Santaquin staff warn sewer, reclaimed-water storage will need near-term investment as growth continues

City officials told the Santaquin City Council at a work session April 15 that the city’s wastewater treatment plant and reclaimed-water storage are approaching capacity and will require capital investment and financing to serve already-committed development.

The presentation laid out the most immediate numbers: Santaquin currently has about 5,500 equivalent residential connections (ERCs or “doors”), a wastewater reclamation facility (WRF) pinch point at about 8,900 doors, and roughly 10,000–10,400 doors possible under current land use and vested entitlements. Staff said roughly 2,300 additional doors are imminent because of development agreements and approved plans.

City staff said a near-term expansion of plant equipment and an added tank would cost about $10 million to $11 million and still only reach the 8,900-door pinch point. That work, they said, mainly funds new internal equipment — membranes, mixers and blowers — and not additional concrete capacity that would be needed for larger future growth. Staff recommended planning now because a formal moratorium on service would be legally limited to six months and design/construction of a new WRF typically takes years.

Why this matters: Council members asked how quickly capacity limits could be reached. Staff estimated current growth at roughly 225–250 units per year (about a 5% annual growth rate) and said that, with the currently approved and vested projects, the city could approach the plant’s pinch point in roughly 13–14 years unless infrastructure is expanded sooner. Staff also flagged that approved development beyond today’s connections already accounts for the majority of the near-term capacity gap.

City finance and timing: Staff said the city has roughly $9 million in cash available now for the WRF project, has already ordered some long-lead items (membranes with an 18-month lead time), and expects construction spending for the $10–$11 million package to occur in about a year to 18 months once a contractor is ready. Because impact fees do not cover all costs, staff said the city will likely consider bonding — they estimated $2–$3 million of borrowing for the WRF and suggested future impact fees and user-rate revenue could service debt. Staff referenced previous credit work and said the city’s market options might yield rates in the 4.5%–5.5% range, depending on market conditions.

Reclaimed water and PI storage: The presentation also covered the city’s pressurized irrigation (PI) program. Staff said reclaimed water supplies about 25% of the city’s outdoor irrigation need and that adding three previously unused storage cells would add roughly 36,000,000 gallons of storage (about 36 more days at a million gallons per day). Tests on the old cells showed low percolation (around 10^-8 permeability versus a 10^-6 threshold), meaning most ponded water stays in the pond rather than percolating to groundwater; staff estimated about 30% loss from the ponded storage to evaporation and seepage. Staff estimated a separate future storage project could cost in the millions and said planning and land acquisition would take longer than WRF construction because it involves property and conveyance agreements.

Water rights, CUP and other sources: City staff reviewed culinary supply and sources. They said the city currently uses roughly 90% of its documented water rights, is pumping about 65% of pump/spring capacity (springs about 865 gpm), and is pursuing a new well for redundancy. The city also holds a Central Utah Project (CUP) allocation near 925 acre-feet; staff described CUP as a source but not a storage substitute (the CUP delivery requires a call window and does not provide long-term storage). Staff said a special fund set up years ago to pay for CUP-related costs currently holds about $3 million and produces roughly $317,000 per year in revenue, though staff said those figures should be updated.

Rates and fees: Because impact fees have historically subsidized some enterprise costs, staff said the city’s sewer enterprise fund has effectively covered about $2 million of impact-fee projects over time. To address shortfalls, staff presented a plan to commission Zions Bank for a utilities rate study in the next 60–90 days and said they are exploring a tiered base rate in addition to tiered usage rates so new connections bear more of the cost of growth. Staff emphasized that any rate changes would return to the council for approval.

Council questions and next steps: Council members pressed staff on timing, alternatives and financing. Staff said design for the WRF is complete, a contractor under a CM/GC contract is working on guaranteed maximum price estimates, membranes are ordered, and the expected construction window is about a year once contracts are finalized. For storage and other land‑intensive projects, staff said property acquisition and interagency approvals will lengthen lead times and that the council should direct staff on financing and any policy choices on rates or bonding.

Staff flagged several actions for council consideration: moving forward with the Zions Bank rate analysis, continuing work with the contractor to refine the WRF GMP, and advancing planning and property work for PI storage to reduce the risk of being caught short when storage is exhausted.