Council hears detailed Bartlett Bay plant upgrade plan as staff prepares August bond vote

City staff and engineering consultants presented a multi‑year design for a major Bartlett Bay wastewater treatment plant upgrade and asked the council to approve ballot language for an August bond vote to fund the higher‑than‑expected construction cost.

"This is likely the largest, most complicated capital project we will do in 10 years here in the city," City Manager Jesse Baker told the council as public works staff described design changes that increase the project's scale and cost. The design keeps the plant's permitted daily flow but raises the plant's peak hydraulic handling from the current capacity to handle short, high‑storm hourly flows driven by infiltration and cross‑connections.

Consultants described equipment replacements and new systems intended to reduce ongoing chemical use and greenhouse‑gas emissions: a modernized biological treatment train (A2O) to enable enhanced biological phosphorus removal, a third clarifier for redundancy during storms, upgraded headworks and cloth‑media filtration, a new UV disinfection channel, two covered concrete sludge tanks with odor control, and a new operations building. The team also proposed climate‑focused features including rooftop solar and an effluent heat‑recovery system the engineers estimate will be partly funded by an EPA carbon‑reduction grant.

On cost and financing, staff said bid and design refinements, challenging soils on site, restricted construction footprint (sensitive wetlands north of the site), national equipment supply rules and rapid construction inflation together increased the estimated cost. The city is pursuing a Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) loan at a low interest rate and has secured grant funding. Tom DiPietro, Public Works Director, explained that accepting a CWSRF construction loan and the current low bid now would avoid substantially higher borrowing costs later.

Consultants highlighted operational benefits of a new "digital performance platform" — a cloud‑connected system that aggregates instrument data and sends direct instructions to plant controls to optimize aeration and chemical dosing. The vendor quoted an annual software support cost of about $22,000; staff argued the platform should reduce chemical and energy costs and ease operator workload.

Councilors pressed for clearer public messaging on finances and payback: several asked staff to quantify how much of the climate‑oriented equipment (solar, effluent heat recovery) is covered by grant funds versus net cost, and to provide payback timelines so voters can compare up‑front costs with projected annual savings. Staff said they would produce more detailed analyses ahead of a June 1 necessity resolution and ballot language vote.

Next steps: staff requested the council pass a necessity resolution and approve ballot language in June to preserve deadlines for an August 11 vote. If voters reject the updated funding request, staff warned the city would lose state SRF advantages, the contractor would likely not hold the bid indefinitely, and the city would need to redesign or rebid the project, potentially increasing long‑term costs.