Council approves new wastewater treatment facility

NEW LONDON – The New London Common Council approved having the city move forward with plans to construct a new wastewater treatment facility in the city that will produce a Class A waste product.
The approval came at a special June 25 council meeting. Also approved was an agreement with Donahue and Associates for the final facility design of the wastewater treatment facility and the alternative design 7, which was the design chosen by the council.
At the meeting, Mike Gerbitz, senior process engineer, for Donohue & Associates, Inc., told the committee that in June, the New London Board of Public Works accepted a plan to advance to a public hearing, which was required. He reminded the council that the city reviewed seven alternative plans for the city to meet the new phosphorus level limits.
One of the alternatives was for the city to do nothing, which Gerbitz said was not feasible.
Three of the alternatives were aimed exclusively at the phosphorus issue.

One of the alternatives included a comprehensive upgrade to the city’s current wastewater treatment facility.
The two remaining alternatives would abandon the current wastewater treatment facility for a newly constructed facility. The only difference between these two alternatives was the type of solid waste that would be produced by the facility, Gerbitz said.
The solid waste produced from one of the final two alternatives could be used as an unregulated fertilizer, Gerbitz said.
“Most people that produce a Class A product have landowners who just come out to the facility, they take it back to their agricultural operation and use it,” Gerbitz said. “In some instances, they’ll even pay a little bit for that, so instead of becoming a revenue consuming or a cost to your operations, it becomes a revenue producer.”
Gerbitz said the advantages of the city choosing the alternative that includes a new wastewater treatment facility that produces a Class A waste product includes: achieving phosphorus limit compliance, a brand-new facility that addresses the age of the current facility, the new facility being simpler and more efficient, and the ability to achieve future nitrogen limits without more capital costs.
With those advantages, though, the alternative that includes a new wastewater treatment facility that produces a Class A waste product is also the most expensive alternative of the seven, with a total construction and capital project costs of slightly more than $76 million. While the total cost is the most expensive, this design alternative would cost about 30% less to operate than the cost of the current facility to operate if it were renovated.
Gerbitz told the council that the city’s Board of Public Works recommended this alternative, Alternative 7, for the city to pursue.
“From a long-term perspective, looking down the road at what future capital costs might be coming at you, Alternative 7 is that one and done alternative,” Gerbitz said. “…Alternative 7 reduces operating costs, prepares for the long-term by minimizing the likelihood that future ratepayers will need to revisit the same challenges again.”
Wastewater rates
Regarding the rates city ratepayers would pay, Gerbitz said in 2026 a typical wastewater ratepayer in the city is paying $54 per month. For Alternative 7, rates would increase from $54 per month to roughly $109 per month by 2030.
The city would not have to make its first principal and interest payment until the construction of the facility is completed in 2031.
“This is the modern age of wastewater treatment in this regulatory climate with these construction costs,” Gerbitz said. “Construction costs are going up faster than inflation.”
Gerbitz said a wastewater rate of $100 per month is becoming more common for municipalities.
“New London is not alone in this,” Gerbitz said. “And it’s just kind of how the world works today. If a community has really low rates, it just means they haven’t done a capital project in some time, so they’re on borrowed time.”
The council once it approves the facility plan recommendation of Alternative 7 and authorizes the final design, reviewable plans and specifications would be submitted to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources by the deadline, which is the end of September.
Questions
Ald. Tim Roberts asked if the costs for Alternative 7 included the cost to decommission and dismantle the city’s current wastewater treatment facility.
Gerbitz said those costs were not included in the cost figures.
“We would recommend you not include that in the bid package at this point,” Gerbitz said. “…The community would be best served by making that a future project and allowing bidders that are interested in that type of work bidding specifically on that. That’s in the city’s best interest.”
Roberts also asked if Alternative 7 would produce an odor during the process of producing Class A solid waste.
Gerbitz said odor control would be included in the project.
Ald. Larry Hutchison asked if Alternative 7 takes future population growth into account.
Gerbitz said that future population growth is considered in Alternative 7.