Cooper City consultants urge multi‑year investments for water, wastewater and plant electrical systems

At a Cooper City workshop, consultants from Hazen and Sawyer presented a 20‑year master plan for the city’s water, wastewater and plant electrical systems and recommended a multi‑year investment program to renew aging equipment and reduce operating risks.

The plan finds Cooper City’s membrane water treatment currently meets federal and state standards — including the new EPA PFAS rule the consultants said requires compliance by April 2028 — and has capacity to serve projected growth. But the consultants said substantial renewal and replacement spending is needed over the next two decades for distribution mains, wastewater package plants and the shared plant electrical switchgear.

Hazen and Sawyer project director Janine Whitgriffey told the commission the firm provided a written report and a Power BI dashboard with the recommended 20‑year capital improvement program. "We will present the water system, the plant electrical, the wastewater system, and then be open for questions and answers," Whitgriffey said.

George Brown, the consultant who presented water and plant electrical findings, said the water treatment plant reduces PFAS to below detection now and that the EPA’s new rule sets a 4 parts‑per‑trillion limit with an April 2028 compliance date. "The city's technology — membrane treatment — is capable of meeting that requirement," Brown said. He added the city’s treatment and supply capacity is sufficient for projected city growth (about 35,000 to 38,000 residents over 20 years) under current assumptions.

Brown identified recurring iron and sediment from raw wells as an operational problem that accelerates cartridge filter replacement. He said the city is replacing cartridge filters much more frequently than typical — about every nine weeks versus an industry expectation of roughly every six months — and that current operating costs tied to filter replacement and labor amount to about $1,680,000 (as presented by the consultants). To reduce that cost, the firm recommended installation of automated blow‑off valves and well rehabilitation. The consultants estimated an upper‑level capital cost of about $1,000,000 for a blow‑off valve program and conservative projected savings of about $1,100,000 over 20 years; they said localized, lower‑cost installations using city forces (as done in Plantation) could reduce capital needs.

On distribution, the consultants said aging pipes are a long‑term concern: roughly 27% of Cooper City’s water piping is about 50 years old or older today and could rise to 66% by the long‑range horizon if no replacement program is implemented. The master plan recommends delaying major pipe replacement through fiscal 2029 to preserve funds for higher‑priority projects, then beginning an annual replacement program in 2030 at roughly 0.75% of piping per year. The consultants reported a 20‑year water‑system project list totaling about $120,000,000 and noted a water‑distribution CIP component of about $73,000,000 over 20 years.

Brown also presented plant electrical findings and urged early replacement of the plant’s outdoor switchgear and supporting equipment, which the consultants estimated was originally installed in 1973 and is roughly 50+ years old. The consultants said replacement at the existing location is infeasible and recommended moving the switchgear into a hurricane‑rated building, adding a diesel generator and replacing supporting electrical gear. The high‑level cost estimate for the electrical program was about $21,000,000 with an estimated project duration of about five years (design and permitting nine months–one year, roughly two years for switchgear procurement, and several years for construction); the firm warned that a sudden switchgear failure could cause a prolonged outage, boil‑water notices and public‑health and environmental risks.

Alonzo Gaborio, the wastewater presenter, said Cooper City’s collection network (more than 90 miles of gravity sewer, over 30 miles of force main, about 2,200 manholes and 83 lift stations) requires ongoing renewal and that the consultants estimated approximately $54,000,000 over 20 years for collection system work. He described the wastewater treatment site as composed of three package plants installed in different eras: package plant 1 (circa 1972) is roughly 50 years old and a primary concern; plant 2 (circa 1986) and plant 3 (1994, concrete) are in relatively better condition.

The master plan presented three plant‑level options: 1) build a new consolidated wastewater treatment plant (estimated about $120,000,000, 2024 dollars); 2) rehabilitate the existing package plants over time (estimated about $97,000,000); and 3) accelerate construction of a new plant to avoid repeated rehabs, an approach the consultants said could reduce overall cost by roughly $4,000,000–$5,000,000 compared with the new‑plant timeline that allows interim rehabs. The consultants said immediate attention to package plant 1 is likely required and noted a targeted short‑term rehab of that unit would cost an estimated $3,000,000–$4,000,000 if the commission delays a new plant.

Consultants and staff outlined next steps tied to financing and project delivery. City Manager Akin said design‑phase work can be funded in fiscal years 2025–26 and that construction borrowing decisions would likely occur later, potentially in 2027; the city would need a rate study and financial analysis and would decide whether to issue revenue bonds (pledged to utility revenues) or seek voter approval for general‑obligation bonds. "We're going to be getting a package to select a consultant for a rate study," the manager said; the commission was told to expect procurement packages to select a financial analyst, an electrical design firm and a wastewater‑plant designer.

Commissioners asked about lower‑cost operational fixes, reuse of biosolids, and reclaimed water options. Consultants noted the city is participating in a countywide biosolids study and that reclaimed water production previously was found to be costly for a community without existing reclaimed infrastructure; they recommended evaluating reclaimed water and biosolids options further during design. The consultants emphasized that the city’s technical choices, sequencing and financing will determine whether rehabilitation or new construction is most cost‑effective over the long term.

The workshop ended with a motion to adjourn and no formal votes on the proposed capital program. The consultants delivered a master plan report and tools city staff can use to prepare rate studies, financing plans and design procurements if the commission chooses to move forward.