Treatment plant set for upgrade

A topic of lengthy discussion at the November 1, 2022 Waseca City Council meeting addressed the condition of the four blowers which act as the “lungs” of the wastewater treatment plant, spinning at 25,000 revolutions per minute to deliver air into the raw sludge sewage, allowing bacteria to break down its components as part of the purification process. 

Carl Sonnenberg, the city’s utilities and public works director, noted there have been consistent failures, with one blower going out suddenly last January and two failing unexpectedly during October.  At another unspecified time, Sonnenberg said, the plant had been down to only one operating blower, at which point “extreme” measures had been taken to assure its continued operation, including acquiring a generator from another city department and installing it temporarily to assure power to the blower would not fail.

Strong concern is appropriate, Sonnenberg emphasized, because without the oxygen they introduce, the plant would be in danger of  “discharging raw sewage into the river.”

Along with that undesirable result, he continued, is the fact that the plant has a “very stringent permit” which could lead to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) levying fines as high as $50,000 a day. Sonnenberg told council members that the treatment plant has a service contract for the blowers. He explained that a single technician is persistently crossing the country visiting plants which have the same make of blowers, which were state of the art when they were acquired in 2007. Although the technician would be contacted immediately, he might not be able to respond right away: At $50,000 a day, a 30-day breakdown could lead to fines much higher than $1 million.

Sonnenberg asked council members for permission to “fast track” replacement of the blowers, which have not only had a record of breakdowns for the Waseca plant, but have already been replaced at two “nearby” cities and at another in Colorado. “Which is hurtful,” stated Sonnenberg. “The usable life of equipment like this should be 30 years,” rather than the 12 the city has gotten.

But even under the accelerated timeline Sonnenberg described, it would likely be 2024 before new blowers could be installed–at a price tag of about $1.4 million. In the meantime there would be an on-going threat of breakdowns and resulting fines.

“What risk does the city want to take that we’re going to lose all 4 blowers and violate the permit?” Sonnenberg asked. He offered three levels of potential action toward mitigating the risk: 1. Do nothing. 2. Rent a portable (backup) blower at a price of about $11,000 a month and keep it at the plant to be used intermittently in support of the existing blowers. 3. Rent another type of blower at a cost of $3,000 a month–if that type proves compatible with the system. Sonnenberg also mentioned that he had raised the possibility of a “rent-to-own” arrangement with a company representative who had been in the treatment plant that day, and that the representative was “looking into” the idea.

After hearing Sonnenber’s report, council member Jeremy Conrath affirmed “We need to expedite getting new blowers, but we also need to have a backup plan.” He expressed support for the idea of leasing an auxiliary unit to own.

John Mansfield seemed to disagree, commenting that Sonnenberg was “scaring” council members by presenting a worst-case scenario that included a month’s worth of fines, when repairs in previous breakdowns had required only a few days. A certain level of risk was worth taking, Mansfield said, because “We’re already way overtaxed, and it seems as if we are leaning harder and harder on local citizens.”

Sonnenberg contradicted the idea that he was being alarmist, saying “I am working to present you with enough options so that you can make an informed decision. You may weigh each option as you wish.” He observed that the technician responds on a first-come, first-served basis, and that if a natural disaster should lead to a large-scale emergency, a 30-day delay was not impossible.

Council member John Clemons suggested that, in the case of such a dilemma, a “bonus carrot” might convince the service company to prioritize Waseca’s repairs, intimating that the risk of possibly paying out such a bonus was a better financial gamble than paying tens of thousands of dollars to keep a backup blower on site.

After lengthy discussion, the council authorized Sonnenberg to begin a feasibility study regarding the replacement of the four blowers, and the possibility of renting a backup unit “to own.”

Also addressed during the meeting is a change in the way the City is billed for electricity. The current arrangement has the city paying a flat fee of 3.7 cents per kilowatt hour. Under the agreement which will take effect soon, the provider will adjust the rate up or down by as much as 2 cents per kw/hour based on production costs and use. “Both increases and decreases happen,” stated city manager Lee Mattson, “but increases happen more often.” 

Mattson offered two possible systems: either passing the rises and falls directly to city residents, leading to cost fluctuations of up to $20 on monthly statements, or raising the price slightly in advance to “develop a fund for stabilization” and thus “isolate the consumer from rapid change.” No direct action was taken.

Mattson also reported that, of the three “shift commanders” at the Waseca fire department, two will be leaving their positions in the near future. Christiansen commented that if any changes are to be made in fire department staffing, this would be an opportune time to investigate them, balancing the savings which might come from manning only two shifts in the fire department against the possible increase area residents might pay for their home insurance. 

After an informal survey of council members, Srp stated that 4 of the 6 who were present were in favor of keeping three shift managers, to which Christiansen replied “High taxes. We all hear it every day. I’ll get phone calls tomorrow.”

Also raised during the meeting were the possibility of installing a frisbee-disc golf course at Gaiter Lake park, and of adding a mountain bike trail to Trowbridge Park. 

A fairly lengthy discussion also took place regarding the fences at Tink Larson Field, and changes which could be implemented to make the line of sight clearer at the intersection of Fourth Street and Seventh Avenue NE. In the end, council members seemed to be in favor of adding flashing lights to the stop signs at the corner with the intent of calling drivers’ attention to the fact that traffic coming uphill on seventh avenue is no longer required to stop.