Memo Mainstreet Reconstruction
-
h
.-
CITY OF HOPKINS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 27, 1991
TO: Honorable Mayor and city council
FROM: James Gessele, Engineering Superintendent
SUBJECT: Mainstreet Reconstruction
Assessment Policies and Bidding Specifications
---------------------------------
The Council needs to address and act on several issues concerning
assessment policies and bidding specifications before an
assessment roll is prepared for the Mainstreet project. These
issues in brief are as follows:
1. Driveway Aprons
. The City has no standards for driveway apron widths,
residential or commercial. Does the Council wish to
establish a standard in this project, and, in addition, wish
to incorporate this standard in assessing property owners
for any excess of the standard apron?
2. Rates of Assessment
Council needs to weigh the merits of establishing a uniform
front footage rate of assessment for segments 3 and 4 vs. a
rate that reflects the unique costs in each segment.
3. Sanitary Sewer arid Water Service Replacement
Staff needs to reaffirm the consensus among Council members
that all wa~er services should be replaced. In addition,
Council shouid establish a policy for sanitary sewer service
replacement. Staff also needs guidance as to when these
service replacement costs should be assessed.
4. Assessment Credits
A question arose from a property owner concerning credit for
past assessments of Mainstreet lighting. The Council needs
to examine the feasibility of incorporating this concept in
the current project assessments.
I
6' Page 2
5. Bidding Specifications
Some questions may arise as to why lighting fixture
specifications in the bid document were written to meet NSP
requirements for Group 3 street lighting. Council will
receive a briefing concerning this issue.
Dick Koppy will be present to lead more detailed discussion of
each issue and his memo is attached.
JG/kmb
M E M 0 RAN DUM
DATE: MARCH 26, 1991
TO: JIM GESSELE, ENGINEERING SUPERINTENDEN~~
FROM: DICK KOPPY, P.E., RLK ASSOCIATES
SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL ITEMS FOR APRIL 2ND MEETI . ASS ~ POLICY
Jim, as per our discussion, I have prepared this memorandum concerning
five assessment related items. If you have any additional questions,
ca 11 me at 476-0114 or on my car phone at 723-4559.
1. Drivewav Apron Assessments:
At the March 19th City Council meeting, the City Council members
reviewed the concept of declaring a special assessment for driveway
aprons along Mainstreet. The Councilmembers seemed uneasy about
introducing this assessment concept since it hasn/t been done on other
street projects in Hopkins in the past. It was pointed out that in
many Cities around the metro area, this is a standard approach
relating to assessing improvement items that have a special benefit to
the specific property. Steve Mielke introduced the idea of assessing
apron area beyond a standard width driveway. Councilmembers seemed to
accept this concept as a workable approach. This assessment method
has two important advantages: 1) Property owners will more equitably
be charged based upon a benefit to their property; and 2) Property
owners wi 11 have an incentive to conform the width of their driveways
to a standard design width adopted by the City.
Related to driveway assessments, the following data is taken from the
current Mainstreet improvement plans.
A) There are 910 square yards of driveway area throughout the
project area effected by this assessment discussion. The cost impact
of constructing these aprons is estimated at $30,030, or approximately
$33.00 per square yard.
B) A standard driveway width for a commercial establishment is 24
feet. Additionally, businesses are generally limited to one driveway
per frontage onto Mainstreet. On the design plans, driveways have
been replaced at the same width they existed before the proposed
construction. The following table indicates the statistics for
driveways if this standard is used:
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
# of Drives Area Prop .wi th Area Total
Drives above 24/ SY more 1 drive SY SY
------ ------ ---- -------- ---- -----
------ ------ -------- -----
Segment 3:
5th Ave to 12th Ave. 7 3 17.9 1 21.1 39.0
Segment 4:
12th Ave to Shady Oak 25 14 58.0 5 116.2 174.2
Total for the Project 32 17 75.9 6 137.3 213.2
IMPACT:
75.9 SY X $33/SY = $2,505
213.2 SY X $33/SY = $7,036 [Segment 3, $1,287] [Segment 4, $5,749]
~~~ -
________________________n______________________ --- - -- - ---
- Jim Gessele Memorandum, City Council Assessment Policy Items....Page 2
2. Assessment Rates for Seoment 3 compared to Seqment 4:
At the March 19th City Council meeting, the Cost Estimate summary of
the project was reviewed. The table shown below has a breakdown of
costs for Segment 3 and Segment 4 included.
