NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of Victor, Idaho will hold a public hearing for consideration of a proposed amendment to the fiscal year 2026 budget. The hearing will be held at the Victor City Hall, 138 N Main St Suite 201 at 6:00 p.m. on April 22, 2026. The proposed amendment reflects the use of reserve balances and anticipated revenue.

At said hearing any interested person may appear and show cause, if any he has, why such proposed appropriations ordinance amendment should or should not be adopted. Written comment can be submitted to jasmineg@victoridaho.gov City Hall is accessible to persons with disabilities. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities, please contact City Hall, 208-274-7082, at least 48 hours prior to the public hearing.

More information can be found on the staff report from April 8. Please note that the council has directed $1,000,000 of the purchase of land to be drawn from the general fund instead of the sewer fund until more information on the sewer plant's need is determined. A full staff report outlining this change will be available April 16.

Budget Amendment O651 Amending O640

In the previous issue of Wastewater Matters, we explained the planning-level capital costs associated with constructing a locally controlled wastewater treatment facility. A natural follow-up question residents are asking is: 

What does this investment mean for monthly sewer bills? 

This article explains how sewer rates are calculated, what the current rates cover, and what preliminary modeling suggests future rates could look like as the City moves forward with a new wastewater facility. 

Victor’s sewer utility operates as an enterprise fund, meaning the system is funded by user fees rather than general tax revenue. 

For FY2026, the proposed sewer fund budget is approximately $2.19 million, compared with $2.2 million in FY2025. 

Victor currently has approximately 1,765 equivalent residential units (ERUs) connected to the sewer system. Based on the current budget and user base, the monthly sewer rate is $98.47 per month per ERU. 

This rate supports the existing system, including sewer collection infrastructure, staffing, and treatment costs currently paid to the City of Driggs. 

Sewer rates are designed to cover the full cost of operating and maintaining the wastewater system. In general, sewer utility budgets include three major categories: 

Debt service, which repays borrowed funds used to construct infrastructure 

Operating costs, such as power, testing, equipment maintenance, and plant operations 

System maintenance and replacement, which ensures pipes, lift stations, and other infrastructure continue to function reliably over time 

Sewer utility funds are restricted by law. Revenue collected through sewer bills can only be used to operate and maintain the sewer system. Sewer fees do not fund roads, parks, or other city services. 

What Changes With a New Wastewater Facility 

Under a locally controlled wastewater treatment facility, several costs within the sewer system would shift. The City would continue maintaining its existing sewer collection system and staffing structure. However, the current payment made to the City of Driggs for treatment services would be replaced by operating and financing costs associated with Victor’s own facility. 

Preliminary modeling includes several major components: 

Plant operating expenses estimated at approximately $300,000 per year 

Debt service associated with constructing the facility 

The plant operations estimate reflects operating expenses only. Salaries and capital financing are accounted for separately within the model. 

Based on current planning-level estimates, preliminary modeling suggests the following potential rate range. 

If the project cost were approximately $35 million, the modeled monthly sewer rate would be about $138.96 per month. 

If the project cost were approximately $30 million, the modeled monthly sewer rate would be about $126.45 per month. 

For context, the current rate is $98.47 per month. 

These modeled scenarios represent an increase of roughly $28 to $40 per month, depending on final construction cost and financing terms. 

The rate model does not assume or rely on any future growth. Sewer rates must be projected using only the existing customer base to ensure they are sustainable without new development.  

As additional homes and businesses connect to the system, the cost of infrastructure is distributed across a larger number of users, which helps moderate individual monthly rates. 

Grant funding can also play a significant role in reducing the cost borne by local ratepayers. 

Based on the current model, every $1 million in grant funding could reduce monthly sewer rates by approximately $2.50 per household. $5 million in grant funding could reduce monthly rates by roughly $12.50 per month. 

The City is actively pursuing grant and low-interest financing opportunities to reduce the overall cost of the project where possible. 

