Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Wastewater topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Marquette deputy city manager reports wastewater plant upgrade finished under budget, treated roughly 967 million gallons last year

Marquette City Commission · December 16, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Deputy City Manager Sean Hobbins told the commission the solids-handling upgrade came in $500,000 under a $14,000,000 budget, produced operational improvements and has generated revenue from high-strength waste; priorities for 2026 include optimization, finding land-application sites and updating asset management plans.

Deputy City Manager Sean Hobbins updated the commission on the Marquette Area Wastewater Treatment Advisory Board’s recent projects and operations.

Hobbins said the advisory board, composed of appointed members from the city, Marquette Township and Chocolay Township, oversees the facility operated by the city. He recounted plant history and recent capital work, noting the solids-handling project was completed $500,000 under its $14,000,000 budget. That project was funded with a state of Michigan Clean Water low-interest loan that included $5,800,000 in loan forgiveness.

Hobbins said the plant treated approximately 967,000,000 gallons of wastewater during the past year, maintained a stable budget and incurred only minimal permit violations. The solids project added biosolid storage to meet a 180-day storage requirement, a new belt filter press, a high-strength-waste receiving station for materials such as septage and grease, and upgrades that increase biogas production and revenue. To date, accepting high-strength waste has generated about $178,000 in revenue.

Looking to 2026, Hobbins said the board’s priorities include optimizing the new process equipment, identifying additional land-application sites, updating the asset-management and capital-improvement plans, rebuilding the reserve-replacement fund, and succession planning for staff.

During Q&A, staff said current farm sites can accept what the plant produces for land application but that hauling and transportation are the major costs; if off-site options were unavailable the alternative would be landfill tipping fees, which would be far more expensive. A staff speaker mentioned Cleveland-Cliffs land as a possible future resource for spreading sites.