Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wastewater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Spring Hill schedules Feb. 26 public hearing after selecting 5 MGD option for new wastewater plant
Summary
City Engineer Alysen Abel presented the selected Alternative No. 2 for a new 5 MGD wastewater treatment plant sited near Ten Mile Creek/Sweetwater Creek; the city has secured property, completed an antidegradation study, and outlined SRF/WIFIA funding options. A public hearing is set for Feb. 26, 2026.
Get email alerts on the Wastewater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City Engineer Alysen Abel presented details of the proposed new Spring Hill Wastewater Treatment Plant during a public meeting at the Feb. 12 council session, saying staff selected Alternative No. 2 — building a new facility with an initial capacity of 5 million gallons per day (MGD) designed for future expansion.
Abel outlined project background and the completed Wastewater Service Area Study and said the proposed site is in the Ten Mile Creek/Sweetwater Creek area, about 1.5 miles downstream from the existing plant. City staff told the council the municipality has secured the property and completed a Wastewater Treatment Plant Antidegradation Study, a required assessment intended to preserve stream water quality when modifying or expanding sewer service.
Abel also described the project schedule and the city’s plan to use a Progressive Design-Build procurement approach. Funding alternatives under review include State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs and a WIFIA loan; staff said those options are being evaluated to determine affordability and timing. A public hearing on the project is scheduled for Feb. 26, 2026.
During the public-comment period, resident Pat Ross of 316 E. Hale Street asked why the plant is being built initially to 5 MGD rather than being sized to meet the full anticipated future capacity. City staff responded that initial phasing reflects operational requirements, including the need to maintain minimum flows for proper treatment plant function; staff did not provide a figure for the full ultimate capacity at the Feb. 12 meeting.
Next steps identified by staff include finalizing design alternatives, advancing property and environmental clearances required by the antidegradation study, pursuing funding commitments, and presenting the project at the Feb. 26 public hearing. No formal council action on the plant design occurred at the Feb. 12 meeting.
