County staff and elected officials discussed plans to expand or reconfigure the Exit 1 wastewater treatment facility and next steps for permitting, operations and financing.
The discussion matters because the county is weighing options that affect where treated wastewater is discharged, how much development the plant can support, and who will pay for upgrades.
County Engineer Todd Rother told the board staff have been testing effluent at the plant and the pond and monitoring creek flows to determine whether the plant can meet the discharge ratio required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “So we’re asking for a continuous discharge,” Rother said, describing a permit that would let the county discharge treated effluent more often and reduce the need to expand the storage pond.
Rother and staff said continuous discharge could eliminate a large pond expansion cost. Rother cited an engineer estimate that an expanded pond could add roughly $1 million to the project; with continuous discharge that figure could be reduced by the pond cost, leaving roughly $1 million in remaining project costs in current planning figures.
Staff described several technical and operational constraints. A wastewater operator identified as Toby has been monitoring flows and would continue to watch creek flow before discharging; Toby is supervising the timing of releases now required by the seasonal permit. Rother said the plant already produces treated effluent and that EPA rules require that discharge be mixed at approximately a 1-to-5 ratio with creek flow before release.
County staff outlined three deployment options under consideration: (1) expand the existing Exit 1 plant, (2) abandon the plant and pump flows to another lagoon or treatment point (which would add pump-station construction and ongoing maintenance), or (3) seek a new EPA permit for continuous discharge and keep a smaller pond as storage. Rother said pumping the discharge to Nettle Lake or to Eden is technically possible but not economical; he said pumping to a different downstream outfall (about 1.5 miles away) is also under study but has not yet been costed.
The group discussed capacity and prospective customers. Rother described a proposed plan to roughly double the plant’s treatment capacity, which staff estimated would accommodate additional commercial users such as two large travel plazas and several smaller businesses. He cautioned the plant’s processing limitations remain a concern — for example, high restaurant waste increases solids that must be hauled off-site under current operations.
County officials discussed financing options. Staff said the county could pursue a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) economic development agreement, redirect some Tax Increment Financing (TIF) receipts to project debt service, or seek other grants. “If we can allocate some of that TIF towards this improvement, I think that would help in this process,” a commissioner said. Commissioners emphasized they do not want to take on new general-obligation debt that would raise rates for residents.
Timing and next steps: staff said they are close to submitting additional water-quality test results to the EPA and expect to assemble the permit application and supporting data in the coming weeks. Rother estimated the permit-modification process could take roughly six months once a formal application is filed. He said staff planned to call the developer who has expressed interest in the Exit 1 area and to coordinate next steps with the developer over the coming months.
No formal vote or binding decision was taken on the site during the meeting; commissioners and staff said they will continue tests, refine cost estimates, and return with a recommended package and funding plan.
Looking ahead, staff said project cost estimates remain preliminary and that any formal financing commitment would follow additional engineering, regulatory approval and a clearer allocation of TIF or other funds.