Moorhead council approves wastewater facility plan, authorizes grant applications and design funding

The Moorhead City Council on June 23 approved a wastewater facility plan and voted to authorize a point‑source implementation grant application and budget adjustments needed to begin final design.

The 41.237 million dollar facility plan identifies a package of projects to address aging plant and lift‑station infrastructure, reduce phosphorus in the city’s discharge, and expand biosolids dewatering and storage capacity. City staff and the consulting engineer said those steps are needed to protect operations through projected growth to about 2040 and to position Moorhead for state and federal funding.

City Manager Molly introduced the topic and said the technical presentation “is at the basis of what we’re talking about here is how we’re gonna flush in 2040.” Engineer Andy Bradshaw, who presented the plan, said the plant (built in 1983) has many original systems and that the plan bundles many smaller condition‑based fixes (an influent wet well rehabilitation, corrosion repairs to an equalization basin, a compressor replacement and electrical/HVAC upgrades) with larger items such as converting from chlorine/sulfur dioxide disinfection to ultraviolet, adding phosphorus removal, installing dewatering equipment and building cake storage, and upgrades to four major lift stations.

Bradshaw showed an engineer’s estimate totaling $41,237,000. He broke out major line items cited in the presentation: an estimated $11,384,000 for dewatering equipment, about $5,200,000 for cake storage and spreading equipment, roughly $928,000 estimated for chemical phosphorus removal at the plant (the presentation noted chemical removal was less costly than large biological process changes), and a roughly $5.2 million estimate to replace the chlorine contact/disinfection system with UV. He also said several smaller repairs and equipment replacements carry six‑figure price tags. The plan includes risk‑based priorities from an assessment of more than 600 assets.

Bradshaw and city staff emphasized funding is central to scope and timing. Staff described three primary funding paths: a Clean Water Revolving Fund loan (administered through the state Public Facilities Authority) that carries a lower interest rate than municipal bonding; the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s Point Source Implementation Grant (PSIG), which can cover up to 80% of phosphorus‑related improvements or up to $12 million for qualifying projects in exchange for accepting a numeric phosphorus limit; and discretionary federal or state grants (the city has submitted requests for $4,000,000 in congressional directed spending and a $10,000,000 Minnesota capital investment request). Bradshaw also noted the recent closure of the city’s largest industrial wastewater customer, Busch Ag, removed roughly $1.2 million a year in service charges, a hit that tightens wastewater finances.

Council members asked about alternatives for phosphorus removal, trade‑offs between chemical and biological treatment, the dewatering timeline and hauling distances for land application. Bradshaw said biological modifications can work without chemicals but typically require far larger structural modifications and higher upfront costs; because Moorhead already sees partial removal from collection‑system chemistry, staff recommended chemical polishing as the most cost‑effective near‑term option. He said current land application occurs within Clay County, typically within five to 10 miles of the plant, and that dewatering and cake storage would reduce truck trips.

Council member Heather Niesemeyer moved to approve the facility plan; Council member Lisa Borgen seconded. After closing the public hearing and additional discussion, the motion to approve the facility plan carried. Council then approved a separate motion to authorize application for the MPCA Point Source Implementation Grant (motion by Chuck Hendrickson; second by Sebastian McDougal) and approved budget adjustment 25‑012 and task orders for final design (motion by Deb White; second by Emily Moore). All three motions were approved by voice vote with no recorded dissent in the transcript.

Staff noted the approvals authorize the city to apply for grants and proceed with final design; no final commitment to a full construction scope or to future rate decisions was recorded at the June 23 meeting. Bradshaw cautioned that, absent substantial grant funding, the city’s rate model showed multi‑percent increases in coming years (presentation slides illustrated scenarios with mid‑single to upper‑single digit increases) to finance the full package. The presentation and council discussion repeatedly framed grant awards and low‑cost state loans as essential to limiting rate impacts.

Next steps listed in the facility plan and by staff include submission of the plan to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (already done), pursuing PSIG and other grant opportunities, finishing design work, and then bidding and awarding construction contracts in the following year if funding is secured.

Speakers quoted or attributed in this article spoke at the June 23 Moorhead City Council meeting and are listed in the speakers section below.