These figures are preliminary modeling scenarios, not final rates. Several factors will influence the final cost of the project and the resulting sewer rates, including: 

Interest rates at the time financing is secured 

Before any final financing decision is made, the City will present a detailed public rate model and discuss the financial implications in an open Council meeting. 

Wastewater infrastructure is a long-term investment in community reliability, environmental protection, and public health. By moving forward with a locally controlled wastewater facility, Victor will take responsibility for operating and maintaining the infrastructure that protects local water quality and serves the community. As engineering and financing details become clearer, the City will continue sharing information with residents about the financial aspects of the project. 

Wastewater Finances: What It Means for Sewer Bills 

Many of you saw the news that the City of Victor has filed a lawsuit related to our long-standing wastewater agreement with the City of Driggs. Because wastewater service affects every household and business in Victor, I want to take a moment to explain why the City took this step.

Victor and Driggs share a close and long-standing relationship. Our communities are deeply connected through families, businesses, and daily life in the valley. Because of that relationship, legal action between the two cities is not something the City considered lightly.

Victor has historically relied on Driggs’ wastewater treatment facility to process the water that leaves our homes and businesses. This arrangement allowed both communities to share infrastructure and avoid duplicating expensive systems. Driggs is our neighbor, and for many years the cities worked together in that spirit.

Over time, however, several issues emerged that raised serious concerns for Victor residents and ratepayers. These included ongoing compliance problems at the Driggs treatment facility, federal enforcement actions requiring significant upgrades, and financial questions related to how costs under the intercity agreement were calculated and allocated.

Victor spent years attempting to resolve these concerns through cooperation rather than confrontation. City staff and elected officials participated in negotiations, mediation, and independent financial review in an effort to clarify costs and find a path forward that was fair to both communities without resorting to litigation.

Unfortunately, those efforts did not lead to a resolution.

Victor also proposed several options that would have allowed the two cities to continue working together through a shared wastewater facility under updated terms. These included proposals for a joint partnership agreement, a fair customer agreement, and other shared-use arrangements that could have allowed the communities to continue operating a common system. Those proposals were not accepted by Driggs.


Victor has made the commitment to build our own wastewater treatment facility. That decision allows our community to plan for a reliable, locally managed system going forward. However, choosing to build our own plant does not resolve the financial and contractual issues connected to the existing agreement with Driggs. Questions about past costs, billing practices, and shared infrastructure responsibilities still need to be addressed.


For that reason, the City concluded that legal action was the only remaining way to resolve these matters in a clear, transparent, and structured way.

Filing a lawsuit is never the first choice between neighboring communities. It is a last resort when other efforts have been exhausted. Our goal is to establish clarity and fairness so that Victor residents are not left carrying costs or obligations that are not consistent with the agreement between the cities.

While the legal process moves forward, Victor will continue focusing on the same responsibilities we have always had: protecting our aquifer, maintaining reliable infrastructure, and planning carefully for the city’s future wastewater needs.

Residents who would like to learn more can visit the City’s wastewater information page: https://victoridaho.gov/wwtf


To receive updates about the wastewater project and related decisions, you can subscribe to the Wastewater Matters community newsletter here: https://victoridaho.gov/newsletter-signup.

If you have questions or would like to share your thoughts, you are also welcome to contact the Mayor’s office directly at mayor@victoridaho.gov

A Message to Victor Residents About the Wastewater Lawsuit

Welcome to the third issue of Wastewater Matters, a series explaining the City of Victor’s wastewater infrastructure project. Each article focuses on one question residents have raised about the project.

Wastewater Investment: What It Costs the City and What It Means for Residents

Wastewater infrastructure is one of the least visible parts of city services, but it is among the most essential. As Victor moves forward with development of a locally controlled wastewater treatment facility, residents understandably want clear information about the financial side of the project.

This article focuses on one question: What will this cost the City?

A second article will explain what the project means for monthly sewer bills and rate structures.