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY [Numbers X $1,000]
CITY OF HOPKINS MAINSTREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
SERVI CES FRONT FT
Expenditure Sources T.I.F M.S.A.S UTILITY (assess) (assess) TOTAL SEGMENT 3 SEGMENT 4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-assessable items
TRAFFIC SIGNALS $346 $316 $662 $371 $291
PLAZA $139 $139 $139 --
SUB-TOTAL $485 $316 $801 $510 $291
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessable items
. STREET LIGHTING $400 $129 $130 $659 $318 $341
LANDSCAPE AMENITIES $115 $126 $100 $341 $221 $154
STREET PAVING/C.& G. $0 $779 $240 $1,019 $497 $488
UTILITY $0 $50 $683 $216 $0 $949 $442 $507
COMMUNICATIONS $50 $50 $25 $25
SUB-TOTAL $515 $1,084 $683 $216 $520 $3,018 $1,503 $1,515
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL $1,000 $1 ,400 $683 $216 $520 $3,819 $2,013 $1,806
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assumptions:
1) The Clock tower and Kiosk estimated at $80,000 are not in this
2) The traffic signal controllers estimated at $45,000 are in this estimate.
3) The benches and trash receptacles are in this estimate. Approximately
$35,000 is estimate for the hardware purchases.
4) The banners are in this estimate. Approximately $11,200 are estimated
for the material purchase.
.
----~-~-- ~~-- ----------~------------- - --------------- --- - ----------~----------
------ ------- _______n____ -- -----------------
------- -- - ---- ----------
Jim Gessele Memorandum, Ci ty Counci I Assessment Policy Items....Page 3
,.'
Focussing upon the assessable items, and removing the utility items
(they wi I I be assessed based upon the need to have services
constructed), the following breakdown has been calculated:
SERVICES FRONT FT
Expenditure Sources T.I.F M.S.A.S UTILITY (assess) (assess) TOTAL SEGMENT 3 SEGMENT 4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STREET LIGHTING $400 $129 $130 $659 $318 $341
LANDSCAPE AMENITIES $115 $126 $100 $341 $221 $154
STREET PAVINGlC.& G. $0 $779 $240 $1,019 $497 $4B8
COMMUNICATIONS $50 $50 $25 $25
TOTAL $515 $1,034 $0 $0 $520 $2,069 $1,061 $1,00B
Segment 3 represents 51.3% of the $520,000 assessable cost ($266,760),
while Segment 4 represents 48.7% of the assessable cost ($253,240).
In order to raise the $520,000 of revenue for front foot assessments
the following rates for each segment, based upon the assumptions
listed above, would be appropriate:
Segment 3 3716 front feet; $71.80 per foot of frontage on Mainstreet
plus service replacement costs
Segment 4 5024 front feet; $50.40 per foot of frontage on Mainstreet
plus service replacement costs
Another alternative that could be used to assess the project is shown
below. This method relates the entire project assessable cost to al I
of the front footage adjacent to Mainstreet without distinction to
segments. Segment 3 and 4 would have the same front foot rate.
Segment 3/4: 8740 front feet; $59.50 per foot of Mainstreet frontage
plus service replacement costs
It is important to tie the assessment policy decision to an
identifiable formulae based on the improvement's benefit to the
property.
3. Sanitary Sewer and Water Services to Private Property:
As a part of the Mainstreet improvement project, sanitary sewer and
watermain services to each property wil] be reviewed during the
construction of the improvement. Within the cost estimate budgeted
for the project, $216,000 has been estimated for service replacement
in Segments 3 and 4.
During the month of April, reconnaissance will commence on a I I the
properties along Mainstreet. Meetings will be held with the property
owners on a block by block basis and an examination of each properties
water service and sewer service pipe will be made. Th ere su I t wi 1 I be
------------------ ------- ----
----- -- -- -- --~
Jim Gessele Memorandum, Ci ty Counc i 1 Assessment Policy Items....Page 4
.'
a more meaningful estimate on how many problems with the private
services there are and where the construction should focus. The
strategy is to have the inspection work completed by the assessment
hearing date in order to provide additional information to the
affected property owners on their probable assessment.
A pOlicy needs to be addressed on the utility services whether the
property owner has the authority to bypass improvements on his/her
property or the improvements are mandatory. Attached to this
memorandum is material on the replacement of lead water services.
This data that was used in the 1990 streetscape improvements in New
Prague, Minnesota. Please review this to observe how another
community handled the policy of the replacement of water services.
Note that they allowed the property owner to decide whether or not
they wish to have the work completed. It is interesting to note that
out of 40 opportunities, 39 property owners selected to have the new
water service installed and signed the consent form.
The City of Hopkins does not have an ordinance which requires the work
to be completed. Therefore, the Ci ty Counc i 1 should develop a policy.
There are, at least, two alternatives dealing with the replacement of
the water and sewer services between the main or sewer in the street
and the front of the building structure. Work within the building to
correct a private utility system is not part of this discussion.
Alternative 1) Complete the reconnaissance work and meet with the
property owner to share the findings and cost estimate. Allow him/her
to decide whether to accept the recommendation of the engineer and
proceed with the improvement relating to the water service and/or the
sewer service replacement.
Alternative 2) Complete the reconnaissance and meet with the property
owner to share the findings and cost estimate. If the water service
is 1 ead 1 i ned or lead pipe i t sh all be rep I aced. I If the water service
is in deteriorated condition i t sh all be replaced. If the sewer
service is in deteriorated condition i t sha 1 1 be replaced. Other than
these situations, the property owner can decide whether to proceed
wi th any improvements.
It is important that the City Council decide on a policy of service
replacements because the decision impacts the assessment hearing
process. If the Ci ty Counc i 1 decides it will be mandatory to replace
all services, as discussed in alternative #2, service replacement
costs will be included in the assessment material that will be mailed
to the property owner, unless we know the services do not have to be
replaced or were recently replaced. If the City Council decides on a
"meet and confer" voluntary program, the costs wi 11 not be shown on
the assessment rol Is. In this case, an assessment hearing will be
held following the completion of the construction project in the fall
of 1992.
"
Jim Gessele Memorandum, Ci ty Counc i 1 Assessment Policy Items....Page 5
4. Credit for HiQh level liQht poles and fixtures:
At a past City Council meeting, a property owner requested a credit
for the street light poles and fixtures that are being replaced in the
Mainstreet improvement project. He had been assessed for these poles
and fixtures approximately 20 years ago. A response to the question
of offering a credit can best be explained by offering an analysis of
the costs involved in the new lighting system.
A) There are 73 high level poles and fixtures on Mainstreet between
5th Avenue and Shady Oak Road. During the improvement project, it is
planned to refurbish and reuse 32 of these high level poles and
fixtures in the intersectional areas. The remaining 41 poles and
fixtures will be used by the City as back-ups for other identical
lighting systems along City streets. The electrical engineer and
consultant are not aware of an outside market for the "used lighting
hardware II that will result from the Mainstreet improvement project.
All of the refurbished poles will be sand blasted and repainted. The
fixtures will have new glassware, lamps and bal last assemblies. Old
wiring will be totally replaced during the process.
. B) Within the bid package for the electrical components of the
project, the refurbishment of the 31 poles is the line bid item. Also
in the bid package is an alternate bid for the replacement of the same
high level poles and fixtures with a new comparable lighting system.
Theoretically, the difference between the refurbished price and the
new unit price is the amount of credit that can be given for salvage
value. For example:
0 Estimated cost of a new pole/fixture $2,000
0 Estimated cost of a refurbished pole/fixture $1,550
0 Handling costs, wiring and placement costs are equal
in either case. Therefore, there is no cost difference.
0 Salvage value $ 450
0 Credit mathematics: 65 poles/fixtures (8 pole/fixture
assemblies are in very poor condition and can not be reused)
that could theoretically be reused multiplied by $450 equals
$29,250 divided by 8740 lineal feet of front footage the
project to which the credit can be applied. This yieldS a
theoretical credit of $3.35 per foot of property along
Mainstreet.
