distribution System Modeling Results Update January, 2025 Page 8 H:\KIMLEYHO_PR\0T4133552000\2_Preliminary\C_Reports\Preliminary Design Report Update\Report Update\Water Preliminary Engineering Analysis\Memo-Rice Creek Commons Water Distrib Sys Modeling Results Update Final Draft 01.24.2025.docx that the south tower cycles between 40% and 60% full and is unable to recover as the east booster station is pumping on a nearly continuous basis. It is best practice to not require running of the pumps continuously. Figure 7 shows that the north tower is nearly emptied from the simulated 3-hour fire. These simulations show that additional infrastructure of a water tower and/or a booster station is necessary for the system to operate and supply adequate fire protection. Furthermore, additional storage volume is recommended so that each pressure zone has sufficient storage to meet or exceed the average daily demand of that pressure zone. The addition of demands from TCAAP/RCC development area results in the existing storage being insufficient. Scenario No. 3 – TCAAP/RCC with New West Booster Station and No New Water Tower Next, the TCAAP/RCC development site was simulated with a new west booster station and no new water tower within the proposed development area. This scenario performed well, even with the fire simulation during MDD conditions. See Figures 8, 9, and 10 in Appendix A. With the addition of a new west booster station, the south tower can cycle between 60% and 75% full under MDD conditions. This is because the west booster station receives its water supply from Roseville’s interconnections, while the east booster station receives its water supply from the south tower. This shows that the system may function without a new water tower in the north zone and still provide sufficient fire flow at 3,500 gpm for 3-hours. However, the distribution system and the north pressure zone in particular would not have sufficient storage to meet ADD. It is recommended that municipalities have sufficient storage to meet average daily demands and that water towers turn-over their storage volume in one to two days. This turn-over keeps water fresh and prevents freezing issues in winter. Scenario No. 4 – TCAAP/RCC with New West Booster Station and New Water Tower Finally, the TCAAP/RCC development site was simulated with a new west booster station and a new water tower. This scenario performed well during ADD conditions, MDD conditions, and the fire simulation, except for the west booster station continuously running during MDD conditions. This is due to hydraulic differences between the two towers in the north pressure zone, which results in the system experiencing a water level imbalance between the existing north tower and the proposed TCAAP/RCC Tower. See Figures 11, 12, and 13 in Appendix A. The imbalance between the two water towers in the north pressure zone is due to headloss between the tower locations. The existing north tower is closer to the booster stations, which act as the source water for the north pressure zone. Immediately downstream of the booster stations is where the water will have the highest hydraulic grade (potential water elevation). The proposed TCAAP tower is further from the source and is at a lower hydraulic grade. This means that the proposed water tower will not be able to fill to the same high-water level as the existing north tower when it is full. Also, while the proposed west booster station is controlled to fill the TCAAP/RCC tower, it is also filling the existing north tower while it is running. An altitude valve may be installed at the north tower as suggested in the 2017 TCAAP Development – Water System Model Review by WSB to prevent continual filling of the existing water tower after it is filled while filling the proposed TCAAP/RCC tower. The 2018 Water Model Review by AE2S modeled Arden Hills and Roseville together and demonstrated additional controls at the Roseville water tower which improved tower performance in Arden Hills. The proposed TCAAP/RCC tower will also meet the best practice of providing the amount of water storage equal to the ADD. When the tower project is authorized for development of plans and specifications, it is recommended to study the water level imbalance between the existing north tower and proposed TCAAP/RCC tower and MEMORANDUM Rice Creek Commons Water Distribution System Modeling Results Update January, 2025 Page 9 H:\KIMLEYHO_PR\0T4133552000\2_Preliminary\C_Reports\Preliminary Design Report Update\Report Update\Water Preliminary Engineering Analysis\Memo-Rice Creek Commons Water Distrib Sys Modeling Results Update Final Draft 01.24.2025.docx provide recommendations solution to solve this issue. A couple of options may be installation of an altitude valve at the north tower and/or implementation of additional controls with the Roseville tower. Tower Sizing: The water model results above suggest that the TCAAP/RCC development may be constructed and function without a new water tower, as shown in Scenario No. 3; however, it is recommended that each pressure zone have sufficient storage to meet average daily demands (ADD), and that turnover rates are kept under two days to prevent freezing in winter. The existing demand of the north pressure zone, according to the model, is 0.445 MGD, and the full development of the TCAAP/RCC site is expected to add 0.565 MGD, for a total of 1.010 MGD. It is recommended that the tower be sized to allow for background growth within Arden Hills outside of the TCAAP and also allow for some development intensification. The existing storage capacity of the north pressure zone is 0.5 MG with the north tower, which covers existing ADD; however, it is recommended that a new 0.75 MG water tower be built in the development area due to the additional demand of the planned TCAAP/RCC development area. A 0.75 MGD tower provides for the discussed background growth and potential RCC development intensity. The results of the fire flow simulation discussed above were used to determine what facilities and improvements are needed to satisfy the water demands. To evaluate this, the system was required to satisfy the 3-hour, 5,000 gpm fire flows while maintaining a minimum residual pressure of 20 psi everywhere within the system at a point in time when the modeled available storage was the lowest. This fire flow criteria will be evaluated during final design, and may potentially be reduced. The initial analysis was performed without additional storage or pumping facilities, and then these facilities were added until the fire flow demand and pressure requirements were met. The results of these analyses indicate that a 1.0 to 1.5 MG storage facility in the TCAAP development is required, as well as an additional pumping facility within the existing Arden Hills system. The most logical location for a storage tank was at the highest ground elevation within the TCAAP redevelopment area, which is located near the southeastern part thereof, near the border with the Arden Hills Army Training Site (AHATS). A suitable pump station location was determined to be on the existing 12” water main crossing I-694 near Snelling Avenue, which is also a location that provides additional benefits to the higher pressure zone within Arden Hills, including redundancy of critical infrastructure. Adding these two facilities, the system was capable of supplying the target fire flow while maintaining the residualpressure requirement. After the fire flow duration, the proposed tank’s storage volume was nearly depleted but then rebounded to approximately 55% of its available capacity by the end of the 24-hour EPS simulation. After determining the tank and pumping facility requirements, the EPS simulation was performed on the system to determine the resulting pressures for the system. Figure 1 shows the pressure contours resulting from this analysis. The highest resulting pressure in the system occurred at the lowest lying area near Rice Creek in the TCAAP development at approximately 108 psi. Although this pressure is near the high end of a desirable range, creating a separate pressure zone in this area would create a closed distribution system and is not recommended. Also, it should be noted that the pressures near Rice Creek will be fairly close to those currently observed in the Round Lake vicinity. Operating the separate pressure zone would add considerably complexity versus the minimal benefitachieved. MEMORANDUM Rice Creek Commons Water Distribution System Modeling Results Update January, 2025 Page 10 H:\KIMLEYHO_PR\0T4133552000\2_Preliminary\C_Reports\Preliminary Design Report Update\Report Update\Water Preliminary Engineering Analysis\Memo-Rice Creek Commons Water Distrib Sys Modeling Results Update Final Draft 01.24.2025.docx To help define minimum system pressures, a 5,000 gpm demand was imposed at the north end of the TCAAP development and was modeled for a duration of 3 hours to simulate a fire. Pressure contours were generated to display the system’s pressures immediately following the 3 hour fire and are shown on Figure 2. The fire flow EPS simulation was also used to verify the appropriate pipe sizing for the new development. Original plans included the installation of a 16” and two 12” diameter pipes connections to the existing system to service TCAAP. During the simulation, it was determined that downsizing the 16” to a 12” would result in adequate flows and allow a 3-hour, 5,000 gpm fire flow while maintaining a minimum residual pressure of about 40 psi. Results of the available fire flow throughout the system are shown in Figure 3. Additional Analyses No additional analyses were completed with this engineering study update. An additional analysis was performed to estimate the level of fire protection that could be provided for a situation in which a single 12” pipe is initially installed to service the Outlot A area of the development for a short period of time before the full expansion is constructed. The results of this analysis indicate that this pipe, connecting to the Arden Hills system near Prior Avenue and Highway 10 at the north end of Arden Hills, would produce a 3-hour, 2,200 gpm fire flow. Also, additional fire flow could be obtained with an emergency connection to Mound View (a normally-closed gate valve “interconnection” between the Arden Hills and Mounds View systems that would only be opened in the event of a water emergency). Information provided by Mounds View was analyzed, and it is expected that by opening this emergency connection, a target fire flow of 5,000 gpm will be attainable throughout most of the Outlot A area. Only the very northernmost portion of Outlot A may be slightly reduced, providing fire flows in the 4,000 to 5,000 gpmrange. Another analysis was performed to determine the full-development system’s service ability in the event that one of the supply lines into TCAAP would be out of service. The results of this analysis indicate that additional pumping could overcome the loss of flow through the out of service transmission pipe; hence, it does not appear that an emergency connection to Mounds View or AHATS is required. However, for Mounds View, if there is an early development in the Outlot A area, the interconnection will be beneficial both in terms of improved fire flow and also simply to provide an alternate water supply in the event water service via the single 12” pipe from the south is inadvertently interrupted. These results also indicate that adequate water supply would still be available if the 12” connection on the southeast side of TCAAP were omitted. However, without knowing the sequencing of the planned construction, and given the possibility that one of the other connecting pipelines could be out of service, it would be beneficial to construct the southeast 12” pipe (going south from the water tower) in order to loop the water tower location. This is particularly true given that complete construction of the 12” pipe going north from the water tower is not likely until some of the later phases of TCAAP redevelopment have been completed, making the completely-connected pipe unavailable for some time. MEMORANDUM Rice Creek Commons Water Distribution System Modeling Results Update January, 2025 Page 11 H:\KIMLEYHO_PR\0T4133552000\2_Preliminary\C_Reports\Preliminary Design Report Update\Report Update\Water Preliminary Engineering Analysis\Memo-Rice Creek Commons Water Distrib Sys Modeling Results Update Final Draft 01.24.2025.docx Infrastructure Phasing Phasing of the proposed tower construction is based on recommended water storage turnover rates, as shown in Table 2. Based on cumulative demand of the north pressure zone with each phase of the TCAAP/RCC site suggests that the proposed water tower be constructed by the time Phase 1 of RCC development as shown in Appendix B is fully occupied. Once the demands for Phase 1 are added to the existing system, the north pressure zone no longer has sufficient storage to meet ADD of the north pressure zone. For the tower to be constructed by the time Phase 1 development is occupied, Bolton & Menk recommends that design of the tower commences upon the City executing a RCC development agreement with a developer. This will allow for adequate time to complete the tower project while development is occurring and completed by the time phase 1 development is occupied. Appendix B displays how demands for the TCAAP/ RCC area were developed. Table 2 – Proposed Water Tower Construction Phasing North Pressure Zone Phase Phase Demand (MGD) Cumulative Demand (MGD) Existing Storage Only Proposed Total Storage Existing Storage Volume (MG) Turnover Rate with Existing Storage (days) Total Storage Volume (MG) Turnover Rate with Total Storage (days) Existing System 0.445 0.445 0.5 1.1 0.5 1.1 Phase 0(3)0.036 0.481 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 Phase 1 0.131 0.612 0.5 0.8 (1)1.25 (2)2.0 Phase 2 0.184 0.796 0.5 0.6 (1)1.25 1.6 Phase 3 0.109 0.905 0.5 0.6 (1)1.25 1.4 Phase 4 0.075 0.980 0.5 0.5 (1)1.25 1.3 Phase 5(4)0.030 1.010 0.5 0.5 (1)1.25 1.2 (1) Turnover rate is less than one day, signifying insufficient storage for average daily demands. (2)Proposed construction of a 0.75 MG TCAAP tower prior to full occupancy of Phase 1 development. (3) Phase 0 represents Thumb Parcel development demands. (4) Tower size allows for some Arden Hills background growth and additional TCAAP development intensification beyond 2024 development plan in Appendix B It is recommended that the proposed west booster station be constructed at the same time as the Spine Road project, therefore design should occur simultaneously with the Spine Road design. The west booster station would provide a redundant supply route for the north pressure zone and proposed TCAAP/RCC site. This is considered crucial in the event the existing east booster station malfunctions or experiences a watermain break that would prevent it from being able to supply the north pressure zone. Emergency interconnections exist, but their flow and hydraulic grade (head) capacity are unknown and beyond the scope of this study; therefore, their ability to supply fire flow protection is unknown. Additional modeling was also performed to estimate when the proposed system would require the addition of the proposed tank and pump station in respect to increases in system demands. This is intended to determine when the tank and pump station may be needed depending on the future demands as the development expands. MEMORANDUM Rice Creek Commons Water Distribution System Modeling Results Update January, 2025 Page 12 H:\KIMLEYHO_PR\0T4133552000\2_Preliminary\C_Reports\Preliminary Design Report Update\Report Update\Water Preliminary Engineering Analysis\Memo-Rice Creek Commons Water Distrib Sys Modeling Results Update Final Draft 01.24.2025.docx To estimate these needs it was assumed that water service to Outlot A would be constructed initially followed by the addition of the Spine Road transmission pipeline. Areas east of the Spine Road service area were not included in these analyses, making the assumption that the initial development growth will occur in the areas serviced by Spine Road and Outlot A. Demands were sequentially increased in these areas and the results were analyzed to approximate when the tank and pump station would be needed by determining the system’s ability to provide the target fire flow for a 3 hour period. Incremental demands were added to the system during maximum day demand scenarios. The incremental demands were added to the system were 0.6 MGD, 0.75 MGD, 1.0 MGD, 1.5 MGD and 2.25 MGD (full build out). The amount of fire flow the system could provide for the 3 hour duration was determined for each of the demand scenarios. An initial analysis determined the fire flow availability without the addition of the tank or pump station. The results of this analysis estimate that the system can provide approximately 3,340 gpm fire flow when the maximum day demand for TCAAP is 0.6 MGD (approximately 27% of the anticipated total future demand). For a 0.75 MGD demand, the available fire flow is approximately 3,200 gpm. At 1.0 MGD, fire flow is approximately 2,940 gpm; and 2,280 at 1.5 MGD. Adding a 1.5 MG tank indicated that the system could provide in excess of 5,000 gpm fire flows for the growth scenarios up through the 1.5 MGD demand, but was not sufficient to provide the needed fire flows for full development. The addition of the pump station would also be required to provide adequate service beyond this demand. Finally, a scenario was analyzed where the addition of the pump station occurred without the addition of the tank. The results of this scenario indicate that fires flows when the system demand is 0.6 MGD are approximately 4,350 gpm. At a TCAAP demand of 0.75 MGD, 4,210 gpm fire flow can be supplied; 4,100 gpm at 1.0 MGD; and 3,840 gpm at 1.5 MGD. Adding the 1.5 MG tank and the proposed pump station indicate that the system could adequately supply the future full-development demands and provide a 5,000 gpm fire flow for three hours. As noted above, the allowance for future growth and the fire flow criteria / simulation parameters will be evaluated with City of Arden Hills staff during final design in order to finalize the required volume of water storage. Allowing for potential reductions in these parameters, the required volume of storage is anticipated to be 1.0 to 1.5 MG. Recommended Improvements Based on the analyses above, the following recommendations are made: x Construct a new west booster station along Old Highway 10 (Old Snelling Ave N). The booster station may be constructed on the north or south side of I-694. This booster station may have pumps with the same design point as the existing east booster station’s pumps. Construction of the booster station is recommended to occur concurrently with the Spine Road project. The booster station will provide redundancy to the north pressure zone, as the entire north pressure zone is fed solely from the existing booster station. Additional SCADA controls and security features will be included in the final design. x Construct a 0.75 MG water tower having the same high-water elevation as the existing north tower. Construction of the tower should be complete by the time Phase 1 of the proposed RCC development plan is fully occupied. This tower size will be adequate for the MEMORANDUM Rice Creek Commons Water Distribution System Modeling Results Update January, 2025 Page 13 H:\KIMLEYHO_PR\0T4133552000\2_Preliminary\C_Reports\Preliminary Design Report Update\Report Update\Water Preliminary Engineering Analysis\Memo-Rice Creek Commons Water Distrib Sys Modeling Results Update Final Draft 01.24.2025.docx entire TCAAP development as shown in Appendix B, and will accommodate background growth in Arden Hills as well as some development intensification within the TCAAP site. Further study of water tower imbalance between the proposed tower and existing north tower is needed when developing plans and constructing this proposed new tower. Additional SCADA controls, security features, and telecom needs will be included in the final design. x Install three watermain connections to the TCAAP/RCC development area. Three connections offer redundancy and would maintain a looped supply to the TCAAP/RCC Site in the event that one of the crossings experiences a watermain break. Two from south of County Road 96: 1) at Spine Road intersection, and 2) east of the Spine Road connection south of the proposed water tower site, and 3) from existing watermain east of U.S. Highway 10 which has already been installed. A minimum of 12” diameter pipe should be installed; this is the smallest size to keep flow velocities below 10 feet per second under peak hour demands or MDD with fire flows. Velocities below 10 feet per second help minimize scouring of pipe linings. x Additional interconnections may be valuable to provide additional redundancy in the event of system failures. Outlot A (the “Thumb”) may have an interconnection with the City of Mounds View, per the exhibit in the 2015 Preliminary Design Report shown in Appendix C. Based on the analyses above, the following recommendations are made: 1. Connect the TCAAP redevelopment area to the existing system from the south (across Highway 96 at the Spine Road) and from the west (across U.S. Highway 10) with a minimum of 12” diameter pipe. A third 12” pipe going south from the water tower (acrossHighway 96) would also be beneficial for phasing purposes (this would provide initial water tower looping), but is not included in the current estimates. Construct a 1.0 to 1.5 MG water storage tower having the same high water elevation as Arden Hills’ existing NorthTower. 2. Construct an additional pumping system in the existing 12” pipe crossing I-694 near the intersection of I-694 and Snelling Avenue in Arden Hills, providing a similar pressure increase to Arden Hills’ existing booster station. 