Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Homestead council adopts facilities plan to expand wastewater treatment plant and pursue state SRF funding
Summary
Council approved a facilities plan to expand the city’s wastewater treatment capacity (preferred Alternative 1) — a long‑range strategy to reduce diversion to Miami‑Dade, improve resilience and lower lifecycle costs — and directed staff to apply for Florida DEP State Revolving Fund assistance.
Homestead’s City Council on Wednesday voted to adopt a facilities plan to expand and rehabilitate the city’s wastewater treatment facility and authorized staff to apply for Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) financing from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
Public‑works staff and consultants from AECOM presented a planning‑level analysis of alternatives and recommended a full expansion (the preferred alternative) that would significantly increase local treatment capacity and reduce Homestead’s routine diversion of effluent to the Miami‑Dade Water and Sewer Department. The city’s current permitted average daily capacity is about 5 million gallons; staff described projected system demands (including septic‑to‑sewer conversions) that could approach 10 million gallons per day in the planning horizon.
Why it matters: staff said the existing reliance on an external force main and wholesale treatment by Miami‑Dade would cap Homestead’s long‑term growth and expose the city to rising pass‑through costs — the utility saw a recent rate jump from the county that staff described as 19% for the current fiscal year. The facilities plan models capital and operating costs and concluded that the up‑front investment in local treatment delivers lower life‑cycle costs over a 20‑year planning horizon compared with partial expansion or no action.
Technical approach: the recommended plan preserves the city’s current sequencing batch reactor (SBR) process flow, adds nitrification filters and UV disinfection, upgrades headworks and pumping, reconstructs administration and electrical facilities at higher elevation for resiliency, and expands trench disposal. The preferred alternative was described as the most resilient, operationally flexible and cost‑effective option for long‑term local treatment and aquifer recharge.
Financing and fiscal effect: the city’s finance director explained SRF mechanics, including potential principal forgiveness and highly discounted loan rates because the program factors census‑based affordability. Planning‑level estimates include contingency; staff modeled a debt service scenario that suggested the program would be affordable under current projections, but could require modest utility rate increases (the illustrative calculation produced a 7–8% wholesale‑rate impact on water/sewer rates in the model).
Next steps: council adopted the facilities plan so the city can submit an SRF application; staff will pursue SRF funding and return to council with loan terms and a comprehensive financing plan if the project is invited into the SRF program.
