Mound officials outline $30M funding gap for water treatment; council asks staff for utility rate study

Good evening, Mayor and council. I'm Brian Simmons, senior city engineer. The purpose is to provide the residents of Mound with safe and affordable drinking water, Brian Simmons told the council, as he opened a lengthy update on the city's response to elevated manganese and other water-quality issues.

The update summarized work that began after notices about manganese were sent in 2021 and the subsequent “do not drink” public-health guidance. Simmons said the city and consultants have concluded the practical solution is a filtration water-treatment plant sited near Evergreen (Sorbo) Park and upgrades to trunk mains so treated water can be distributed across the system.

Why it matters: Mound currently lacks a municipal treatment plant, and residents and businesses continue to receive water with iron and manganese that can cause discoloration, clog plumbing fixtures and, at certain concentrations, lead to health guidance from state and federal authorities. Simmons said removing manganese requires filtration; a plant would also remove oxidized iron, bacteria and other particulates that contribute to the longstanding complaints.

Funding and timeline: Simmons told the council the project cost estimate has increased over time from earlier figures; the current planning-level target is in the area of $42 million, and the city has secured about $10.3 million in state appropriations and roughly $1 million in federal appropriations. “That still leaves us with the math be-mathin', a $30,000,000 gap,” he said. He described ongoing work on trunk mains and a proposed new well behind Sorbo Park and said cultural-resources reviews tied to federal/state funding have delayed geotechnical work needed to finish well design.

Options and likely household impact: The Public Facilities Authority (PFA) low-interest loan program and other subsidized programs are possible financing sources, Simmons said, and the council heard a high‑level example of the potential household impact if the city borrowed to close the gap. Using conservative assumptions and a 20‑year repayment period, staff estimated the water portion of an average residential utility bill (based on roughly a 14,000‑gallon billing profile) could increase by about $44–$47 per month. Simmons and staff stressed that figure is an early, high‑level estimate and not a finalized rate-study result.

State and federal roles: Simmons said the Minnesota Department of Health and the Environmental Protection Agency provide health‑based guidance that prompted the earlier notifications and the current urgency; the city has pursued ranking on the state IUP/PPL (Intended Use Plan / Project Priority List) for further grants and is working with the PFA on loan and reimbursement mechanics. He also noted federal requirements tied to certain appropriations, including prevailing‑wage and historic‑resources review, that have added complexity and time.

Public questions and expert comment: Council members and residents asked about health evidence, filtration versus softening, and how two nearby houses can experience different water quality. Simmons and a resident who said he works in water treatment, Dan Nessler, described how flow direction, settled sediment in distribution pipes and the presence or absence of home softeners or point‑of‑use systems can produce widely different tap results from block to block.

Council direction: After extensive discussion and public comment, the council voted to direct staff to obtain a proposal for a utility‑rate study to evaluate how to pay for the remainder of the project and to model options (for example, water‑rate increases, assessments, bonding or other mixes). The motion also directed staff to work with municipal financial advisers; council members asked staff to pursue Ehlers as a recommended adviser because of existing institutional knowledge. The motion passed on an aye vote.

What the study will do next: City staff said the study would provide a more granular picture of rate impacts under multiple repayment scenarios and would be needed by the PFA and other lenders if Mound seeks subsidized loans. Simmons warned that even with a decision to move forward, the fastest realistic schedule for design, permitting and construction would be measured in years; staff estimated roughly a three‑year horizon before treated water would be flowing if the project moves promptly and funding is secured.

Public comment highlights: Residents urged the council to keep pressing state and federal elected officials for funding, to explore shared solutions with neighboring cities, and to consider packaging treatment that also addresses softening and other homeowner costs. A number of residents asked for clear communications and noted they are tired of buying bottled water or using point‑of‑use systems.

Next steps and context: Simmons said trunk mains work and site preparation already under way will benefit the system whether the city ultimately builds a treatment plant or not, and the city continues to pursue state and federal funding. The council's request for a utility‑rate study was the first formal direction captured at the meeting toward a locally financed option.

Ending: The presentation and the council's request for a rate study set the next set of public and technical steps — a rate‑study procurement, further federal/state clearance for well siting and continued trunk‑main and well work — and signaled the council's desire to present more detailed options to residents before any final financing decision.