Workers from Huntsville’s Water Pollution Control department labored in the hot sun on Monday replacing clay sewer pipes with new PVC pipes on Glen Park Drive in northwest Huntsville.

It’s an upgrade that has been needed, city officials say, because the old clay pipes date back to the 1950s in the neighborhood. The old, clay, gravity sewer lines have held up well through the years, but they’re nearing the end of their life span.

It’s an upgrade the city would like to see in similar neighborhoods where the infrastructure dates back to that time, or even earlier, especially in the downtown area.

But the city would have to “limp” along with its upgrades if the Huntsville City Council does not approve a sewer rate increase for the first time in 20 years at its meeting on Thursday, Urban and Economic Development Director Shane Davis told the council at its meeting on June 12.

The city council put off a vote then in hopes of receiving an alternative proposal to the one already proposed by the city. The current proposal would raise the average residential sewer rate from the current rate $24.15 per month to $39.15 by 2034.

Davis said the upgrades are also needed to make sure the system meets Environmental Protection Agency and Alabama Department of Environmental Management regulations.

The current proposal calls for:

• Monthly sewer bills to increase from $24.15 to $29.15 for an average residential customer. That remains far below the average Alabama sewer bill of $52.14 per month, the city states.
• Rates would increase by $1 per month each year beginning in 2026 until 2034. At that point in 2034, the average residential sewer bill would be $39.15, still well below the current sewer bill average in the state, the city states.

Council President John Meredith asked Davis to provide an alternative, but also said the council wanted the city to comply with federal and state regulations.

The current proposal would help fund a $150 million infrastructure investment within its sewer collection system and treatment facilities over a 10-year capital plan. Should the council approve a smaller increase or none at all, Davis said the city would take out some of the larger capital projects, including ones involving a couple of the treatment plants, or defer them.

Davis told the council that the city hoped revenue generated from the city’s population and economic growth would keep the city from having to raise rates. But he said that was not the case. Davis said the city’s Water Pollution Control department would operate at a more than $3.6 million deficit this fiscal year if it did the capital improvements it hoped it could do. But he said the department would not operate at a deficit and as a result some projects would be delayed.

Members of the council have been asked by residence if the increase would be used to subsidize developers, But Davis said that was not the case, that developers paid for sewer infrastructure for their developments.

Water Pollution Control currently operates and maintains six wastewater treatment facilities. They have a permitted treatment capacity of 110 million gallons per day and have been in service for an average of 48 years. Four need capital improvements to ensure reliable operation and permitting requirements, the city said.