Panel details wastewater treatment plant options
SANDPOINT — City Council members heard several options regarding the future of the wastewater treatment plant during a workshop-style meeting on Thursday.
Sandpoint Public Works director Amanda Wilson said there are four key factors driving the project — new discharge permits, future permits, high peak flows and aging infrastructure.
"With the aging infrastructure, it really dates back to World War II," Wilson said. "The fact is, it's at the end of its useful lifespan."
The city was awarded a $65,000 wastewater planning grant from the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality a year ago, and subsequently appointed a citizen's advisory committee made up of stakeholders in the community. The purpose of the project is to evaluate the current wastewater treatment system and identify needed improvements to address new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements.
The plant is located on the bank of the Pend Oreille River adjacent to War Memorial Field. Back in 2009 the city purchased a 32.2-acre chunk of land on Baldy Mountain Road for $905,000, with the hope that it would someday house a wastewater treatment plant capable of serving all five of the area’s sewer districts, according to Daily Bee archives. Regionalization, however, was not one of the options the committee brought forth on Thursday.
The first of three alternatives presented to council by Steve James of J-U-B Engineers is to install new technology at the existing site within the next five years. The second alternative looks at bridging improvements with new technology at the existing site. This alternative would give the city more time by extending the life of some of the current technology until new technology could be installed, James said. Examples of bridge include upgrading intermediate pumps and secondary clarifiers at the existing site.
The third alternative including bridging improvements, plus moving the plant to the Baldy site with new technology. The latter would require leaving some of the equipment at the existing site, he said, to allow the discharge into the Pend Oreille River.
Two other alternatives, including the "do nothing" — also known as the "fix it as it breaks" — approach, and the "(leave) nothing at existing site, plus bridge improvements and new technology at Baldy site" alternative, were nixed by the committee prior to the workshop.
The committee scored each of three alternatives using the pros and cons of each, with the first scoring a 19 due to being the lowest capital cost of $70-$80 million, among other benefits. One downfall, James said, is keeping the plant running while making the improvements. The immediate improvements would also stack debt on ratepayers, he said, as the city is four years away from paying off its current bond, which was recently refinanced.
The second alternative scored a 20, allowing the most time to reduce inflow and infiltration, as well as giving the city time to pay off the current bond. On the downside, he said, there is an increased chance of permit violations by allowing more time to implement the new technology.
"DEQ is willing to work with the city to get that done, but that is a risk here," James said.
The cost of the second alternative is $71-$83 million, James said.
While there were "clear" benefits to the third alternative, James said, such as getting the plant out of the residential area, it came in with the lowest score of 16, and the highest price tag at $105-$120 million. Bridge improvements would still be required at the existing site to allow time to install new technology at the Baldy site, and crews would need to run nine miles of pipe — three pipes at three miles each — between the sites, which added approximately $30 million to the cost.
Ultimately, Wilson said the committee recommended the second alternative, primarily because it buys the city time to reduce inflow and infiltration, pay off debt, better understand future permit limits and explore grant funding.
Former Sandpoint mayor Carrie Logan, who was a council member when the Baldy site was purchased, and former city clerk Helen Newton were in attendance at the workshop to advocate for moving the wastewater plant. The original idea, Logan said, was to discharge into Chuck Slough rather than piping all the way to the current site. James said re-permitting an outfall is difficult, particularly when looking at discharging into a body of water with less volume. The river provides enough dilution that it is easier to meet permit standards, he said. In the long run, James said, pumping back to the existing site would save money if the city were to decide to move the plant.
Council is scheduled to make a decision on which alternative to move forward with during the July 18 meeting, with a final plan coming back to council in September.
Mary Malone can be reached by email at mmalone@bonnercountydailybee.com and follow her on Twitter @MaryDailyBee.