3. Operate the TCAAP development in the same pressure zone as Arden Hills’ existing high pressure zone. 4. If early water service to Outlot A is provided, simultaneously construct the interconnection with the Mounds View system. Attachments: x Appendix A: Newly Developed Figures and Exhibits x Appendix B: TCAAP/ RCC Development Demands and Conceptual Phasing x Appendix C: Existing Figures/Exhibits x Appendix D: Referenced Reports and Analyses APPENDIX A Newly Developed Figures and Exhibits Figure 3 – ExisƟng System (No TCAAP/ RCC Development) – Average Daily Demand CondiƟons 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 20406080100120 Pe r c e n t F u l l ( % ) Run Time (Hours) Water Tower - Percent Full North Tower South Tower 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 0 20406080100120 Pu m p i n g R a t e ( g p m ) Run Time (Hours) Booster Station -Pumping Rates East Booster Figure 4 – ExisƟng System (No TCAAP/ RCC Development) – Maximum Daily Demand CondiƟons 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 20406080100120 Pe r c e n t F u l l ( % ) Run Time (Hours) Water Tower - Percent Full North Tower South Tower 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 0 20406080100120 Pu m p i n g R a t e ( g p m ) Run Time (Hours) Booster Station -Pumping Rates East Booster Figure 5 – TCAAP/ RCC (No New Booster and No New Tower) – Average Daily Demand CondiƟons 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 20406080100120 Pe r c e n t F u l l ( % ) Run Time (Hours) Water Tower - Percent Full North Tower South Tower 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 0 20406080100120 Pu m p i n g R a t e ( g p m ) Run Time (Hours) Booster Station -Pumping Rates East Booster Figure 6 – TCAAP/ RCC (No New Booster and No New Tower) – Maximum Daily Demand CondiƟons 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 20406080100120 Pe r c e n t F u l l ( % ) Run Time (Hours) Water Tower - Percent Full North Tower South Tower 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 0 20406080100120 Pu m p i n g R a t e ( g p m ) Run Time (Hours) Booster Station -Pumping Rates East Booster Figure 7 – TCAAP/ RCC (No New Booster and No New Tower) – Maximum Daily Demand CondiƟons with a 3-hour 3,500 gpm Fire Flow 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 20406080100120 Pe r c e n t F u l l ( % ) Run Time (Hours) Water Tower - Percent Full North Tower South Tower 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 0 20406080100120 Pu m p i n g R a t e ( g p m ) Run Time (Hours) Booster Station -Pumping Rates East Booster Figure 8 – TCAAP/ RCC (New Booster and No New Tower) – Average Daily Demand CondiƟons 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 20406080100120 Pe r c e n t F u l l ( % ) Run Time (Hours) Water Tower - Percent Full North Tower South Tower 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 0 20406080100120 Pu m p i n g R a t e ( g p m ) Run Time (Hours) Booster Station -Pumping Rates East Booster West Booster Figure 9 – TCAAP/ RCC (New Booster and No New Tower) – Maximum Daily Demand CondiƟons 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 20406080100120 Pe r c e n t F u l l ( % ) Run Time (Hours) Water Tower - Percent Full North Tower South Tower 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 0 20406080100120 Pu m p i n g R a t e ( g p m ) Run Time (Hours) Booster Station -Pumping Rates East Booster West Booster Figure 10 – TCAAP/ RCC (New Booster and No New Tower) – Maximum Daily Demand CondiƟons with a 3-hour 3,500 gpm Fire Flow 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 20406080100120 Pe r c e n t F u l l ( % ) Run Time (Hours) Water Tower Percent Full North Tower South Tower 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 0 20406080100120 Pu m p i n g R a t e ( g p m ) Run Time (Hours) Booster Station -Pumping Rates East Booster West Booster Figure 11 – TCAAP/ RCC (New Booster and New Tower) – Average Daily Demand CondiƟons 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 20406080100120 Pe r c e n t F u l l ( % ) Run Time (Hours) Water Tower - Percent Full North Tower South Tower TCAAP Tower 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 0 20406080100120 Pu m p i n g R a t e ( g p m ) Run Time (Hours) Booster Station -Pumping Rates East Booster West Booster Figure 12 – TCAAP/ RCC (New Booster and New Tower) – Maximum Daily Demand CondiƟons 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 20406080100120 Pe r c e n t F u l l ( % ) Run Time (Hours) Water Tower - Percent Full North Tower South Tower TCAAP Tower 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 0 20406080100120 Pu m p i n g R a t e ( g p m ) Run Time (Hours) Booster Station -Pumping Rates East Booster West Booster Figure 13 – TCAAP/ RCC (New Booster and New Tower) – Maximum Daily Demand CondiƟons with a 3-hour 3,500 gpm Fire Flow 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 20406080100120 Pe r c e n t F u l l ( % ) Run Time (Hours) Water Tower - Percent Full North Tower South Tower TCAAP Tower 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 0 20406080100120 Pu m p i n g R a t e ( g p m ) Run Time (Hours) Booster Station -Pumping Rates East Booster West Booster APPENDIX B DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND WATER SUPPLY DEMANDS Appendix B 2024 Rice Creek Commons Development Plan Utilized for Preliminary Design Report Update  De v e l o p m e n t D e m a n d s Ph a s e Lo c a t i o n Re s i d e n t i a l (R e s i d e n t i a l Un i t s ) Of f i c e / R e t a i l / In d u s t r i a l / C i v i c (S q u a r e F e e t ) Re s i d e n t i a l (C a p i t a ) Of f i c e / R e t a i l / In d u s t r i a l / C i v i c (A c r e ) Re s i d e n t i a l (g p m ) Of f i c e / R e t a i l / In d u s t r i a l / C i v i c (g p m ) To t a l De m a n d (g p m ) 0 "T h u m b " - 55 0 , 0 0 0 + 5 0 , 0 0 0 - 13 . 8 - 24 . 8 24 . 8 1 No r t h 36 15 0 , 0 0 0 90 3. 4 6. 3 6. 2 12 . 4 1 So u t h 35 9 + 9 3 5, 0 0 0 11 3 0 0. 1 78 . 5 0. 2 78 . 7 2 No r t h e a s t 12 2 - 30 5 - 21 . 2 - 21 . 2 2 No r t h 23 0 + 4 0 75 , 0 0 0 67 5 1. 7 46 . 9 3. 1 50 . 0 2 Ce n t e r 10 0 + 8 0 + 2 4 30 0 , 0 0 0 + 7 0 , 0 0 0 + 30 , 0 0 0 51 0 9. 2 35 . 4 16 . 5 51 . 9 2 So u t h 27 - 67 . 5 - 4. 7 - 4. 7 3 No r t h 23 0 25 , 0 0 0 57 5 0. 6 39 . 9 1. 0 41 . 0 3 Ce n t e r 10 8 + 6 7 + 2 4 - 49 7 . 5 - 34 . 5 - 34 . 5 4 No r t h 17 5 + 1 2 5 - 75 0 - 52 . 1 - 52 . 1 5 No r t h 12 0 - 30 0 - 20 . 8 - 20 . 8 Re s i d e n t i a l u n i t s a r e a s s u m e d 2 . 5 c a p i t a p e r r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t . P e r c a p i t a d e m a n d i s a s s u m e d t o b e 1 0 0 g a l l o n s p e r c a p i t a p e r d ay . Of f i c e , r e t a i l , i n d u s t r i a l , a n d c i v i c s q u a r e fo o t a g e i s c o n v e r t e d t o a c r e s , t h e n d e m a n d i s a s s u m e d t o b e 1 . 8 g a l l o n s p e r m i n u t e p e r a c r e . Cu m u l a t i v e P h a s e D e m a n d s Ph a s e TC A A P / R C C (P h a s e g p m ) TC A A P / R C C (P h a s e M G D ) TC A A P / R C C (C u m u l a t i v e M G D ) 0 24 . 8 0. 0 3 6 0. 0 3 6 1 91 . 1 0. 1 3 1 0. 1 6 7 2 12 7 . 8 0. 1 8 4 0. 3 5 1 3 75 . 5 0. 1 0 9 0. 4 6 0 4 52 . 1 0. 0 7 5 0. 5 3 5 5 20 . 8 0. 0 3 0 0. 5 6 5 7 7 7 %% %% 694  35W '67815 '67873 '67812 '67810 '67896 '67877 /DUJH3RQG .DUWK /DNH 6XQILVK /DNH 0DUVGHQ /DNH /DNH -RQHV /RQJ/DNH /DNH 3RSODU /DNH 5LFH&UHHN5LFH&UHHN 5LFH &UHHN 5LFH &UHHN 5LFH&UHHN 5LFH&UHHN 5LFH &UHHN 5LFH&UHHN 5RXQG/DNH 9DOHQWLQH /DNH /DNH-RKDQQD 5LFH &UHHN 5XVK /DNH )DUUHO V/DNH A m b le D r Ch ur chill S t N Red Fox Rd County Rd E WE W Le xingt on AveN Ha m lineToSBHwy5 1 sRd ty Rd H W To ml yn A ve Qu a l i t y D r L ake Valentine Rd10th St NW Mon Vic Ha n s o n R d County Rd E2 7th St NW C o u n ty R dH 4th St NW Keith s o n Dr Pri o r A v e N Ham line A v e N B e t h el D r County Rd H2 Woodale Dr 8th St NW Richm o n d A v e 6t h A v e N W To d d D r Mo n t c l Co u n t y R d 1 0 Floral Dr W Sn e l l in g A v e N Arden P l Skiles Ln 6th St NW Lo w e r M a g azin e Rd Robinhood P l Morris StNW Arbo Ox f o r d S t N ew Bl v d Tiller Ln Pleas a n t D r County Rd E2 W NW Pk w Grey Fox Rd Tanglewood D B r i ark nollDr 1st St SW W True St NW Ra y m o n d Se a r l e s S t Ben Franklin Dr Wyncrest Crt Arden V iew Dr 2nd S t NW 5t h A v e N W W e s tcliffC r v Ar d enOak s Dr Be ac h R d Rock s t o ne L n IslandLakeA Wyn rid ge Dr Harriet A v e Ne w B r i g h t o n R d ppyseed Dr Upp e r M a g a z i n e R d d D r 14t h S tNW M a i n S t Colleen Ave Cannon A ve Gl e n a r d e n R d Connel l y Av e Chatsw o r t hSt N R o y a l H ills D r Stowe Ave 5th St NW 1st St SE 2nd St SE Ir o n d a l e Rd 14 t h A v e S W Val e n tine A v e Tur tleLn W Ave S W Oakridge 1st St NW 7t h A v e N W M u st a n gCir Th o m Dr Pr ogram A ve Amble R dW Ro u n d Lak e R d Ocon n e ll D r 3r d A v e S E Royal Ln Indian Oaks Trl 12 t h A v e N W 11 t h A v e N W 10 t h A v e N W 9t h A v e N W C h a t h a m A v e Karth Lake Dr Piper Dr Si e ms Crt Gramsie Rd 2n d A v e S E 1s tA v e N W 4t h A v eN W 3r d A ve N W 2n d A v e N W 13 t h A v e N W Cl e v e l a nd A v e S E 1s t A v eS E Dickens Ln Venus A v e In n o v a t i o n W a y MississippiS t Buckingham Ln Cessna Dr 5th S t N W T o SBI3 5 W F or estLn 9t h A veSW ServiceDr Pin eT r e e Dr 13th Ave S W Grant Rd Tu r tle LnE NurseryHil l Ln Noble Rd P i k e L a k eC ir Lambert Ave Cl i f t o n 14 t h A v e N W Du n l a p S t N 5 t h A v e S W Saint S tep OakA v e GatewayBlv d Mustang Dr Target S e r v i c e Rd Ca r m elCrt Tr a i n i n g S i t e R d ParkDr Mo u n d s v i e w B l v d HG U 6WDWLRQ 3URSRVHG3LSH  ( 7  35W '67896 '67877 5LFH&UHHN 5LFH&UHHN 5LFH&UHHN 5LFH&UHHN 5LFH&UHHN 5LFH&UHHN 5LFH&UHHN 5LFH &UHHN 5RXQG/DNH 5XVK/DNH Ke i t h s o n D r Prio r A v e N Sn e l l i n g A v e N W R o u n d L a k e Rd Tr a i n i n g S i t e R d County Rd H W Tod d Dr Banyan S t Lo w e r Maga z i n e Rd Ben Franklin Dr Li s a Ln Upp e r M a g a z i n e R d M a i n S t Ro y al Hill s D r Be n F r a n k l i n R e a d i n e s s C e n t e r P r i o r Cir Mcclu n gDr In n e r L o o p R d P r io r C rt Lakes h o re P l Arden View Dr Arde n Vi s t a Crt Mo u n d s v i e w B l v d 5LFH & U H H N 5 '6789 VHG HU6WDWLRQ 3URSRVHG3LSH ( APPENDIX C Existing Figures and Exhibits Mo u n d s V i e w In t e r c o n n e c t i o n APPENDIX D PAST STUDIES Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model Calibration and System Evaluation Report Table of Contents December 2019 P05049-2019-000 Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Professional Certification .........................................................................................i Table of Contents..................................................................................................... ii List of Tables............................................................................................................. iii List of Figures ...........................................................................................................iv Chapter 1 Introduction............................................................................................1 1.1 Organization of the Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model Calibration and System Evaluation Report.............................................1 1.2 Acknowledgements........................................................................................1 Chapter 2 Existing Water Distribution System........................................................2 2.1 Overview of Existing Water Distribution System...........................................2 2.1.1 Water Main..................................................................................................... 2 2.1.2 Hydrants and Valves ..................................................................................... 5 2.1.3 Distribution Storage Facilities ........................................................................ 5 2.1.4 Pumping Facilities .......................................................................................... 6 2.1.5 Pressure Zones................................................................................................ 8 Chapter 3 Hydraulic Model Development..........................................................10 Chapter 4 Water Demand Allocation..................................................................11 4.1 Base Demand.................................................................................................11 4.2 Diurnal Demand Pattern...............................................................................12 4.3 Existing System Demands..............................................................................14 Chapter 5 Water Distribution System Field Testing..............................................15 5.1 Fire Hydrant Flow Tests...................................................................................15 Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model Calibration and System Evaluation Report List of Tables December 2019 P05049-2019-000 Page iii 5.2 Extended Pressure Testing ............................................................................17 Chapter 6 Hydraulic Model Calibration..............................................................18 6.1 Calibration Process........................................................................................18 6.2 Calibration Results .........................................................................................19 6.2.1 Fire Hydrant Flow Test Calibration Results...................................................19 6.2.2 Extended Period Simulation (EPS) Calibration Results................................20 Chapter 7 Conclusions and Recommendations................................................21 7.1 Future Uses of the Hydraulic Model ............................................................21 7.2 Updating the Hydraulic Model....................................................................22 7.3 References......................................................................................................23 Appendix A Fire Flow Tests Appendix B Extended Period Simulation (EPS) Tests LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: Water Main Information.......................................................................3 Table 2.2: Distribution Storage Information .........................................................5 Table 4.1: Existing System Demands...................................................................14 Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model Calibration and System Evaluation Report List of Figures December 2019 P05049-2019-000 Page iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1: Existing Water Distribution System by Water Main Diameter ........4 Figure 2-2: Pumping Scenarios..............................................................................7 Figure 2-3: Existing Water Distribution System by Pressure Zone.......................9 Figure 4-1: Typical Diurnal Demand Pattern (from Roseville report).............13 Figure 4-2: Average and Maximum Day Diurnal Demand Curves (from Roseville report)...............................................................................13 Figure 5-1: Diffuser, HPR, and Data Collector...................................................16 Figure 5-2: Operation of a Flow Hydrant...........................................................16 Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model Calibration and System Evaluation Report Chapter 1 – Introduction December 2019 P05049-2019-000 Page 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION A water distribution system has one primary purpose, to effectively deliver safe drinking water from the source (or treatment facility) to the customer. The City of Arden Hills (Arden Hills) has recognized the need to model their water distribution system, and has retained Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. (AE2S) to develop a calibrated hydraulic model. 1.1 Organization of the Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model Calibration and System Evaluation Report The Report herein provides a comprehensive assessment of the water distribution components, issues, and improvements required to address system issues. Chapter 2 summarizes background information related to the water distribution system providing the reader with a general understanding of the water system layout. Chapter 3 describes how the hydraulic model was assembled and calibrated for the existing water distribution system. Chapter 4 describes existing system demands and the development of demand patterns for use within the hydraulic model. Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 describe the process of performing fire flow and hydraulic grade testing and calibration of the hydraulic model. Chapter 7 describes some ways the hydraulic model could potentially be used as a tool. 1.2 Acknowledgements Special thanks must be extended to the staff of the City of Arden Hills. The Arden Hills Distribution System staff provided valuable data on booster station pumping operation and water storage levels, as well as greatly needed assistance in operation of hydrants and data collection during the fire flow testing. WSB provided the basis for development of the hydraulic model by supplying the GIS platform. The Finance Department provided water usage data from customer billing records. Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model Calibration and System Evaluation Report Chapter 2 – Existing Water Distribution System December 2019 P05049-2019-000 Page 2 CHAPTER 2 EXISTING WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM The performance of a finished water distribution system is evaluated by its ability to deliver the required flows (customer demands and fire-fighting needs) while maintaining adequate system pressures and water quality. Meeting these requirements, in part, depends on the components within the existing distribution system. The following sections provide an overview of the major components of the Arden Hills water distribution system. 2.1 Overview of Existing Water Distribution System Major components of the distribution system include two (2) high service pumps at the East Side Booster Station, approximately 53 miles of water mains, two (2) elevated water storage facilities, the North Tower and South Tower respectively, and about 560 hydrants. Arden Hills purchases all of its water through three (3) bulk meters from the City of Roseville, which first purchases water from Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). The South Tower, located in the southeast area of the city, is filled by the Roseville Booster Station. The East Side Booster Station, located next to the South Tower, pumps water into the North Tower located in the northeast area of the City. The water distribution system serves customers throughout the City of Arden Hills. In 2018, the water distribution system served an estimated population of 9,919 people through 2,767 connections. This population estimation was interpolated from Table 2.1 in Chapter 2 – Community Profile from Arden Hills’ draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-3 present a detailed map of the existing water distribution system by water main size and pressure zone, respectively. 2.1.1 Water Main The water distribution system network consists of approximately 53 miles of water main varying in size from 4 inches to 16 inches in diameter, with approximately 66 percent ranging in size from 6 to 8 inches. The water main found in the distribution system generally consists of ductile iron pipe (DIP) and cast-iron pipe (CIP). DIP pipe constitutes the majority of the water main in the distribution system at 52 percent. CIP pipe constitutes most of the remaining portion of the distribution system at 43 percent. There are also relatively small amounts of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and polyvinyl chloride pipe (PVC) in the system, as well as approximately 2.3 miles of pipe with where the material is unknown. Water main information, including size and material, is included in Table 2.1. Note that this study did not include evaluation of private water main located within the distribution system. The summary provided below represents the infrastructure included as information provided by the City. Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model Calibration and System Evaluation Report Chapter 2 – Existing Water Distribution System December 2019 P05049-2019-000 Page 3 Pipe Size (in) Length of Pipe by Material (ft) Total Pipe Length (ft) Total Pipe Length (mi) CIP DIP Other* 4 1,322 18 - 1,340 0.3 6 62,182 40,732 3,576 106,490 20.2 8 33,570 38,954 4,686 77,210 14.6 10 135 1,616 141 1,893 0.4 12 8,302 61,409 6,302 76,013 14.4 16 13,139 2,977 - 16,116 3.1 Total Pipe Length (ft) 118,651 145,760 14,706 279,062 - Total Pipe Length (mi) 22.5 27.6 2.7 - 52.9 *HDPE, PVC, or unknown material Table 2.1: Water Main Information Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model Calibration and System Evaluation Report Chapter 2 – Existing Water Distribution System December 2019 P05049-2019-000 Page 4 Figure 2-1: Existing Water Distribution System by Water Main Diameter Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model Calibration and System Evaluation Report Chapter 2 – Existing Water Distribution System December 2019 P05049-2019-000 Page 5 2.1.2 Hydrants and Valves There are about 560 fire hydrants used for fire protection in the Arden Hills water distribution system. The fire hydrants are located in key locations to provide access for firefighting around the City. The number of fire hydrants presented in this report is representative of infrastructure included as information provided by Arden Hills but may not include all private hydrants. The most common valve type in the distribution system is an isolation valve. Isolation valves can be closed to block the flow of water from one pipe to another pipe. The isolation valves allow the ability to isolate a small portion of the water distribution system, so that repairs and maintenance impact only a limited number of customers. Isolation valves in the Arden Hills water distribution system are predominantly gate valves with some butterfly valves located on large diameter water main. 2.1.3 Distribution Storage Facilities The Arden Hills water distribution system has total finished water storage volume of 1.5 MG in two storage facilities that provide operational storage to meet the system demands, provide emergency storage, provide fire flow storage, and help maintain a uniform pressure in the distribution system during peak hourly demands. Also, the 1.5 MG Roseville water tower can be used to serve Arden Hills in the case of an emergency. Water reservoir information including size, head range, base elevation, low water elevation, and overflow elevation is included in Table 2.2. Water Storage Facility Name Tank Style Size (MG) Diameter (ft) Head Range (ft) Base Elevation (ft) Low Water Elevation (ft) Overflow Elevation (ft) Arden Hills South Water Tower Single Pedestal Water Spheroid 1.0 64.8 41.5 945.00 1046.00 1087.50 Arden Hills North Water Tower Single Pedestal Water Spheroid 0.5 47.3 38.0 1008.50 1092.00 1130.00 Roseville Water Tower Multilegged Double Ellipsoid 1.5 Max 91.0 (Varies) 35.0 972.00 1051.50 1086.50 Table 2.2: Distribution Storage Information Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model Calibration and System Evaluation Report Chapter 2 – Existing Water Distribution System December 2019 P05049-2019-000 Page 6 2.1.4 Pumping Facilities The East Side Booster Station is equipped with 2 booster pumps. The North Tower is filled using electronic pump setpoints at the East Side Booster Station. The pumps are sized identically and are designed to operate with only one pump running at a time in alternating fashion. Pump data was taken from name plates on the existing pumps and documentation supplied by the City of Arden Hills. The pumps are sized as follows: x Pumps No. 1 & 2– American-Marsh o 1,500 gpm / 100 TDH o 125 Hp o Model: 6x8-12 RH o 1750 RPM The corresponding pump curves were placed into the water system model and their capacity was reviewed to determine what various pumping scenarios could produce. When these pumping capabilities were reviewed, the scenarios were set up to create the highest possible amount of system head for the pumps to overcome. This consisted of the following conditions: (1) No water demand allocations in the distribution system which placed all of the demand at the North Tower and creates the highest amount of head loss. (2) The North Tower is nearly full at a depth of 38 feet. (3) The South Tower is at a minimum depth of 36 feet. The results of the 3 pumping scenarios are illustrated in Figure 2-2. Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model Calibration and System Evaluation Report Chapter 2 – Existing Water Distribution System December 2019 P05049-2019-000 Page 7 Figure 2-2: Pumping Scenarios Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model Calibration and System Evaluation Report Chapter 2 – Existing Water Distribution System December 2019 P05049-2019-000 Page 8 2.1.5 Pressure Zones Arden Hills’ water distribution system is comprised of two pressure zones that serve elevations from 827 to 1,010 feet (ft) above mean sea level. A number of closed valves are used to separate the two zones. The South Tower provides elevated storage for the south pressure zone and has a volume of 1.0 million gallons (MG). The North Tower provides elevated storage for the north pressure zone and has a volume of 0.5 MG. Refer to Figure 2-3 for an overview of the pressures zones within the water distribution system. The south zone is on the same hydraulic grade line (HGL) as the Roseville Tower and is fed by the Roseville Booster Station. The overflow elevation for this zone is 1086.50 ft. The north zone is fed by the East Side Booster Station. The overflow elevation for this zone is 1130.00 ft. Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model Calibration and System Evaluation Report Chapter 2 – Existing Water Distribution System December 2019 P05049-2019-000 Page 9 Figure 2-3: Existing Water Distribution System by Pressure Zone Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model Calibration and System Evaluation Report Chapter 3 – Hydraulic Model Development December 2019 P05049-2019-000 Page 10 CHAPTER 3 HYDRAULIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT Before building a model, it is necessary to gather information describing the distribution system network. Many potential sources are available for obtaining the data required to generate a water distribution model, and the availability of these sources can vary dramatically from city to city. The following description provides an overview of the data sources used to create the hydraulic model of Arden Hills’ distribution system. Arden Hills provided shapefiles from its GIS database of the water distribution system to develop the network of the distribution system’s pipes and appurtenances. The GIS database included records on the locations of water mains, valves, hydrants, storage facilities, etc. as well as the type of material and sizes of water main. The new hydraulic model is based on the same coordinate system as the Arden Hills GIS base map. The system pump curves and water storage information was provided by the City and incorporated into the model. In addition to the facility data incorporated into the model, information for pump flow rates, discharge pressure, and water storage levels were collected from the supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system and local hydrant pressure recorders during the testing periods. An elevation contour shapefile was used to extract elevations for hydrants with unknown elevation. Elevation data was used to determine pressures throughout the distribution system during field testing and calibration. InfoWater® (Version 12.4) hydraulic modeling software was used for development and calibration the water distribution system model. InfoWater® allows the City to perform both steady state and extended period simulation (EPS) evaluations. Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model Calibration and System Evaluation Report Chapter 4 – Water Demand Allocation December 2019 P05049-2019-000 Page 11 CHAPTER 4 WATER DEMAND ALLOCATION A crucial element of water distribution modeling is determining accurate, representative water demands and the spatial distribution of these demands throughout the water distribution system because water demand is the driving force behind the hydraulic dynamics of a water distribution system. Water demand allocation is the process of accurately distributing these water demands to the correct points of consumption within the model. 4.1 Base Demand Determination of the demands of a water system is not as straightforward of a process as collecting the physical data of the system. For the Arden Hills water distribution hydraulic model, data from approximately 2,767 meter billing records were analyzed over the months of January 2018 through December 2018 to determine the base demand for the water distribution system. The monthly usage data was converted to average consumption rate in gallons per minute (gpm). The consumption rates were then spatially distributed as water demands in the system using the software InfoWater Demand Allocator®. This software uses GIS technology to assign geocoded consumption data to their designated location within the water distribution system. For each water meter record, advanced search algorithms in the demand allocation software were used to distribute the water demands to the closest pipe. The water demands were then allocated to the nearest node at the end of the pipe. For each node within the model, all of the contributing water demands were summed to represent the total demand imposed on that particular node. When comparing the total demand within the system from the meter billing record data to the meter records from the 3 bulk connections to Roseville, and taking into account the change in storage within the distribution system, there were still minor disagreements between the data records that needed to be resolved. These disagreements are partially due to unaccounted for water (UFW) loss. The most common UFW losses include leakage, errors in measurements, and unmetered usage. In order to resolve inconsistency between water production records and computed customer usage, a top-down determination of the water production and a bottom-up demand determination from the meter billing records was performed. The goal of these analyses is to balance water production and demands at the nodes within the model, and thereby create a mass balance of the water production, storage, and demands within the model of the distribution system. Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model Calibration and System Evaluation Report Chapter 4 – Water Demand Allocation December 2019 P05049-2019-000 Page 12 4.2 Diurnal Demand Pattern Water usage for the City of Arden Hills is unsteady due to continuous fluctuations in the water demand throughout the day. The temporal changes in water usage typically follow a similar cycle over a 24-hour period. This cycle is referred to as a diurnal demand pattern. It should be noted that in addition to fluctuations at varying times throughout the day, diurnal patterns are also impacted by seasonal and climatic conditions (winter vs. summer, precipitation events, etc.). Large water users such as industrial or commercial businesses can also have an impact on diurnal demand patterns. In June 2017, AE2S developed a water distribution hydraulic model for the City of Roseville. Since the Roseville and Arden Hills water distribution systems are linked together, the diurnal demand pattern that was developed analyzed Roseville and Arden Hills as one system. The process for determining the diurnal demand pattern is described in the excerpt below from section 4.2 of the Roseville Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model Calibration and System Evaluation Report. Rather than reiterate this process, the same diurnal demand pattern from the Roseville model was projected onto the Arden Hills model using updated demand data. The system-wide diurnal demand curves for Roseville’s water distribution system were constructed by using the flow balance technique. For a water distribution system, a flow balance simply indicates that the water that enters the distribution system must be equal to the water that exits the distribution system. The demand for Roseville’s water distribution system is equal to the Booster Station flow rate plus or minus the flow into or out of the water storage facilities. A flow balance was performed from Booster Station pumping and water storage level readings from the SCADA system collected in five-minute increments. The data was then averaged into hourly increments to define the diurnal pattern over the entire day for the entire distribution system. Diurnal demand patterns were prepared for each day during the fire flow testing period and the extended pressure testing period from June 16th through June 22nd, 2017, as will be described later. From these patterns, an average day diurnal demand pattern was developed and is illustrated in Figure 4-1. The time step for the diurnal pattern used in the model was one hour. Although a smaller time step could be used, it is not recommended because small errors in water tower levels on time steps shorter than one hour can lead to large errors in water use calculations. The diurnal demand patterns were incorporated into the model and used in conjunction with the field data to assist in the calibration of the hydraulic model. The average day and maximum day diurnal demand curves are presented in Figure 4-2. Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model Calibration and System Evaluation Report Chapter 4 – Water Demand Allocation December 2019 P05049-2019-000 Page 13 Figure 4-1: Typical Diurnal Demand Pattern (from Roseville report) Figure 4-2: Average and Maximum Day Diurnal Demand Curves (from Roseville report) Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model Calibration and System Evaluation Report Chapter 4 – Water Demand Allocation December 2019 P05049-2019-000 Page 14 4.3 Existing System Demands The demands used within the hydraulic model for the existing system are presented in Table 4.1. These demands can be used to evaluate the existing system because they are representative of previous usage patterns experienced historically. Based on historical flow meter data provided by Roseville, the demand for Arden Hills was assumed to be 20% of the demand served by the Roseville Booster Station. Using the projected population from the Arden Hills Draft 2040 Comp Plan and the flow meter data, the usage was converted to gallons per capita per day (gpcd) and million gallons per day (MGD). Arden Hills Population (2018 projected) 9,919 people Average Day Demand (ADD) 99.6 gpcd 1.0 MGD Maximum Day Demand (MDD) 246.4 gpcd w/ 2.5 peaking factor 2.5 MGD Table 4.1: Existing System Demands Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model Calibration and System Evaluation Report Chapter 5 – Water Distribution System Field Testing December 2019 P05049-2019-000 Page 15 CHAPTER 5 WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM FIELD TESTING Field data collected for calibration of the water distribution system model included water storage levels, fire hydrant flow tests, and extended pressure tests. During performance of field testing, background data was collected by the SCADA system and included data such as water storage levels, high service pumping rates, discharge pressure, etc. Fire hydrant flow tests were conducted at 24 locations throughout the distribution system. Extended pressure tests were performed at 8 key locations within the distribution system to assist in estimating distribution system pipe roughness coefficients (C-factors). The tasks and protocol followed for performing these field tests are described in further detail in the following sections. 5.1 Fire Hydrant Flow Tests One of the most common places to monitor the system and control the testing process is through fire hydrant flow tests. Flow tests performed at fire hydrants provide valuable insight into the calibration of pipe roughness and system demands. Fire hydrant flow tests were conducted at 24 locations throughout the City. The hydrant flow testing was performed from June 18th through June 20th, 2019. Appendix A contains a map indicating the location of each fire hydrant test as well as field data sheets showing detailed locations of each fire flow test and data recorded during each test. Two or more hydrants are required to perform a fire hydrant flow test. One hydrant is identified as the pressure hydrant where all pressure measurements are taken, and the other(s) as the flowed hydrant(s), where all flow measurements are taken. When the flowed hydrant(s) is closed, referred to as static condition, the pressure at the pressure hydrant is called the static pressure. When one or more flowed hydrants are open, referred to as the flowed condition, the pressure at the pressure hydrant is called the residual pressure. If one hydrant did not create a large enough drop in pressure, additional hydrants are opened to generate larger flows and associated headlosses. A Telog® Hydrant Pressure Recorder (HPR) was used to record the static and residual pressures at the pressure hydrant. The flow was recorded at the flowed hydrants using a Pollard hydrant diffuser and an HPR. The hydrant diffuser incorporates a pitot gauge connected to a threaded fitting. An HPR is threaded onto the diffuser to record the pressure head. The pitot gauge converts the velocity head associated with the discharge from the fire hydrant into pressure head that is recorded by the HPR. The HPRs were set to sample and record pressure data at 1 second intervals for the fire hydrant flow tests. The pressure head recorded by the HPR is converted into a hydrant discharge rate through the use of an orifice relationship equation. Figure 5-1 shows the diffuser, HPR, and data collector used during the fire hydrant flow tests. Figure 5-2 shows the operation of a flowed hydrant. Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model Calibration and System Evaluation Report Chapter 5 – Water Distribution System Field Testing December 2019 P05049-2019-000 Page 16 Figure 5-1: Diffuser, HPR, and Data Collector Figure 5-2: Operation of a Flow Hydrant Data Collector Diffuser HPR Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model Calibration and System Evaluation Report Chapter 5 – Water Distribution System Field Testing December 2019 P05049-2019-000 Page 17 To properly calibrate the model, the following information was recorded at the time of the fire hydrant flow test: 1) time and date; 2) hydrant location; 3) flow of hydrant being flowed; 4) duration of the hydrant flow test; and 5) static and residual pressures at the corresponding hydrant location. The results of the fire hydrant flow tests are discussed in Chapter 6. Simultaneous information from the SCADA system on water storage levels and Booster Station pumping rates was also collected and used in the calibration process. 5.2 Extended Pressure Testing To gain background information on the roughness coefficient of water mains, extended pressure testing was performed at eight (8) locations throughout Arden Hills’ water distribution system. HPRs were installed on fire hydrants for approximately one week (from June 20th through July 1st, 2019) to record changes in pressures within the distribution system. Appendix B contains a map indicating the location of each extended pressure test as well as field data sheets showing detailed locations of each extended pressure test. The locations for Tests 3 and 5 were only used during the fire hydrant flow tests in order to measure the water tower levels. At the start of the extended pressure testing period, the HPRs for Tests 3 and 5 were moved to different locations. The field pressures for the EPS tests were sampled at 1 second intervals and the minimum, maximum, and average pressures were recorded at 5 minute intervals to allow for extended data logging. This data was used to fine-tune pipe roughness coefficients of water mains in the distribution system. The results of the extended pressure testing are discussed in Chapter 6. Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model Calibration and System Evaluation Report Chapter 6 – Hydraulic Model Calibration December 2019 P05049-2019-000 Page 18 CHAPTER 6 HYDRAULIC MODEL CALIBRATION The objective of creating a model is to generate a tool for predicting the distribution system network’s behavior within an acceptable level of accuracy. Upon completion of adjustments to pipe roughness coefficients and system demands, final simulated results from the hydraulic model were compared with the observed field results in order to determine the calibration level achieved. The results were incorporated into the following sections. The hydraulic model can be considered calibrated when the results produced by the hydraulic model can be used with confidence to make decisions regarding the design, operation, and maintenance of the water distribution system. The guidelines presented below by the authors of Water Distribution Modeling (Haestad 2001) give some numerical guidelines for calibration accuracy: however, they are not meant to be definitive. “The model should accurately predict hydraulic grade line (HGL) to within five to 10 feet at calibration data points during fire flow tests and to the accuracy of the elevation and pressure data during normal demands. It should also reproduce water storage level fluctuations to within three to six feet for EPS runs and match treatment plant/pump station flows to within 10 to 20 percent.” 6.1 Calibration Process Because significant efforts were made in properly allocating demands throughout the water distribution system, most of the calibration effort focused on adjusting pipe roughness coefficients to match field data collected during the fire hydrant flow tests. Fire hydrant flow test data was entered into the hydraulic modeling software for the 24 flow tests. Simultaneous operating data such as water storage levels, Booster Station pump flows, and estimated demands were also entered into the software program for each of the flow tests. The SCADA data for the South Water Tower and North Water Tower levels was measured to the nearest tenth of a foot. It was desirable to have more precision in measuring the change in the tank levels in order to more accurately calibrate the model. As such, the data collected by the HPR’s that were placed near each of the water towers was used as input data for each of the two tank levels. After the background data was entered and the fire flow tests were simulated, model results were compared with field measurements. When model results varied from the observed field measurements, the pipe roughness coefficients were adjusted. Similarly, this adjustment process was performed for the HGL tests and the EPS tests. Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model Calibration and System Evaluation Report Chapter 6 – Hydraulic Model Calibration December 2019 P05049-2019-000 Page 19 6.2 Calibration Results Every model will have some level of inaccuracy because of the ambiguity in assumed conditions and available modeling techniques. It is unreasonable to expect a model to agree exactly with field data for every condition. The objective of creating a model is to generate a tool for predicting a network’s behavior to an acceptable accuracy level, not to perfection. Upon completion of adjustments to pipe roughness coefficients and system demands, final simulated results from the hydraulic model were compared with the observed field results in order to determine the calibration level achieved. 6.2.1 Fire Hydrant Flow Test Calibration Results Completion of fire hydrant flow tests allows for collection of data over a wide range of operating conditions, including peak (high) demand periods. The results of testing for static and residual pressures during the fire flow tests are presented below. 6.2.1.1 Static Pressure Test Results Static pressures were taken at the pressure hydrant prior to initiating the fire hydrant flow tests. The observed static pressures along with the simulated pressure from the hydraulic model are shown in Appendix A. Comparison of static pressures from field test results with simulated hydraulic model results showed that 18 tests (92 percent) were within 5 feet (≈2 psi) of the field test measurement, and all of the tests were within 10 feet (≈5 psi). This level of accuracy is considered acceptable in accordance with criteria established above. 6.2.1.2 Residual Pressure Test Results During each fire hydrant flow test, residual pressures were recorded at a hydrant near the flowing hydrants. The observed residual pressures along with the simulated pressure from the hydraulic model are shown in Appendix A. Comparison of the observed field pressures and the simulated pressures obtained from the hydraulic model showed that 15 of the 24 tests (63 percent) were within 5 feet (≈2 psi) of the observed field reading, and 22 of the 24 tests (92 percent) were within 10 feet (≈5 psi). Note that the model results presented here reflect adjustments made from Fire Flow, HGL, and EPS calibration. As stated in the comments listed in the results table, the differences for Tests No. 6 and 21 are likely caused by fully or partially closed valves located within or near the subdivision that the test occurred. Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model Calibration and System Evaluation Report Chapter 6 – Hydraulic Model Calibration December 2019 P05049-2019-000 Page 20 6.2.2 Extended Period Simulation (EPS) Calibration Results The hydraulic model was further refined to match extended pressure testing results with the hydraulic model during extended period simulations. Fine-tuning was accomplished through adjustment of both pipe roughness coefficient factors and pump flow out of the Booster Station. SCADA information from June 24th through July 1st, 2019 (system demands were about 0.9 MGD) was used to adjust and calibrate the hydraulic model for extended period simulations. Current demand criteria for evaluation of the existing system was a maximum day demand of 2.5 MGD, and an average day demand of 1.0 MGD as discussed in Chapter 4. For the extended pressure tests, the simulated pressure readings were within 6 feet of the observed pressure readings for 92 percent of the time for the selected calibration day. Again, based on the criteria set forth above, these results are within the acceptable level of tolerance for model calibration. There were 15 simulated pressure readings there were within 6 to 9 feet of the observed pressure readings. Each of these 15 readings were located in the north pressure zone. The differences are likely caused by imprecise measurement of the flow rate and pump run times at the Booster Station. The observed pressure readings along with the simulated pressure readings are shown in Appendix B. Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model Calibration and System Evaluation Report Chapter 7 – Conclusions and Recommendations December 2019 P05049-2019-000 Page 21 CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The hydraulic model is a dynamic tool for planning the direction of Arden Hills’ water distribution system and can be used to support policymakers with multi-million-dollar decisions to address infrastructure needs. The calibrated hydraulic model can also assist engineers and planners in analyzing hydraulic performance for the purposes of planning and design. In addition, it is a valuable tool for system operators in meeting the day-to-day operation and maintenance needs for the utility. Given the potential for service area growth and with the Rice Creek Commons development on the horizon, the Arden Hills distribution system could see significant additions going forward. As such, the hydraulic model should be continuously updated and evolve in response to the changes made within the water distribution system network, as well as with the changes in the system demands. 7.1 Future Uses of the Hydraulic Model For the City of Arden Hills, the following outline identifies several ways the calibrated hydraulic model can be applied to planning, design, and operation activities in the future. Planning Tool – Develop a Master Plan x Address issues associated with existing system deficiencies o Water system pressure o Distribution system storage o Water main capacity o Water main reliability o Fire flow analysis x Address issues associated with system growth o Incorporate updated land use plan o Evaluate 10, 20, 30-year growth o Develop a plan for future improvements o Identify capital improvement projects & costs ƒ Water main improvements for system expansion ƒ Future water storage locations and sizes ƒ Future transmission pipeline extensions Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model Calibration and System Evaluation Report Chapter 7 – Conclusions and Recommendations December 2019 P05049-2019-000 Page 22 o Provide a prioritized implementation schedule (Revised CIP) x Perform analysis and input on capacity of system based on requests by City staff Design Tool – Ongoing Improvement Projects x Layout/sizing of proposed water main within subdivisions x Routing and design of major system improvements x Review of water storage operations o Perform water age analysis o Improve water turnover and water quality within storage facilities x Develop a Unidirectional Flushing Program x Develop emergency response plans to supply water to key facilities x Provide fire flow analysis to the Fire Department o Develop a database of hydrant capacities throughout the City 7.2 Updating the Hydraulic Model The need to maintain an updated hydraulic model is critical for Arden Hills. Not only does the model provide a tool for the evaluation of the existing system, but it also provides a tool for evaluation of future changes to the distribution system. The hydraulic model was developed using InfoWater® (Version 12.4). Recommended action by Arden Hills is the following: x Update the hydraulic model on an annual basis. Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model Calibration and System Evaluation Report Chapter 7 – Conclusions and Recommendations December 2019 P05049-2019-000 Page 23 7.3 References American Water Works Association, Manual M32: Computer Modeling of Water Distribution Systems, 2012. Cesario, Modeling, Analysis, and Design of Water Distribution Systems, 1995 Great Lakes Upper Mississippi River Board of State Public Health & Environmental Managers, Recommended Standards For Water Works, 2003 Edition. Haestad, Walski, Chase, Saric, Grayman, Beckwith, and Koelle, Advanced Water Modeling and Management, First Edition, 2003 Mays, Larry W., Water Distribution Systems Handbook, 2000. Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model Calibration and System Evaluation Report Appendices December 2019 P05049-2019-000 Appendix A Fire Flow Tests Elevation 1 Between Zo And Zone 2 Elevation 2036 Between Zone 2140 And Zone 2267 G!! G!! G!! G!! G!! G!! G!! G!! G!! G!! G!! G!! G!! G!! G!! G!! G!! G!! G!! G!! G!! G!! G!! G!! ]^UT[Ú ]^UT 9 6 28 1 5 4 3 7 21 14 13 22 15 24 20 16 10 17 12 18 19 11 23 LE X I N G T O N A V E TE R S T A T E 3 5 W S N E L L I N G A V E N COUNTY ROAD 96 W NE W B R I G H T O N R D INTERSTATE 694 B E T H E L D R COUNTY ROAD E TILLER LNSTOWE AVE KE VALENT I N E R D INGERSON RD GREY FOX RD SI E M S CT RED FOX RD A M B L E D R COLLEEN AVE GLEN PAUL AVE COUNTY ROAD F W VENUS A V E TO D ARDEN VIEW DR GRAMSIE RD GL E N A R D E N R D LAKE LN AMBLE RD NOBLE RD EDGEWATER AVE LI S A L HA M L I NE A VE N LE X I N G T O N A V E N JERROLD AVE DU N L A P S T N GL E N V I E W A V E WYNCREST CT CARLTON DRKATIE LN NB I35 W T O E B I 6 9 4 SKIL E S L N R O Y A L L N P I N E T R E E D R NO R M A A V E RI D G E W O O D R D F A I R V I E W A V E N GLE N H I L L R D VAL E N T I N E A V E BENTO N W A Y WYNR I D G E D R KE I T H S O N D R MCCR A C KEN LN LAMETTI LN BECKMAN AV E OR E W O O D D R BUSSARD CT HUDSON RD JA N E T C T CANNON AVE W KATIE CT SANDEEN RD PARKSHORE DR NURSERY HILL CT COLLEEN CT GATEWAY CT PA S C A L AV E N PRIO R C T SN E L L I N G A V E N COUNTY ROAD E INT E R S T A TE 6 9 4 IN T E R S T A T E 6 9 4 DU N L A P S T N ]^UT North Tower ]^UT South Tower G!!Test Hydrants Water Main 16" Water Main 12" Water Main 10" Water Main 8" Water Main 6" Water Main 4" Water Main tĂ ƚ Ğ ƌ   ŝ Ɛ ƚ ƌ ŝ ď Ƶ ƚ ŝ Ž Ŷ  ^ LJ Ɛ ƚ Ğ ŵ  D Ž Ě Ğ ů   Ă ů ŝ ď ƌ Ă ƚ ŝ Ž Ŷ ŝ ƚ LJ  Ž Ĩ   ƌ Ě Ğ Ŷ  , ŝ ů ů Ɛ  Ͳ  & ŝ ƌ Ğ  & ů Ž ǁ  d Ğ Ɛ ƚ   Ă ů ŝ ď ƌ Ă ƚ ŝ Ž Ŷ :Ƶ Ŷ Ğ  Ϯ Ϭ ϭ ϵ St a t i c Pr e s s u r e (p s i ) Re s i d u a l Pr e s s u r e (p s i ) 1 6 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 9 7 5 . 7 5 3 . 2 7 8 . 1 5 5 . 7 - 2 . 3 - 2 . 5 1 , 1 6 6 1 , 1 0 7 8 H i g h D I P 2 6 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 9 6 3 . 9 5 0 . 9 6 6 . 0 5 1 . 5 - 2 . 2 - 0 . 6 1 , 1 0 3 1 , 1 2 3 6 H i g h D I P 3 6 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 9 6 0 . 1 5 1 . 7 6 1 . 6 5 2 . 3 - 1 . 5 - 0 . 6 1 , 1 5 5 1 , 1 2 6 8 H i g h C I P 4 6 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 9 6 6 . 6 5 3 . 7 6 8 . 7 5 4 . 7 - 2 . 1 - 1 . 0 1 , 1 6 5 1 , 1 1 7 6 H i g h C I P 5 6 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 9 6 2 . 5 5 0 . 5 6 4 . 6 5 0 . 2 - 2 . 0 0 . 3 1 , 1 6 6 1 , 0 5 0 8 H i g h D I P 6 6 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 9 7 8 . 5 4 3 . 8 7 9 . 9 5 6 . 5 - 1 . 4 - 1 2 . 7 9 8 6 1 , 0 7 4 6 H i g h D I P Po s s i b l e c l o s e d i s o l a t i o n v a l v e . 7 6 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 9 8 6 . 6 7 9 . 0 8 8 . 8 7 9 . 1 - 2 . 2 - 0 . 1 1 , 4 2 4 1 , 3 9 1 1 2 H i g h D I P 8 6 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 9 9 1 . 3 7 5 . 1 9 4 . 6 7 4 . 9 - 3 . 3 0 . 2 1 , 3 5 9 1 , 2 5 8 8 H i g h D I P 9 6 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 9 9 1 . 8 8 1 . 1 9 4 . 4 7 6 . 2 - 2 . 6 4 . 9 1 , 3 8 1 1 , 4 2 3 1 2 H i g h D I P 10 6 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 9 9 4 . 4 7 8 . 0 9 5 . 8 7 3 . 1 - 1 . 3 5 . 0 1 , 3 3 8 1 , 3 6 3 1 2 H i g h D I P 11 6 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 9 8 2 . 1 6 5 . 1 8 3 . 3 6 4 . 8 - 1 . 3 0 . 3 1 , 2 9 1 1 , 1 7 8 1 2 L o w D I P 12 6 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 9 7 2 . 7 5 5 . 6 7 3 . 0 5 3 . 6 - 0 . 2 2 . 0 1 , 2 2 4 1 , 1 4 4 6 L o w C I P 13 6 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 9 6 6 . 7 5 0 . 2 6 8 . 5 5 0 . 1 - 1 . 7 0 . 1 1 , 1 0 0 1 , 0 8 3 8 L o w D I P 14 6 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 9 7 9 . 9 7 0 . 3 8 0 . 3 7 0 . 2 - 0 . 4 0 . 1 1 , 2 5 7 1 , 3 7 8 1 2 L o w D I P 15 6 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 9 6 8 . 3 5 0 . 1 7 0 . 2 4 8 . 3 - 1 . 9 1 . 8 1 , 0 9 3 1 , 1 2 0 6 L o w C I P 16 6 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 9 6 8 . 6 3 8 . 2 6 9 . 7 3 4 . 6 - 1 . 1 3 . 6 9 6 8 9 3 3 6 L o w C I P 17 6 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 9 6 8 . 0 5 9 . 4 6 9 . 5 5 9 . 4 - 1 . 4 0 . 0 1 , 2 6 3 1 , 1 8 7 6 L o w C I P 18 6 / 1 9 / 2 0 1 9 8 7 . 5 8 2 . 7 8 9 . 3 8 3 . 1 - 1 . 7 - 0 . 4 1 , 4 4 2 1 , 3 8 8 1 2 L o w D I P 19 6 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 9 7 4 . 5 6 7 . 1 7 5 . 1 6 4 . 7 - 0 . 5 2 . 4 1 , 1 4 2 1 , 3 0 7 8 L o w C I P 20 6 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 9 6 8 . 8 5 1 . 4 7 0 . 2 4 6 . 6 - 1 . 4 4 . 8 1 , 1 5 0 1 , 1 0 3 6 L o w C I P 21 6 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 9 6 2 . 9 3 5 . 4 6 4 . 2 4 2 . 0 - 1 . 3 - 6 . 6 1 , 0 2 1 9 1 5 6 L o w D I P Po s s i b l e c l o s e d i s o l a t i o n v a l v e . 22 6 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 9 6 3 . 3 5 7 . 8 6 4 . 9 5 9 . 4 - 1 . 6 - 1 . 6 1 , 1 8 7 1 , 2 1 4 8 L o w C I P 23 6 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 9 7 3 . 2 3 9 . 6 7 3 . 9 3 7 . 1 - 0 . 7 2 . 4 9 4 2 1 , 0 2 8 6 L o w C I P 24 6 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 9 8 4 . 4 8 2 . 1 8 4 . 6 8 1 . 8 - 0 . 2 0 . 3 1 , 4 2 9 1 , 3 9 6 1 6 L o w C I P Te s t No . D a t e Pr e s s u r e H ydr a n t N o . 1 Si m u l a t e d Re s i d u a l Pr e s s u r e (p s i ) Pr e s s u r e D i f f e r e n c e Fl o w Fl o w (g p m ) Me a s u r e d St a t i c Pr e s s u r e (p s i ) Me a s u r e d Re s i d u a l Pr e s s u r e (p s i ) Si m u l a t e d St a t i c Pr e s s u r e (p s i ) Fl o w W a t e r m a i n Si z e (i n ) P r e s s u r e Z o n e M a t e r i a l C o m m e n t s Fl o w (g p m ) Arden Hills Water Distribution System Model Calibration Field Test Data Sheet 1 GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF G!! G!! G!! (1090) (1087) (1091) (1140) (1160)(1136) (4534) (4429)(4435)(4443) (1173) (1148) (4428) (4520) (4532) (4466) (4514) (4456) (4496) (4446) (1088) (1097) (1094) (4504) (4476) (1168) (1152) (4425) (1165) (1176) (4526) (4533) (1105) (4408) (4440)(4446) (1161)(1169) (1149) (1139) (1129)(1119) (1144) (1150)(1160) (4452) (1142) (4414) (1137)(4418) (4545) (4422) (4460) (4466) (4500) (4518) (1147)(1163) (4551) (1124) (1140) (1113) (1121) (1093) (1096) (1095) (1092) (4486) (1181) (1200) (4434) (1159) (1169) (1157) (1128) (1145) (1149) (1120) (1152) (1139) (1153) (1120) (1130) (4472) (4480) (4510) (1155) (1131) (4550) (4542) (1184) (1136) (1132) (1128) (1144) (1131) (4415)(1127) (4419) HYD_404 HYD_401 HYD_402 6 " D I P 8" DI P 6" D I P 8 " D I P 6" DI P 6" DIP 6" DIP A M B L E D R LE X I N G T O N A V E PL E A S A N T D R KARTH LAKE DR PLEASANT CIR G!!Test Hydrants G!!Flow Hydrants GF Other Hydrants Test Number: __________ Test Date: ______________ Start Time: ___________ Stop Time: ___________ Test By: _________ 1 HYD_402 HYD 404 HYD 401 RESIDUAL HYDRANT Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Static: __________ Residual: __________ FLOW HYDRANT #1 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ FLOW HYDRANT #2 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ 6/18/2019 7:49:00 AM 7:58:00 AM DS 1244 75.7 53.2 346158 1,166 1,107 1245 Arden Hills Water Distribution System Model Calibration Field Test Data Sheet 2 GFGF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF G!! G!!G!! (1248) (4384) (1342) (1348) (1358) (1209)(1201) (1254) (1276) (1148) (1246) (4420) (1212) (1175) (1165)(4500) (1280) (1298) (1332) (1280) (4415) (1308)(1290) (1314) (1241) (1310) (1249) (4468) (4480) (1267) (4490) (1289) (1212) (1233) (1231) (1236) (1237) (1287)(1297) (1261) (1172) (1250) (1245)(1257) (1217) (1345) (1275) (1313) (1284)(1266) (1233) (4408) (1270)(1256) (4440)(1309)(1301) (1330) (1255) (4460) (1305)(1315) (1277) (1281)(1168) (1285) (1180) (1228) (1236) (1219) (1229) (1361) (1363) (4376)(4378) (1181) (1169) (1292) (1302) (1338) (1326) (1307) (1337) (4504) (4508) (1306) (1259) (1225) (1152) (1160) (1156) (4414) (1315)(1301) (1220) (1301) (1224) (1335)(1325) (1291) (1320) (1300) (1292) (1164)(1273) (1286) (1176) (1295) (1191) (1307) (1291) (4410) (1300)(1280) (1244) (4545) (4380) HYD_394 HYD_391 HYD_392 12 " D I P 8" DIP 6 " D I P 8" CIP 4" CIP 8" DIP 6 " D I P 6" D I P AMBLE RD HA M L I N E A V E N NURSERY HILL LN KARTH LAKE DR A M B L E D R K A R T H L A K E C I R NURSERY HILL CT AR D E N V I E W C T DE L L W O O D S T G!!Test Hydrants G!!Flow Hydrants GF Other Hydrants Test Number: __________ Test Date: ______________ Start Time: ___________ Stop Time: ___________ Test By: _________ 2 HYD_392 HYD 394 HYD 391 RESIDUAL HYDRANT Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Static: __________ Residual: __________ FLOW HYDRANT #1 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ FLOW HYDRANT #2 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ 6/18/2019 8:29:00 AM 8:40:00 AM DS 1244 63.9 50.9 346158 1,103 1,123 1245 Arden Hills Water Distribution System Model Calibration Field Test Data Sheet 3 GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF G!! G!! G!! (1341) (1411) (1340) (1442) (1447) (1439) (1382)(1420) (4528) (1441) (1414) (1415) (1385)(1400) (1389) (4534) (4540) (4550) (1444) (1402) (4510) (4516) (1459) (1468)(1456) (1342) (1348) (1358)(1360) (1380) (1379) (1370) (1371) (1372) (1481) (1450) (4500) (1332) (1331) (1425) (4468) (4480) (4490) (1483)(1485) (1494) (1495) (1412)(1410) (1387)(1392)(1388) (1390)(1406) (1339) (1351) (1354) (1467)(1458) (1455) (1453) (1435)(1437) (1476) (1384)(1395) (1403)(1408) (1405) (4504) (4522) (1394)(1401) (1404)(1391)(1407) (1418) (1397)(1383)(1398) (1386)(1393)(1409) (1427)(1425) (1344) (1448)(1450) (1429)(1423) (1355) (1470) (1433)(1431) (1346) (1374)(1373) (1478) (4440) (1330) (4460) (1502) (1361) (1366) (1367) (1376) (1375) (1363) (1349) (1368)(1378)(1369) (1377) (1474)(1472) (1381) (1338) (1337) (4504) (4508) (4545) (1417) (1396)(1399) (1466) (1452) HYD_471 HYD_474 HYD_472 8" CIP 8" DIP 12 " D I P 6" C I P 6" DIP 4" CIP 12 " P R IV A T E 6" PRIVATE 8" PVC 8" DIP 6" DIP 8" DIP 4" CIP 6" CIP 4" CIP 12 " P R I V A T E 4" CIP 6" CI P 4" CI P 12" PR I V A T E HA M L I N E A V E N ARDEN VIEW DR COUNTY ROAD 96 W KE I T H S O N D R G!!Test Hydrants G!!Flow Hydrants GF Other Hydrants Test Number: __________ Test Date: ______________ Start Time: ___________ Stop Time: ___________ Test By: _________ 3 HYD_472 HYD 474 HYD 471 RESIDUAL HYDRANT Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Static: __________ Residual: __________ FLOW HYDRANT #1 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ FLOW HYDRANT #2 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ 6/18/2019 8:49:00 AM 8:58:00 AM DS 1244 60.1 51.7 346158 1,155 1,126 1245 Arden Hills Water Distribution System Model Calibration Field Test Data Sheet 4 GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF G!! G!! G!! (1340) (4454) (4435)(4440) (4443) (4436) (4461) (4463) (4459) (4464) (4465) (4432)(4444) (4423)(4487) (4393) (4426) (4359)(4357) (4346) (4340) (4420) (4421) (4320) (4329) (4335) (4364) (4369) (4371) (4456) (4468) (4396) (4351) (4353) (4345) (4344) (4403) (4402) (1385)(1377)(1367) (4446)(4453) (4431) (4430) (4478)(4422) (4384) (4386) (4389) (1462) (1459) (1468)(1456) (4286) (4420) (1315) (1308) (1314) (1310) (1414)(1406)(4297) (1388) (4317) (4360) (1329) (4447) (4442) (4460) (4469) (4470) (4474) (4360) (4405) (4372)(4407) (4399)(4374) (4398) (4387) (1467)(1458) (1441)(1359)(1449) (4455) (4473) (4475) (4483) (4484) (1403) (4451) (4450) (4445) (4342) (4411)(4401) (4413)(4409) (4480) (4424)(4390) (4410) (1423)(1395) (1344) (4406) (4375) (4418) (4414)(4419) (4331)(4327) (4325) (4471)(4466) (4467)(4472) (4412)(4408) (4417) (4323) (4365) (1470) (4408) (4440)(1309)(1301) (1415)(1397)(1318) (1320) (1330) (1482) (1457)(1431)(1349)(1413) (4448) (4397) (4395) (4394) (4427) (4415) (4328) (4333) (4368) (4476) (4338) (4363) (4366) (4376)(4378)(4414) (1297) (1405)(1389) (1446)(1426)(1370) (1313) (1330)(1304) (1315) (4348)(4350) (1331) (4340) (1321) (4286)(1447)(1439) (1427) (4292) (1319) (1470) (1335)(1325) (1320) (1458) (1436) (1348) (1324) (1469) (1330) (1320) (1307) (4380) (1460)(1464) (1465) (1466) HYD_463 HYD_465 HYD_464 12" DIP 6 " C I P 8" DIP 8" CIP 6" D I P 6" CIP 6" D IP 8" C I P 8" D I P 8" DIP HA M L I N E A V E N COLLEEN AVE A R D E N V I E W C T WY N R I D G E D R WYNCREST CT ARDEN VIEW DR G!!Test Hydrants G!!Flow Hydrants GF Other Hydrants Test Number: __________ Test Date: ______________ Start Time: ___________ Stop Time: ___________ Test By: _________ 4 HYD_464 HYD 463 HYD 465 RESIDUAL HYDRANT Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Static: __________ Residual: __________ FLOW HYDRANT #1 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ FLOW HYDRANT #2 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ 6/18/2019 9:53:00 AM 10:04:00 AM DS 1244 66.6 53.7 346158 1,165 1,117 1245 Arden Hills Water Distribution System Model Calibration Field Test Data Sheet 5 GF GFGF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF G!!G!!G!! (4210) (4126) (4135)(1366) (1399)(1371) (1370) (4127) (1356)(4136) (1357)(1361)(1381) (4163)(1364) (1377) (1423) (4121) (4107) (4108) (4129) (4133) (1371) (1355) (1474) (4160) (4117)(4113) (4126) (4123) (4126) (1358) (4136)(4137) (1391) (1467) (4100) (1348) (1347) (1316) (1306) (1365) (4101) (4125) (4109) (4120) (4136)(4137) (4117)(4118) (4132)(4101) (4101) (1445) (1330) (1469) (4223) (4120) (4130) HYD_429 HYD_425HYD_428 8" D I P 6" D I P 8" CIP 6" DIP 6" DI P 6" D I P 6" DI P FLORAL DR W IN T E R S T A T E 6 9 4 HA M L I N E A V E N RO Y A L L N EIDE CIR JA M E S C I R SN E L L I N G A V E N G!!Test Hydrants G!!Flow Hydrants GF Other Hydrants Test Number: __________ Test Date: ______________ Start Time: ___________ Stop Time: ___________ Test By: _________ 5 HYD_428 HYD 429 HYD 425 RESIDUAL HYDRANT Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Static: __________ Residual: __________ FLOW HYDRANT #1 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ FLOW HYDRANT #2 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ 6/19/2019 8:05:00 AM 8:15:00 AM DS 1244 62.5 50.5 346158 1,166 1,050 1245 Arden Hills Water Distribution System Model Calibration Field Test Data Sheet 6 GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF G!! G!! G!! (1448) (1449)(1441) (4135) (1498) (1528) (1536) (4258) (1517)(1546) (1424) (1416) (4127) (1522) (1501) (1475) (1474) (1511)(1523) (1548) (4275) (4123) (4126) (1518) (1512) (4137) (4149) (4150) (4155) (1491) (4200)(4195) (1467) (4163) (4173) (1478)(1496)(1486) (1497)(1511) (1512) (1531) (1438) (1543)(1446) (1475) (4242) (1440)(1418) (1427) (4268) (1537) (4274) (1538) (1517) (1523) (1496)(1486) (4255) (4183) (1483) (1528) (4120) (4136) (4117) (1474) (4139)(4140) (1445) (1465) (1469) (4276) (1485)(1527) (1518)(1522) (4250) (1542) (1503) (4265) (1428) (1417) HYD_434 HYD_439 HYD_436 6" DIP 8" DIP 6" DIP 6" D I P HI G H W A Y 1 0 N E ROYAL LN NO R M A A V E INTERST A T E 6 9 4 DAW N CIR BRIARKN O L L C I R FLORAL DR WINTER S T A T E 6 9 4 H I G H W A Y 1 0 N E NO R M A A V E G!!Test Hydrants G!!Flow Hydrants GF Other Hydrants Test Number: __________ Test Date: ______________ Start Time: ___________ Stop Time: ___________ Test By: _________ 6 HYD_436 HYD 434 HYD 439 RESIDUAL HYDRANT Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Static: __________ Residual: __________ FLOW HYDRANT #1 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ FLOW HYDRANT #2 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ 6/18/2019 11:16:00 AM 11:27:00 AM DS 1244 78.5 43.8 346158 986 1,074 1245 Arden Hills Water Distribution System Model Calibration Field Test Data Sheet 7 GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF G!! G!! G!! (1570) (1527) (1517)(1513) (1528) (4326) (1686) (1681) (1554) (1547) (1555) (4430) (1546) (1556) (1520)(1503) (4345) (1510) (1546) (1516) (1534) (1522) (1538) (1511) (1518) (4409) (4429) (4439) (1507) (1575)(1565) (1535) (1528) (4301) (1515) (1675) (4337) (1520) (4284) (1556) (1550) (1509) (4300) (1524) (1565) (4370) (1531) (1508) (1555) (4419) (4355) (1565) (4325) (4375) (1538) (1575) (1545) (1537) (1566) (1518) (4420) (4410) (1556) (1682) (1680) (1687) (1553) (4293) (1523) (4287) (4294) (1516)(1531) (1519) (1514) (1532) (1528) (1555)(1575)(1537) (1576) (1556) (4444) HYD_445 HYD_483 HYD_446 12" DIP 8 " D I P 6" DIP 8" PVC 8" DIP 6" DIP6" DIP 6" D I P H I G H W A Y 1 0 N E SN E L L I N G A V E N OL D H I G H W A Y 1 0 C O L L E E N A V E ROYAL HILLS DR MCCLUNG DR ARDEN VISTA CT ARDEN VIEW DR CO L L E E N C I R B R I A R K N O L L C I R H I G H W A Y 1 0 N E G!!Test Hydrants G!!Flow Hydrants GF Other Hydrants Test Number: __________ Test Date: ______________ Start Time: ___________ Stop Time: ___________ Test By: _________ 7 HYD_446 HYD 445 HYD 483 RESIDUAL HYDRANT Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Static: __________ Residual: __________ FLOW HYDRANT #1 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ FLOW HYDRANT #2 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ 6/18/2019 11:48:00 AM 11:59:00 AM DS 1244 86.6 79.0 346158 1,424 1,391 1245 Arden Hills Water Distribution System Model Calibration Field Test Data Sheet 8 GF GF GF GF GF G!! G!! G!! (4441) (4445) (4453) (4519) (4375) (4405) (4463) (4477) (4355) (4401) (4471) (4529) (1700) (4419) (4439) HYD_519 HYD_521 HYD_520 8 " D I P 12 " DI P H I G H W A Y 1 0 N E O L D H I G H W A Y 1 0 H I G H W A Y 1 0 N E G!!Test Hydrants G!!Flow Hydrants GF Other Hydrants Test Number: __________ Test Date: ______________ Start Time: ___________ Stop Time: ___________ Test By: _________ 8 HYD_520 HYD 519 HYD 521 RESIDUAL HYDRANT Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Static: __________ Residual: __________ FLOW HYDRANT #1 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ FLOW HYDRANT #2 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ 6/18/2019 1:33:00 PM 1:44:00 PM DS 1244 91.3 75.1 346158 1,359 1,258 1245 Arden Hills Water Distribution System Model Calibration Field Test Data Sheet 9 GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GFG!! G!!G!! (4569) (4596) (4567) (4593) (4566) (4644) (4592) (4578)(1854) (1853) (4673) (4586) (4614) (4580) (4602) (1860)(1846)(1841)(4576) (4580) (4592) (4646) (4660) (4562) (4663) (4606) (4610) (4596) (4608) (4604) (4617) (4605) (4586) (4584) (4662) (4668) (4574) (1865)(1849) (4613) (4610) (4634) (4667) (4680) (4612) (4616) (4584) (4590) (4598) (4626) (4621) (4541) (4549) (4441) (4445) (4601) (4601) (4453) (4519) (4463) (4477) (4535) (1920) (4520) (4638) (4666) (4629) (4615) (4631) (1845) (4627) (4643) (4471) (1861) (4529) (1842)(1863) (4636) (4650) (4570) (4632) (4582) (4642) (4670) (4597) (4578) (4572) (4664) (4648) (4640) (4621) (4616)(4606) (4608) (4618) (4623) (4609) (4601) (1939) (4633) (4647) (4651) (4659) HYD_515 HYD_517 HYD_516 8 " D I P 1 2 " D I P 6" DI P 8" DI P H I G H W A Y 1 0 N E COUNTY ROAD 96 W O L D H I G H W A Y 1 0 S E R V I C E R D PR I O R A V E N H I G H W A Y 1 0 N E G!!Test Hydrants G!!Flow Hydrants GF Other Hydrants Test Number: __________ Test Date: ______________ Start Time: ___________ Stop Time: ___________ Test By: _________ 9 HYD_516 HYD 515 HYD 517 RESIDUAL HYDRANT Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Static: __________ Residual: __________ FLOW HYDRANT #1 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ FLOW HYDRANT #2 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ 6/18/2019 2:52:00 PM 3:03:00 PM DS 1244 91.8 81.1 346158 1,381 1,423 1245 Arden Hills Water Distribution System Model Calibration Field Test Data Sheet 10 GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF G!! G!! G!! (2051) (2043) (2015) (2001) (2071) (1879) (1987) (4300) (1887) (4200) (1787) HYD_542 HYD_539 HYD_541 12 " D I P 10 " D I P 8" DIP IN T E R S T A T E 3 5 W G A T E W A Y B L V D W B I 6 9 4 T O N B I3 5 W RO U N D L A K E R D W GATEWAY CT NB I35 W T O W B I 6 9 4 G!!Test Hydrants G!!Flow Hydrants GF Other Hydrants Test Number: __________ Test Date: ______________ Start Time: ___________ Stop Time: ___________ Test By: _________ 10 HYD_541 HYD 539 HYD 542 RESIDUAL HYDRANT Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Static: __________ Residual: __________ FLOW HYDRANT #1 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ FLOW HYDRANT #2 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ 6/18/2019 3:14:00 PM 3:24:00 PM DS 1244 94.4 78.0 346158 1,338 1,363 1245 Arden Hills Water Distribution System Model Calibration Field Test Data Sheet 11 GF GFGF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF G!! G!! G!! (1665) (4040) (1703) (1645) (4109) (1655) (1716) (1721) (1729) (4093) (1741) (4108)(4100) (4080) (1707) (1708) (1700) (1691) (1737) (1732) (4140)(4097) (4104) (1740) (1745) (4075)(1755) (1695) (4090) (4043) (4073) (4046)(1700) (4030) (1689) (4060) (4037) (4038) (4051) (4057) (4054)(4065) (1706) (1703) (4035) (1661) (1671) (1677) (1683) (4105) (4086) (1711) (1724) (4082) HYD_347 HYD_343 HYD_346 1 2 " D I P 6 " H D P E 6 " C I P 12" CIP 6 " D I P 12" D I P 6" C IP INTERSTATE 694 S N E L L I N G A V E N VALENTINE AVE L A K E V A L E N T I N E R D CRYSTAL AVE V A L E N T I N E C T VALENTINE CREST RD INTERSTATE 694 G!!Test Hydrants G!!Flow Hydrants GF Other Hydrants Test Number: __________ Test Date: ______________ Start Time: ___________ Stop Time: ___________ Test By: _________ 11 HYD_346 HYD 346 HYD 343 RESIDUAL HYDRANT Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Static: __________ Residual: __________ FLOW HYDRANT #1 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ FLOW HYDRANT #2 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ 6/19/2019 10:05:00 AM 10:16:00 AM DS 1244 82.1 65.1 346158 1,291 1,178 1245 Arden Hills Water Distribution System Model Calibration Field Test Data Sheet 12 GF GFGF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF G!!G!!G!!