The City Council of Webster City agreed Monday to sign a contract with Snyder & Associates, Ankeny, that will finally set in motion a plan to rebuild the city’s outdated and inadequate wastewater treatment plant while still providing for both population and industrial growth.

For its part, Snyder will deliver a detailed plan to rebuild the wastewater facilities “within the property limits of the city’s existing wastewater treatment plant site.”

Snyder’s fee is $1,978,350, which includes $172,000 for project management; $8,800 for a preliminary survey; $16,550 for a geotechnical investigation; $923,000 for a preliminary design; $798,000 for final design and construction documents; and $60,000 to manage the bid-letting or CMAR selection.

CMAR stands for Construction Manager at Risk, an alternative to the usual bidding process in which qualified construction firms bid on a finished design, with the lowest bidder normally getting the work. A CMAR is essentially a general contractor brought into the project at an early date so it can influence the final design. It then agrees to build the project at a Guaranteed Maximum Price — GMP — within an agreed-upon budget and timetable.

CMARs are gaining in popularity as a way to deal with costly change orders and cost overruns typical in large capital projects such as a wastewater treatment plant.

In early 2023, Webster City was preparing to build a new, $78.426 million wastewater plant on a greenfield site at the east edge of what is now called the Southeast Industrial Park. Key to the plan was a “force main” — a pressurized pipeline — running from the present wastewater plant on east Ohio Street to the new plant. Actually, two force mains were planned, the idea being that if one was down for maintenance, the other would guarantee uninterrupted wastewater service.

The city went so far as to buy a zig-zagging right of way for the force main across the property of Dean Allan and Lorette Gillette, in November 2023, for $86,337.50.

Although that land will not be used for the intended purpose, City Manager John Harrenstein said Monday, “We think it could be beneficial in the future if we see industrial growth in the expanded industrial park.”

After months of work to determine the expected load on the rebuilt plant, Harrenstein, Webster City’s Water and Wastewater Treatment Plant Supervisor Nick Knowles, and Darrin Jacobs, P.E., Snyder & Associates, have reached a projected total cost of $30 million.

If the plant is actually built for that amount, it will end up costing $48.426 million less than the 2023 plan.

Put another way, if Webster Citians had to proceed with the more expensive plant, it would have resulted in debt of $4,365,510 payable over a 30-year term. If the upgraded plant is actually built for $30 million, the cost to finance it, once more over 30 years, will be $1,761,500.

When he arrived in Webster City in January 2024 as the newly-hired interim city manager, Harrenstein said he was “alarmed” at the prospect of building, and paying for, a $78.426 million wastewater treatment plant.

Mayor John Hawkins, in an interview on November 11, 2024, said, “The cost of the plant had gone from $35 million to almost $79 million. I didn’t think it was affordable. We could pay for it, but it would be a heavy burden on ratepayers. Daniel (then-City Manager Daniel Ortiz-Hernandez) and Birie (then-Assistant City Manager Biridiana Bishop) tried to find grants, but there didn’t seem to be any outside help available to us. I realized we weren’t going to get $30 million from anybody.”

Hawkins feared average rates paid for wastewater service in Webster City “could jump from about $40 a month to more than $150.” On top of the sewer, electric and water base rates totaling around $75 a month for most Webster City households, he knew “that would be an expensive proposition for many people in town.”

Hawkins continued then, “I was away visiting family in Australia when Harrenstein cancelled the contract with Bolton & Menk (the firm that proposed the $78.426 million plant). He got a group of local people together and asked ‘what’s possible?’ There were many options; it’s a complicated process, but our new approach is more feasible and affordable.”

As Hawkins suggests, there are many options for processing wastewater and the final design for the rebuilt plant is unknown at this time.

In a November 22, 2024, interview, Darin Jacobs of Snyder & Associates gave an early assessment of what might be possible.

“Many sewers in Webster City are over 100 years old and there’s dirt and sand in many of them. This means we’ll need much more effective screening in the new plant. The present grit removal system isn’t effective, so we need to upgrade what’s already in place. It’s all structurally capable and in fair condition; not a bad start.”

Harrenstein added: “We’re hopeful the new $30-million-dollar project estimate comes to fruition when the project is bid. The possibility of reducing the cost of the project by $50 million reduces the estimated debt service by approximately $2.5 million and reduces pressure on rate increases previously proposed. This year the city was able to defer a planned 20% increase in wastewater rates based on new estimates for the project. Let’s hope the deferral becomes permanent after the project is bid.”

Jacobs has also been looking at Webster City’s water treatment plant on White Fox Road. Plans have called for a completely new facility, but Jacobs says it isn’t necessary.

“There’s no need to throw away this plant, or change the water purification process either,” he told the City Council Monday night.

The process Jacobs is referring to is lime softening. It’s used in Webster City’s present plant and is in widespread use across the nation.

“The City of Ames just built a new plant and it uses the same lime-softening process as your plant. It’s proven, reliable and economic,” Jacobs said.

He explained an investment of an estimated $2.2 million “can give this plant 20 to 30 more years.” He referred to this approach as “a good spend for a nice plant.”

After hearing Jacob’s presentation, the Council voted to take the next step, filing an amended facility plan with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources.