Sandy staff seek $14 million from state to advance wastewater repairs and pipeline design; council debates strategy

City staff presented a two‑page legislative request they said was ready for City Day at the Capitol and for meetings with Ways and Means leaders: the city aims to request $14 million from the 2025 legislature, split into $5.5 million for rehabilitation work at the existing wastewater treatment plant and $8.5 million for engineering and design of a pressurized pipeline (the proposed route would connect to an off‑site treatment solution described in city planning materials).

“Neli (staff member) and staff said the city had ‘settled on a $14,000,000 ask broken into 2 parts’ and that meetings with legislative leaders were scheduled for City Day,” Tyler (city staff) told the council. Neli said staff had secured early meetings with the Ways and Means co‑chairs and that a briefing schedule was underway.

The ask and why it matters: staff and consultants described the request as a critical step to unlock additional capacity and to address consent‑decree obligations tied to wastewater treatment. Councilors and staff said the $5.5 million rehab would enable immediate improvements and unlock existing capacity (SDR/ERU references in project planning), and that the $8.5 million would cover engineering to refine the full pipeline cost estimate and connection consequences to neighboring systems.

Council debate: several councilors supported the request in principle but pressed for more information on alternatives. Councilor Laurie raised concerns about the larger $242 million pipeline option previously modelled and urged staff to explore reuse, irrigation or other locally controlled alternatives rather than a large connection to another municipality; other councilors countered that the city has studied multiple alternatives for years and that the Gresham connection has potential economies of scale and could reduce unit cost for residents. Councilors asked for a consolidated briefing documenting all alternatives considered, why some were discarded, and how the $14 million ask fits within a multi‑year funding strategy.

Staff response and next steps: staff told council the $8.5 million request for design would allow the city to refine the project scope and to produce the engineering details necessary to firm up a connection cost with a partner jurisdiction. Staff said some portions of the project already have funding commitments (SRF loans, ARPA funds) but that the additional funds would narrow the affordability gap and support negotiations. Council directed staff to proceed with City Day meetings next week while preparing a short briefing packet summarizing alternatives analysis for council review, and to bring back refined design‑phase budgets and potential grant sources.

Ending: Councilors agreed to take the city day meetings but requested a follow‑up workshop to consolidate technical materials and to make sure council has a shared briefing before the next formal decision points during the budget and grant cycles.