Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wastewater Plant Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lynnwood outlines multi‑year plan to rebuild aging wastewater plant; initial cost estimate roughly $208 million
Summary
Public Works staff described a plan to replace and expand the 1962 Lynnwood wastewater treatment plant on a tight, sloped site, recommended GCCM project delivery, and said the early construction estimate (Class 4) was roughly $208 million with wide contingencies.
The City of Lynnwood’s public‑works leadership briefed the City Council May 19 on a multi‑year plan to upgrade the city’s wastewater treatment plant, a facility built in 1962 that staff describe as functionally aged and constrained by geography.
Director of Public Works Jared Bond, Public Works program manager Asan Sherkani and plant supervisor Tanner Boyle told council members the project will be the most complex and expensive Lynnwood has pursued and that constrained site geometry — the plant sits on a steep slope within Edmonds city limits and is surrounded by residential parcels — is a major challenge.
Why it matters: The plant must continue 24/7 while critical systems are replaced, staff said. The plant previously ran an incinerator for solids that failed emission standards and produced an administrative enforcement action; current biosolids are trucked off‑site. Upgrades will address regulatory drivers (including Ecology nutrient‑removal requirements), aging infrastructure and future capacity needs.
Project approach and timing: Staff said they retained consultant RH2 to produce a facilities plan and compared three broad alternatives: (1) rebuild and expand at the existing site (recommended as most cost‑effective), (2) build a new plant elsewhere in the city (higher cost, land availability concerns), and (3) decommission the plant and send flows to the regional system (very high cost and loss of rate/delivery control). The council was told the city intends to use a GCCM (general contractor/construction manager) delivery to allow early contractor involvement, staged procurement and a guaranteed maximum price before full commitment.
Asan Sherkani summarized procurement milestones the city expects: advertise a design RFP next month, select and execute a designer contract by early October, apply for GCCM approval with the State Project Review Committee (anticipated January 2026), and hire GCCM when the design reaches ~25% (mid‑2026). Sherkani and Bond emphasized the current cost numbers are class‑4 estimates (early stage) and therefore subject to wide variation (roughly –30% to +50% range).
Costs and uncertainty: Staff cited an initial “opinion of cost” of about $208 million (class‑4, 2021 estimate) and noted they have built contingencies into budgeting because of the project’s early stage. Sherkani said the city is updating the cost and revenue model with its rate consultant (FCS) and the work will inform the city’s upcoming utility‑rate study. Bond told council members the city will use a mix of utility rates, connection charges, bonds and grants to finance the program and is preparing a financing workshop with the city’s financial partners.
Site and permitting constraints: Sherkani noted Lynnwood’s plant sits on about the only available footprint for the facility and that the city has identified and owns adjacent parcels it plans to annex from Edmonds for modest expansion of headworks and solids handling. Staff said they have begun discussions with Edmonds staff on any necessary boundary/annexation steps. They also noted that biosolids strategy is a moving target: regulations on PFAS and other “forever chemicals” could affect the final solids treatment and end markets. Bond said the city is watching changing state and regional regulatory requirements before finalizing a long‑term biosolids disposition plan.
Council questions and staff answers: Council members asked about alternatives, annexation needs, biosolids disposal, nighttime staffing of the plant and the incinerator enforcement action. Staff said the city settled an enforcement matter related to incinerator emissions and currently hauls biosolids off site; new facilities aim to reduce trucking by producing Class A or B biosolids that can be marketed as soil amendment. Staff confirmed that the plan aims to provide capacity for projected demand over the coming decades and that the city will continue to pursue grants and other sources to lower rate impacts.
Ending: Bond told council members the city is positioned early in the statewide schedule of nutrient‑removal projects, which could help in grant competitiveness, and promised regular updates. Staff plan public tours of the plant and additional council briefings as cost and schedule details firm up.