At the time the bids are tabulated, these numbers can be made more
firm. The City Council should decide if a credit is advisable based
upon past assessments on Mainstreet properties.
---~~~-~~
---- --- ------- --- --------------
.
.' Jim Gessele Memorandum, Ci ty Counc i 1 Assessment Policy Items....Page 6
5. Street liaht system desian -- NSP ownership/maintenance:
During Fall, 1990, the des i gn of the street light system and NSp/s
involvement was discussed at the Design Review Committee meetings.
NSP offered to design and construct the new lighting system at the
City"s expense. Thereafter, NSP would own the system, charging the
City for the lighting operation on a monthly basis. As a result of
the inability to agree on specific details of the ownership
arrangement, and NSp/s strict position on several design issues,
nothing further was pursued. However, the electrical engineer was
directed to prepare a design which would meet the NSP maintenance
standards. This would give the City the flexibility of having NSP
maintaIn the lighting system at a future date, if so desired.
There are a couple of design standard issues that the consultant would
like to have the CIty CouncIl be aware of prior to the date of the bid
tabulation. Between the date of this report and April 2nd, the
electrical engi neer wi 11 be working with NSP to clarify these issues.
More data wi 11 be available for discussion at the April 2nd City
Counc i 1 meeting.
. 6. Pre-bid meetina with Contractors:
A pre-bid meeting was held in City Hall on March 26th with
approximately 12 contractors in attendance. For your information, a
copy of the Agenda Is attached. The meeting was worthwhile based upon
the exchange of information that took place between the engineers and
the contractors.
.
-~~~- - - -~-- ~-
AGE N D A --- PRE - BID M E E TIN G
MARCH 26, 1991
HOPKINS MAINSTREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
I. INTRODUCTION OF PROJECT DESIGN PERSONNEL: R.KOPPY, PROJECT
MANAGER; FRAN 'HAGEN, PROJECT DESIGN ENGINEER; TIM ERKKILA,
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT; JIM GESSELE, ENGINEERING SUPERINTENDENT
II. OBJECTIVES OF THE PRE-BID MEETING
A. .DESCRIBE PROJECT IN A DETAILED MANNER
B. DISCUSS CONSTRUCTION COORDINATION AND SCHEDULING
C. EXPLAIN BID PROPOSAL EXPECTATIONS AND PRE-AWARD SCHEDULE
D. SPECIFY PERSONNEL TO CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS PRIOR TO 4/12
E. SOLICIT QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, AND INPUT
I I I. OVERVIEW OF PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES
A. UTILITIES AND SERVICES TO BUILDINGS
B. PAVING & CURBING
C. SIDEWALKS, BRICK PAVING
D. TRAFFIC SIGNALS
E. STREET LIGHTING
F. STREET FURNITURE
G. LANDSCAPING
H. BUS PLAZAS
I. PLAZA AT 9TH AND MAINSTREET
IV. EXPLANATION OF EXPECTATIONS DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS
A. SCHEDULE AND WORKING HOURS DISCUSSION
B. PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM REPRESENTING THE OWNER
C. WEEKLY CONTRACTOR COORDINATION MEETINGS
D. BUSINESS AND PROPERTY OWNER COORDINATION AND INTERFACES
V. BID PROPOSAL EXPLANATION -- BIDS OPENED ON APRIL 12, 1991
A. CONTRACTS AVAILABLE FOR BIDDING
B. VENDOR BIDS THAT WILL BE OPENED ON THE SAME BID DATE
C. DECISION PROCESS ON THE DESIGNATION OF THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER
D. BIDDING ADDENDUMS -- EXPECT TWO, SENT BY REGISTERED MAIL
TO PLAN/SPECIFICATION HOLDERS OF RECORD
VI. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF PROJECT FINANCING
A. MSAS FUNDS WILL BE USED ON THE PROJECT; C.WEICHSELBAUM,
MNDOT PROJECT CONTACT
B. PROPERTY OWNER ASSESSMENTS, CHAPTER 429 PROCESS, UP-FRONT
ASSESSMENT HEARING
C. CITY OF HOPKINS WILL REVIEW PAYMENT REQUESTS THE FIRST
TUESDAY OF EACH MONTH; PARTIAL PAYMENT DEADLINES ARE THE
PREVIOUS TUESDAY, THEREFORE PAYMENT QUANTITY CALCULATIONS
WOULD BE THE PREVIOUS SATURDAY TO THE TUESDAY DEADLINE:
1991
1. JULY 27TH QUANTITY CUT-OFF FOR AUGUST 6TH CITY COUNCIL;
2. AUGUST 24TH CUT-OFF FOR SEPTEMBER 3RD CITY COUNCIL MTG;
3. SEPTEMBER 21ST CUT-OFF FOR OCTOBER 1ST CITY COUNCIL;
- ----- ---- ---- -------- --- -
WestWood Professional Services. Inc. '"
, < .