Over the past year, Victor explored whether a renewed regional wastewater partnership could be achieved. After extensive negotiation and mediation, no such agreement is currently available. With state and federal compliance obligations in place, the City is moving forward with development of a locally controlled wastewater treatment facility.

Wastewater infrastructure must be upgraded under any scenario. Regulatory timelines require a clear path forward, and engineering analysis has identified capital needs across the system over the next 5–50 years.

Infrastructure ages. Regulations evolve. Communities must invest in systems that protect water quality, public health, and long-term environmental stewardship.

Moving forward with a locally controlled facility also means local accountability. Victor will own and operate the infrastructure that serves its residents and will be responsible for planning, financing, and maintaining that system over time.

It is also important to understand that capital construction is only part of the total cost of operating a wastewater system. Facilities and pipes represent the upfront investment, but long-term operations, maintenance, staffing, and equipment replacement are equally important parts of providing reliable sewer service.

What “Project Cost” Actually Includes

When residents hear a number associated with a wastewater project, it typically refers to a planning-level capital estimate.

Municipal capital estimates generally include:

Civil construction such as earthwork, tanks, and structures

Contingency, typically 15–30% at the planning stage

Planning-level estimates include contingency because final construction bids have not yet been received. This is standard municipal practice and helps ensure early estimates are responsibly budgeted.

These early estimates also do not account for future inflation, which will be incorporated as projects move through design, bidding, and financing phases.

Wastewater Infrastructure Includes Two Major Parts

Wastewater systems consist of two major components:

The sewer collection system includes the underground pipes and lift stations that move wastewater from homes and businesses to the treatment facility.

Over time, maintaining and upgrading the collection system may involve improvements such as:

These types of investments are common for municipal sewer systems and are part of maintaining reliable infrastructure for decades to come.

Current Planning-Level Cost for a Victor Facility

The planning-level estimate for constructing a Victor-owned wastewater treatment facility has been referenced in the mid–$30 million range, including contingency.

This estimate reflects capital construction costs only. It does not include long-term operations and maintenance expenses and does not assume potential grant funding that may reduce the City’s financing needs.

Under this approach, the City would own and operate the facility, giving Victor long-term control over system operations, capital improvements, and regulatory compliance. Ownership also means the City is responsible for managing the infrastructure that protects local water quality and serves the community.

Understanding the Different Numbers You May Have Seen

Residents may have seen several different figures referenced publicly during discussions about wastewater infrastructure. These numbers refer to different parts of the system and different time horizons.

A mid–$30 million estimate reflects planning-level construction costs for a Victor-owned treatment facility.

A long-range Capital Improvement Plan estimate of roughly $30 million over 50 years reflects phased improvements to the sewer collection system under long-term growth assumptions.

Other figures discussed publicly may refer to individual infrastructure components such as trunkline or pipe upgrades.

These figures describe different elements of the wastewater system, which is why they may appear different depending on the scope being discussed.

Planning-level estimates are an important starting point, but several factors influence the final cost of a project.

Potential grant or low-interest loan funding

Market conditions for labor and materials

As engineering design progresses, estimates become more precise. Final costs are determined after construction bids are received and financing terms are established.

Wastewater infrastructure investments are long-term decisions that affect environmental protection, community growth, and fiscal stewardship. By moving forward with a locally controlled treatment facility, Victor is taking responsibility for building and managing the infrastructure that serves its residents.

In the next issue of Wastewater Matters, we will focus on the second key question residents are asking: What does this investment mean for monthly sewer bills and household rates?

That article will explain how sewer rates are calculated and how infrastructure investments are financed over time.

Questions about the project? Visit https://victoridaho.gov/wwtf

This information is provided by the City of Victor as part of the Wastewater Matters Treatment Facility public information series.

New to the conversation? Start here → Read our first article on why Victor is planning for a new wastewater treatment facility and visit the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant page to review staff reports, technical studies, and additional project information.

Understanding the planning-level costs behind Victor’s new wastewater treatment facility.

