Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Isanti council delays decision on replacing water plant's chlorine generator amid cost and service questions
Summary
Council postponed a decision on replacing the city's on-site chlorine regeneration system after staff and members debated repair costs, vendor reliability and long-term chemical expenses; staff will return with updated quotes and redundancy options.
Isanti City Council on Sept. 3 postponed a decision on replacing the water treatment plant's on-site chlorine regeneration unit until the next meeting so staff can secure updated repair and installation cost estimates and clarify redundancy options.
Staff said the plant's on-site generator (commonly referenced in the discussion by brand names such as MIOX/ClorTech) has required repeated repairs since its 2017 replacement and that the city has been running on a backup, chemical-dosing system for much of the summer. Council members and staff debated three paths: attempt a targeted repair of the existing unit, continue relying on the backup chemical dosing as a long-term option, or purchase a new on-site-generation unit (staff discussed a MicroChlor-style replacement). Staff reported an older memorandum that listed smaller repair figures (a memo line included $8,791 for a diode/repair item) but told the council those memo numbers had not been updated and that new quotes reflect higher costs.
During the discussion staff described lead times (roughly 33–38 weeks for a new MicroChlor-style unit) and lifecycle questions; they also presented a 20-year cost comparison that folded projected chemical purchases into a long-term operating scenario. Staff said chemical purchases over 20 years could total in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars, while replacing and installing a new unit would require a larger upfront capital outlay and months of lead time. Council members raised concerns about vendor service history and warranty support for the existing brand and about the water-quality tradeoffs of running the backup system long-term.
Members voted to postpone so staff could obtain firm, updated repair quotes, clarify installation and redundancy costs (for example additional day tanks and pumps if the backup is run long term), and return with a budget amendment or CIP recommendation. The motion to postpone was made by Councilman Lundin, seconded by Councilman Merrill, and carried by the council.
Next steps: staff will seek updated quotes from vendors, get hard repair estimates for the existing generator, and provide the council with precise installation and lifecycle cost comparisons at the next meeting.