o 14180 Trunk Hwy. 5 o 8525 Edinbrook Crossing
May 23,1990 Eden Prairie. MN 55344 Brooklyn Park. MN 55443
612.937.5150 612-424.8862
FAX 612.937.5822 FAX 612.424.7994
New Prague Property Owner
Re: Replacement of Lead Water Services
Dear Property Owner:
Recent surveys have indicated that your property currently is
served by lead water pipes. While these services are not required
to be replaced, the city recommends replacement because of the
known health risk that is attributable to lead services.
On the following page we have prepared a cost estimate for the
replacement of the service at your property. This estimate
includes all work from Main Street to the front of your structure
to connect the service to your meter. The estimate does not
in..:lude additional footage to bring the new service any fi1rther
than the front of the building. If the meter is located away from
the front of the building there will be an addi tional charge to
complete the work.
This time is an ideal time t.:> complete this task because of the
work that is occurring in the area due to the Main street project.
The Contractor will be disturbing the street, sidewalk a.nd curb and
gutter at a cost to the project rather tha~ to the property owner.
Should the property owner replace the service at a late= date d~e
to lead or line breakage we feel that the costs will be
considerab~e greater.
.Please complete the following page whether you wish the work to be
completed or not.
If you have any questions or comments please feel free to contact
us at your will.
Sin~erely,
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
~iJJ~
Dwight Jelle, P.E.
cc: Jerry Bohnsack, City of New Prague
Enclosure
FN: 11305 22
-------- .~~--_. ~~~ --------~--
I IT111.1l1t;\:>VLGl u'"'t-'''''' .... ....... ~ ..... . .--.... --
-. , 717 s: . d lawar sL p.o. box 9441 minn apolis 55440
0 (612) 62.3-5000 MEMORANDUM
",
TO: All Community Water Systems DATE: February 29, 1988
~ rpfJ
FR0l-1 : Gary L. Engl und, P. E., Chief ...oC.d< -::....
Section of Water Supply and Engineering
SUBJECT: Public Notification for Lead in Drinking Water
As the owner or operator of a community water system in Minnesota, the Minnesota
, Department of Hea)th (MDH) would like to inform you of a Federal rule (40CFR141.34')
recently enacted by the U.S. EPA that requires you to make public notice to the
persons served by your water system of the potential for lead contamination in --
,-
their drinking water. All community water systems must provide this notice even i_
if high lead levels have not been found in tests on their water system. The purpose
of the notice is to alert consumers to the potential for elevated lead levels in
their drinking water due to the use of lead-based solders and lead pipes in their
residences. The notice must be issued by June 19, 1988.
To assist you in making the required notice we have enclosed a sample public notice
for your use, as well as a brief informational sheet that your local contact person
can use to answer some of the more common questions they may receive. If you have
not made other arrangements to provide notice, we encourage you to use the sample
notice we have provided. However, do not modify the sample notice because it con-
tains specific language, required by the Federal rule. Also, please note that the
name and phone number of a local person familiar with your water system must be
provided on the notice.
The manner of notice to persons served by the system must be by one of the following:
1) three newspaper notices (one for each of three consecutive months and the first
no later than June 19, '1988); 2) once by mail notice with the water bill or in
a -separate mailing by June 19, 1988; or 3) once by hand delivery by June 19, 1988.
