Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wastewater Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Engineering review: Cross Plains wastewater plant nearing design limits; tanks likely adequate but equipment upgrades needed
Summary
Engineers told the Village of Cross Plains board that the municipal wastewater treatment plant is operating near its design limits on flow and organics and that mechanical and electrical upgrades will be needed even though the existing tanks can likely hold projected wastewater volumes.
Engineers presented a preliminary facility plan to the Village of Cross Plains board on June 23, saying the village’s wastewater treatment plant is approaching the limits identified in its original design and that targeted upgrades will be needed to keep pace with new development.
The consultant said the plant was designed for roughly 600,000 gallons per day and is now operating near that rated capacity on average-day and biochemical-oxygen-demand measures. The presenter said clear water infiltration and inflow (I/I) is substantial: roughly 90,000 gallons on a dry day and spikes above 750,000 gallons on some maximum-day events. Those flows, the consultant said, drive near-term needs for larger pumps and screening even though the concrete “tankage” — the oxidation ditch and clarifiers — appears large enough to handle projected growth.
The consultant told trustees that projected population in the village in 20 years ranges from about 4,600 under regional projections to roughly 5,300–5,500 if proposed developments proceed. Under either projection, the consultant said the existing basins provide sufficient hydraulic volume; the near-term work will be mechanical and electrical upgrades (pumps, aeration equipment, screening), improvements to UV disinfection capacity and attention to solids handling. The village currently hauls sludge to a third-party facility (Dana, Iowa); the consultant noted that if hauling were unavailable in future years, on-site digestion and storage capacity would be deficient.
Trustees and staff pressed the presenter about which population figure will be used for design and permitting. Staff said the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) typically defers to the regional planning commission’s population allocations; the firm said it will seek DNR concurrence in a mid-course review before a final submittal. The consultant recommended completing cost estimates this summer and moving to a rate‑impact and public‑hearing phase by late 2025, with an end‑of‑year submittal to DNR if the village elects to proceed.
Why it matters: the outcome affects near‑term capital needs, future sewer rates and whether planned subdivisions can connect without off‑site upgrades. The board asked staff and the consultant to refine population assumptions, produce phased cost estimates and return with draft rate impacts before any construction contract is authorized.
Next steps: the engineering team will refine costs and equipment lists, run scenarios based on the higher and lower population projections, coordinate a mid‑course DNR check, and return to the board with cost and rate analyses and a public‑hearing schedule.
