City Engineer Steven Lang discussed possible designs to upgrade Austin’s waste water treatment plant during the Austin City Council’s work session Monday evening.

The current facility, which was built in 1939, is in need of upgrades to help modernize the plant as well as meet regulations imposed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) on phosphorus discharge.

“Right now, we have an older treatment plant,” Lang said. “The trickling filter process that we have works well, but it is not set up to meet future regulations. Do we invest money into our existing infrastructure to rehab it, or is that money going to be wasted because in the future we anticipate limits on phosphorous and nitrates? Or do we rebuild the system and bring it up to a new activated sludge process, which sets us up not only to meet our current waste loads, but also sets us up well into the future to meet future regulations?”

“What does the waste water treatment plant have in common with the Tennessee Valley Authority, Camp David and the Golden Gate Bridge? They were all Public Works Administration projects back in the day,” said City Administrator Craig Clark. “That gives you a sense of the age of our facility. We’ve done a good job of managing that facility for 80 years, but all good things come to an end and we have to move forward and update the facility to be functional to today’s standards.”

Lang said that Austin’s plant currently produces some of the highest phosphorus discharge rates in the state. Regulations set by the MPCA call for communities to reduce phosphorus discharge as a means to reduce algae bloom in bodies of water that collect the discharge.

“We discharge into the Cedar River, which carries water down to Iowa and later connects to the Mississippi River,” Lang said. “There were other communities that were high (in phosphorus discharge) like us, but they’ve already had plant upgrades to address phosphorus. Now it’s our turn to address it and with any plant expansion, we will be required to meet a one-milligram per liter phosphorus limit. That is what we’re planning for with our plant expansion.”

In planning, Lang accounted for a projected population growth to 28,887 within the city by 2040. He also accounted for industrial growth, with a projected Hormel flow from 2.04 million gallons per day to 2.75 million gallons per day by 2040, and a 20-year permitted flow projection of 10.44 million gallons per day by 2040, up from the current 8.475 million gallons per day.

Lang presented three design alternatives to the council. One design would expand and upgrade the existing treatment process, but would not effectively meet future water quality regulations. Another alternative would be to separate domestic and industrial treatment processes, but Lang said each flow stream works best when combined with the other and to separate the two would come with a hefty price tag of roughly $94 million.

“That is not the most efficient treatment process and it is very expensive,” he said.

The alternative Lang advocated calls for a combined activated sludge treatment process, which would work for current and future water regulations.

“This option would have us switching over to a new treatment process,” he said. “We are recommending it based on evaluating the cost and existing infrastructure.”

But the project comes with an approximate cost of $77.9 million. In planning for an expensive upgrade, the city raised monthly waste water user rates in 2018 by 25 percent. This was followed by a seven percent increase every year from 2019-23. According to a 2018 Annual Utility Rate Survey, Austin residents pay about $35.06 on average per month in waste water charges. This is higher than users in Owatonna, Faribault and Albert Lea, but lower than cities like Worthington, Mankato and Rochester, who leads the pack with an average of $44.48 per month.

So as not to have the burden fall squarely on the residents of Austin, the city has been actively seeking ways to help alleviate the cost.

“We’ve reached out to the Governor, who has seen the (waste water) facility,” Clark said. “We had the (Minnesota) House of Representatives Capital Investment Committee come through. We have bonding applications we’ll put forward to help lower those costs for Austin residents. We’re mindful that whether it’s property taxes or waste water fees, those come out of the same check book of our residents and businesses, so we want to try to search out all of those additional funding sources to help us meet the state standards.”

The Minnesota Senate Capital Investment Committee heard from Lang and city leaders on Tuesday about the waste water treatment plant cost. Clark added that the issue has been brought to the attention of the office of Rep. Jim Hagedorn (R-MN1), who will in turn seek federal funds to help with the cost. Clark also mentioned that the council has the option of instituting a local option sales tax, though that would require legislative approval and a go-ahead vote from the voters.

According to Lang, funds that the city is currently seeking could bring in roughly $23 million. With state assistance alone, Austin sewer rates could be as much as $48.96 per month versus $53.10 per month without it.

“We recognize that it’s a lot of money,” Lang said. “We are looking to capture any grants we can to bring the costs down to our local residents; that’s our main focus.”

“It’s kind of an all-hands-on-deck approach to fund this facility,” Clark said. “This is our biggest capital investment in the city by far.”

The council will vote to schedule a public hearing on the waste water treatment plant for Dec. 2 during its next regular meeting on Nov. 18. Member of the general public will be able to get more information during the hearing as well as provide their input.