(1670)(3926) (3947) (3956) (3964) (3955) (3965) (3975)(3973) (1758)(1736) (1703) (4008) (1662)(1661) (3976) (3979) (3983) (1700) (1622) (3974) (1746) (1714) (1721) (1729) (1837) (1663) (1659)(1648) (1621) (1638) (1691) (1678) (1657) (1653) (1651)(1647) (3935) (1630) (3965)(3964)(3966)(3963) (1660) (1823) (1768)(1758)(3894) (1767)(1741) (1770) (1831) (1833) (1776) (1785) (1749) (1731) (1780) (1759) (1811) (1785)(1741)(1707) (3936) (1822)(1834) (1821) (1722) (1751) (1732) (1722) (1817) (1813) (1720) (1710) (1812) (1802)(1784)(1774) (1753)(1745) (3953)(1717) (3946) (1748) (3915) (1777)(1723)(3927) (1758)(1742) (1793)(1777) (1766)(1750) (1783)(1761) (1732)(1740)(1748) (3901) (3908) (1803) (1786) (1767)(1759)(1755) (1836)(1818) (1804)(3898)(1812) (1777) (1744) (1740) (1780) (1798) (3946) (1700) (3991) (1759) (4001)(1711) HYD_319 HYD_321HYD_320 6" C I P 12 " D I P 12" CIP 1 2 " U n k n o w n 12" DIP 6" C I P 12" DI P VENUS A V E GRAMSIE RD GLENVIEW AVE CRYSTAL AVE FA I R V I E W A V E N COU NTY ROA D E FA I R V I E W A V E N G!!Test Hydrants G!!Flow Hydrants GF Other Hydrants Test Number: __________ Test Date: ______________ Start Time: ___________ Stop Time: ___________ Test By: _________ 12 HYD_320 HYD 321 HYD 319 RESIDUAL HYDRANT Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Static: __________ Residual: __________ FLOW HYDRANT #1 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ FLOW HYDRANT #2 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ 6/19/2019 10:33:00 AM 10:44:00 AM DS 1244 72.7 55.6 346158 1,224 1,144 1245 Arden Hills Water Distribution System Model Calibration Field Test Data Sheet 13 GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF G!! G!! G!! (1581) (1584) (1655) (1644) (1678) (1587) (1612) (1605) (1652) (1666) (1660)(1678) (1646) (1687) (3716) (1679) (1671) (3744) (3748) (1724)(1712)(1720) (3745) (3753) (1605) (1593) (3707) (1699) (1731) (1683) (1675) (1641)(3752) (1595) (3715) (1635)(3756) (1631) (1704)(1700) (1692) (1688) (1703) (3712)(3711)(3712) (3700) (3786) (1621) (1599) (1601) (1597) (1620) (3708) (1691) (1676) (1668) (3720) (1640) (1628) (3782) (1624) (1708)(1716) (1696) (1672)(3708) (3716) (1644) (1636) (3778) (3785) (3749) (3757) (1615) (3720)(3719) (3740) (1684) (1680) (1632) (1727) (1667) (1659) (1651) (1647) (3704) (3743) (1628) (1680) (1620) (1600) (1608) (1611) (1636) HYD_124 HYD_121 HYD_123 8" DIP 6" DIP 8 " C I P 6" D I P 6" D I P CHAT H A M A V E MCCRA CKEN L N OAK AVE CHA T H A M CT G!!Test Hydrants G!!Flow Hydrants GF Other Hydrants Test Number: __________ Test Date: ______________ Start Time: ___________ Stop Time: ___________ Test By: _________ 13 HYD_123 HYD 124 HYD 121 RESIDUAL HYDRANT Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Static: __________ Residual: __________ FLOW HYDRANT #1 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ FLOW HYDRANT #2 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ 6/19/2019 1:26:00 PM 1:38:00 PM DS 1244 66.7 50.2 346158 1,100 1,083 1245 Arden Hills Water Distribution System Model Calibration Field Test Data Sheet 14 GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF G!! G!! G!! (1901) (3759) (3793) (1964) (1962) (1960) (3777) (3783) (1850) (3753) (3754) (3762) (3766) (1839) (1831) (3920) (1812) (3786) (1816) (1820) (3770)(3790) (3774) (1834) (1850) (1920) (1910)(1900) (3782) (3772) (1813) (3915) (1808) (3758) (3756) (3778) (3806) (3905) (3769) (3810) (1941) (3815)(1962) (1963) (1901) (3803) (3809) (1951) (1937)(1929)(1923)(1915)(1903)(1895) HYD_93 HYD_109HYD_108 12" DIP 8" DIP 6" D I P 12" CIP 6" CIP 8 " D I P COUNTY ROAD E NE W B R I G H T O N R D G!!Test Hydrants G!!Flow Hydrants GF Other Hydrants Test Number: __________ Test Date: ______________ Start Time: ___________ Stop Time: ___________ Test By: _________ 14 HYD_108 HYD 93 HYD 109 RESIDUAL HYDRANT Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Static: __________ Residual: __________ FLOW HYDRANT #1 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ FLOW HYDRANT #2 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ 6/19/2019 1:47:00 PM 1:58:00 PM DS 1244 79.9 70.3 346158 1,257 1,378 1245 Arden Hills Water Distribution System Model Calibration Field Test Data Sheet 15 GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF G!! G!! G!! (82) (80) (50) (15) (3744) (2027) (2010) (2019) (1978) (3744) (3744) (1958) (2035) (2039) (3695)(2043) (2057) (3731) (2033) (2037) (3715) (3723) (2018)(1977) (2030) (2020) (2026) (3744) (3630) (2015) (2014) (2005) (2017) (2023)(3650)(1971) (3670) (3622) (3744) (3744)(3744) (3744) (3744) (3744) (3744) (3744)(3744) (3744) (3744) (3744) (3744) (1998) (3655) (2029)(2031) (3661) (3685) (3707) (2047) (2055) (3744)(3744) (3744) (3744) (3744) (3744) (3744) (3744) (3595) HYD_97 HYD_100 HYD_98 12" D I P 8" CIP 8" D I P 6" CIP TH OM D R NE W B R I G H T O N R D CL E V E L A N D A V E N THOM CT G!!Test Hydrants G!!Flow Hydrants GF Other Hydrants Test Number: __________ Test Date: ______________ Start Time: ___________ Stop Time: ___________ Test By: _________ 15 HYD_98 HYD 100 HYD 97 RESIDUAL HYDRANT Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Static: __________ Residual: __________ FLOW HYDRANT #1 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ FLOW HYDRANT #2 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ 6/19/2019 2:38:00 PM 2:51:00 PM DS 1244 68.3 50.1 346158 1,093 1,120 1245 Arden Hills Water Distribution System Model Calibration Field Test Data Sheet 16 GF GF GF GFGF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF G!!G!!G!! (3242) (1960) (1954)(1950) (1961) (3288) (3287) (1861) (1897)(1905) (1920)(1926)(1934) (1887)(1895) (1896) (1929)(1925) (3268) (3274) (3277) (3284) (2001) (1883) (1867)(1875) (2016) (1999) (2013) (1976)(1984) (1991) (1992) (1955) (1933)(1921) (1883) (1871) (1910) (2015)(2021) (1883)(1889) (3294) (1993)(2009) (1966) (1975) (1999) (1977)(1995) (1985) (1975) (1967) (1966)(1970)(1976) (1975) (1981) (1955) (1945) (1948)(1954)(1960) (1890) (1933) (1874)(1880)(1884) (1925)(1933) (1934) (1926) (1866) (1871)(1915)(1927) (1896)(1908) (2014) (2006) (1911) (1907) (1900) (1913) (1901) (2008) (2005)(1991) (1980) (1985) (1954) (1961) (1961)(1945) (1865) (1947) (1932) (1928)(1916) (3245) (1889) (1877) (1904) (1896)(1866) (3248) (3256) (3264) (3246) (3240) (3244) (1850) (3272) (3280)(1870)(1858) (3278) (1911)(1921) (1900)(1912) (1905)(1919) (1920) (1906) (1905)(1895) (1976) (1967) (1986) (1991) (1936)(1960) (1966) (1900) (1863) (1860) (1921) (1967) (1979) (1983)(1975) (2021) (2000) (1998)(2002) (1971) (1947)(1955)(1903)(1895) (1890)(1886) (1882) (3301) (1901)(1913) (1912)(2017) (1990) (1989) (2000) (1984) (1985) (1992) (1927) (1917) HYD_9HYD_11 HYD_10 12" CIP 12" CIP12" CIP 12" CIP 12" CIP 12" CIP 12" CIP12" CIP 6" CIP 6" DIP 6" CIP 6" D I P GLEN PAUL AVE EDGEWATER AVE JERROLD AVE COUNTY ROAD D W N E W B R I G H T O N R D KA T I E L N G!!Test Hydrants G!!Flow Hydrants GF Other Hydrants Test Number: __________ Test Date: ______________ Start Time: ___________ Stop Time: ___________ Test By: _________ 16 HYD_10 HYD 9 HYD 11 RESIDUAL HYDRANT Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Static: __________ Residual: __________ FLOW HYDRANT #1 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ FLOW HYDRANT #2 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ 6/20/2019 7:34:00 AM 7:45:00 AM DS 1244 68.6 38.2 346158 968 933 1245 Arden Hills Water Distribution System Model Calibration Field Test Data Sheet 17 GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF G!!G!!G!! (376) (128) (338) (320) (390) (274) (118) (288) (172) (184) (380) (310) (352) (136) (246) (228) (366) (262) (158) (238) (222)(1870) (1860) (1840) (1875) (3368) (3377)(1828) (1825)(3393) (1834) (1830) (1857) (1839) (1884) (1875) (1863) (1921)(1927)(1935) (1932) (1900) (1888) (1906) (1897) (1870) (1885) (1868) (1863) (1936) (1911) (1924) (1910) (3441) (3453) (3473) (3390) (1908) (1894) (1893) (1873) (1880) (1886) (1903) (1869) (1863) (1876) (1891) (1931) (1884) (1860) (1892) (3424) (1831) (3372) (3397) (3401) (3407) (1854) (1846) (3391)(1833) (3403) (3417) (3415) (3420) (1835)(1843)(1851)(1857) (1831) (3459) (1850) (3395) (1848) (1832) (1849) (3433) (3449) (1832) (3442) (3491)(1830) (1865)(1879)(1873)(1901)(1887)(1923) (1917)(1909)(1895) (3365) (1829)(1853) (3400) (1918)(1890)(1898)(1854)(1880)(1876) (1868)(1862) (3370) (1931)(1837)(1859)(1845) (3375) (1930) (1902) (1880) (1889) (1911)(1923)(1895) (1918) (1910)(1924) (1916) (1840)(3382)(1850)(1860) (1851)(3379) (1840) HYD_64HYD_66 HYD_65 6" CIP 12" DIP 6 " D I P 12" C IP 6" CIP 6" CIP 12" DIP NOBLE RD GRANT RD NE W B R I G H T O N R D COUNTY ROAD E LA K E J O H A N N A B L V D F A I R V I E W A V E N I N D I A N P L G!!Test Hydrants G!!Flow Hydrants GF Other Hydrants Test Number: __________ Test Date: ______________ Start Time: ___________ Stop Time: ___________ Test By: _________ 17 HYD_65 HYD 64 HYD 66 RESIDUAL HYDRANT Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Static: __________ Residual: __________ FLOW HYDRANT #1 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ FLOW HYDRANT #2 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ 6/20/2019 7:54:00 AM 8:06:00 AM DS 1244 68.0 59.4 346158 1,263 1,187 1245 Arden Hills Water Distribution System Model Calibration Field Test Data Sheet 18 GF GFGF GF GF G!! G!! G!! (1761) (1726) (1725) (1782) (1670) (3473) (1680)(1666)(1690) (3459) (3491) HYD_73 HYD_75 HYD_74 12" DIP 6 " D I P LAKE JO H A N N A B L V D G!!Test Hydrants G!!Flow Hydrants GF Other Hydrants Test Number: __________ Test Date: ______________ Start Time: ___________ Stop Time: ___________ Test By: _________ 18 HYD_74 HYD 73 HYD 76 RESIDUAL HYDRANT Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Static: __________ Residual: __________ FLOW HYDRANT #1 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ FLOW HYDRANT #2 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ 6/19/2019 3:04:00 PM 3:15:00 PM DS 1244 87.5 82.7 346158 1,442 1,388 1245 Arden Hills Water Distribution System Model Calibration Field Test Data Sheet 19 GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GFGF GF GF G!! G!! G!! (1545) (3505) (3445) (1465) (1475) (3461) (1414) (3471) (3489) (1454) (1516) (1421) (1450) (1451) (1434) (3511) (3520)(3515) (3529) (1480) (3377) (3435) (3447) (3459) (3461) (3442) (1462)(1500) (1556) (3395) (3413) (3427) (3421) (3450) (1458) (3458) (3464) (1466) (1532)(1540)(1548) (3517) (3530) (3541) (1479) (3521) (1420) (1445) (1455) (3521) (3531) (3538) (3550) (3484) (3530) (3550) (1412) (1437) (3544) (3510) (1485) (1431) (1428) (1433) (1417) (1448) (1471) (1553) (3459) (1429) (3517) (3465) (3475) (3401) (3411) (3430) (3436) (1450) (1492)(1520) (3470) (3493) (3505) (3511) (3535) (3385) HYD_144 HYD_142 HYD_143 8" CIP 6" C I P 6" PR I V A T E 6 " C I P 6 " C I P 6" CIP 6" CIP 6" C I P SI E M S C T S N E L L I N G A V E N A R D E N P L SK I L E S L N FORE S T L N RI D G E W OO D R D SKIL E S L N ARDEN P L G!!Test Hydrants G!!Flow Hydrants GF Other Hydrants Test Number: __________ Test Date: ______________ Start Time: ___________ Stop Time: ___________ Test By: _________ 19 HYD_143 HYD 144 HYD 142 RESIDUAL HYDRANT Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Static: __________ Residual: __________ FLOW HYDRANT #1 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ FLOW HYDRANT #2 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ 6/20/2019 8:17:00 AM 8:30:00 AM DS 1244 74.5 67.1 346158 1,142 1,307 1245 Arden Hills Water Distribution System Model Calibration Field Test Data Sheet 20 GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF G!! G!! G!! (3584) (1401)(1393) (1465) (1475) (3452) (3466) (3455) (1404) (3461) (3500) (3544)(1414)(1400) (1370) (3564) (3568) (1417)(1383)(3574) (1392) (1384)(1376)(3549) (1411)(1405) (1454) (3508) (3522) (3530) (3538) (1373)(1421) (1450) (1401) (1385)(1377) (1451) (1434) (1399)(1391) (1480) (1479) (1420) (1445) (1369) (1406) (1423) (1419) (1377) (3580) (1412)(1400) (1455) (1412) (1408)(1400) (1437) (3544) (1431) (3590) (1434) (3448) (1394) (1386) (1370) (1431) (1385) (3505) (1428) (1407) (1404)(1392) (1433) (1417) (1448) (1471) (3454)(3461) (1400) (3459) (3484) (3552) (1429) (1415) (1378) (3438) (1426) (1420) HYD_260 HYD_258HYD_259 12" DIP 8 " C I P 6 " C I P 8" C I P 6" CIP ARDEN PL GL E N A R D E N R D FOREST LN S N E L L I N G A V E N SKILES LN C O R D E T O S B S N E L L I N G A V E N SNEL L I N G A VE N T O C O R D E SK I L E S L N SN E L L I N G A V E N S N E L L I N G A V E N ARDE N P L SN E L L I N G A V E N G!!Test Hydrants G!!Flow Hydrants GF Other Hydrants Test Number: __________ Test Date: ______________ Start Time: ___________ Stop Time: ___________ Test By: _________ 20 HYD_259 HYD 258 HYD 260 RESIDUAL HYDRANT Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Static: __________ Residual: __________ FLOW HYDRANT #1 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ FLOW HYDRANT #2 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ 6/18/2019 1:47:00 PM 1:57:00 PM DS 1244 68.8 51.4 346158 1,150 1,103 1245 Arden Hills Water Distribution System Model Calibration Field Test Data Sheet 21 GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GFG!! G!! G!! (3900) (3900) (1370) (1401)(1387) (1415)(1377) (3645) (3609) (1435) (3655) (1353) (3628) (3638)(3637) (3611) (3623)(3610) (1423) (3632)(3631) (1427) (3620) (1367) (3625) (1376) (3900) (1416) (1388) (1486) (1476) (1444)(1462) (1390) (1460) (1392) (1450)(1442)(1434)(1424)(1414) (1397) (3681)(1469) (1463) (1377) (1438)(1428)(1466) (1443) (1483)(1437)(1429) (1413) (1473) (1395)(1452) (1399) (1401) (1407)(1453)(1415)(1445)(1425)(1435) (3673) (3900) HYD_246 HYD_248 HYD_247 12" DIP 6" DI P 6" C I P 6" C I P SN E L L I N G A V E N COUNTY ROAD E ARDEN OAKS DR HA M L I N E A V E N ARDEN OAKS CT G!!Test Hydrants G!!Flow Hydrants GF Other Hydrants Test Number: __________ Test Date: ______________ Start Time: ___________ Stop Time: ___________ Test By: _________ 21 HYD_247 HYD 248 HYD 246 RESIDUAL HYDRANT Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Static: __________ Residual: __________ FLOW HYDRANT #1 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ FLOW HYDRANT #2 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ 6/20/2019 8:40:00 AM 8:51:00 AM DS 1244 62.9 35.4 346158 1,021 915 1245 Arden Hills Water Distribution System Model Calibration Field Test Data Sheet 22 GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF G!! G!! G!! (4) (6) (3537) (3533) (3531) (3529) (1141) (1148) (1136) (1135) (1123) (1143)(1142) (1137) (1149) (1111) (1161) (1156) (3470) (3499) (1145) (1151) (1153) (1188) (1119) (1160) (1150) (1116) (1112) (1114) (1155) (1113)(1115) (1183)(1168)(1184)(1181) (1121)(1120)(1129) (1118) (1126) (1163) (1164) (1154) (1185) (1186) (1187) (1152) (1189) (1172) (1173) (1180)(1175) (1193)(1191) (3527) (1169) (1182) (1174) (1176) (1190) (1132) (1124)(1131) (1125) (1127) (1117) (1157)(1170) (1171)(1167) (1177)(1178) (1179) (1194) (1138) (1133)(1134) (1130)(1122) (1128) (1159) (1162) (1158) (1165) (1166) HYD_220 HYD_210 HYD_218 16" C I P 8" CI P 6" CIP 6" C I P 6" CIP 6" CIP LE X I N G T O N A V E HARRIET AVE B E N T O N W A Y PI N E T R E E D R H U N T E R S C T WAL DE N P L G!!Test Hydrants G!!Flow Hydrants GF Other Hydrants Test Number: __________ Test Date: ______________ Start Time: ___________ Stop Time: ___________ Test By: _________ 22 HYD_218 HYD 210 HYD 220 RESIDUAL HYDRANT Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Static: __________ Residual: __________ FLOW HYDRANT #1 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ FLOW HYDRANT #2 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ 6/20/2019 11:00:00 AM 11:11:00 AM DS 1244 63.3 57.8 346158 1,187 1,214 1245 Arden Hills Water Distribution System Model Calibration Field Test Data Sheet 23 GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF G!! G!! G!! (1086) (1152) (1125)(1111) (3131) (1151) (1090) (3150) (1083) (1091) (1174) (1194) (3197) (1122) (3123) (1146) (3195)(3193) (3200)(3194) (3137) (3145) (3157) (3177) (1111)(1125)(1117) (1208) (3130) (3138) (3230) (1203) (3233) (1137) (1175)(3224) (3143) (3146) (3238) (3234) (1091) (3200) (1084) (1092) (3244) (1083) (3155) (3149) (3154) (1159) (3167) (3191) (3199) (3189)(3184) (3131) (3205) (3168) (3159) (3200) (3187) (3198) (3170) (3153) (1134) (1200) (3235) (3114) HYD_187 HYD_195 HYD_196 8" C IP 6" C I P 6" PVC6" 8" C I P 6" 6" CIP 6" PVC 6" C I P 6" PVC 6" CIP 8" C I P 6" C I P LE X I N G T O N A V E N EDGEWATER AVE SH O R E L I N E L N LA K E L N N SH O R E L I N E L N G!!Test Hydrants G!!Flow Hydrants GF Other Hydrants Test Number: __________ Test Date: ______________ Start Time: ___________ Stop Time: ___________ Test By: _________ 23 HYD_196 HYD 187 HYD 195 RESIDUAL HYDRANT Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Static: __________ Residual: __________ FLOW HYDRANT #1 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ FLOW HYDRANT #2 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ 6/20/2019 11:20:00 AM 11:30:00 AM DS 1244 73.2 39.6 346158 942 1,028 1245 Arden Hills Water Distribution System Model Calibration Field Test Data Sheet 24 GF GF GF GF GF GF GFGF GF GF G!! G!! G!! (1319) (1300) (1294) (1292) (3235) (3162) (3140) (3271) (1426) (3222) (3254) (3210) (3238) (3240)(3232) (3260) (1303)(1295) (1335) (1366) (1378) (3270) (3270) (1327)(1315) (1296) (3233) (1298) (3200) (3180) (1454) (1442) (1434) (3208) (3150) (3170) HYD_170 HYD_172 HYD_171 12" UNKNOWN 16" C I P 16" DIP 8" CI P 6" DIP 1 2 " C I P 8" C I P SNE L L I N G A V E N HA M L I N E A V E N INGERSON RD SN E L L I N G A V E N G!!Test Hydrants G!!Flow Hydrants GF Other Hydrants Test Number: __________ Test Date: ______________ Start Time: ___________ Stop Time: ___________ Test By: _________ 24 HYD_171 HYD 172 HYD 170 RESIDUAL HYDRANT Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Static: __________ Residual: __________ FLOW HYDRANT #1 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ FLOW HYDRANT #2 Hydrant No. ______ HPR No. ________ Flow: ______________ 6/20/2019 1:13:00 PM 1:23:00 PM DS 1244 84.4 82.1 346158 1,429 1,396 1245 Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model Calibration and System Evaluation Report Appendices December 2019 P05049-2019-000 Appendix B Extended Period Simulation (EPS) Tests Elevation 1 Between Zo And Zone 2 Elevation 2036 Between Zone 2140 And Zone 2267 ]^UT[Ú ]^UT G!! G!! G!! G!! G!! G!! G!! G!! G!! G!! 4 7 3 1 2 5 9 8 6 10 LE X I N G T O N A V E TE R S T A T E 3 5 W S N E L L I N G A V E N COUNTY ROAD 96 W NE W B R I G H T O N R D INTERSTATE 694 B E T H E L D R O L D H I G H W A Y 1 0 COUNTY ROAD E TILLER LNSTOWE AVE KE VALENT I N E R D INGERSON RD GREY FOX RD SI E M S CT RED FOX RD A M B L E D R COLLEEN AVE GLEN PAUL AVE COUNTY ROAD F W VENUS A V E TO D ARDEN VIEW DR GRAMSIE RD GL E N A R D E N R D LAKE LN AMBLE RD NOBLE RD ARD E N P L GRANT RD EDGEWATER AVE LI S A L HA M L I NE A VE N LE X I N G T O N A V E N JERROLD AVE DU N L A P S T N HARRIET AVE FLORAL DR W GLENVIEW AVE WYNCREST CT G A T E W A Y B L V D CARLTON DRKATIE LN NB I35 W T O E B I 6 9 4 SKIL E S L N ROYAL LN NO R M A A V E DG E WO O D R D F A I R V I E W A V E N PL E A S A N T D R CRYSTAL AVE ENHILL R D VALENTINE AVE BE N T O N W A Y WYNR I D G E D R KE I T H S O N D R MCCR A C KEN LN LAMETTI LN BECKMAN AV E OR E W O O D D R NURSERY HILL LN A S B U R Y A V BUSSARD CT HUDSON RD JA N E T C T CANNON AVE W AR D E N V I E W C T KATIE CT MCCLUNG D R SANDEEN RD GATEWAY CT PA S C A L AV E N PRIO R C T IN T E R S T A T E 6 9 4 SN E L L I N G A V E N INT E R S T A TE 6 9 4 COUNTY ROAD E G H W A Y 1 0 N E [Ú Booster Station ]^UT North Tower ]^UT South Tower Water Main 16" Water Main 12" Water Main 10" Water Main 8" Water Main 6" Water Main 4" Water Main Wa t e r D i s t r i b u t i o n S y s t e m H y d r a u l i c M o d e l C a l i b r a t i o n Ci t y o f A r d e n H i l l s Ex t e n d e d P r e s s u r e T e s t i n g C a l i b r a t i o n No d e = H Y D _ 5 1 5 N o d e = H Y D _ 7 0 N o d e = H Y D _ 3 4 9 N o d e = H Y D _ 1 7 4 El e v a t i o n = 9 0 4 . 4 8 E l e v a t i o n = 9 1 6 . 1 2 E l e v a t i o n = 9 5 7 . 5 5 E l e v a t i o n = 8 8 6 . 6 6 Ob s e r v e d S i m u l a t e d D i f f e r e n c e O b s e r v e d S i m u l a t e d D i f f e r e n c e O b s e r v e d S i m u l a t e d D i f f e r e n c e O b s e r v e d S i m u l a t e d D i f f e r e n c e 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 0 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 3 . 4 6 1 , 1 2 4 . 1 9 ( 0 . 7 3 ) 1 , 0 8 2 . 7 6 1 , 0 8 3 . 6 0 ( 0 . 8 4 ) 1 , 1 2 1 . 2 5 1 , 1 2 4 . 2 9 ( 3 . 0 4 ) 1 , 0 8 1 . 1 6 1 , 0 8 3 . 0 6 ( 1 . 9 0 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 1 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 2 . 1 1 1 , 1 2 3 . 0 9 ( 0 . 9 8 ) 1 , 0 8 1 . 9 7 1 , 0 8 3 . 7 0 ( 1 . 7 3 ) 1 , 1 2 6 . 7 8 1 , 1 2 6 . 1 3 0 . 6 5 1 , 0 8 0 . 0 3 1 , 0 8 3 . 5 3 ( 3 . 5 0 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 2 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 7 . 1 9 1 , 1 2 7 . 9 3 ( 0 . 7 4 ) 1 , 0 8 2 . 3 0 1 , 0 8 2 . 9 8 ( 0 . 6 8 ) 1 , 1 2 4 . 7 5 1 , 1 2 8 . 0 5 ( 3 . 3 0 ) 1 , 0 8 0 . 7 1 1 , 0 8 2 . 3 7 ( 1 . 6 6 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 3 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 5 . 6 1 1 , 1 2 6 . 5 7 ( 0 . 9 6 ) 1 , 0 8 2 . 7 6 1 , 0 8 3 . 3 7 ( 0 . 6 1 ) 1 , 1 2 3 . 0 6 1 , 1 2 6 . 7 0 ( 3 . 6 4 ) 1 , 0 8 1 . 0 5 1 , 0 8 3 . 1 4 ( 2 . 0 9 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 4 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 4 . 2 5 1 , 1 2 5 . 1 4 ( 0 . 8 9 ) 1 , 0 8 2 . 9 8 1 , 0 8 3 . 7 0 ( 0 . 7 2 ) 1 , 1 2 1 . 8 2 1 , 1 2 5 . 2 8 ( 3 . 4 6 ) 1 , 0 8 1 . 3 9 1 , 0 8 3 . 6 8 ( 2 . 2 9 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 5 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 2 . 7 9 1 , 1 2 3 . 7 6 ( 0 . 9 7 ) 1 , 0 8 2 . 6 4 1 , 0 8 3 . 6 0 ( 0 . 9 6 ) 1 , 1 2 7 . 1 2 1 , 1 2 6 . 8 0 0 . 3 2 1 , 0 8 0 . 7 1 1 , 0 8 3 . 6 6 ( 2 . 9 5 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 6 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 5 . 3 8 1 , 1 2 8 . 2 8 ( 2 . 9 0 ) 1 , 0 8 2 . 7 6 1 , 0 8 2 . 4 7 0 . 2 9 1 , 1 2 5 . 4 3 1 , 1 2 8 . 4 5 ( 3 . 0 2 ) 1 , 0 8 0 . 9 4 1 , 0 8 2 . 0 0 ( 1 . 0 6 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 7 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 6 . 2 9 1 , 1 2 6 . 6 6 ( 0 . 3 7 ) 1 , 0 8 2 . 7 6 1 , 0 8 3 . 3 6 ( 0 . 6 0 ) 1 , 1 2 3 . 7 3 1 , 1 2 6 . 8 0 ( 3 . 0 7 ) 1 , 0 8 1 . 2 8 1 , 0 8 3 . 2 4 ( 1 . 9 6 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 8 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 4 . 7 1 1 , 1 2 5 . 2 6 ( 0 . 5 5 ) 1 , 0 8 2 . 3 0 1 , 0 8 3 . 6 6 ( 1 . 3 6 ) 1 , 1 2 1 . 9 3 1 , 1 2 5 . 3 7 ( 3 . 4 4 ) 1 , 0 8 1 . 3 9 1 , 0 8 3 . 6 4 ( 2 . 2 5 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 9 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 3 . 4 6 1 , 1 2 3 . 9 8 ( 0 . 5 2 ) 1 , 0 8 1 . 9 7 1 , 0 8 4 . 1 9 ( 2 . 2 2 ) 1 , 1 2 0 . 0 1 1 , 1 2 4 . 0 8 ( 4 . 0 7 ) 1 , 0 8 1 . 1 6 1 , 0 8 4 . 2 2 ( 3 . 0 6 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 1 0 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 2 . 4 5 1 , 1 2 2 . 8 7 ( 0 . 4 2 ) 1 , 0 8 0 . 8 4 1 , 0 8 4 . 3 7 ( 3 . 5 3 ) 1 , 1 2 7 . 2 3 1 , 1 2 5 . 9 2 1 . 3 1 1 , 0 7 9 . 8 1 1 , 0 8 4 . 3 6 ( 4 . 5 5 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 1 1 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 6 . 5 1 1 , 1 2 7 . 9 9 ( 1 . 4 8 ) 1 , 0 8 0 . 9 5 1 , 0 8 3 . 4 4 ( 2 . 4 9 ) 1 , 1 2 2 . 0 4 1 , 1 2 8 . 0 7 ( 6 . 0 3 ) 1 , 0 8 0 . 1 5 1 , 0 8 2 . 9 0 ( 2 . 7 5 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 1 2 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 5 . 1 6 1 , 1 2 6 . 8 9 ( 1 . 7 3 ) 1 , 0 8 1 . 0 6 1 , 0 8 3 . 8 7 ( 2 . 8 1 ) 1 , 1 2 0 . 3 5 1 , 1 2 6 . 9 9 ( 6 . 6 4 ) 1 , 0 8 0 . 1 5 1 , 0 8 3 . 6 6 ( 3 . 5 1 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 1 3 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 3 . 5 8 1 , 1 2 5 . 7 2 ( 2 . 1 4 ) 1 , 0 8 1 . 2 9 1 , 0 8 4 . 1 2 ( 2 . 8 3 ) 1 , 1 1 8 . 7 7 1 , 1 2 5 . 8 2 ( 7 . 0 5 ) 1 , 0 8 0 . 0 3 1 , 0 8 4 . 1 0 ( 4 . 0 7 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 1 4 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 2 . 2 2 1 , 1 2 4 . 6 1 ( 2 . 3 9 ) 1 , 0 8 0 . 1 6 1 , 0 8 4 . 2 4 ( 4 . 0 8 ) 1 , 1 2 7 . 8 0 1 , 1 2 7 . 6 6 0 . 1 4 1 , 0 7 8 . 3 4 1 , 0 8 4 . 2 6 ( 5 . 9 2 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 1 5 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 6 . 8 5 1 , 1 2 8 . 7 6 ( 1 . 9 1 ) 1 , 0 8 0 . 8 4 1 , 0 8 3 . 6 6 ( 2 . 8 2 ) 1 , 1 2 1 . 7 0 1 , 1 2 8 . 8 3 ( 7 . 1 3 ) 1 , 0 7 9 . 4 7 1 , 0 8 3 . 2 2 ( 3 . 7 5 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 1 6 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 5 . 6 1 1 , 1 2 7 . 7 7 ( 2 . 1 6 ) 1 , 0 8 1 . 0 6 1 , 0 8 4 . 2 3 ( 3 . 1 7 ) 1 , 1 2 0 . 4 6 1 , 1 2 7 . 8 4 ( 7 . 3 8 ) 1 , 0 7 9 . 8 1 1 , 0 8 4 . 0 5 ( 4 . 2 4 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 1 7 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 3 . 9 2 1 , 1 2 6 . 7 0 ( 2 . 7 8 ) 1 , 0 8 1 . 4 0 1 , 0 8 4 . 3 5 ( 2 . 9 5 ) 1 , 1 1 9 . 2 2 1 , 1 2 6 . 7 9 ( 7 . 5 7 ) 1 , 0 7 9 . 8 1 1 , 0 8 4 . 3 5 ( 4 . 5 4 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 1 8 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 2 . 4 5 1 , 1 2 5 . 6 1 ( 3 . 1 6 ) 1 , 0 8 1 . 0 6 1 , 0 8 4 . 2 9 ( 3 . 2 3 ) 1 , 1 2 6 . 3 3 1 , 1 2 8 . 6 5 ( 2 . 3 2 ) 1 , 0 7 9 . 2 4 1 , 0 8 4 . 3 2 ( 5 . 0 8 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 1 9 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 6 . 8 5 1 , 1 2 8 . 4 8 ( 1 . 6 3 ) 1 , 0 8 1 . 4 0 1 , 0 8 3 . 8 3 ( 2 . 4 3 ) 1 , 1 2 2 . 9 4 1 , 1 2 8 . 5 7 ( 5 . 6 3 ) 1 , 0 7 9 . 5 8 1 , 0 8 3 . 6 0 ( 4 . 0 2 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 2 0 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 5 . 7 2 1 , 1 2 7 . 3 1 ( 1 . 5 9 ) 1 , 0 8 1 . 8 5 1 , 0 8 4 . 1 1 ( 2 . 2 6 ) 1 , 1 2 1 . 7 0 1 , 1 2 7 . 3 9 ( 5 . 6 9 ) 1 , 0 8 0 . 1 5 1 , 0 8 4 . 0 3 ( 3 . 8 8 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 2 1 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 4 . 5 9 1 , 1 2 6 . 2 4 ( 1 . 6 5 ) 1 , 0 8 2 . 0 8 1 , 0 8 4 . 4 8 ( 2 . 4 0 ) 1 , 1 2 0 . 6 9 1 , 1 2 6 . 3 1 ( 5 . 6 2 ) 1 , 0 8 0 . 4 9 1 , 0 8 4 . 4 8 ( 3 . 9 9 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 2 2 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 3 . 4 6 1 , 1 2 5 . 2 5 ( 1 . 7 9 ) 1 , 0 8 2 . 6 4 1 , 0 8 4 . 5 7 ( 1 . 9 3 ) 1 , 1 1 9 . 4 5 1 , 1 2 5 . 3 2 ( 5 . 8 7 ) 1 , 0 8 1 . 2 8 1 , 0 8 4 . 6 1 ( 3 . 3 3 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 2 3 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 2 . 3 4 1 , 1 2 4 . 2 7 ( 1 . 9 3 ) 1 , 0 8 1 . 9 7 1 , 0 8 4 . 4 0 ( 2 . 4 3 ) 1 , 1 2 4 . 4 1 1 , 1 2 7 . 3 2 ( 2 . 9 1 ) 1 , 0 8 0 . 1 5 1 , 0 8 4 . 4 3 ( 4 . 2 8 ) No d e = H Y D _ 3 4 7 N o d e = H Y D _ 5 6 1 N o d e = H Y D _ 4 9 4 N o d e = H Y D _ 2 2 3 El e v a t i o n = 8 8 3 . 3 5 E l e v a t i o n = 8 9 5 . 1 5 E l e v a t i o n = 9 5 7 . 1 E l e v a t i o n = 9 3 2 . 7 9 Ob s e r v e d S i m u l a t e d D i f f e r e n c e O b s e r v e d S i m u l a t e d D i f f e r e n c e O b s e r v e d S i m u l a t e d D i f f e r e n c e O b s e r v e d S i m u l a t e d D i f f e r e n c e 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 0 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 1 . 7 4 1 , 1 2 4 . 2 0 ( 2 . 4 6 ) 1 , 1 2 1 . 9 8 1 , 1 2 4 . 2 0 ( 2 . 2 2 ) 1 , 1 2 0 . 6 9 1 , 1 2 4 . 2 2 ( 3 . 5 3 ) 1 , 0 8 0 . 9 2 1 , 0 8 2 . 4 2 ( 1 . 5 0 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 1 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 2 . 5 3 1 , 1 2 3 . 1 0 ( 0 . 5 7 ) 1 , 1 2 0 . 