Wastewater Matters #3: What the New Wastewater System Will Cost the City

CITY OF VICTOR FILES LAWSUIT AGAINST CITY OF DRIGGS OVER WASTEWATER POLLUTION, OVERBILLING, AND BROKEN AGREEMENTS

Teton County, Idaho (March 5, 2026) – The City of Victor has filed a lawsuit and demanded a jury trial against the City of Driggs, alleging years of contract breaches, chronic pollution violations, and financial misconduct tied to a shared wastewater treatment arrangement between the two neighboring cities. The suit contends that Driggs repeatedly failed to operate its wastewater treatment plant in compliance with environmental and contractual obligations, forcing Victor to absorb higher costs while its residents’ wastewater was treated at a facility that could not meet legal standards.

“Driggs has repeatedly failed to meet its obligations under the wastewater agreement, and Victor is taking this step to protect our residents and our aquifer,” said Will Frohlich, Mayor of Victor.

According to the complaint, Victor and Driggs entered into a 2011 Inter‑City Agreement under which Driggs agreed to accept, convey, and treat Victor’s wastewater at Driggs’ upgraded wastewater treatment plant, which was to be “of sufficient size and capable” of treating anticipated flows from both communities in accordance with federal and state water‑quality requirements. Victor alleges that the upgraded plant has never been capable of consistently meeting its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit limits and that Driggs has become a “perennial polluter,” discharging inadequately treated wastewater into Woods Creek, which flows into the Teton River, Henry’s Fork, Snake River, Columbia River, and ultimately the Pacific Ocean.

The complaint cites EPA and Idaho Conservation League records indicating thousands of permit violations and ranking Driggs’ facility among the worst‑performing wastewater plants in Idaho over multiple multi‑year periods. Victor further points to a 2018 EPA consent agreement and a 2025 federal consent decree that required Driggs to identify upgrades, complete construction, and bring its plant into compliance, alleging Driggs has repeatedly failed to meet deadlines, sampling requirements, and effluent limits and has not kept Victor adequately informed.

Victor also alleges that Driggs mishandled and misrepresented finances under the Inter‑City Agreement, including: failing to conduct required annual independent audits until 2024, not fully cooperating with that audit, and overbilling Victor for trunk line and plant debt service, as well as operations and maintenance costs. An independent auditor concluded that Victor has been overpaying on debt service related to a DEQ loan for wastewater facility and trunk line upgrades, and the complaint alleges that Driggs retained payments instead of properly applying them to debt service while also allocating non‑O&M expenses to the wastewater account.

The complaint outlines a breakdown in attempts to renegotiate the inter‑city relationship, alleging that Driggs delayed providing a new proposed wastewater agreement, then presented terms that would have required Victor to pay higher rates and a disproportionate share of costs stemming from Driggs’ own permit violations and necessary plant upgrades. Victor asserts that, in light of the escalating costs and ongoing non‑compliance, it has no choice but to pursue construction of its own wastewater treatment plant—estimated at approximately 35 million dollars for land acquisition, design, construction, and operation—which it claims is a direct consequence of Driggs’ breaches and lack of good faith.

In addition to wastewater and billing issues, the lawsuit includes a claim that Driggs breached a written mediation agreement between the cities and tainted the jury pool by disclosing confidential mediation communications to the media and in response to a public records request, allegedly to disparage Victor and misrepresent the value of a settlement proposal. Victor contends these disclosures damaged the city’s reputation, forced it to incur legal and public relations support costs, and violated confidentiality and good‑faith obligations expressly adopted in the mediation rules.

The complaint asserts causes of action for multiple breaches of contract (including failure to provide and operate a compliant plant, failure to comply with audit requirements, overbilling, and breach of a mediation agreement), breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. Victor seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement of amounts it alleges Driggs wrongfully retained, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, and other relief deemed just and equitable, and it has requested a jury trial on all issues so triable.

Class A reclaimed water is the highest quality of treated wastewater Idaho allows to be reused for irrigation of parks, school grounds, athletic fields, golf courses, landscaped areas, certain commercial or industrial applications, and—under separate permitting—for groundwater recharge.

