Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Remote inspection raises questions about reservoir coating; council weighs inspection and repair costs
Summary
Video from a remote vehicle showed possible paint flaking and small corrosion spots inside Reservoir 1; staff outlined options ranging from a $5,000 ROV follow‑up to diver inspections (~$5k–$10k) and full draining/coating projects (potentially $250,000–$1.5M depending on scope).
Staff presented results from a remote inspection of Reservoir 1 and said video captured flakes on the floor and pinholes or small corrosion spots on internal ladders and fittings. The presenter explained the floor imagery was ambiguous: "Best case scenario is that was a paint flaking off and it was some other... manganese in your system is precipitated"; "Worst case scenario is that was a paint flaking off and then the metal underneath is as is trusted," he said, and added the video alone cannot resolve which is correct.
The presenter outlined three response options: (1) drain the tank and perform a full interior inspection and recoating (most expensive, complex and time‑consuming); (2) use divers to inspect the floor and coating more closely (mid cost, historically $5k–$10k); or (3) perform a focused ROV/ROV follow‑up to get clearer video (least expensive, ~ $5,000). He warned that a full interior recoating could range from roughly $250,000 to as much as $1.5 million depending on scale and scope. Council asked whether the tank had been drained before; staff said it has not been drained since it went online around 2018 and suggested reviewing past inspection reports for context.
Council directed staff to get estimates and to consider a diver inspection or ROV follow-up as near‑term steps while exploring funding options, including whether county ARPA funds could be repurposed to help pay for any urgent work.
