Council hears $47 million reverse-osmosis plant proposal to meet PFAS rules
Loading...
Summary
City staff and McKim & Creed presented a reverse‑osmosis water‑treatment proposal designed for 1.5 million gallons per day, an estimated $47 million construction cost and $1.2 million in annual operations; staff said design is grant‑funded but construction funding is not yet secured.
Philip Locke, senior project manager with McKim & Creed, presented a high‑level plan for a new reverse‑osmosis (RO) water‑treatment plant the council reviewed Tuesday. City manager Don King introduced the item by saying the existing plant, built in 1984, has exceeded its industry service life and will not meet prospective PFAS and related regulatory requirements without major upgrades.
Locke said the proposed facility would be sited north of the current plant (the city may acquire the parcel) and be designed for 1,500,000 gallons per day, roughly double current capacity. He described the proposal as a long‑term solution to meet 20‑year demand projections and to reduce disinfection byproducts and total dissolved solids. The design phase is fully funded by an emerging‑contaminants state revolving fund program tied to PFAS rules, Locke said; construction funds are not yet secured.
On operations and compliance, Locke told council the RO plant would change the facility classification and minimum staffing requirements (an initial requirement he described as 16 hours per day, seven days per week) though he said automation could permit the city to request reduced staffing after a year of trouble‑free operation. He also recommended a deep‑injection well for concentrate (brine) disposal, explaining that hydrogeologic modeling and state permitting would be required to demonstrate no adverse impacts to production wells or surface waters. As an operational alternative for some backwash flows, Locke said low‑volume discharges could be routed to the sanitary sewer and treated by New Port Richey’s wastewater plant, which staff said had been contacted and had conceptually reviewed the plan.
Locke presented preliminary cost and schedule numbers: a construction estimate of $47,000,000 (including a 30% contingency at this early stage) and an estimated annual operations & maintenance cost of about $1,200,000. He said the loan/grant agreement requires design and final invoice submission by Aug. 15 and estimated construction would take about two years. Councilors asked about customer bill impacts; staff cautioned projections are preliminary and depend on grant and funding outcomes but said a worst‑case, fully city‑funded scenario could translate to an illustrative recovery cost of roughly $6 per 1,000 gallons (presented as a planning figure, not a finalized rate). The council and staff agreed the next steps are to complete design so the city can pursue construction funding and appropriation opportunities.