To achieve Class A, wastewater goes through advanced treatment and disinfection so that it meets strict state standards for clarity and for germs like bacteria, with daily monitoring to make sure those protections are maintained.

Today, many small towns, including Driggs, use lagoon ponds, which mainly rely on time, settling, sunlight, and natural biological processes to clean wastewater.

A mechanical Class A system adds multiple layers of protection, including advanced biological treatment, filtration, disinfection, and continuous monitoring and controls, which makes the cleaned water more consistent and reliable in all seasons and during busy times.

Class A water is non‑potable, meaning it is clean enough for high‑value uses like irrigating areas where people live, work, and play. With the right state permits and site conditions, Class A reclaimed water can be used for:

●     Irrigating parks, school fields, golf courses, and landscaping 

●     Controlled land application on approved sites 

●     Groundwater recharge using specially designed rapid‑infiltration basins 

●     Other non‑drinking uses that Idaho DEQ reviews and approves case‑by‑case 

Victor is a growing, semi‑arid community that relies heavily on local groundwater and wants to keep streams and aquifers healthy for the long term. Building a Class A facility helps Victor:

●     Provide more reliable treatment than lagoons during cold snaps, storms, and peak‑tourist seasons 

●     Reduce the risk of future violations, fines, or rushed, expensive upgrades as water‑quality rules tighten 

●     Keep more water in the valley by creating the option to reuse water locally or recharge the aquifer instead of sending it all downstream 

For residents, that translates to a more resilient system that supports homes, businesses, and community amenities while positioning Victor to adapt to Idaho’s prior-appropriation water system. As the state expands groundwater monitoring and curtailment enforcement, communities with junior water rights — like much of the Upper Snake River Plain — face increasing pressure during shortages. By treating water to higher standards and enabling permitted reuse or aquifer recharge, Victor may be able to pursue water-credit mechanisms that help offset future curtailments and preserve greater local flexibility.

With surface discharge, treated wastewater is released to a creek or river and quickly leaves local control. Class A treatment, paired with reuse or recharge, gives Victor tools to keep more of that water working for local parks, fields, and groundwater, under rules that are designed specifically to protect public health and the environment.

Any Class A reuse or recharge project must follow Idaho’s Recycled Water Rules and obtain a DEQ reuse permit that spells out required treatment, monitoring, reporting, and groundwater protections.

This is a regulated and inspected system, similar to how Victor’s drinking-water utility is already overseen. Each year, the City publishes a Water Quality Report detailing testing results and compliance with state and federal standards. These reports are publicly available on the Public Works page of the City website and are intended to give residents clear information about the safety and reliability of their water. Reuse and recharge systems operate under comparable monitoring, reporting, and regulatory requirements.

If Victor pursues groundwater recharge, treated Class A water would be sent to shallow basins where it slowly soaks through the soil before reaching the aquifer.]

As the water moves through the soil, it gets additional natural “polishing” and filtration, and the city must monitor and report on this process to show that groundwater quality is being protected.

A lagoon cleans wastewater using basic natural processes and is more vulnerable to weather and growth pressures. A mechanical Class A system cleans wastewater to a much higher, more reliable standard using modern equipment and continuous monitoring, which opens the door to safe reuse in town and the potential to recharge our local aquifer under tightly regulated conditions.

How advanced treatment works, and, why it matters for Victor’s water future.

Wastewater Matters #2: What is Class A Reclaimed Water?

Victor City Council, City of Victor, Idaho

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Victor City Council will hold a public hearing at 138 N Main, Suite 201, Victor, Idaho, on Wednesday, April 8, 2026, beginning at 6:00 p.m. to discuss the following:

SD2025-16 – Short Plat & LU2025-17 – Rezoning to RM2 and CX – Northwest corner of Baseline Road and HWY 33 – East Idaho Holdings LLC

The council will hold a public hearing to consider applications for rezoning to RM2 and CX, and a short plat to create a 4-lot subdivision on 7.42-acre parcel located at the northwest corner of Baseline Road and Highway 33, Victor, Idaho identified by parcel number RP03N45E140011. The property is zoned RC Residential Cluster. The council is the decisionmaker on this application.