6 5 1 , 1 2 3 . 1 0 ( 2 . 4 5 ) 1 , 1 2 2 . 8 3 1 , 1 2 3 . 1 2 ( 0 . 2 9 ) 1 , 0 7 9 . 3 4 1 , 0 8 3 . 2 7 ( 3 . 9 3 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 2 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 3 . 0 9 1 , 1 2 7 . 9 4 ( 4 . 8 5 ) 1 , 1 2 4 . 0 5 1 , 1 2 7 . 9 4 ( 3 . 8 9 ) 1 , 1 2 3 . 5 1 1 , 1 2 7 . 9 7 ( 4 . 4 6 ) 1 , 0 7 9 . 9 1 1 , 0 8 1 . 5 7 ( 1 . 6 6 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 3 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 3 . 2 1 1 , 1 2 6 . 5 8 ( 3 . 3 7 ) 1 , 1 2 4 . 4 1 1 , 1 2 6 . 5 8 ( 2 . 1 7 ) 1 , 1 2 2 . 0 4 1 , 1 2 6 . 6 1 ( 4 . 5 7 ) 1 , 0 8 0 . 3 6 1 , 0 8 2 . 7 3 ( 2 . 3 7 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 4 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 1 . 9 7 1 , 1 2 5 . 1 5 ( 3 . 1 8 ) 1 , 1 2 2 . 2 3 1 , 1 2 5 . 1 5 ( 2 . 9 2 ) 1 , 1 2 0 . 4 6 1 , 1 2 5 . 1 8 ( 4 . 7 2 ) 1 , 0 8 0 . 7 0 1 , 0 8 3 . 4 6 ( 2 . 7 6 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 5 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 2 . 7 6 1 , 1 2 3 . 7 8 ( 1 . 0 2 ) 1 , 1 2 1 . 3 8 1 , 1 2 3 . 7 8 ( 2 . 4 0 ) 1 , 1 2 2 . 8 3 1 , 1 2 3 . 8 0 ( 0 . 9 7 ) 1 , 0 7 9 . 6 8 1 , 0 8 3 . 5 6 ( 3 . 8 8 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 6 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 5 . 3 5 1 , 1 2 8 . 2 9 ( 2 . 9 4 ) 1 , 1 2 0 . 7 7 1 , 1 2 8 . 2 9 ( 7 . 5 2 ) 1 , 1 2 4 . 1 9 1 , 1 2 8 . 3 3 ( 4 . 1 4 ) 1 , 0 8 0 . 0 2 1 , 0 8 1 . 3 6 ( 1 . 3 4 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 7 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 2 . 9 8 1 , 1 2 6 . 6 8 ( 3 . 7 0 ) 1 , 1 2 4 . 7 7 1 , 1 2 6 . 6 8 ( 1 . 9 1 ) 1 , 1 2 2 . 4 9 1 , 1 2 6 . 7 1 ( 4 . 2 2 ) 1 , 0 8 0 . 5 8 1 , 0 8 2 . 7 2 ( 2 . 1 4 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 8 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 1 . 0 6 1 , 1 2 5 . 2 7 ( 4 . 2 1 ) 1 , 1 2 2 . 5 9 1 , 1 2 5 . 2 7 ( 2 . 6 8 ) 1 , 1 2 0 . 9 2 1 , 1 2 5 . 3 0 ( 4 . 3 8 ) 1 , 0 8 0 . 9 2 1 , 0 8 3 . 3 9 ( 2 . 4 7 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 9 : 0 0 1 , 1 1 9 . 3 7 1 , 1 2 3 . 9 9 ( 4 . 6 2 ) 1 , 1 2 0 . 4 1 1 , 1 2 3 . 9 9 ( 3 . 5 8 ) 1 , 1 2 1 . 0 3 1 , 1 2 4 . 0 1 ( 2 . 9 8 ) 1 , 0 8 1 . 0 4 1 , 0 8 4 . 0 2 ( 2 . 9 8 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 1 0 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 4 . 2 2 1 , 1 2 2 . 8 8 1 . 3 4 1 , 1 2 0 . 5 3 1 , 1 2 2 . 8 8 ( 2 . 3 5 ) 1 , 1 2 4 . 5 3 1 , 1 2 2 . 8 9 1 . 6 4 1 , 0 7 9 . 4 6 1 , 0 8 4 . 2 6 ( 4 . 8 0 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 1 1 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 2 . 6 4 1 , 1 2 8 . 0 0 ( 5 . 3 6 ) 1 , 1 2 4 . 7 7 1 , 1 2 8 . 0 0 ( 3 . 2 3 ) 1 , 1 2 2 . 6 1 1 , 1 2 8 . 0 2 ( 5 . 4 1 ) 1 , 0 8 0 . 4 7 1 , 0 8 2 . 2 5 ( 1 . 7 8 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 1 2 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 1 . 1 8 1 , 1 2 6 . 9 0 ( 5 . 7 2 ) 1 , 1 2 3 . 3 2 1 , 1 2 6 . 9 0 ( 3 . 5 8 ) 1 , 1 2 1 . 0 3 1 , 1 2 6 . 9 2 ( 5 . 8 9 ) 1 , 0 8 0 . 8 1 1 , 0 8 3 . 3 6 ( 2 . 5 5 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 1 3 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 0 . 0 5 1 , 1 2 5 . 7 3 ( 5 . 6 8 ) 1 , 1 2 1 . 9 8 1 , 1 2 5 . 7 3 ( 3 . 7 5 ) 1 , 1 1 9 . 4 5 1 , 1 2 5 . 7 5 ( 6 . 3 0 ) 1 , 0 8 1 . 1 5 1 , 0 8 3 . 9 9 ( 2 . 8 4 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 1 4 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 5 . 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 . 6 2 0 . 6 2 1 , 1 2 0 . 4 1 1 , 1 2 4 . 6 2 ( 4 . 2 1 ) 1 , 1 2 4 . 5 3 1 , 1 2 4 . 6 3 ( 0 . 1 0 ) 1 , 0 7 9 . 1 2 1 , 0 8 4 . 2 0 ( 5 . 0 8 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 1 5 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 3 . 6 6 1 , 1 2 8 . 7 7 ( 5 . 1 1 ) 1 , 1 2 1 . 5 0 1 , 1 2 8 . 7 7 ( 7 . 2 7 ) 1 , 1 2 2 . 8 3 1 , 1 2 8 . 7 8 ( 5 . 9 5 ) 1 , 0 8 0 . 4 7 1 , 0 8 2 . 6 7 ( 2 . 2 0 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 1 6 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 2 . 3 0 1 , 1 2 7 . 7 7 ( 5 . 4 7 ) 1 , 1 2 3 . 3 2 1 , 1 2 7 . 7 7 ( 4 . 4 5 ) 1 , 1 2 1 . 9 3 1 , 1 2 7 . 7 9 ( 5 . 8 6 ) 1 , 0 8 1 . 0 4 1 , 0 8 3 . 7 7 ( 2 . 7 3 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 1 7 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 0 . 8 4 1 , 1 2 6 . 7 1 ( 5 . 8 7 ) 1 , 1 2 2 . 1 1 1 , 1 2 6 . 7 1 ( 4 . 6 0 ) 1 , 1 2 0 . 2 4 1 , 1 2 6 . 7 3 ( 6 . 4 9 ) 1 , 0 8 1 . 2 6 1 , 0 8 4 . 2 8 ( 3 . 0 2 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 1 8 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 3 . 5 4 1 , 1 2 5 . 6 2 ( 2 . 0 8 ) 1 , 1 2 1 . 1 4 1 , 1 2 5 . 6 2 ( 4 . 4 8 ) 1 , 1 2 4 . 3 0 1 , 1 2 5 . 6 3 ( 1 . 3 3 ) 1 , 0 7 9 . 9 1 1 , 0 8 4 . 2 9 ( 4 . 3 8 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 1 9 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 4 . 3 3 1 , 1 2 8 . 4 9 ( 4 . 1 6 ) 1 , 1 2 0 . 0 4 1 , 1 2 8 . 4 9 ( 8 . 4 5 ) 1 , 1 2 4 . 0 7 1 , 1 2 8 . 5 1 ( 4 . 4 4 ) 1 , 0 8 0 . 4 7 1 , 0 8 3 . 1 5 ( 2 . 6 8 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 2 0 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 2 . 8 7 1 , 1 2 7 . 3 2 ( 4 . 4 5 ) 1 , 1 1 9 . 5 6 1 , 1 2 7 . 3 2 ( 7 . 7 6 ) 1 , 1 2 2 . 4 9 1 , 1 2 7 . 3 4 ( 4 . 8 5 ) 1 , 0 8 1 . 1 5 1 , 0 8 3 . 8 6 ( 2 . 7 1 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 2 1 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 1 . 7 4 1 , 1 2 6 . 2 5 ( 4 . 5 1 ) 1 , 1 2 1 . 7 4 1 , 1 2 6 . 2 5 ( 4 . 5 1 ) 1 , 1 2 0 . 8 0 1 , 1 2 6 . 2 6 ( 5 . 4 6 ) 1 , 0 8 1 . 3 7 1 , 0 8 4 . 3 8 ( 3 . 0 1 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 2 2 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 0 . 9 5 1 , 1 2 5 . 2 6 ( 4 . 3 1 ) 1 , 1 2 2 . 5 9 1 , 1 2 5 . 2 6 ( 2 . 6 7 ) 1 , 1 2 1 . 8 2 1 , 1 2 5 . 2 7 ( 3 . 4 5 ) 1 , 0 8 1 . 7 1 1 , 0 8 4 . 5 6 ( 2 . 8 5 ) 6/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 2 3 : 0 0 1 , 1 2 5 . 0 1 1 , 1 2 4 . 2 8 0 . 7 3 1 , 1 2 1 . 3 8 1 , 1 2 4 . 2 8 ( 2 . 9 0 ) 1 , 1 2 3 . 9 6 1 , 1 2 4 . 2 9 ( 0 . 3 3 ) 1 , 0 8 0 . 3 6 1 , 0 8 4 . 3 9 ( 4 . 0 3 ) Te s t N o . 8 Re c o r d e r 3 4 6 1 5 8 Te s t N o . 9 Re c o r d e r 1 2 4 6 Te s t N o . 1 0 Re c o r d e r 2 0 6 3 9 8 Da t e / T i m e Re c o r d e r 1 2 4 4 Te s t N o . 7 Te s t N o . 6 Re c o r d e r 1 2 4 1 Re c o r d e r 1 2 4 3 Te s t N o . 2 Te s t N o . 1 Re c o r d e r 1 2 4 8 Re c o r d e r 1 2 4 5 Te s t N o . 4 Da t e / T i m e Arden Hills Water Distribution System Model Calibration Field Test Data Sheet 1 GF GF GF G!! (4569) (4596) (4567) (4593) (4566) (4576) (4580) (4592) (4562) (4586) (4584) (4574) (4541) (4549) (4601) (4601) (4535) (4565) (1845) (1861) (4529) (4595) (4594)(4590) (4570) (4582) (4588) (4591)(4597) (4578) (4572) (4564)(4568) (4563) HYD_516 1 2 " D I P H I G H W A Y 1 0 N E COUNTY ROAD 96 W OLD HIGHWAY 1 0 LAK E S H O R E P L S E R V I C E R D PRIOR CT H I G H W A Y 1 0 N E G!!Test Hydrants GF Other Hydrants Test Number: ____________ Hydrant No.: _____________ HPR Number: ____________ Install Date/Time: ________________________ Remove Date/Time: _______________________ 1 HYD_516 Extended Pressure Testing 1245 6/24/2019 - 1:10 PM 7/1/2019 - 1:09 PM Arden Hills Water Distribution System Model Calibration Field Test Data Sheet 2 GF GF GF GF GF GF GF G!! (1870) (1860) (1840) (1921) (1888) (1906) (1897) (1868) (1863)(1911) (1910) (3441) (3453) (3473) (1908) (1894) (1873) (1880) (1886) (1903) (1876)(1860) (1854)(1846) (1835)(1843)(1851)(1857) (1831) (3459) (1850) (3433) (3449) (1832) (3491)(1830) (1880) (1889) (1918) (1910) (1916) (1840) HYD_70 12" DIP 6" CIP 6 " D I P 1 2 " D I P 6" CIP 1 2 " D I P GRANT RD COUNTY ROAD E LA K E J O H A N N A B L V D I N D I A N P L G!!Test Hydrants GF Other Hydrants Test Number: ____________ Hydrant No.: _____________ HPR Number: ____________ Install Date/Time: ________________________ Remove Date/Time: _______________________ 2 HYD_70 Extended Pressure Testing 1248 6/17/2019 - 4:45 PM 7/1/2019 - 2:01 PM Arden Hills Water Distribution System Model Calibration Field Test Data Sheet 3 GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GFG!! (14) (4255) (4293) (1270) (1263) (1253)(1271) (1266) (1250) (1235) (1221) (1234)(1244) (1258) (1228) (1245) HYD_371 12" DIP 16 " C I P 6" DIP 8" DIP 16" DIP 12" DIP 16" C IP 8" D I P 12" D I P 8" D I P 12" DIP 12 " D I P 8" D I P 12 " D I P 12" D I P 8" D I P FE R N W O O D S T G!!Test Hydrants GF Other Hydrants Test Number: ____________ Hydrant No.: _____________ HPR Number: ____________ Install Date/Time: ________________________ Remove Date/Time: _______________________ 3 HYD_371 Extended Pressure Testing 1241 6/17/2019 - 4:08 PM 6/20/2019 - 2:26 PM Arden Hills Water Distribution System Model Calibration Field Test Data Sheet 4 GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF G!! (4001) (4001) (4001) (4001) HYD_289 16" CIP 16" C I P 16" C I P INTE R S T A T E 6 9 4 G!!Test Hydrants GF Other Hydrants Test Number: ____________ Hydrant No.: _____________ HPR Number: ____________ Install Date/Time: ________________________ Remove Date/Time: _______________________ 4 HYD_289 Extended Pressure Testing 1243 6/18/2019 - 7:35 AM 7/1/2019 - 3:09 PM Arden Hills Water Distribution System Model Calibration Field Test Data Sheet 5 GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF G!! (1200) (1172)(3804) (3773) (3770) (3763) (3761) (3810) (3808) (3775) (3771) (3769) (3765)(3764) (3767) (1230) (1212) (1260)(1300) (1235) (3900) (1275) HYD_304 16 " C I P 12" CIP 8" D IP 6" CIP 16 " CIP 8" DIP 16 " C I P 12" CIPRED FOX RD G!!Test Hydrants GF Other Hydrants Test Number: ____________ Hydrant No.: _____________ HPR Number: ____________ Install Date/Time: ________________________ Remove Date/Time: _______________________ 5 HYD_304 Extended Pressure Testing 206398 6/17/2019 - 4:25 PM 6/20/2019 - 2:35 PM Arden Hills Water Distribution System Model Calibration Field Test Data Sheet 6 GFGF GF GF GF GF GFG!! (1319) (3327) (1314)(1326) (1300) (1294) (1292) (3320) (1271) (3254) (3310) (1280) (3238) (3240) (3232) (3330) (1303) (1295) (1287) (3311) (1335) (1355) (1327)(1315) (3319)(1306)(1320) (1296) (1298) (1270) (3208) (1261) HYD_174 16" DIP 16 " C I P 8" CI P 10" CIP 8" CIP INGERSON RD DU N L A P S T N HAM L I N E A V E N SN E L L I N G A V E N SN E L L I N G A V E N G!!Test Hydrants GF Other Hydrants Test Number: ____________ Hydrant No.: _____________ HPR Number: ____________ Install Date/Time: ________________________ Remove Date/Time: _______________________ 6 HYD_174 Extended Pressure Testing 1241 6/20/2019 - 2:54 PM 7/1/2019 - 2:52 PM Arden Hills Water Distribution System Model Calibration Field Test Data Sheet 7 GF GF GF G!! (1665) (1645) (1655)(4080) (4175) (4140)(4097) (4073)(4060) (4105) HYD_347 1 2 " D I P 6 " C I P 6 " D I P 12" D I P INTERSTATE 694 S N E L L I N G A V E N VALENTINE AVE INTERSTATE 694 G!!Test Hydrants GF Other Hydrants Test Number: ____________ Hydrant No.: _____________ HPR Number: ____________ Install Date/Time: ________________________ Remove Date/Time: _______________________ 7 HYD_347 Extended Pressure Testing 1244 6/20/2019 - 1:56 PM 7/1/2019 - 1:41 PM Arden Hills Water Distribution System Model Calibration Field Test Data Sheet 8 GF GF GF GF GF GF GF G!! (1698) (1692) (1671) (1682) (1684) (1688) (1722) (1670) (1696) (1699) (1697) (1680) (1679) (4175) (4176) (1718) (4177) (1677)(1675) (1676)(1674) (1695) (1693) (1678) (1681) (1669)(1667) (1686)(1683) HYD_561 12 " D IP 6" D IP 12" DIP 6 " D I P 6" DIP 6" D I P INTERSTATE 694 PARKSHORE DR S N E L L I N G A V E N BR U E B E R R Y L N OL D H I G H W A Y 1 0 INTERSTATE 694 G!!Test Hydrants GF Other Hydrants Test Number: ____________ Hydrant No.: _____________ HPR Number: ____________ Install Date/Time: ________________________ Remove Date/Time: _______________________ 8 HYD_561 Extended Pressure Testing 346158 6/20/2019 - 2:02 PM 7/1/2019 - 1:31 PM Arden Hills Water Distribution System Model Calibration Field Test Data Sheet 9 GF GFGF GF GF GF GF GF GF G!! (1341) (1411) (1382) (1385) (1389) (1379) (1370) (1371) (1372) (1298) (1332) (1331) (1387) (1388) (1384) (1383) (1386) (1374)(1373) (1376) (1375) (1368)(1378) (1369) (1377) (1302) (1338) (1326) (1337) (4504) (4508) (1306) (1325) (1321) (4545) HYD_494 8" CIP 12 " D I P 8" DIP 6" DIP 12 " P R I V A T E 6" P R I V A T E 6" C I P 12" DIP 6" DIP 6" DIP 8" DIP 12" PR I V A T E HA M L I N E A V E N COUNTY ROAD 96 W KARTH LA K E C I R PAUL KIRKWOLD DR G!!Test Hydrants GF Other Hydrants Test Number: ____________ Hydrant No.: _____________ HPR Number: ____________ Install Date/Time: ________________________ Remove Date/Time: _______________________ 9 HYD_494 Extended Pressure Testing 1246 6/20/2019 - 2:14 PM 7/1/2019 - 12:55 PM Arden Hills Water Distribution System Model Calibration Field Test Data Sheet 10 GF GF GF GF GF GF G!! (6) (8) (12) (1233) (1220) (1221) (1201) (1200) (1203) (1210) (3628) (1207) (1261) (1260) (1310) (1240) HYD_223 8" CIP 16" C I P 12 " C I P 16 " C I P COUNTY ROAD E PI N E T R E E D R G!!Test Hydrants GF Other Hydrants Test Number: ____________ Hydrant No.: _____________ HPR Number: ____________ Install Date/Time: ________________________ Remove Date/Time: _______________________ 10 HYD_223 Extended Pressure Testing 206398 6/20/2019 - 2:46 PM 7/1/2019 - 2:25 PM 477 Temperance Street | St. Paul, MN 55101 | (651) 286-8450 Building a legacy –your legacy. Equal Opportunity Employer | wsbeng.com Technical Memorandum To: Sue Polka, PE City Engineer/Public Works Director City of Arden Hills From: Greg Johnson, PE Ray Theiler, EIT WSB & Associates Date: June 2, 2017 Re: TCAAP Development –Water System Model Review City of Arden Hills, MN WSB Project No.3450-000 As requested by the City, WSB has updated and calibrated the existing WaterCAD water distribution system model that was originally developed by Wenck Associates (Wenck). The model was updated and calibrated to verify the accuracy of the current and proposed conditions for the City’s water system. The recommendations for ultimate system improvements from the 2016 Wenck technical memorandum were also reviewed. The water model was updated to be consistent with the existing system and demands. An analysis of the future system was completed to service the projected demands from the future TCAAP development site and determine the future improvements that are required for the future water system. ORIGINAL MODEL SUMMERY Wenck developed a WaterCAD model to evaluate the adequacy of the City’s water system network to serve the proposed TCAAP development. The Wenck model primarily included existing trunk and lateral watermains along with future water system improvements associated with the extension into the TCAAP development site. In addition to trunk and lateral watermains, the Wenck model also included tanks, reservoirs, pumps, controls, and junction nodes throughout the City. The pumps represented the existing and proposed booster stations that supply water for the North pressure zone. The Wenck model includes reservoirs at each of the City’s interconnections to model the water supplied from the City of Roseville. The controls in the model were set-up to turn the booster pumps on and off based on hydraulic grades at various locations. This is not a typical method for operating a multi-zone water distribution system like the Arden Hills system. The Wenck model estimated the existing average da y water demands for each junction node, from the years 2004 through 2011, using meter data supplied by the City of Roseville. For the future TCAAP development, the Wenck model incorporated the Metropolitan Council’s Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) units to estimate the average day water demands. A factor of three times the average day demand was used to develop the maximum day demand. The Wenck model was calibrated using system pressures collected during hydrant flow tests from 1990 since current hydrant flow testing data was not available at the same time. It is critical to use current hydrant flow data when calibrating a water distribution system model because the frictional coefficient factors for watermain usually change (decrease in value) as the mains age. During the hydrant flow tests Ms. Sue Polka June 2, 2017 Page 2 conducted in 1990, tank levels, pump operations, and flow conditions were not recorded and therefore not used in the model calibration. ORIGINAL MODEL APPROACH The Wenck model was evaluated to determine its ability to accurately predict domestic pressures and fire flow rates throughout the existing water distribution system. The following parameters were evaluated, and based on the results of the evaluation, were either confirmed or updated in the model. - Demand Allocation: Water usage demands were based on 2004 through 2011 metered data supplied by the City of Roseville. To verify existing water demands, the City provided metered data from 2005 through 2016 which confirmed the existing average day demands. For future water demands, MCES population projections along with the historic metered data were used to verify the future proposed water demands. Water demands for the TCAAP development site were verified using the 2017 MCES SAC Procedure Manual. - Peak Day Factor: Since the City is unable to record hourly and daily water usage with its existing control system, the average day to maximum day peak factor of 3.0 was verified by comparing typical maximum day peak factors that have been experienced in surrounding communities. - Watermain Transmission Lines: Existing watermain lateral lines were added or activated based on the overall Arden Hills ’ watermain map provided by the City. The Wenk model also featured proposed trunk and lateral watermains in the existing water system model, which were inactivated to accurately represent existing conditions. - Water Towers: There are two existing water towers within the City, totaling 1.5 million gallons of storage. The tower properties, such as tank size and overflow elevation, were provided by the City and verified in the Wenk model. - Booster Station Pumps: There are two booster pumps at the existing east side booster station. The pump performance curves associated with the booster station were supplied by the City, and WSB used the curves to update the model’s pump characteristics with efficiency curve points. - Controls: The Wenck model had the controls set-up to operate the existing booster pumps based on hydraulic gradients and pressures at water system nodes. To receive more accurate results of how the City’s water system is functioning, WSB redefined the pump controls to operate the pumps based on water levels within the City’s water towers. - Water Supply: The City’s water supply is provided by three interconnections with the City of Roseville. Since the City’s interconnections do not have automated meter readers to measure real time flows, the capacity of these interconnections are not known. Once the existing model was updated, the pressures and available fire flows from the model were calibrated using actual pressure and hydrant flow tests performed by WSB at various locations of the distribution system (see Figure 1). Seven hydrant flow tests were conducted and the results from the field testing indicated that the static pressures and available fire flows in the model are within 3 and 7 percent of the field testing data, respectively. This level of calibration is considered acceptable for use of the computer model in master planning. WSB MODEL RESULTS Following the calibration and update of the water model, the future water system was evaluated to determine its ability to provide water at adequate domestic pressures and adequate fire flow rates, particularly the extension into the TCAAP site. Pressure standards were based on water system domestic pressure standards as recommended by Ten States Standards. Fire flow standards were based on International Building (IBC) standards, upon which the Minnesota State Building Code is based. In addition, future water system improvements previously recommended by Wenck were reviewed, Ms. Sue Polka June 2, 2017 Page 3 particularly improvements pertaining to the extension into the TCAAP site. The following summarizes the WSB modeling results: - Booster Station Pumps: The existing booster station has two pumps, each with a nominal capacity of 1,500 gallons per minute (gpm). The proposed west side booster station was sized to meet the future maximum day demands in the north pressure zone under the assumption that only one pump at each station operates under normal conditions. Therefore, the west side booster station was modeled to be identical to the east side station, with one 1,500 gpm pump running and the second pump available as a backup to provide redundancy. - Water Storage: Additional water storage is needed to serve the projected water demands of the City’s north pressure zone. The future average day demands in the north pressure zone are expected to increase to 1.47 million gallons per day (MGD) by 2030, assuming a ten-year build out of the TCAAP site with construction beginning in 2020. The volume of storage required for a water distribution system is determined by examining many variables, including operational needs, fire flow needs, equalization volume and firm supply capacity. Under normal conditions, required minimum fire flow is determined by evaluating the exposure, occupancy, construction materials, and interior sprinkler system flow rates of each individual building. Since this information is not readily available, the recommended minimum fire flow rate for the TCAAP site was conservatively assumed to be 3,500 gpm. This fire flow was approximated based on the Insurance Service Office (ISO) and the American Water Works Association (AWWA) standards and recommendations. The projected calculations used for determining the existing and future storage needs for the City’s north pressure zone are shown in Table 1. Table 1: North Pressure Zone Water Storage Volume Requirements Year 2017 Year 2019 Year 2030 3 Hour Fire 3 Hour Fire 3 Hour Fire A Average Daily Water Use (gpd) 560,000 630,000 1,470,000 B Maximum/Average Day Ratio 3 3 3 C Maximum Day Water Use (gpd) (A x B) 1,680,000 1,890,00 4,410,000 D Maximum Day Water Use in gpm 1,167 1,313 3,063 E Firm Pumping Supply Capacity in gpm 1,500 4,500 4,500 F ISO Design Fire Fighting Rate in gpm 3,500 3,500 3,500 G Fire Fighting Duration in Hours 3 3 3 H Design Fire Fighting Volume in gal (F x G x 60min/hour) 630,000 630,000 630,000 I Total Coincident Demand in gpm (D + F) 4,667 4,813 6,563 J Required Draft from Storage in gpm (I - E) 3,167 313 2,063 K Adjusted Fire Fighting Storage in gal (G x 60 min/hr x J) 570,060 56,000 371,000 L Equalization Storage in gal/day (C x 25%) 420,000 472,500 1,102,500 M Total Storage Need in gal (K + L) 990,060 528,500 1,473,500 N Existing Storage Capacity in gal 500,000 500,000 500,000 O Additional Storage Capacity Needed in gal (M – N) 490,060 28,500 973,500 Ms. Sue Polka June 2, 2017 Page 4 The total projected calculated storage need for the future North Pressure Zone, including the proposed TCAAP development, is approximately 1.5 MG. Adding 1.0 MG of additional storage capacity is needed to meet this requirement. The existing storage capacity of the North pressure zone is significantly less (approximately 500,000 gallons) than recommended even without the demands from TCAAP development included. In fact, the existing storage capacity is not even sufficient to supply the Year 2017 average day demand of the North pressure zone. After the proposed west side booster station is constructed, the firm supply pumping capacity to the North pressure zone will increase to 4,500 gallons per minute (one pump out of service) and the storage deficit will be decreased to approximately 30,000 gallons in 2019 and increase to approximately 1.0 MG with full development of the TCAAP site. - Water Pressures: The modeling results for maximum day static pressures on the distribution system are depicted with pressure contours in Figure 2. The future system pressures for the maximum day demand range from 48 psi at the high elevations to approximately 104 psi in the low-lying areas. In Ten State Standards, it is recommended that the normal working pressure in the distribution system be approximately 60 to 80 psi, and not less than 35 psi in any location. During emergency conditions, such as high fire demands, pressure should remain above 20 psi. The current and future system pressures are within the margins of industry standard at most locations. The highest pressures