Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wastewater Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Norman recommends upgrading existing WERF, rejects costly second plant in 20-year plan
Summary
City staff recommended relying on and upgrading the existing water reclamation facility (WERF) rather than building a new north/east WERF in the next 20 years, citing lower life-cycle and capital costs and enough near-term capacity with modest upgrades.
City of Norman staff presented an updated wastewater master plan that recommends expanding and upgrading the existing water reclamation facility (WERF) rather than building a costly second (north or east) WERF during the 20-year planning horizon.
Cole Niblett, presenting the wastewater findings, said the existing WERF is currently rated at 16 million gallons per day on paper and is in "relatively good condition." Staff noted industry design criteria effectively allow about 17 MGD with some permitting conversations and modest capital work. "Currently rated for 16 MGD and in relatively good condition," Niblett said, adding that small projects such as a storm-holding pond and improved grit removal could yield near-term capacity relief.
The master plan identified trunk-main bottlenecks in core service areas (including Bishop and Imhoff Creek) and a set of roughly a dozen capital projects grouped as existing service-area improvements, an eastern conveyance network to serve future growth and targeted WERF improvements. Staff presented estimated wastewater CIP spending: roughly $75,000,000 for existing wastewater service-area improvements, about $339,000,000 for the eastern conveyance network, and just over $62,000,000 for WERF improvements.
Economic analysis in the plan found that building additional north or east WERFs carries substantially higher life-cycle and treatment costs than expanding the existing plant. Niblett said the economy of scale and conveyance-cost tradeoffs make the existing WERF the more cost-effective option for the 20-year horizon, although the collection system will be laid out so a second WERF can be pursued later if growth patterns change.
Staff said their next steps include refining the capital project phasing, developing funding approaches (connection fees, growth vs. existing-user allocations) with consultants, and continuing spot repairs and inflow/infiltration reduction work such as smoke testing in localized problem areas. Council members asked whether rate adjustments would be needed; staff said they will return with funding scenarios after confirming the project portfolio.
The presentation closed with staff noting efficiencies from coordinating core water-line projects with transportation improvements and thanking the subcommittee for its work.