Written comments may be submitted any time prior to the hearing by e-mail to planner@victoridaho.gov, or mailed to PO Box 122 Victor, ID 83455. Write comments received by 5:00pm on April 1, 2026, will be posted with the staff report. Write comments received after that will be shared with City Council but review cannot be guaranteed.   You may also present your comments in-person at the hearing April 8, 2026 at 6:00 PM, each person will be limited to no more than 3 minutes to speak. The Victor City Council is required to base its decision on the criteria of approval for the application type outlined in the Title 10 Land Development Code. For this reason, although feedback is welcome, public comment relating specifically to the criteria is what would be considered.

Please contact the City with any questions regarding the hearing or to request communication aids, services, or other accommodations to participate.

Se invita al público a asistir y testificar en relación con la acción propuesta o también se pueden presentar comentarios por escrito a la Ciudad. Póngase en contacto con el ayuntamiento si desea solicitar ayudas para la comunicación, servicios u otras adaptaciones para su participación. 

Al ser solicitada, ésta notificación puede ser proveída en un formato fácil de usar para personas con discapacidad y/o personas con conocimientos limitados del Inglés.

City of Victor, P.O. Box 122, 138 N. Main St. Suite 201, Victor, ID 83455

Kimberly Kolner, Planning and Zoning Director

Council will hold a public hearing to consider SD2025-16 – Short Plat & LU2025-17 – Rezoning to RM2 and CX – Northwest corner of Baseline Road and HWY 33 – East Idaho Holdings LLC

Legal Notice of Public Hearing for City Council

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Victor Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing at 138 N Main, Suite 201, Victor, Idaho, on Thursday, March 19, 2026, beginning at 7:00 p.m. to discuss the following:

LU2026-01 Annexation & LU2026-02 Rezoning – Birch to Baseline – D&B Partners, LLC

The Commission will hold a public hearing to consider a joint application for annexation of 13.38 acres, located between Birch Street and Baseline Ave, Victor, Idaho identified by parcel numbers: RP03N45E110100 (5 ac.), RP03N45110500 (3 ac.), RP03N45E110400 (5.38 ac.) and requesting initial zoning of RS-3 Single & Two Family and RM-1 & RM-2 Residential Multi-Family. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the recommending body. 

The public is invited to attend and testify regarding the proposed action or written comment may also be submitted to the City. Written comments may be submitted any time prior to the hearing by e-mail to planner@victoridaho.gov, or mailed to PO Box 122 Victor, ID 83455. Write comments received by 5:00pm on March 11, 2026, will be posted with the staff report. Write comments received after that will be shared with the Commission but review cannot be guaranteed.   You may also present your comments in-person at the hearing March 19, 2026 at 7:00 PM, each person will be limited to no more than 3 minutes to speak. The Commission is required to base its decision on the criteria of approval for the application type outlined in the Title 10 Land Development Code. For this reason, although feedback is welcome, public comment relating specifically to the criteria is what would be considered.

The Commission with hold a public hearing to consider LU2026-01 Annexation & LU2026-02 Rezoning – Birch to Baseline – D&B Partners, LLC

Legal Notice of Public Hearing for Planning & Zoning Commission

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Victor City Council will hold a public hearing at 138 N Main, Suite 201, Victor, Idaho, on Wednesday, March 25, 2026, beginning at 6:00 p.m. to discuss the following:

SD2025-14 Preliminary Plat and SD2026-01 Final Plat - 287 S Agate - Teton Heights LLC

The council will hold a public hearing to consider a joint application for preliminary plat application and final plat for a 35-unit townhome plat subdivision located at 287 S. Agate Ave. The property is zoned RM-2 Residential Multi Family containing 2.85 acres, identified by parcel number: RPB3N45E118425. Only the preliminary plat application is subject to public hearing requirements. The Council is the decisionmaker on both applications.

