City weighs treatment options, from conventional filtration to ozonation, and tallies multi‑million estimates

Consultants told the council they evaluated multiple treatment approaches and plant formats and that both conventional filtration and ozonation can meet the city's water‑quality goals for iron and manganese, but with different costs and operational tradeoffs. Kevin Young said conventional systems use aeration plus filtration and chemical oxidants, while ozone is a stronger oxidant that can break up organics that make iron and manganese harder to remove.

"Both systems are able to meet the water quality goals," Young said, but he also warned ozonation increases electrical demand and, when combined with chlorine, raises disinfection‑byproduct potential requiring additional process steps such as ammonia addition to form chloramines. Cost estimates presented included concrete gravity conventional plants (~$16,000,000), package steel options (~$12,600,000 for conventional) and ozone alternatives (up to about $17,500,000 for a concrete gravity ozone plant).

Council members pressed on staffing and operational impacts; Young said the city has class C operators and that plants can run unmanned with daily rounds, though start‑up and backwash operations require hands‑on attention. He noted package (pressure) plants are generally cheaper to build but make it harder to visually inspect process units compared with gravity plants, while concrete gravity facilities have longer service lives but higher upfront costs.