Bridging separate objectives

• Reprints

Updated: March 9, 2012 8:10AM

ELGIN — Officials from the Fox River Water Reclamation District figure that if they must pipe waste between two treatment facilities — one on either side of the Fox River — then there should be a way to make that pipe work for everyone.

The district, which treats sewage for Elgin and much of South Elgin, can tunnel that pipe under the Fox River between the South Plant, located on the east side of the river, to the West Plant. Or, that pipe could hang under a pedestrian trail bridge between the two locations on Elgin’s far south side, said FRWRD Director Bob Trueblood.

The price between the two options, however, is the difference between $400,000 for the underground pipe and $1.9 million for the bridge and pipe combination, Trueblood said. If other local entities with an interest in pedestrian trails got involved in the bridge project, he said, “we could partner with other agencies for our costs, and have an opportunity for agencies that didn’t exist (before).”

That bridge, Trueblood said, could connect present and future pedestrian trails on the west and east sides of the river and open up riverside recreation land as well, while making the commute from one wastewater plant to the other a bit easier for FRWRD workers.

Trying for grant

A meeting held in late January, with representatives from the water treatment district, Elgin, Kane County Forest Preserve District, South Elgin, and local lawmakers, looked at how the bridge could happen, Trueblood said.

“There were two things from the meeting,” he said. “One, for people to reiterate that they are still supporting the project … . And two, where do we come up with the $196,000 preliminary design report. That is the only fly in the ointment at this point.”

The water reclamation district applied through the city of Elgin for a federal grant to fund 80 percent of the bridge construction. But without a preliminary engineering report, the FRWRD proposal was not considered for that grant, Trueblood said.

“The (water reclamation) district doesn’t want to fund it,” he said of the engineering report because even if completed, it doesn’t guarantee that the bridge funding would later be approved.

If the water district just bores under the river, the $400,000 cost for that would be paid for through sewage fees. “We do have the money in our reserves, and we would be able to pay for it … without a bond or a rate increase,” Trueblood said.

Hanging the pipe under a bridge would cost in the neighborhood of $200,000 to the water reclamation district.

But the federal grant is available as an 80 percent/20 percent split, with federal dollars paying for the larger amount. The $400,000 local cost for bridge construction under the grant program could be covered by those set-aside dollars in the FRWRD reserves, he said.

“If the city can come up with a grant to get (the bridge) built, we would be able to fund the $400,000 and maybe a few dollars more,” Trueblood said. “We could get the pipe underneath (the bridge) and get the local participation taken care of. The community then has a new bridge,” for walking or biking across the river, he added.

City commitment

Elgin staff is meeting later this week to discuss what the city’s position and possible commitments — if any — could be to go forward with the bridge, said City Manager Sean Stegall.

“We need to look at what the city’s potential commitment might be,” Stegall said, adding that also will include a discussion with the city council. “We are in the due diligence period.”

In previous discussions, the water treatment district had been communicating with former city public services director Dave Lawry, who recently took a buyout to retire from the city.

Overall, Stegall noted, “it is a positive project” but must be looked at in comparison to other recreation projects in the community.

If built, the Kane County Forest Preserve District has agreed to manage and maintain the bridge, too, while allowing FRWRD to run a golf cart on the bridge between its two locations, Trueblood said. Currently, only forest district vehicles are allowed on pedestrian bridges.

The bottom line for the water reclamation district is that it is not in the business of building bridges but does see the amenity that a pedestrian bridge would be for the area, Trueblood said.

“I can’t ask sewer users to pay for a bike bridge,” he said. “That doesn’t make sense to me. But doing the bridge or (underground pipe), you get the most benefit by going under a bike bridge.”