LU2025-13 Rezone – 545 Cemetery Road – Sweet Hollow Farm LLC

The council will hold a public hearing to consider a rezoning to reconfigure the RS-7 Single-Family & Two Family and REC Parks & Recreation on a 11.82-acre parcel located at 545 Victor Cemetery Rd, Victor, Idaho identified by parcel number: RPB00277000010. The property is zoned RS-7 Single-Family & Two Family and REC Parks & Recreation. The council is the decisionmaker on this application.

The public is invited to attend and testify regarding the proposed action or written comments may also be submitted to the City. Written comments may be submitted any time prior to the hearing by e-mail to planner@victoridaho.gov, or mailed to PO Box 122 Victor, ID 83455. Write comments received by 5:00pm on March 18, 2026, will be posted with the staff report. Write comments received after that will be shared with City Council but review cannot be guaranteed.   You may also present your comments in-person at the hearing March 25 2026 at 6:00 PM, each person will be limited to no more than 3 minutes to speak. The Victor City Council is required to base its decision on the criteria of approval for the application type outlined in the Title 10 Land Development Code. For this reason, although feedback is welcome, public comment relating specifically to the criteria is what would be considered.

Council will hold a public hearing to consider SD2025-14 Preliminary Plat and SD2026-01 Final Plat - 287 S Agate - Teton Heights LLC and LU2025-13 Rezone – 545 Cemetery Road – Sweet Hollow Farm LLC

For most of Victor’s history, wastewater has done exactly what it should: stayed out of sight and out of mind. It runs underground, quietly essential to public health and daily life.

Over the past year, however, it has moved from the background to the center of civic conversation.

This moment did not begin in 2025. Victor’s wastewater story stretches back more than 25 years. Before we discuss what comes next, it’s important to understand how we arrived here, what the engineering analysis concluded, and what has changed.


Before 1999, wastewater in Victor was managed primarily through individual septic systems. As federal Clean Water Act standards tightened through the 1980s and 1990s, small natural-process systems struggled to meet modern discharge requirements. For a growing community, building and expanding a lagoon-based system required substantial land and capital.

On October 13, 1999, Victor entered into an agreement to send its wastewater to the City of Driggs for treatment. At the time, Driggs operated a lagoon system. The arrangement allowed Victor to maintain its local collection system while sharing treatment costs regionally.

In the late 2000s, regulatory pressure on Driggs increased due to repeated permit violations. In response, Driggs replaced its lagoon plant with a mechanical Multi-Stage Activated Biological Process (MSABP) facility in 2013. The two cities updated their inter-city agreement in 2011 to reflect this shift.

Despite that upgrade, compliance issues continued. In 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a complaint against Driggs for thousands of permit violations. In January 2025, Driggs entered into a consent decree with the EPA requiring:

A major facility expansion and upgrade estimated at more than $30 million

This marked a turning point in the Victor–Driggs relationship. In early 2023, Victor initiated an independent audit that identified historical billing discrepancies. In October 2024, following Driggs's direction to increase rates to reflect projected treatment costs under the intercity agreement, Victor adjusted sewer rates accordingly. Those collected funds are currently being held in reserve and accrue interest. Facing ongoing regulatory uncertainty, limited operational control, and increasing financial exposure, Victor began evaluating whether continuing as a customer of Driggs was the right long-term path.


Why the Wastewater Study Was Commissioned

Victor commissioned an updated Wastewater Facilities Planning Study to:

Evaluate the condition of its collection system

Develop a long-term Capital Improvement Plan

At the time the study was prepared, several treatment alternatives were evaluated. However, land availability significantly constrained feasibility.

