Utilities present roughly $22M‑per‑year CIP portfolio; water, wastewater and electric needs highlighted

Utilities leadership presented a consolidated view of capital needs across the water, wastewater, electric and solid‑waste utilities, describing approximately $22 million per year for the upcoming budget cycle and another $110 million over the remaining CIP sequence.

Water: Water staff identified priority projects including replacement of lime slaker equipment (a chemical softening process that staff said is a primary cause of emergency shutdowns), flocculation system replacement, a tank asset management program to rehabilitate welded steel reservoirs, and continuing distribution main replacements. Water’s average daily demand was described as about 3.5 million gallons per day; staff said a catastrophic reservoir failure (the 4‑MG Avalon tank example) would carry multi‑million‑dollar replacement costs.

Wastewater: Wastewater staff outlined capital projects including automated effluent monitoring, emergency holding-basin liner work, biosolid dewatering equipment, headworks improvements and rehabilitation of secondary clarifiers. The department also described a regulatory element — a time schedule order linked to the NPDES permit — that had previously required temperature‑control evaluations; staff said regulators now seek additional field data and the capital requirement may be reassessed.

Electric: Electric staff (presented by utilities management while the electric manager was on leave) highlighted the substation and transformers as single points of failure that need phased work: transformer bushing replacements, breaker replacement and removal of SF6‑insulated switchgear in favor of vacuum interrupter equipment. Staff also described an AMI (advanced metering infrastructure) pilot that succeeded and could enable time‑of‑use metering and operational advantages if expanded; staff will present a related item to council on May 6.

Solid waste and landfill: Solid waste staff described a short‑to‑midterm need to relocate scalehouse and recycling operations as part of final‑fill planning, and longer‑term options including a transfer station or potential landfill expansion with required liner and leachate collection systems. Staff estimated the landfill has roughly 5–10 years of capacity remaining and asked the council to consider property options and a master planning exercise within the year.

Nut graf: Utilities face a mix of near‑term equipment replacements that affect operations and larger, regulatory or capacity‑driven needs that will require multi‑year planning and large funding sources; staff presented both illustrative self‑funding schedules and projects that may be eligible for grants or borrowing.

Ending: Utilities staff asked for council input on how to prioritize projects and noted that some projects (for example, property or major treatment projects) could be reimbursed by third parties if agreements are reached.