Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wastewater Regionalization topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultant updates council on sewer regionalization alternatives, recommends next technical steps
Summary
SEH consultant Matt Schall presented updated alternatives and recommended re‑evaluating population and effluent data, requesting updated DEQ limits, and identifying potential land application sites if scope changes.
The council heard an update on the sewer regionalization project from Matt Schall of SEH, who presented a memorandum reassessing alternatives first studied in 2018–2022 and projecting 2025 probable costs.
Schall summarized the five broad alternatives the consultant reviewed: do nothing, stabilization, pond expansion, regionalization (the previously selected approach), conversion to an irrigated land application system, and construction of a discharge mechanical treatment plant. He said the memorandum updates costs with recent geotechnical information and recommended several next steps to support design decisions.
“We took a look at the alternatives from that and then did some projections for what the current, 2025 cost would be,” Schall said, noting new geotechnical exploration and a need to request updated preliminary effluent limits from the Department of Environmental Quality. He also advised new flow monitoring and sampling to confirm current influent/effluent characteristics and suggested identifying potential land application sites if the city needs to dispose of solids under a changed scope.
Council members discussed whether the city could tie into a nearby development’s piping (Apple Creek) and whether that would require crossing railroad infrastructure; Schall said earlier design work considered that option but that the regional partner did not favor “double‑pumping” because of energy and pumping‑station concerns. Schall said the originally planned regionalization had an expected two‑year construction and startup sequence, but that switching alternatives could change timelines and require updated facility reports.
No formal council action was taken; staff and consultants will supply the memorandum to the council packet and pursue updated effluent limits, revised flow monitoring, and identification of land‑application sites as directed.
