Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Wastewater Capital topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Helena outlines water, wastewater and ARPA capital plans; warns wastewater permit could require large upgrades
Summary
Helena City public‑works leaders told commissioners they plan ARPA‑funded and ongoing capital work across water, wastewater and stormwater, but warned a pending wastewater permit could require major plant upgrades and large costs.
Helena City public‑works leaders briefed the commission on planned water, wastewater and stormwater capital work and on the operational pressures that drive the department’s budget requests.
Staff said the city is implementing several ARPA‑funded capital projects (staff cited approximately $20 million of ARPA allocations for water projects) and continuing previously adopted master plans. Accomplishments listed by staff included a filter rebuild at the 10 Mile water treatment plant, SCADA upgrades at both treatment plants, and improvements to the Eureka Well that reduced raw water use by about 200,000 gallons per day.
On water distribution, staff proposed a meter replacement program budgeted at about $4 million to replace roughly 6,000 aging meters in stages; the plan would purchase meters and hire an outside contractor to perform installations, with the city proposing to phase the replacements rather than replace all 12,000 meters at once.
Staff also described planned design work on a replacement for a transmission main from the 10 Mile plant that will be carried into future capital budgets and noted the Hale Reservoir needs refurbishment.
On wastewater, staff described an uncertain regulatory outlook tied to new numeric and narrative nutrient standards under state permit revisions. Staff said the city will very likely need to upgrade treatment but does not yet know the required level or final cost. One staff estimate mentioned $60 million as a possible high‑end scenario for major upgrades, while staff said an alternative approach that targeted nonpoint sources could reduce costly plant upgrades and might be closer to $5 million in some cases; staff cautioned those numbers were “very rough” and dependent on permit language and downstream water quality outcomes.
Staff also highlighted energy‑efficiency investments at the wastewater plant — new process blowers and reduced horsepower mixers — expected to save roughly $70,000 per year in electrical costs when fully installed.
Commissioners asked for further analysis of cost scenarios tied to the forthcoming permit and for more public outreach on projects that would affect rates. Staff said they are pursuing a taste‑and‑odor study at the Missouri River treatment plant and plan additional diversions and reservoir work to increase storage and reliability.
No formal votes were taken; staff received direction to continue refining project scopes and cost estimates and to return with additional detail.