Please send a copy of the notice your system provides to your consumers along with
the date you issued it and the manner of notice, e.g., newspaper, water bill stuffer,
etc.
As a follow-up to each community water system providing their own individual notice
to their consumers, the MDH will issue a news release to the electronic and print
media throughout the State containing the information found in the enclosed sample
public notice. The news release will be issued just prior to June 19, 1988, and
will indicate that persons served by community water systems should have already
received a notice from their water supplier alerting them to the potential of lead
in their drinking water. The news release issued by the MDH will not relieve com-
munity water systems fro~ their legal responsibility to provide their own notice.
If you have any questions concerning this letter or the enclosed lead public notice,
please contact me at 612/623-5330 or Richard Clark at 612/623-5227.
GLE:RDC:cad ,
End osure
r'
~
an equal opportunity employer
. , Public Notice: Lead in Drinking Water , ~
The purpose of this notice is threefold: first, to address the potential health
. ' effects of lead; second, to indicate possible sources of lead in your drinkinq
water; and third, what you can do to minimize your exposure to lead in your
drinking water if a.lead source is present.
lead has been commonly used in the manufacture of oroducts in our society, .
I
including gasoline, paints, ~att~ries and glass windows, to name a few. L~d i
I
is known to cause health problems if consumed or inhaled. Your local water i
I
system, the Minnesota Department of Health, and United States Environmental I
I
Protection Agency (EPA) are concerned about lead in drinking water. To date, i
no beneficial effects of lead in humans have been found. Because lead accumu- I
lates in the body, the health effects depend upon the level and duration of
exposure to the lead sources. Too much lead in the human body can cause damage
to the brain, nervous system, blood-forming processes, gastro-intestinal systems
and kidneys. The greatest risk, even with short-term exposure, is to young
children and pregnant women. Lead in our environment is a Dublic health issue
about which we should all be concerned.
There are two pathways for lead to enter the body. They are ingestion and
inhalation. One possible source of ingestion of lead is your drinking water.
In 1974, the United States Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
The SDWA requires the U.S. EPA to protect the public health by settin~ drinking
water standards for public water supplies. The EPA and others have determined
that lead is a health concern at certain levels of exposure. The current stand-
a~d set by the U.S. EPA is a maximum of 50 parts. per billion. This standard
will likely be lowered significantly, based on new health information of high
risk groups.
Part of the purpose of this notice is to inform you of the potential adverse
health p.ffects of lead. THIS IS BEING DONE EVEN THOUGH YOUR WATER MAY NOT BE
IN VIOLATION OF THE CURRENT STANDARD.
Lead rarely occurs naturally in drinking water. The principal source of lead
when present in drinking water is from lead-basp.d solders or lead pipe in thp.
plumbing of homes or residences.
From the late 1800's to about 1930, lead was a common material used for water
service pipe and interior plumbing. Sincp. this. time, other materials such as
copper and galvanized steel pipe have been used more extensively in residential
plumnina systems. lead-based solders were commonly used to join 'copper pipe.
SINCE JUNE 1, 1985, THE STATE OF MINNESOTA HAS BANNED THE USE OF LEAD PIPE AND
SOLDERS OR FLUXES CONTAINING MORE THAN 0.2 PERCENT LEAD TO BE USED IN ANY PLUMB-
ING INSTALLATION WHICH CONVEYS A POTABLE WATER SUPPLY.
Lead from pipes an~ lead-based solders enters the drinkinq water through corro-
sion. Water is an exc~llent solvent; therefore, when water stands in the pipes
of a residence for several hours without use, there is a greater potential for
lead to enter the drinking water, if ~ lead source is present.
---------
~
"'Other-factors that may increase the lead levels in household drinking water
incl ude:
Age and condition of household plumbing or water service pi~s.
.
Naturally soft water can be more corrosive; and, therefore, creates the
Dotential for higher lead levels. In general, water in Minnesota tends to
'1" be hard or scale formino.
.
Some home water treatment systems, including home water softeners, may
make the water more corrosive.
Hot water dissolves lead from pipe and lead-based solders more Quickly
than cold water.
