Council’s water committee endorses phased bond approach, details well and storage timeline and conservation push

At the Sept. 23 Heath City Council meeting the Water & Infrastructure Committee presented an in-depth update on the city’s Water Bridge plan and recommended steps to increase supply and storage while limiting short‑term rate shocks.

Committee chair Councilman Scott Dodson and City Manager Steve Alexander outlined supply and storage shortfalls, consultant projections on wholesale water cost increases, and a financing approach to spread borrowing across two fiscal years. The committee and staff said phasing the debt reduces near‑term pressure on customer rates and better times bond proceeds with construction schedules.

Steve Alexander summarized rate projections from the city’s rate consultant, Willdan, and the updated cost picture after a lower-than-expected bid for Water Well No. 1. He told council that Willdan’s recalculation showed materially higher rate impacts if the full previously planned $72 million bond issue were sold immediately — illustrations in staff slides showed possible first‑year water increases in the 30% range under that scenario — but that phasing the borrowing (Option 2) reduces projected increases in the first two years (presented examples: ~24% then ~24%, then 16%). Alexander also presented sample household impacts: an example household using 15,000 gallons would see an illustrative average monthly bill move from about $236 to roughly $282–$285 depending on the financing scenario.

Councilman Dodson and committee members emphasized that Heath’s peak demand is seasonal and largely driven by irrigation; the committee recommended a multi‑channel conservation campaign to reduce peak loads, make better use of current supplies and delay or reduce future rate pressure. The committee described a 90‑day outreach plan including social media, in‑person education, water‑wise demonstrations at Town Center Park and targeted messages to high‑use customers.

Staff reported that the low bid for Well No. 1 came in at $5.5 million (below earlier estimates near $8 million). Because that bid was lower than anticipated, staff proposed trimming the initial bond request and phasing the remainder: Phase 1 to fund wells 1–4, a 1.5‑million‑gallon elevated tank and a shared 3‑million‑gallon ground tank; Phase 2 to fund wells 5–6 and the city’s separate 3‑million‑gallon ground tank.

Engineering and project updates Engineers and project staff reported on sequencing and construction readiness. Jeremy White of Schaumburg & Polk explained a cost‑driven choice on Meadowview Road: rather than raising the entire roadway, the design uses two 8×8 reinforced concrete box culverts and operational floodgates at either side to increase conveyance capacity and reduce construction cost. He said raising the road to avoid overtopping would have been substantially more expensive.

Town Center Park and irrigation Staff and the park designers provided a construction update for Town Center Park and coordinated its interface with the well‑drilling schedule. Emily Drake, lead landscape architect (Kimley‑Horn), said planting and sod work are scheduled for early spring (March) to take advantage of establishment conditions; initial vertical work (playground footings, courts, stage footings and dry‑pond walls) will be visible within weeks. The committee noted that park installation and early irrigation demands will be significant at the time of planting but said irrigation strategy and nonpotable reuse options are part of longer‑term planning.

Committee recommendations and next steps - Proceed with Well No. 1 construction and finalize engineering for wells 2–4. (Well No. 1 construction contract awarded and funded by amended budget.) - Use phased bond issuance (option 2) to match borrowing to construction timing and reduce near‑term water‑rate pressure. - Launch a multifaceted conservation and customer‑education campaign (web, social, town hall, demonstrations at Town Center Park). - Continue engineering and design of elevated and ground storage tanks; staff noted engineering timelines (approx. 200 days for an elevated tank; ~400 days for an in‑ground tank) and recommended staging procurement and financing accordingly.

Council direction and context Council discussed timing, the potential for interest‑rate savings by delaying portions of the borrowing until market conditions improve, and the committee’s focus on peak demand reduction through conservation measures. Council adopted the FY2025–26 budget (see separate article) which implements the committee’s recommended phased approach in its financing assumptions and directs staff to proceed with engineering and procurement steps.

Ending Committee leaders said the Water Bridge investments, combined with a sustained conservation program, are intended to increase Heath’s long‑term reliability while limiting sudden bills shocks for customers. Staff will return with detailed financing documents, construction schedules and conservation materials for public outreach.