StructurePoint warns Greendale water will be softer under most alternatives; council weighs $17M rebuild versus buying water

StructurePoint consultant Karen Sevidra presented the firm’s evaluation of Greendale’s water plant on Feb. 11, laying out a range of options from targeted repairs and rehabilitation to building a new $17 million plant or becoming a wholesale customer of a neighboring system.

Sevidra told the council that water hardness will change under most alternatives. Answering a resident’s question about whether softness would return to current levels after construction, Sevidra said, “No, it will not.” She and staff explained that construction could temporarily reduce softness and that some alternatives would leave finished water measurably harder than today (the plant now softens incoming water from about 22 grains down to roughly 4–5 grains; the proposed change would produce water around six grains). The consultant emphasized the community’s existing water quality as an asset.

Why it matters: councilors framed the decision as a trade-off between long-term capital costs and retaining local control. One councilor noted an earlier study that recommended a new plant at about $17 million; Sevidra said that prior work and recent structural testing informed the current evaluation. The council discussed an estimate — presented in materials and discussed during the meeting — that upgrading a neighboring system to receive Greendale’s demand could cost roughly $5.6 million, though speakers repeatedly described that figure as an estimate rather than a fixed bid.

Councilors pressed staff on financing options. Staff said the recent rate study did not assume the full cost of a new plant and noted that State Revolving Fund (SRF) loans typically carry lower interest than municipal bonds. Several councilors warned that becoming a wholesale customer would reduce Greendale’s control over rates and treatment decisions; one said losing control of the city’s water “doesn’t seem to me like a good place” unless the arrangement provided meaningful local partnership or governance.

Next steps: Border Works (the intermunicipal board discussed at the meeting) will continue discussions with Lawrenceburg; councilors described Border Works as split on regionalism and asked staff to seek clearer commitments from neighboring leaders before any formal vote. The council did not take a final action on the plant at the meeting; Board of Works will make recommendations and the council will later consider financing and ordinance language.

Quotes: StructurePoint’s Sevidra said, “We actually … have some of the best water in the world,” emphasizing quality as a factor in weighing options. A councilor warned, “If you don’t have [control], then you’ve lost control of your rates.”

What’s next: staff asked Border Works to reopen talks with Lawrenceburg and to report back; the council signaled no immediate vote and will consider Board of Works’ recommendation and financing details (grants, SRF, or bonding) in subsequent meetings.