IN SUMMARY, LEAD LEVELS IN YOUR DRINKI~G WATER ARE LIKELY TO BE HIGHEST IF:
1. Your home has copper pipes with lead solder joints, or
2. Your home or water system has lea~ pipes and:
a. if water sits in pipes for several hours, or
b. if you have soft or corrosive water, or
c. if the home is less than five years old.
NOTE: Water service pipes and interior potable water distribution piping in
all buildings constructed after June 1, 1985, should not contain lead.
pipes nor should ,lead-based solders have been used in joining copper
. - .
pl pe .
If you are unsure if lead is present in your household plumbing or water service
lines, you should either contact your local water utility or a qualified plumber
to make this determination.
It is not possible to see dissolved lead in drinking water. The only way to
measure the lead level present in your drinking water is to have the water
analyzed by a qualified laboratory. The laboratory will provide you with the
sample bottle and instructions on how to take a water sample.
If you have your water tested and high levels of lead are found, or if you .
believe that you have lead-based materials in your home or water s~rvice, there
are WAYS TO MINIMIZE THE EXPOSURE TO THESE LEAD ~ATERIALS.
0 Do not consume or cook with water that has been in contact with your home's
plumbing for more than a few hours.
8efore using this water for consumption or cooking, "flush~ the cold water
faucet by allowing the water to run until )OU feel a temperature change.
This temperature change should occur in 2-3 minutes. If you suspect or
know that your home'has a lead service pipe or connection, allow the water
to run an additional 15-30 seconds to be sure the service line is "flushedll
also.
~- -- ~ ----- ---.----
Do not cook or drink water from a hot water tap. As previously mentioned,
lead dissolves faster in hot water than cold water. If hot water is needed,
",L use the cold water tap and heat water on the stove.
0 Use only the cold water faucet to prepare baby formula. Always "flush"
the cold water faucet as described above before preoaring any formula.
0 Use only lead-free materials .for any plumbing repair work to be done. THIS
IS ,STATE LAW.
In 1984, the Minnesota Department of Health completed a survey of lead in drink-
ing water in buildings less than three years old. The results of this survey
indicated that the source of lead found in the drinking water was from the
building plumbing systems. The survey also demonstrated that "flushing" the
water tap reduced the lead to le~cls well below the drinking water standard.
The findings of this survey prompted legislation to be enacted in 1985 which
~rohibits the use of lead pipes, lead-based solders or fluxes to be used in
any plumbing installation which conveys a potable water supply.
If you have any questions regarding information contained in this noticet please
contact at The
U.S. EPA has a toll-free hotline number dedicated to the subject of lead in
drink'ing water. The teleohone number is 1-800-425-4791. The. U.S. EPA has
also orepared a brochure on the subject.
-
.
. . . .
, , . , . Lead in Drinking Water I.nformation Sheet
, 'c' ..
"
~:-~. .". Thi~ sheet is provided to assist you in answering questions you may receive
,." from persons served by your water. system as a result of the lead publ ic notifi- -
,- cation.
", '
0 Elevated lead levels in the water are, due to lead-based plumbing materials
used within the home. The water being delivered to a home's service con-
nection does not contain elevated lead levels, and in most systems contains
no detectable levels of lead.
0 If a person is concerned about lead levels within their home, and would
like to have their water tested, they should contact a private lab to' arrange
for testing. Costs for lead testing range from $15-50 per sample. The
Minnesota Department of Health will not be providing any testing services
for individuals.
0 The most practical and effective measure that a homeowner has to reduce
exposure to potential elevated lead levels is to follow the flushing pro-
cedures in the public notice.
0 The requirement for this public notice is based on the passage of a Federal
law. However, in Minnesota the problems associated with lead-based solders -
and lead pipes were identified in 1985 and a State law was enacted pro-
hibiting their use. This 1985 lead prohibition has given water systems
in Minnesota a three-year head start on the rest of the country to correct
lead problems.
0 The most commonly used nonlead-based 'solder consists of 95~ tin and 5% antimony.
Studies have shown that tin and antimony do not leach into water as easily
as lead and, therefore, they do not create the health hazard that lead does.
.
-
,
. '
'x'
< .
" ,
(l,t>~ &'. -, ,,"',. " t.. .
'--. - - ~
--------- ---