in the system occur at the lowest lying areas near Rice Creek in the TCAAP site and Round Lake, at approximately 100 psi. While this pressure exceeds the maximum recommended pressure, creating a separate pressure zones in these small areas would require separate individual pressure zones to be created with pressure reducing valves to reduce the pressures to below 80 psi as recommended by Ten States Standards and the Minnesota Plumbing Code. Therefore, individual pressure reducing valves on individual buildings may be preferred by the City. - Available Instantaneous Fire Flow: According to the American Water Works Association (AWWA), the minimum fire flow available at any given point in a system should not be less than 500 gpm at a residential pressure of 20 psi. For commercial and industrial buildings, the needed fire flow varies considerably, and are based on several characteristics of individual buildings as previously mentioned above. The computed available fire flows for the current distribution system are represented in Figure 3. They are shown as fire flow contours in gpm, and represent the available fire flows at a residual pressure of 20 psi during a maximum day demand. The required fire flows in a residential area are usually less than1,500 gpm and in a commercial or industrial areas are 3,500 gpm or higher. The available fire flows throughout the north pressure zone appear to meet the minimum recommended flows for the TCAAP site. It can be seen in Figure 3 that the TCAAP site can be connected to the existing north pressure zone from the south (across Highway 96 at the Spine Road) and from the west (across U.S. Highway 10) with a 12-inch diameter main. - System Improvements: Additionally, an extended period simulation (EPS) was conducted using the updated model to analyze system operations during maximum day demands. The primary purpose of this simulation was to check for cumulative system imbalances between the existing North Tower and the proposed TCAAP tower in the north pressure zone since these imbalances are not observed with a steady state model. A 24-hour period was simulated with maximum day conditions to view the interaction between the existing North Tower and the proposed TCAAP tower. Following the simulation, it was concluded that to maintain balanced water levels within the existing North tower and the proposed TCAAP tower an altitude valve will be required at the North tower. This valve will prevent the North water tower from overfilling and allow the proposed TCAAP water tower to be filled to its full capacity. Ms. Sue Polka June 2, 2017 Page 5 RECOMMENDATIONS - Storage: The north pressure zone currently needs approximately 500,000 gallons of additional storage at this time to supply a 3 hour fire demand during a maximum day demand. The existing storage capacity is not even adequate to supply the average day demand of the north pressure zone. The projected storage capacity needed for the future north pressure zone system with full development of the TCAAP site is approximately 1.5 million gallons. This will require approximately one million gallons of additional storage capacity to be constructed in the north pressure zone. The completion of a one million gallon elevated storage tank is recommended by 2019 according to the water storage calculations presented in Table 1. A 1 MG water tower usually requires approximately 2 years to design, bid, and construct. Therefore, the City should begin the planning process for the proposed water tower as soon as possible. - Booster Station: Currently, the existing east side booster station’s firm capacity exceeds the north pressure zone’s maximum daily demands, indicating that the existing water system is adequately sized for the current system demands. With the projected growth and development of the TCAAP site, an additional west side booster station will be required to meet the future projected demands of the North pressure zone. The booster station should be designed, bid, and constructed in conjunction with the proposed TCAAP water tower, if possible, since both of these improvements are needed to serve the proposed development. A second booster station is also recommended to provide redundancy for the existing booster station. - Water Distribution System: The existing North and South pressure zone water distribution systems were modeled in addition to the future North pressure zone water distribution system. Modeling results indicate that the existing water system has the capacity to meet normal operational water demands and fire flows throughout the service area. For future development, the modeling results depict that expansion of the existing system in the north pressure zone will require at least two connections to the south pressure zone to serve the proposed TCAAP site. Two 12-inch connections will be required to meet projected water demands and provide adequate fire flows. The modeling results also indicate that an altitude valve will be required for the existing North Tower following the construction of the proposed TCAAP Tower. The proposed improvements are shown on Figure 4. G!5 G!5 G!5 G!5 G!5 G!5 G!5 G!5 G!5 G!5 G!5 G!5 G!5 G!5 Test 6 Test 7 Test 2 Test 5 Test 4 Test 3 Test 1 90 7 0 80 60 10 0 50 6 0 7 0 1 0 0 80 80 90 80 5 0 60 6 0 6 0 60 70 1 0 0 70 60 80 60 9 0 70 6 0 50 Max Day Pressu <50 !® 5 !® !®5 5 Existing Boos 5 West Side Bo !®North Tower !®South Tower Page 1 of 5 Technical Memorandum To: Sue Polka, PE Public Works Director/City Engineer From: Brian Weiss, PE AE2S Re: Water Model Review Arden Hills Water Distribution System Date: March 9, 2018 Purpose of Hydraulic Analysis This technical memorandum documents the review of system analysis using the existing Arden Hills hydraulic model in conjunction the Roseville hydraulic model. The two hydraulic models were combined during construction and calibration of the Roseville hydraulic model. The Roseville system and the south pressure zone of the Arden Hills system are integral with each other as water can flow both directions between the connections within each of the systems. The primary tasks related to this review are the following: 1. Evaluate benefits of installing a trunk water main in Old Snelling Avenue North between County Road E2 and County Road E. 2. Determine preferred timing of a new booster station installation in the vicinity of Old Snelling Avenue North and Interstate 694 to support planned development of the TCAAP project. 3. Determine preferred timing to provide additional water storage (i.e., a new water tower) in the north system to support planned development of the TCAAP project. 4. Prepare a technical memorandum of findings and recommendations. Basis of Analysis The water demands used in the analysis are presented in the following Table 1. The future demands include an allocation of 0.75 MGD average day demand for the TCAAP development. Technical Memorandum Hydraulic Model Review March 9, 2018 Page 2 of 5 Table 1: Water System Demands Design Parameters Demand Scenario Current Scenario Future Scenario Maximum Day Demand based on Current Population Maximum Day Demand based on projected future population Population served 9,870 people 13,500 people Average Day Demand per capita 123.0 gpcd 123.0 gpcd Average to Maximum Day Peaking Factor 3.00 3.00 Average Day Demand 1.21 MGD 2.41 MGD Maximum Day Demand 3.64 MGD 7.23 MGD x Extended Period Simulation (EPS) over 24 hour period repeated five days x Provide available fire flow of 1,500 gpm for residential and 3,500 gpm for commercial/ multi-family Evaluation Results Scenario 1: Existing System – No Improvements other than TCAAP Water Main Evaluation of the existing system to determine pressures and available fire flow to the TCAAP Area. The analysis was completed with the following improvements and demand conditions: 1. Water main improvements within the TCAAP Area. 2. Minimal water demands were assumed during the initial growth of the TCAAP area. x Pressure Analysis – Average pressures shown in Figure 1A - Adequate pressures were maintained within the system. x Fire Flow Analysis – Available fire flow at 20 psi residual shown in Figure 1B. - Available fire flows within the TCAAP area were at least at a desired level of 4,000 gpm. x Water storage analysis - Tank levels in Figure 1C shows that system does not have adequate capacity to fill the Arden Hill South Water Tower greater than 60% during maximum day demands. Technical Memorandum Hydraulic Model Review March 9, 2018 Page 3 of 5 Scenario 1A: Improvements for increasing storage levels within Arden Hill South Tower The analysis was completed with the following improvements: 1. Improvements listed under Scenario 1. 2. Implementation of tower level controls at the Roseville Water Tower. 3. Additional 16-inch water main along Hamline from Josephine to Snelling. x Water storage analysis - Tank levels in Figure 1D show improved storage levels within the South Water Tower to maintain a minimum level of approximately 50% capacity to allow for fire and emergency storage. - Based on these system improvements, analysis was performed to determine the capacity of system storage for fire demands. As shown in Figure 1E, the system was able to provide capacity for a 3,500 gpm fire over duration of 3 hours. Key items to note: 1. The available fire flow within the TCAAP are is greater than 3,500 gpm without a new water tower. 2. Water storage within the North Zone is adequate to meet a 3,500 gpm fire for 3 hours. 3. City should consider working with Roseville for tower level controls to the Roseville Tank and some trunk water main improvements between the two systems. Scenario 2: Future System – New Pump Station/New Water Tower and TCAAP Water Main (No water main along Snelling Avenue) Evaluation of the future system to determine pressures and available fire flow to the TCAAP Area. The analysis was completed with the following improvements and demand conditions: 1. New Pump Station 2. New Water Tower (1 million gallons) 3. Water main improvements within the TCAAP Area. 4. Implementation of tower level controls at the Roseville Water Tower 5. Additional 16-inch water main along Hamline from Josephine to Snelling. 6. Water demands were based on future planned growth to 2040. Technical Memorandum Hydraulic Model Review March 9, 2018 Page 4 of 5 x Pressure Analysis – Average pressures shown in Figure 2A - Area south of pump station experiences large pressure fluctuations of 20 to 25 psi. This is an indication of inadequate capacity within the water main feeding the new pump station. - All other areas had adequate pressures. x Fire Flow Analysis – Available fire flow at 20 psi residual shown in Figure 2B. - Available fire flow south of the new pump station was greatly reduced when the pump station was operational. - Available fire flows in the TCAAP area were at least 8,000 gpm or greater. Key items to note: 1. Results showed a 20 to 25 psi pressure drop with running one pump at the new pump station to the area upstream of the pump station. This is a significant and noticeable pressure drop due to the headloss and capacity deficiency in the existing water main feeding the new pump station. 2. Fire flow capacity upstream of the pump station was also greatly reduced when the pump station was operational. Scenario 2A: Future System – New Pump Station/New Water Tower and TCAAP Water Main with the addition of 12-inch Water Main along Snelling Avenue Evaluation of the future system to determine pressures and available fire flow to the TCAAP Area. The analysis included the following improvements: 1. Improvements listed under Scenario 2. 2. New 12-inch water main along Snelling Avenue. 3. Water demands were based on future planned growth to 2040. x Pressure Analysis – Average pressures shown in Figure 2C - With the addition of the water main along Snelling Avenue, the pressure fluctuation was reduced to a range of 10 to 15 psi which showed a significant improvement. - All other areas had adequate pressures. x Fire Flow Analysis – Available fire flow at 20 psi residual shown in Figure 2D. - Available fire flow improved to the area south of the new pump station with the addition of the Snelling Avenue water main. - Available fire flows in the TCAAP area were at least 8,000 gpm or greater. Technical Memorandum Hydraulic Model Review March 9, 2018 Page 5 of 5 x Water storage analysis - Tank levels in Figure 2E show improved storage levels within all of the water tower were able to maintain a minimum level of approximately 50% capacity to allow for fire and emergency storage. - As shown in Figure 2F, the system was able to provide capacity for a 5,000 gpm fire over duration of 4 hours. Key items to note: 1. Under maximum day demand conditions, there is adequate capacity in the proposed system to maintain 50% storage within the water towers with the remaining 50% storage available for fire protection and emergency conditions such as pump station outage or main transmission pipeline break. The top 50% of the storage is used to meet peak hour demands and is typically referred to as equalization storage. 2. Analysis showed that the system has the capability to provide 5,000 gpm of fire flow for a duration of 4 hours before the TCAAP water tower would be empty. Conclusions/Recommendations 1. The existing system with only water main improvements to the TCAAP site and minimal initial demands has the ability to provide 3,500 gpm of available fire flow for a duration of 3 hours during maximum day demands. Pressures and available fire flows are adequate to meet initial growth within the TCAAP area allowing the ability to phase in the new pump station and future water tower over the next few years as development occurs. 2. The existing overall storage capacity within the North and South Water Towers is adequate to provide emergency storage in meeting one average day demand. There is adequate capacity to move water between the two storage facilities. 3. Analysis showed that a 12-inch water main along Snelling Avenue was beneficial for maintaining adequate pressures and available fire flow south of the new pump station. The additional capacity is necessary during the operation of the pump station. Along with the improved capacity, the water main will also provide redundancy to this area as well as to the new pump station. 4. Water storage analysis based on future growth showed that a 1.0 million gallon water tower in the TCAAP area would provide adequate water storage for daily demand fluctuations during maximum day demand. The capacity would also provide the ability for fighting a 5,000 gpm fire for a period of 4 hours. 5. It is recommended that additional analysis be completed to determine the most effective capacity improvements within the Arden Hills and Roseville systems to improve the ability to move water from the Roseville system to the Arden Hills South Water Tower. ]^UT[Ú ]^UT 85 97 99 91 8499 98 90 95 7888 96 9191 90 70 78 83 79 80 73 74 70 7371 62 65 76 79 92 69 70 69 98 94 95 75 6567 88 79 71 75 94 85 50 5750 79 68 95 59 63 52 65 67 59 84 79 90 86 52 88 80 80 80 61 70 62 88 90 75 69 65 87 78 59 58 67 68 66 59 71 76 89 76 69 72 71 84 70 71 85 92 61 68 78 65 73 74 85 87 91 50 50 61 62 98 72 61 64 76 78 64 68 50 95 88 74 87 79 70 70 66 64 68 69 67 68 63 69 68 60 60 70 68 77 79 69 70 71 69 6364 63 76 68 63 63 78 78 88 88 70 77 68 7770 54 82 84 75 74 72 65 66 80 88 53 70 69 72 87 84 70 62 88 76 8175 76 82 74 87 76 67 72 6672 69 81 78 67 80 69 68 6867 75 73 80 79 61 61 65 64 77 67 78 85 74 85 65 77 66 74 80 63 75 64 73 64 82 7781 99 75 58 68 70 78 76 60 62 62 6762 67 6766 69 70 68 65 68 73 60 72 73 55 67 70 69 67 65 7475 62 62 96 57 9689 64 60 66 70 65 95 80 72 74 5368 76 56 62 65 62 72 74 53 7574 6566 73 66 6666 74 73 70 64 7676 77 77 64 70 95 95 95 75 71 72 77 90 73 61 61 89 77 77 73 73 97 69 69 91 66 96 98 7978 75 61 54 96 98 64 67 93 74 80 68 64 75 79 61 77 87 7374 93 96 88 79 88 78 63 70 98 99 101 103 101 101 101 100102 105 100 100 100 100 96 F 10 35 W 694 5 1 E E2 S n e l l i n g Ha mli n e Le xi n g to n 3r d2n d 1s t Cl e v e l a n d h th 10th Ne w B r i g h t o n Vi v i a n 14th Re d Fox B ethel Amble Tanglewood h O l d H i g h w a y 1 0 Grey Fox Lake V alent ine Pa r k Ric hm on d Si e m s Lake Venus ay Ha n s o n Colleen Be n Franklin To d d Na n c y C h a t h a m Grant S y l v i a Harriet Mi l t o n D a w n Tur t l e Du n l a p In n ov a t i o n Ol d H i g h w a y 8 Isla nd Lake ang Ox f o rd Can Qu a l i t y Arb Gramsie Glenview Chu r c h i l l Fair v i e w Royal Li s a Tomlyn Ke i t h so n Sh i r l e e We s t R o u n d L a k e Ro y a l H il l s Prior Pi n e T r e e Skiles Oak r i d g e Robinhood Ch a t s w or t h E B H w y 1 0 T o S B H w y 5 1 Avo n SB I3 5 W T o W B I 694 Gl en ar d e n Mo nt e r e y C a r m e l Indian Oaks 9th No tti n g h a m Arden Oaks Cottage We s t o n Target Service No r m a N B I35W To EB I69 4 Boston Scientific Br idge Br i s t o l Ja m es Lexington To WB Hwy 10 SB I 3 5 W T o S B H w y 1 0 Banyan Merc ury We st v i e w W e s t cl i f f An d e r s on EB I 69 4 T o S B H w y 5 1 SB I 3 5 W T o W B H w y 9 6 5t h S t N W T o S B I 3 5 W Co n n e l l y Lexington Ave To EB I694 NB I 3 5 W T o C o u n t y R o a d 1 0 W i l s h i r e A m b l e Sn e l l i n g Gramsie Ch u r c h i l l Cannon Arbogast E 51 35 W Gra Mi l t o n 1s t Ch a t s w o r t h We s t v i e w 2n d Ch a t s w orth Milt o n Ch a t s w o r t h 694 2n d Harriet 3r d 3r d Colleen Ox f o r d Fa i r v i e w 1s t Ox f o r d V i v i a n N a n c y Ch u r c h i ll Roseville Minimal Demands within TCAAP Area as assumed minimal initial development ]^UT[Ú ]^UT 668 671 611 562 669 484 587 640 645 582 552 578 594 663 773 3,6764,399 3,828 3,656 2,803 4,471 4,6944,6474,591 4,353 , 4,5374,320 2,738 4,2654,468 6,909 3,931 4,643 4,452 4,2013,938 4,692 4,671 4,588 4,498 3,849 4,415 4,643 4,679 4,140 4,394 4,655 3,074 4,404 6,239 6,813 6,496 4 062 4,636 3,796 7,797 7,471 3,108 2,6454,511 4,335 4,648 5,720 7,997 3,814 3,161 6,852 6,551 7,561 2,334 4,308 4,638 3,827 4,135 4,100 4,641 3,738 2,911 2,097 6,775 5,090 4,561 4,258 4,378 3,020 2,416 2,079 6,715 2,209 2,731 4,522 1,959 1,515 2,474 4,510 4,319 3,702 3,146 3,601 4,413 4,047 5,863 2,932 4,796 3,476 1,750 2,477 2,985 4,207 7,875 2,817 4,453 4,784 3,514 4,218 4,470 3,121 2,943 4,433 3,557 4,342 6,595 6,327 6,710 3,626 6,573 7,033 7,116 3,629 1,662 1,699 2,9143,607 3,603 4,868 4,755 2,844 6,910 2 670 2,716 2,505 6,8636,953 2,124 7,194 3,258 2,115 5,1336,611 2,636 3,166 2,395 6,923 1,942 2,423 2,262 1,765 1,0272,243 1,355 2,646 1,152 3,747 1,095 4,407 1,590 2,2307,696 2,962 3,429 7,600 2,493 2,759 1,245 3,985 2,993 1,075 2,378 1,304 6,306 6,361 3,903 1,594 1,343 1,156 3,109 6,443 7,500 2,180 3,259 1,257 1,283 3,415 7,443 3,453 1,848 4,482 4,217 2,632 3,685 4,799 3,1001,756 2,351 2,176 1,829 2,287 1,978 3,992 2,758 1,689 1,755 2,642 2,148 2,296 3,529 3,837 2,388 1,252 1,516 2,256 1,750 2,2743,151 6,200 2,319 1,666 1,505 1,4531,709 2,318 2,783 3,465 4,072 2,154 2,165 1,489 3,810 4,019 2,468 3,799 1,707 2,049 3,851 4,837 3,168 1,371 1,136 1,763 4,548 4,028 5,771 5,538 2,000 2,9951,981 4,1894,574 2,845 3,265 3,677 4,487 7,501 5,252 2,372 6,707 6,296 4,662 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000> 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 >8000 96 F 10 35 W 694 5 1 E E2 S n e l l i n g Ha mli n e Le xi n g to n 3r d 2n d 1s t Cl e v e l a n d h th 10th Ne w B r i g h t o n Vi v i a n 14th Re d Fox B ethel Amble Tanglewood h O l d H i g h w a y 1 0 G r e y F o x Pa r k Ric hm on d Si e m s ay Ha n s o n Colleen Be n Franklin To d d Na n c y C h a t h a m S y l v i a Harriet Mi l t o n D a w n Tur t l e Du n l a p In n ov a t i o n Ol d H i g h w a y 8 Isla nd Lake ang Ox f o rd Can Qu a l i t y Arb Gramsie Chu rch i l l Royal Li s a Tomlyn Ke i t h so n Karth Lake Sh i r l e e We s t R o u n d L a k e Prior Pi n e T r e e S k i l e s Oak r i d g e Robinhood Ch a t s w or t h E B H w y 1 0 T o S B H w y 5 1 Avo n SB I3 5 W T o W B I 694 Glen ar d e n Mo nt e r e y C a r m e l E B I 6 9 4 T o S B I 3 5 W 9th No tti n g h a m Arden Oaks Cottage We s to n Target Service No r m a N B I35W To EB I69 4 Br idge Br i s t o l Eide Lexington To WB Hwy 10 SB I 3 5 W T o S B H w y 1 0 Banyan Merc ury De l l v i e w We st v i e w W e s t cl i f f An d e r s on SB I 3 5 W T o W B H w y 9 6 5t h S t N W T o S B I 3 5 W Lexington Ave To EB I694 NB I 3 5 W T o C o u n t y R o a d 1 0 W i l s h i r e 35 W Cannon 694 Arbogast Gra E We s t v i e w Ha m li n e Ox f o r d Milt o n Ch a t s w o r t h 1s t 2n d A m b l e V i v i a n Ch a t s w o r t h N a n c y 51 1s t Ch u r c h i ll Harriet Mi l t o n 3r d 3r d Ch u r c h i l l 2n d Ox f o r d Sn e l l i n g Ch a t s w orth 20" Water Main 16" Water Main 12" Water Main 10" Water Main 8" Water Main 6" Water Main 4" Water Main Future System 16" Water Ma 12" Water Ma 10" Water Ma 8" Water Main Minimal Demands within TCAAP Area as assumed minimal initial development Ex i s t i n g S y s t e m – M a x i m u m D a y D e m a n d s • No I m p r o v e m e n t s Fi g u r e 1 C Ex i s t i n g S y s t e m – M a x i m u m D a y D e m a n d s • To w e r L e v e l C o n t r o l s a t t h e R o s e v i l l e W a t e r T o w e r • Ad d i t i o n a l 1 6 i n c h W a t e r M a i n a l o n g H a m l i n e f r o m J o s e p h i n e t o S n e l l i n g Fi g u r e 1 D Ex i s t i n g S y s t e m – M a x i m u m D a y D e m a n d s – 3 , 5 0 0 gp m F i r e f o r 3 h o u r s l o c a t e d i n t h e T C A A P A r e a • To w e r L e v e l C o n t r o l s a t t h e R o s e v i l l e W a t e r T o w e r • Ad d i t i o n a l 1 6 i n c h W a t e r M a i n a l o n g H a m l i n e f r o m J o s e p h i n e t o S n e l l i n g Fi g u r e 1 E ]^UT[Ú ]^UT ]^UT [Ú 98 99 99 9598 98 98 88 8197 96 97 97 88 93 7685 94 8989 88 69 76 81 72 72 69 71 70 59 65 52 61 90 63 64 63 98 92 95 69 6467 69 58 69 73 93 79 48 5448 73 66 95 58 61 50 64 67 58 82 78 69 66 50 68 79 60 59 60 66 60 86 88 74 65 62 68 54 58 56 45 66 63 57 59 64 87 74 68 70 69 78 69 69 79 90 59 67 76 63 72 73 79 87 92 48 48 58 59 98 68 59 62 73 75 63 66 48 94 87 73 86 77 68 68 64 63 66 68 65 67 62 66 66 57 57 69 66 73 75 67 68 68 66 5960 60 74 66 62 62 76 76 68 68 65 75 67 7464 51 76 61 53 70 67 64 64 78 87 50 63 67 70 64 57 67 59 65 64 5852 53 59 53 67 63 64 69 6571 46 77 76 65 77 67 66 6665 72 70 54 54 58 58 63 62 69 45 56 84 73 59 64 54 64 52 57 60 69 61 58 63 81 7679 99 69 55 67 69 75 73 57 59 60 6560 65 6564 67 50 48 62 67 69 58 69 71 53 65 69 65 65 64 5960 60 60 97 54 9790 62 58 64 68 63 95 77 49 51 5166 75 54 60 62 60 70 72 51 6058 4546 50 64 6464 71 69 68 62 7474 74 73 61 69 96 94 95 52 69 70 75 90 71 59 59 88 53 53 47 47 96 67 67 90 62 95 99 7070 52 59 52 94 98 62 64 93 52 57 56 63 70 74 60 73 86 6969 94 96 87 62 82 53 61 64 99 99 103 101 100 102 96 F 10 35 W 694 5 1 E E2 S n e l l i n g Ha mli n e Le xi ng to n 3r d2n d 1s t Cl e v e l a n d h th 10th Ne w B r i g h t o n Vi v i a n 14th Re d Fox B ethel Amble Tanglewood h O l d H i g h w a y 1 0 Grey Fox Lake V alent ine Pa r k Ric h m on d Si e m s Lake Venus Highway Ha n s o n Colleen Be n Franklin To d d Na n c y C h a t h a m Grant S y l v i a Harriet Mi l t o n D a w n Tu r t le Du n l a p In n ov a t i o n Ol d H i g h w a y 8 Isla nd Lake ng Ox f o rd Cann Qu a l i t y Arb Gramsie Glenview Ch u r c h i l l Fair v i e w Royal Li s a Tomlyn Ke i t h so n Shir l ee We s t R o u n d L a k e Ro y a l H il l s Prior Pi n e T r e e Skiles Oak r i d g e Robinhood Ch a t s w or t h E B H w y 1 0 T o S B H w y 5 1 Av on SB I3 5 W T o W B I 694 Gl en ar d e n Mo n t e r e y C a r m e l Indian Oaks 9th No tt in g h a m Arden Oaks Cottage We s t o n Target Service No r m a N B I35W To EB I69 4 Boston Scientific Br idge Br i s t o l Ja m es Lexington To WB Hwy 10 SB I 3 5 W T o S B H w y 1 0 Banyan Merc ury We st v i e w W e s t cl i f f An d e r so n EB I 69 4 T o S B H w y 5 1 SB I 3 5 W T o W B H w y 9 6 5t h S t N W T o S B I 3 5 W Co n n e l l y Lexington Ave To EB I694 NB I 3 5 W T o C o u n t y R o a d 1 0 W i l s h i r e A m b l e Sn e l l i n g Gramsie Ch u r c h i l l Cannon Arbogast E 51 35 W Gra Mi l t o n 1s t Ch a t s w o r th We s t v i e w 2n d Ch a t s w or t h Milto n Ch a t s w o r t h 694 2n d n Harriet 3r d 3r d Colleen Ox f o r d Fa i r v i e w 1s t Ox f o r d V i v i a n N a n c y Ch u r c h i l l 20 Water Main16" Water Main 12" Water Main 10" Water Main 8" Water Main 6" Water Main 4" Water Main Future System [Ú New Pump Sta ]^UT New Tower 16" Water Main 12" Water Main 10" Water Main 8" Water Main TCAAP Demands ADD = 0.75 MGD MDD = 2.25 MGD Area experiences 20 - 25 psi pressure drop during