McMinnVille council hears options to fund $117M–$229M wastewater master plan; $80M storage tank cited as key cost

McMinnVille’s City Council spent its July work session reviewing a 20‑year wastewater master plan that identifies aging pipes, regulatory requirements and capacity constraints and lays out five 10‑year funding scenarios that would cost between roughly $117 million and $229 million to implement.

Geofan Secker, the city’s public works director, told councilors the plan balances needed repairs and resilience projects with potential growth‑driven capital. “We were having 35,000,000 gallons go through the treatment plant in a day” during a recent five‑year storm, Secker said, citing the event as evidence behind a proposed offline storage tank that staff have conceptually estimated at about $80,000,000.

The master plan separates treatment‑plant projects from conveyance projects (pipes and pump stations) and identifies growth areas—Southwest, 3‑Mile Lane and Riverside—that would require upsized conveyance. Kevin Wood, the utilities program manager, described both growth‑related projects and those intended to resolve existing capacity and reliability problems.

Deb Gallardi, who prepared the financial modeling, told the council the system is currently funded primarily by rates and pay‑as‑you‑go transfers; staff modeled a baseline 10‑year pay‑as‑you‑go capacity of about $66,000,000 but said the master plan's combined CIP totals are much larger. Under staff illustrations, Scenario 2 (maintenance and rehab focus) would raise ten‑year CIP to roughly $160,000,000 with assumed debt of about $41,000,000 (≈25%), while Scenario 4 (a balanced approach) rose to about $190,000,000 with debt around 34% (~$70M). The fully funded Scenario 5 increases total CIP to roughly $229,000,000 and assumes nearly 40% debt.

Gallardi presented customer examples: a typical current monthly wastewater bill of about $65 (winter average) could rise to roughly $95 under the baseline projection at the end of the planning period, and the scenarios add an additional approximate $15–$60 to that projected bill depending on the option. Staff also showed sample SDC (systems development charge) calculations: a current single‑family SDC example of about $4,185 could rise to roughly $12,000 if tripled in some models; staff emphasized a formal SDC methodology is required before setting final charges.

Councilors pressed staff on assumptions and tradeoffs. Councilor Chenoweth asked whether growth‑related revenues and new accounts had been adequately accounted for; staff said account growth was modeled conservatively (about 0.5% historic, 0.75% in higher‑growth scenarios) and that SDCs were modeled at different multipliers to illustrate policy choices. “Could growth go quicker? Absolutely,” Secker said, adding that revenues from new accounts typically lag the infrastructure needed to serve them.

Several councilors asked about alternatives to the large offline storage tank and whether increased investment in inflow‑and‑infiltration (I&I) projects or stormwater work could reduce the need for a full‑size tank. Staff said I&I reductions are assumed in the plan (modeling reductions in the 35–65% range) but that groundwater infiltration and manhole/lateral vulnerabilities mean stormwater work alone would not eliminate the need for the storage or other plant upgrades.

Councilors also sought more detailed impacts for commercial and industrial customers, regional comparisons of rates and SDCs, lifetime or 20‑year cost estimates for an average ratepayer, and a clearer breakdown of what the city can perform in‑house versus what will require outside contracting. Staff said large design and construction packages will likely use metro‑area consultants and contractors, with local subcontracting where available.

On policy direction, the council coalesced around avoiding the extremes: few members supported the fully funded Scenario 5 or the minimal Scenario 1. Several voiced a preference for a middle path—prioritizing regulatory compliance and rehabilitation while allowing targeted growth projects and using debt to smooth year‑to‑year volatility (the staff summary characterized the council’s direction as between Scenarios 2 and 4). City Manager Garvin urged the council to clarify its comfort with bonded debt versus shifting more cost to SDCs so staff can refine models.

No formal votes were taken. Staff committed to return with more granular analyses: regional rate comparisons, a formal SDC methodology and example SDCs for residential, multifamily and commercial projects, the multi‑decade cost impact on an average ratepayer, and more precise phasing/value‑engineering options for the largest projects. The council adjourned after asking staff to schedule follow‑up work sessions to refine policy direction and the financial models.

The council’s next steps will center on that additional data and a policy decision about how to balance rate stability, developer contributions and long‑term debt.