City Action on Wastewater

Keller Associates Draft Jan 4, 2010

In order for the City to be able to complete the projects shown in Table 9.2, the City would need to raise monthly user rates to the $33.00 to $36.00 range. Furthermore, the City would need to raise monthly rates on an annual basis to reflect inflationary changes (approximately 3%
annually) so that the City will continue to be able to adequately fund the wastewater department.
In addition to raising user rates, it is recommended that the City raise their current connection fee from $500 to $1,500 and increase this rate 3% per year to keep up with inflationary changes. Connection fees should be placed in a capital improvements fund to be used for future
improvement projects.

Keller Analysis (ongoing)

Waste Water Citizen’s Advisory Council Tuesday, October 07, 2008 at 11:35 AM

Contract with Keller – Engineering for Emergency Repair to Main Sewer Line on Highway 93 North

Ultraviolet system cost $101,900.00; sewer line needs fixed;

Wastewater in the Salmon Comprehensive Plan

Draft City Plan 2010

EPA Requirement

Salmon, City of Wastewater Treatment Plant Salmon, ID ID-002000-1

10/01/07 -- 09/30/12

City of Salmon Final Permit (PDF) (26 pp. 171K)

City of Salmon Fact Sheet (PDF) (36 pp. 542K)

No com-ment recei-ved

Current NPDES Permits in Idaho

40 CFR 101 ff

Water Quality: Wastewater Reuse Permitting Program Overview (formerly known as Land Application Permitting Program)

Wastewater Management: Final Wastewater Reuse Permits

Idaho city's growth slowed by waste-water problems

Design and Startup of FWS Constructed Wetlands

For Cle Elum, Washington

Hemet/San Jacinto Multipurpose Constructed Wetlands Project

Media by Cal on Trying to Communicate With Our City Council on January 6, 2010

Include Cost of Wetland

Free Water Surface Wetlands for Wastewater - an average service cost improvement of 2.1-fold to 8-fold is found.

Conventional sewage treatment plants cost between two to ten times more than a constructed wetland system.

Large wetlands above 5 hectares range
from $1.60 per m2 for minimal works to
$6.00 per m2 for extensive earthworks, 150 acre = 607028.463 m² = $971,244 at $1.60

Annual operating costs: Large wetlands, above 5 hectares, are $0.25 per m2.  $151,757 for 150 acres.

Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment:
A Planning & Design Analysis for San Francisco  Proposed size: 5 acres
Capacity: 3.3 million gallons storage & tertiary treatment
Cost: $4 mill capital cost, $100K/yr O&M

Review of Constructed Subsurface Flow vs. Surface Flow Wetlands  Nancy V. Halverson  September 2004 

A Free Water Surface wetland capital cost is between $30,000 and $96,000/acre.  O&M costs for a Free Water Surface wetland is between $6,200 and $18,000/acre.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers APPLICABILITY OF CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS FOR ARMY INSTALLATIONS, includes cost data. $.47/1000 gal is $940,000 for 2 million gallons.

Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment
and Wildlife Habitat 17 Case Studies  EPA 1993

Constructed Wetlands

Funding

Community Block Grants Department Commerce Idaho

Idaho DeQ

Tim Wendland

DEQ Division of Water Quality

Loan Program Manager

(208) 373-0439

CFDA (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Green Project Reserve

What's New on DEQ's Web Site?

Other 2009 Grants:

• City of Crouch, Boise County
• City of Cascade, Valley County
• City of Georgetown, Bear Lake County
• Fish Haven Area Recreational Sewer District, Bear Lake County
• Elk Bend Sewer District , Lemhi County
• City of Rockland, Power County
• City of Montpelier, Bear Lake County

NPDES Homepage State Contacts

DEQ awards interest-free $11 million wastewater construction loan to city of Chubbuck in Bannock County

Public Comment on Wastewater Hearing

December 16, 2009 Salmon City Council Meeting

I attended last Wednesday's City Council meeting after seeing a legal notice in the paper announcing a $21 rate hike in our sewer fees. I knew the City had been reviewing upgrades to the wastewater treatment plant but I was alarmed at the steep increase. I had recently read of Recovery Act projects that helped communities like ours improve infrastructure so I decided to attend the public hearing and urge the council to make sure they had exhausted other financial options before imposing a $65 base fee on customers.

The hearing started at 6:15 p.m. sharp, as advertised in the legal notice. Mayor John Miller asked for public comment in favor of the proposal, neutral comments, or opposed to the proposal. He laid out the ground rules. "This isn't a Q and A session," he told us. I reminded him of this when the first gentleman started providing comment and Mayor Miller interrupted him.

As I gave my comments, I actually had to ask Mayor Miller to stop interrupting me and to stop pointing his finger at me as he countered my testimony. Once I finished my comments, Mayor Miller lectured me about the errors in my testimony and scolded me for not attending an open house meeting with the engineering firm contracted to help the City with its wastewater treatment study. The meeting started at 5 p.m., a fact not posted in the legal notice but listed in an article elsewhere in the paper.

Mayor Miller also admonished me for not attending the wastewater treatment plant advisory committee meetings or the finance committee meetings where these issues were discussed.

The reason public hearings are required in certain instances, such as fee increases that are greater than 105% of the existing rate, is so decision makers have a chance to hear and consider input from the public, whether or not they were involved in the issue previously.

I was appalled at the treatment I received during this public hearing. I have attended many public meetings, listened to hundreds of public comments, and provided them myself occasionally. I assure you that the arrogance exhibited by this elected official ranks in a league of its own. I would think twice before asking my neighbors and fellow citizens to subject themselves to similar rudeness and disrespect.

Something that hits the pocketbook so directly like a $21 increase to a monthly bill usually gets people interested enough to go to a public meeting about the subject. That evening I was surprised that only three of us showed up to say anything. After my experience, I am not so surprised. The law requires the City to provide a public hearing. The law, however, does not mandate courtesy. The return to civility is something voters will have to impose.

Gina Knudsen

With Recovery Funds and other grants available to small cities, we live with a city council, who finds it appropriate to just increase our waste-water tax.  Instead of finding help with the expense from other sources, instead of finding the most sensible solution to the waste-water system, the council read this tax-increase ordinance for the first time, last Wednesday.

The Environmental Protection Agency has many documents showing free-water surface wetlands the best value for small towns, where land is available.  The city council chose Keller Associates, from Idaho Falls, to propose a solution. No wetland solutions are in Idaho.  Wetland solutions are in South Dakota, where it is even colder.   Apparently that firm did not examine the EPA documents about small town waste-water systems, which are generally 2-8 times less expensive than the conventional treatment plant we have.   If you think $35/month for waste-water is unreasonable, you may want to tell the council to cease and desist on their waste-water tax increase.

Calvin Leman

Those serving on the Waste Water Citizen’s Advisory Council are: Sandra Barrett, Dave Blauser, Harlan Finnemore, Steve Gould, Ken Gutzman, Leo Marshall, Dan Maiyo, William Teuscher, Harry Shanafelt, Mickey Verbeck, Bob Wiederrick, Luke Prange and George Ambrose