operation of new pump station. Caused by excessive headloss due to inadequate capacity within water mains. Solution it to provide additional water main improvements to increase capacity to pump station. ]^UT[Ú ]^UT ]^UT [Ú 636710717 712 675 606 905 711932931 528 632 678 590 621 591618 965 948 791 5,831 5,458 6,202 2,705 3,554 6 578 7,564 7,271 6,813 6,045 7,591 3,509 3,061 6,227 5,810 6,156 5,734 5,670 6,013 5,750 6,101 5,745 7,211 5,536 3,165 5,854 3,112 3,296 1,622 2,413 2,126 4,817 3,418 2,807 2,255 2,670 3,625 2,281 1,503 4,351 5,437 5,975 4,083 3,362 3,870 4,474 3,881 8,057 5,315 3,773 2,013 3,081 4,256 7,888 4,922 7,071 6,018 4,780 3,852 4,950 7,586 4,590 3,542 2,839 3,063 5,076 5,697 7,632 4,211 7,393 3,899 7,5077,573 3,588 1,8791,966 1,918 3,130 4,583 3,226 3,217 7 367 1,043 2,9687,442 1,694 2,303 7,744 3,978 1,296 2,409 7,381 3,490 3,638 2,658 2,743 2,183 4,395 2,786 2,587 1,137 1,253 4,338 4,377 3,106 1,2055,991 2,663 7,991 1,152 4,655 2,887 1,378 4,319 3,276 2,753 1,482 7,037 4,825 1,688 2,639 2,533 1,438 1,253 2,999 2,046 1,686 3,829 1,391 1,931 1,346 2,043 4,859 3,166 2,7714,084 1,930 2,733 1,176 1,595 2,174 2,768 2,087 3,113 4,438 2,460 1,692 4,080 5,343 5,628 5,246 2,663 3,417 4,143 5,391 6,098 5,019 1,086 1,355 2,614 3,178 2,716 2,627 4,549 1,587 2,646 2,8623,685 1,276 1,233 3,764 8,094 3,314 2,0712,254 1,711 1,633 2,492 6,936 2,714 2,968 2,847 2,425 6,525 2,460 2,120 5,110 2,958 5,9526,185 3,8707,323 2,352 5,096 1,128 5,773 3,542 2,759 7,469 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 , > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000> 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000> 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 >8000 96 F 10 35 W 694 5 1 E E2 S n e l l i n g Ha m l i n e Le xi ng to n 3r d 2n d 1s t Cl e v e l a n d h th 10th Ne w B r i g h t o n Vi v i a n 14th Red Fox B ethel Amble Tanglewood h O l d H i g h w a y 1 0 Grey Fox Pa r k Ric h m on d Si e m s Lake Venus Floral Oak ay Ha n s o n Colleen Be n Franklin To d d Tho m Na n c y C h a t h a m Grant Noble S y l v i a Harriet Arden Mi l t o n D a w n Tu r t le Du n l a p In n ov a t i o n Isla nd Lake ng Ox f o rd Cann Qu a l i t y Arb G a t e w a y Gramsie Glenview Chu rch i l l Fa i r v i e w Royal Li s a Tomlyn Ke i t h so n Karth Lake Shir l ee We s t R o u n d L a k e Ro y a l H il l s Prior Pi n e T r e e S k i l e s Oak r i d g e Robinhood Ch a t s w or t h Pleasant E B H w y 1 0 T o S B H w y 5 1 Av on SB I3 5 W T o W B I 694 Briark n o l l Gl en ar d e n Mo n t e r e y La k e v i e w C a r m e l Rid g e w oo d E B I 6 9 4 T o S B I 3 5 W Indian Oaks Janet 9th No tt in g h a m W y n r i d g e Arden Oaks Cottage Mccrac k e n Wyncrest We s to n Target Service Nor m a N B I35W To EB I69 4 Cummings Park Be n t o n Ga l e Pa ul Kirkwold W B I 6 9 4 T o N B I 3 5 W Boston Scientific Br idge Hudson Br i s t o l Eide Mcclung Lake s hor e Ja m es Parkshore Lexington To WB Hwy 10 H i g h w a y 1 0 F r o n t a g e Banyan Pa sc a l Merc ury A r d e n V i s t a B r i g h t o n De l l v i ew We st v i e w N o r t h w o o d s W e s t cl i f f An d e r so n NB I 3 5 W T o E B H w y 9 6 W Nursery Hill EB I 694 T o S B H w y 5 1 V a l e n t i n e C o u n t y R o a d 1 0 T o S B I 3 5 W NB Hw y 5 1 T o CO R D E SB I 3 5 W T o W B H w y 9 6 Hu n ter s D 5t h S t N W T o S B I 3 5 W Brueber ry V a l e n t i n e C r e s t WB H w y 1 0 T o W B I 6 9 4 Lexington Ave To EB I694 NB I 3 5 W T o C o u n t y R o a d 1 0 W i l s h i r e N B I 3 5 W Ro lli n g H i l l s Rush L a k e Wa l d o n Wedg ew ood Gra Cannon Sn e l l i n g 51 Amble 35 W Indian Oaks Mi l t o n Ox f o r d Gateway Arbogast Ch u r c h i l l Ch a t s w o r t h Gramsie S n e l l i n g Ol d H i g h w a y 8 K a r t h L a k e Colleen 10 Dawn 3r d E 694 Ch a t s w o r th We s t v i e w Skiles 1s t 2n d Crystal 1s t Harriet Fa i r v i e w Ha m li n e Ox f o r d Milto n Ch a t s w or t h 3r d 2n d V i v i a n N a n c y Cannon A m b l e Ard en Ch u r c h i l l Nor m a 20 Water Main16" Water Main 12" Water Main 10" Water Main 8" Water Main 6" Water Main 4" Water Main Future System [Ú New Pump Sta ]^UT New Tower 16" Water Main 12" Water Main 10" Water Main 8" Water Main TCAAP Demands ADD = 0.75 MGD MDD = 2.25 MGD ]^UT[Ú ]^UT ]^UT [Ú 98 98 98 949799 98 98 88 8196 96 97 97 87 92 7685 93 8888 87 68 75 80 71 71 68 70 69 58 64 60 69 89 63 64 63 98 92 95 69 6466 78 66 69 72 92 78 47 5447 73 66 95 57 61 49 64 66 57 82 77 79 99 76 49 77 78 70 69 60 65 59 86 88 73 64 61 77 62 58 56 54 65 62 56 62 67 87 74 67 69 69 77 69 68 78 90 58 66 76 63 71 72 78 87 92 47 47 57 58 98 67 59 62 72 74 63 66 47 93 86 72 85 77 67 68 64 63 66 67 64 67 61 65 65 56 56 69 66 72 74 67 68 67 65 5859 58 73 65 61 61 76 76 78 78 64 74 66 7264 50 76 69 61 69 66 63 64 78 86 50 63 66 69 73 64 65 57 74 68 6760 62 67 63 77 67 63 68 6470 55 76 75 64 75 66 65 6665 70 69 62 62 56 57 62 62 70 53 64 83 72 67 63 62 63 60 65 59 69 60 64 62 80 7579 99 69 54 66 68 74 72 55 58 59 6459 64 6463 66 59 57 61 66 68 57 69 70 52 65 69 64 64 63 6566 59 60 97 54 9790 62 57 63 68 62 95 75 57 59 5166 74 53 60 61 59 69 71 51 6665 5555 58 63 6363 70 68 67 62 7374 72 72 60 69 96 94 94 60 69 69 75 90 71 58 58 87 61 61 54 54 95 66 66 89 61 95 98 7171 61 58 51 94 98 62 62 93 60 65 60 63 70 73 59 72 85 6869 93 87 69 82 61 61 63 99 99 103 100102 96 F 10 35 W 694 5 1 E E2 S n e l l i n g Ha mli n e Le xi ng to n 3r d2n d 1s t Cl e v e l a n d h th 10th Ne w B r i g h t o n Vi v i a n 14th Re d Fox B ethel Amble Tanglewood h O l d H i g h w a y 1 0 Grey Fox Lake V alent ine Pa r k Ric h m on d Si e m s Lake Venus Highway Ha n s o n Colleen Be n Franklin To d d Na n c y C h a t h a m Grant S y l v i a Harriet Mi l t o n D a w n Tu r t le Du n l a p In n ov a t i o n Ol d H i g h w a y 8 Isla nd Lake ng Ox f o rd Cann Qu a l i t y Arb Gramsie Glenview Ch u r c h i l l Fair v i e w Royal Li s a Tomlyn Ke i t h so n Shir l ee We s t R o u n d L a k e Ro y a l H il l s Prior Pi n e T r e e Skiles Oak r i d g e Robinhood Ch a t s w or t h E B H w y 1 0 T o S B H w y 5 1 Av on SB I3 5 W T o W B I 694 Gl en ar d e n Mo n t e r e y C a r m e l Indian Oaks 9th No tt in g h a m Arden Oaks Cottage We s t o n Target Service No r m a N B I35W To EB I69 4 Boston Scientific Br idge Br i s t o l Ja m es Lexington To WB Hwy 10 SB I 3 5 W T o S B H w y 1 0 Banyan Merc ury We st v i e w W e s t cl i f f An d e r so n EB I 69 4 T o S B H w y 5 1 SB I 3 5 W T o W B H w y 9 6 5t h S t N W T o S B I 3 5 W Co n n e l l y Lexington Ave To EB I694 NB I 3 5 W T o C o u n t y R o a d 1 0 W i l s h i r e A m b l e Sn e l l i n g Gramsie Ch u r c h i l l Cannon Arbogast E 51 35 W Gra Mi l t o n 1s t Ch a t s w o r th We s t v i e w 2n d Ch a t s w or t h Milto n Ch a t s w o r t h 694 2n d n Harriet 3r d 3r d Colleen Ox f o r d Fa i r v i e w 1s t Ox f o r d V i v i a n N a n c y Ch u r c h i l l 20 Water Main16" Water Main 12" Water Main 10" Water Main 8" Water Main 6" Water Main 4" Water Main Future System [Ú New Pump Sta ]^UT New Tower 16" Water Main 12" Water Main 10" Water Main 8" Water Main TCAAP Demands ADD = 0.75 MGD MDD = 2.25 MGD With addition of water main along Snelling, pressure pressure drop was reduced to 10 - 15 psi which is a significant improvement. Additional 12--inch water main along Snelling ]^UT[Ú ]^UT ]^UT [Ú 644717724 719 683 614718 535 640 684 596 628 598625 871 5,839 5,464 6,199 4,033 5,945 6 801 7,858 6,973 6,152 7,548 6,382 5,132 6,253 5,835 6,158 5,735 5,711 6,117 5,820 6,159 5,793 7,170 5,537 6,361 5,933 6,442 6,148 1,632 3,402 2,927 4,784 6,281 4,296 2,236 4,312 3,643 2,295 1,707 6,241 5,465 6,021 4,098 3,373 3,857 4,477 3,887 8,006 5,310 3,757 2,021 3,092 4,321 7,890 4,921 7,594 6,114 4,780 3,836 4,915 7,538 4,620 3,556 2,848 3,074 5,104 5,720 7,584 4,236 7,351 3,886 3,880 3,538 1,8491,935 1,887 3,140 4,606 6,336 6,256 7 692 1,052 2,9377,811 2,063 2,959 3,995 1,306 2,418 7,899 3,503 3,649 3,407 3,909 2,144 6,284 3,2894,343 1,075 3,182 1,479 1,543 6,229 4,331 3,069 1,2106,022 4,201 1,161 4,637 2,894 1,388 4,278 3,239 1,074 4,078 1,459 7,386 4,849 1,757 4,196 3,009 1,447 1,263 1,097 3,014 2,616 1,666 5,832 1,400 1,940 1,352 2,026 4,821 3,182 2,7834,111 1,905 2,745 1,572 2,355 2,179 2,780 2,095 3,124 4,461 2,472 2,024 4,108 5,451 5,629 5,349 2,683 3,426 4,132 5,405 6,209 5,020 1,334 1,699 2,624 3,188 2,728 2,639 4,576 1,594 2,662 3,6215,805 1,837 1,534 3,718 3,271 2,0782,263 1,692 1,616 2,477 7,159 2,727 2,983 2,856 2,441 6,562 2,874 2,639 1,144 5,149 2,977 7,0217,667 3,8947,369 2,315 3,816 5,162 5,801 5,872 4,154 7,799 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 , > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000> 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000> 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 > 8,000 >8000 96 F 10 35 W 694 5 1 E E2 S n e l l i n g Ha m l i n e Le xi ng to n 3r d 2n d 1s t Cl e v e l a n d h th 10th Ne w B r i g h t o n Vi v i a n 14th Red Fox B ethel Amble Tanglewood h O l d H i g h w a y 1 0 Grey Fox Pa r k Ric h m on d Si e m s ay Ha n s o n Colleen Be n Franklin To d d Tho m Na n c y C h a t h a m Grant S y l v i a Harriet Mi l t o n D a w n Tu r t le Du n l a p In n ov a t i o n Ol d H i g h w a y 8 Isla nd Lake ng Ox f o rd Cann Qu a l i t y Arb Gramsie Chu rch i l l Royal Li s a Tomlyn Ke i t h so n Karth Lake Shir l ee We s t R o u n d L a k e Prior Pi n e T r e e S k i l e s Oak r i d g e Robinhood Ch a t s w or t h E B H w y 1 0 T o S B H w y 5 1 Av on SB I3 5 W T o W B I 694 Gl en ar d e n Mo n t e r e y C a r m e l E B I 6 9 4 T o S B I 3 5 W 9th No tt in g h a m Arden Oaks Cottage We s to n Target Service N B I35W To EB I69 4 Boston Scientific Br idge Br i s t o l Lexington To WB Hwy 10 Banyan Merc ury We st v i e w W e s t cl i f f An d e r so n C o u n t y R o a d 1 0 T o S B I 3 5 W SB I 3 5 W T o W B H w y 9 6 5t h S t N W T o S B I 3 5 W Lexington Ave To EB I694 NB I 3 5 W T o C o u n t y R o a d 1 0 W i l s h i r e 1s t ArbogastOx f o r d A m b l e 2n d Ha m li n e Cannon 694 35 W E We s t v i e w Ch a t s w o r t h Ox f o r d Ch u r c h i l l Milto n V i v i a n Ch a t s w or t h N a n c y 1s t Harriet Mi l t o n 3r d 3r d 51 Ch u r c h i l l 2n d Gra Sn e l l i n g Ch a t s w o r th 20 Water Main16" Water Main 12" Water Main 10" Water Main 8" Water Main 6" Water Main 4" Water Main Future System [Ú New Pump Sta ]^UT New Tower 16" Water Main 12" Water Main 10" Water Main 8" Water Main TCAAP Demands ADD = 0.75 MGD MDD = 2.25 MGD Significant improvement of available fire flow based on addition of Snelling water main improvement. Additional 12--inch water main along Snelling Fu t u r e S y s t e m – M a x i m u m D a y D e m a n d s • Ne w P u m p S t a t i o n / N e w 1 . 0 M G W a t e r T o w e r a t TC A A P S i t e / 1 2 - i n c h W a t e r M a i n a l o n g S n e l l i n g • To w e r L e v e l C o n t r o l s a t t h e R o s e v i l l e W a t e r T o w e r • Ad d i t i o n a l 1 6 i n c h W a t e r M a i n a l o n g H a m l i n e f r o m J o s e p h i n e t o S n e l l i n g Fi g u r e 2 E Fu t u r e S y s t e m – M a x i m u m D a y D e m a n d s – 5 , 0 0 0 gp m F i r e f o r 4 h o u r s l o c a t e d i n t h e T C A A P A r e a • Ne w P u m p S t a t i o n / N e w 1 . 0 M G W a t e r T o w e r a t TC A A P S i t e / 1 2 - i n c h W a t e r M a i n a l o n g S n e l l i n g • To w e r L e v e l C o n t r o l s a t t h e R o s e v i l l e W a t e r T o w e r • Ad d i t i o n a l 1 6 i n c h W a t e r M a i n a l o n g H a m l i n e f r o m J o s e p h i n e t o S n e l l i n g Fi g u r e 2 F Page 1 of 2 AGENDA ITEM – 3D MEMORANDUM DATE: May 27, 2025 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator SUBJECT: 75th Anniversary Subcommittee Discussion Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A Council Should Consider Council should discuss and provide direction to staff on the 75th Anniversary Subcommittee. Background At the February 10th Work Session, the City Council discussed next steps for the 75th anniversary planning. Items for discussion include consideration of the following: • Formation of a 75th anniversary subcommittee (i.e. Councilmember(s), residents, business owners, committee/commission members, staff, etc.) that plans and brings forth recommendations to the full City Council • Develop a 75th city logo • Purchase promotional items (i.e. pens, clothing, magnets) • Create a history book • Special commemorative event Direction was given to form a subcommittee that would be open to the public and to generally keep the committee size to less than ten participants. There is an article featured in the April/May newsletter to recruit for volunteers for the subcommittee. Interested volunteers should apply by June 30th to be considered. Details are not yet known for exact time commitment and will largely be dependent upon the committee availability and planning efforts. Staff is looking for direction from the City Council on Council and staff appointments to the 75th Anniversary Subcommittee. Council should discuss interest in one or two Councilmembers being involved with the planning efforts. City staff participation will likely be the City Administrator, Senior Communications Coordinator, and City Clerk/Deputy Clerk. Future appointments of public members to the subcommittee would be brought forward to the City Council for approval similar to Committees/Commissions. Page 2 of 2 Budget Impact Future anniversary planning efforts would need to be budgeted for in 2026. Attachment N/A Page 1 of 2 AGENDA ITEM – 3E MEMORANDUM DATE: May 27, 2025 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator SUBJECT: Twin Cities Gateway Funding Discussion Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A Council Should Consider Council should provide further guidance on how to spend 2025 Twin Cities Gateway Grant monies. Background At the April 14th Work Session, the City Council discussed funding opportunities for the use of the Twin Cities Gateway monies. From this discussion, Mayor Grant was going to verify with the Twin Cities Gateway Visitors Bureau on qualifying expenditures and timing with the several ideas mentioned. Discussion was tabled to a future work session. Mayor Grant will provide a verbal update at this meeting. April 14th Work Session Background For 2025, the City has received $19,375 from the Twin Cities Gateway (TCG) Visitors Bureau; this money comes from a portion of the lodging tax that the City charges its hotels and remits to the Visitors Bureau. Additionally, at the end of the 2024 period there was $807.25 in grant dollars remaining which were carried over to this year for a total dispersal of $20,182.25 in 2025. Last year, the City chose to spend the money on Ribfest and activities put on by Bethel University, both entities received half of the City’s overall grant. I should note that Staff also reached out to Beyond the Yellow Ribbon to see if they had an upcoming qualifying event or activity, but they did not in 2024. Page 2 of 2 The City Council should identify entities or activities it wants to potentially utilize this money for and Staff can begin to work with the organizations to see if there is a viable path forward. Below are the stipulations put forward by TCG regarding how the money can be spent; in short, the money is intended to bring outside visitors into the City. The City agrees to expend the grant funding in compliance with MN Statute 469.10 which states that “gross proceeds from any tax imposed shall be used for the purpose of marketing and promoting the City as a tourist or convention center” and Whereas the Bureau has specified that grant funds must be used for advertising, marketing, and promotional efforts to increase participation, attendance, or visitation to an event, activity, or facility located within the City, and / or to add new activities to enhance existing events, and Whereas the Bureau specifies that advertising, marketing, and promotional efforts for which said grant funding is used must extend beyond the borders, or boundaries of the City. Budget Impact N/A Attachment N/A Page 1 of 1 AGENDA ITEM – 3F MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: May 27, 2025 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator SUBJECT: Rice Creek Commons/TCAAP Discussion Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A For Council Consideration Council will have the opportunity to comment on any TCAAP related items they so choose. Background N/A Budget Impact N/A Attachment N/A Page 1 of 2 AGENDA ITEM – 3G MEMORANDUM DATE: May 27, 2025 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator SUBJECT: Agenda Planning Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A Council Should Consider Council should discuss its next Work Session agenda. Background Per Council’s adopted policy on agenda setting, please find the proposed agenda below for the upcoming meeting. June 9th Work Session • Spring Lake Park Donation Discussion • Utility Rates – Sewer Availability and Water Availability Discussion • RCC/TCAAP Discussion • Agenda Planning (time sensitive) June 23rd Work Session • Planning Case Concept Review • 2026 PMP Feasibility Study • City Council Norms of Behavior Discussion • RCC/TCAAP Discussion (not time sensitive) • Agenda Planning (time sensitive) Attachment A is the list of topics that have yet to be discussed by Council and the 2025 ranking of priority topics as distributed to the Council at the January 13th Work Session. Staff will begin to work the higher priority items into upcoming Work Sessions sooner while putting the lower priority items to later discussions. Please note, this does not reflect all items at Work Sessions as Staff will have necessary items for discussion, such as, budget discussions, concept plan reviews, or Public Works projects that need timely direction. Council may want to discuss if any items Page 2 of 2 need to be added to this list for future discussion or assign a future meeting for some of these items. This would need to be done by a majority consensus of Council. Below is a running list of things Staff brings forward to Work Session annually, in recent years, we have shifted away from bringing some items forward unless needed, such as, the Pavement Management Update from Public Works. Note, these timelines may shift year to year. Most items discussed at Work Sessions are one-off items that may require multiple meetings but are usually not reoccurring. • January o Legislative priorities • February o None • March o Initial guidance on next year’s Public Works projects • April o None • May o None • June o Follow up on next year’s Public Works projects • July o Capital improvement planning • August o Operating budgets • September o Operating budget and levy discussion • October o State of the City (if planned for early following year) • November o City-wide budget and fee schedule o Follow up on next year’s Public Works projects • December o Committee and commission appointments Budget Impact N/A Attachment Attachment A: Council Priorities Attachment B: Agenda Setting Policy Topic for Consideration Likely Responsible Dept.Total Average 75th Anniversary Discussion Planning Admin 14 2.8 Short-term Rental Ordinance CD/Admin 13 2.6 Rental Licensing Program CD/Admin 13 2.6 Code of Conduct Admin 13 2.6 Encroachment Discussion (2025)PW 13 2.6 Trail Prioritization (Lake Jo Blvd versus old Hwy 10)PW/Fin 12 2.4 Committee/Commission Liaison Role Policy Admin 12 2.4 MNTWC CD/Admin 11 2.2 Committee/Commission Goal Setting Admin 10 2 Volunteer Recognition (to Personnel first)Admin 10 2 Committee/Commission Membership Admin 10 2 EDA Membership Discussion CD/Admin 10 2 Building Materials Update/Discussion CD 10 2 Keeping of Ducks and Review Chicken Ordinance CD/Admin 10 2 Buy Nothing Day/Clean Up Day Admin 10 2 Adopt a Park Discussion PW 10 2 Speed Limit Old Snelling PW 9 1.8 Garbage Collection (MV Presentation?)Admin 9 1.8 Climate Action Plan Admin 8 1.6 Door to Door Group Affiliation/Information With City Admin 8 1.6 Energy audit Admin 7 1.4 Porta potties PW 7 1.4 Community Survey Admin 7 1.4 Proclamation Policy Admin 7 1.4 Door to Door Solicitations Admin 7 1.4 EV Fleet Analysis PW 6 1.2 Approved Policy Discussion Admin 6 1.2 2025 Agenda Planning List Added Items: January - March Meeting Schedule Feeding of Geese Rank Topic for Consideration Likely Responsible Department Notes Topic Background 1 Committee/Commission Goal Setting Admin TBD Tool for development of future work plans and tasks. 3 Volunteer Recognition (to Personnel first)Admin TBD Avenues for volunteer recognition and which volunteers. 3 Speed Limit Old Snelling PW TBD Discussion about the 25 mph City speed limit and whether or not it should be increased to a higher speed due to the way Old Snelling functions as a commuter route vs. a typical neighborhood street. 3 Trail Prioritization (Lake Jo Blvd versus old Hwy 10)PW/Fin November 2024 Discussion Assigning priority to trails (i.e. future trail connections, funding, acquiring land for trails, trail maintenance/needs). 4 Climate Action Plan Admin TBD Discussion on development and elements of a climate action plan. 4 Committee/Commission Membership Admin TBD Youth members vs. regular member (i.e. age), resident vs. nonresident, appointment terms. 4 EV Fleet Analysis PW TBD Evaluation of fleet analysis and potential for purchasing EV City vehicles. 5 Energy audit Admin TBD 5 Porta potties PW TBD Discussion on converting all remaining city parks to include ADA accessible bathrooms. 6 EDA Membership Discussion CD/Admin Future EDA meeting Discussion on all members of city council or other appointments as described State Statute. 7 Community Survey Admin TBD Discussion on conducting a community survey - how is the survey conducted, purpose/questions asked, length, etc. Rank Topic for Consideration Likely Responsible Department Notes Topic Background 1 Short-term Rental Ordinance CD/Admin TBD Discussion for creating a short-term rental ordinance. 2 Rental Licensing Program CD/Admin TBD Discussion on rental registration or rental licensing program and rental licensing cap. 4 Building Materials Update/Discussion CD TBD Discussion on exterior building materials - required standards, sustainability. 7 Keeping of Ducks and Review Chicken Ordinance CD/Admin TBD Discussion to allow the keeping of ducks and review of current chickens ordinance. Added items: Proclamation Policy Garbage Collection - Organized Collection Committee/Commission Liaison Role Policy Code of Conduct Door to Door Group Affiliation/Information With City Approved Policy Discussion Buy Nothing Day/Clean Up Day MNTWC Encroachment Discussion (2025) Door to Door Solicitations Adopt a Park Discussion 75th Anniversary Discussion Planning Potential Ordinance Review Items: 2024 Agenda Planning List CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Agenda Setting Policy The purpose of this policy is to establish a method for agenda setting that allows for Council to review and have control over its agendas and decide as a Council how it wants items for consideration to be brought forward. For regular worksession agendas: • Prior to concluding each regularly scheduled worksession, the City Council shall review its next regularly scheduled worksession agenda and direct Staff on any changes. • Should an individual Councilmember want to raise an item for discussion at the next meeting or in the future, they would do so during this review period. The item would need at least one other Councilmember to agree to having the item considered for future discussion, and then Council, by majority, would direct to have it placed on a future agenda or not. • Staff will have flexibility to add or remove items to the worksession as needed to maintain operational efficacy. For regular City Council meeting agendas: • Agendas will be largely Staff driven based on approvals needed for normal operations. • Items coming from the City Council shall first be discussed at a worksession and can direct Staff at said worksession to bring items forward for formal approval if needed. • In rare instances, if a Councilmember brings forward an item that needs approval prior to going to a worksession, they may request the City Administrator add the item to the agenda. The City Administrator shall have the discretion to determine if the issue should be added or not, but Councilmembers will make every effort to having the item first discussed at a worksession. Special meetings and emergency meetings: • Special meetings and emergency meetings may still be called at the discretion of the Mayor or any two Councilmembers, and the members calling the meeting shall set the agenda.