Brighton faces long‑term wastewater plant funding challenge; staff to model phased options and rate impacts

Brighton staff and council spent a prolonged portion of the budget work session on the city's water and wastewater utilities, describing plant capacity, staffing, ongoing capital needs and a possible multi‑year strategy to fund a major wastewater plant upgrade.

Finance Director Liz Gaines said the utility enterprise is nearly self‑supporting: service charges fund roughly 98% of the utility fund. Staff presented capacity figures the city provided: the water system treats and delivers about 1.2 million gallons per day (from three wells and one treatment plant with a 4.1 million gpd capacity), and the wastewater treatment plant is rated for 2.25 million gpd while current average flow is approximately 1.54 million gpd.

Utility staffing: Staff said there are six people in the water division and six in wastewater operations, handling daily operation and maintenance of distribution and treatment systems.

Wastewater capital and regulatory pressure: Council members pressed staff about a prior engineering study that estimated a plant overhaul at multimillion‑dollar scale (figures in earlier studies referenced numbers north of $30 million). Staff and councilors discussed tradeoffs between continuing piece‑by‑piece repairs and a phased capital program or seeking debt or grant funding to address larger process changes. Staff noted the city applied for a subsidized clean water revolving fund loan the prior year and while that application did not advance, the engineering product still exists and staff are re‑submitting in pursuit of funding. Staff also said they submitted a $4 million application to a federal program (referred to internally) and are working with congressional staff on other potential federal funding sources.

Regulatory monitoring: Staff reported PFAS monitoring results well under the current state-level guidance (the transcript cites values between 4 and 6 parts per trillion for one PFAS compound relative to a 20 ppt threshold), and said land‑application contractors and hauling costs have generally been reliable but occasionally rise with market conditions.

Funding choices discussed: Council and staff discussed three broad approaches — incremental repairs paid from pay‑as‑you‑go reserves, pursuing low‑interest state revolving loans (with potential partial forgiveness), or issuing debt. Finance staff described the common municipal tool of a small fixed "ready‑to‑serve" charge added to water bills to build reserves over time instead of large, sudden increases. Council asked staff to prepare a phased capital plan with updated cost estimates and corresponding rate scenarios before finalizing budget and utility rates.

Why it matters: The wastewater plant is aging and at points requires expensive emergency repairs; staff warned that delaying a larger upgrade may raise total costs as equipment and material prices increase. "The longer you wait, the more expensive everything's going to get," a councilor said.

What's next: Staff committed to returning with an updated phased capital plan, refreshed estimates from Tetra Tech (the consultant who produced earlier engineering work for a grant application), and modeled rate scenarios showing impacts to customer bills over a 5–10 year horizon so council can weigh reserve accumulation versus debt.