In 2024, the City examined a lagoon-based land application system. While simple and comparatively low-cost from a treatment-technology standpoint, engineering analysis determined that it would require leasing approximately 400–500 acres for irrigation. Securing and controlling that amount of land proved unworkable. As land availability conditions evolved and further analysis was completed, the City revisited mechanical treatment alternatives, including systems designed for surface discharge or rapid infiltration. In 2025, two additional factors influenced the reassessment of the Victor–Driggs partnership:

1: Contractual uncertainty: A draft replacement agreement proposed by Driggs did not clearly define accounting methodology or fund segregation. The proposed billing structure would have resulted in Victor ratepayers paying treatment rates higher than Driggs residents without clearly specified contractual protections. Future upgrades tied to the DOJ-mandated rebuild also raised concerns, as Victor has never had ownership or operational control of the facility. It would be inequitable for Victor to bear millions of dollars in costs stemming from design and operational decisions made solely by Driggs.

2: Off-site infrastructure costs: Capital improvements required between Victor’s northern lift station and the Driggs plant — commonly referred to as trunkline improvements — were estimated at approximately $20 million in potential exposure for Victor. Those costs significantly reduced the anticipated economy-of-scale benefit of remaining with a regional facility.

After reviewing the Keller Associates feasibility analysis, contract terms, and cost projections, the City Council unanimously voted in March 2025 to pursue development of a Victor-owned treatment facility.

Construct a mechanical plant with surface discharge

Construct a mechanical plant with rapid infiltration

In August 2025, the City approved in open session the purchase of a 40-acre parcel for the future treatment site. All related annexation and rezoning actions were authorized during public meetings.

Driggs has agreed to continue treating Victor’s wastewater through at least January 2029 to allow time for design and construction.

The engineering study concluded that Victor’s wastewater collection system is generally in good condition within city limits.

In 2024 dollars, approximately $23 million in capital improvements are identified between Victor’s northernmost lift station and the Driggs treatment plant. Under the existing intercity agreement framework, roughly $13 million of that total would be attributable to Driggs and approximately $10 million to Victor.

Driggs’ improvements are considered more immediate, as portions of their infrastructure are already operating at or above 85% capacity. Victor would need to upgrade its northern lift station in the near term (approximately $3 million), with additional improvements potentially deferred for up to a decade.

For planning discussions, a placeholder of approximately $20 million has been referenced as Victor’s potential exposure for off-site improvements, though that figure is subject to refinement depending on final cost allocation and agreement terms.

The full Capital Improvement Plan totals approximately $30.5 million over 50 years, with funding phased and prioritized. These are long-range planning estimates, not immediate expenditures.

Investment is required under any scenario. The difference is where those investments occur and who controls them.


Driggs’ facility has required repeated regulatory intervention and now faces another significant expansion under federal oversight. Victor’s continued participation would mean:

Exposure to capital investments driven by another city

Exposure to regulatory penalties and capital costs associated with permit violations. Under a draft replacement agreement proposed by Driggs, accounting methodology and fund segregation were not clearly specified, and treatment-related fines could have been incorporated into shared billing. 

Those conditions have shaped the current reassessment in the inner-city relationship.


Why Mechanical Treatment Is Central to the Decision

With land availability resolved, Victor is now evaluating an advanced mechanical treatment system engineered to meet higher treatment classifications and capable of producing Class A reclaimed water (please see About Class A water sidebar for more information).

The mechanical alternative allows for multiple discharge pathways, depending on DEQ permitting:

Land Application: Treated water is applied to crops, with the permit requiring full crop uptake.

Rapid Infiltration: Treated water is discharged into engineered infiltration basins and percolates into the aquifer.

Surface Discharge: Treated effluent meeting high water-quality standards is discharged to surface waters.

Hybrid configurations are also possible depending on long-term operational strategy and DEQ permitting. This is a critical distinction. A modern mechanical system:

Offers more reliable treatment performance

Provides direct local control over compliance and operations

It is not inexpensive. Advanced treatment is capital intensive.

The question is not solely upfront capital cost. It also includes long-term operating expense, staffing requirements, regulatory oversight, and governance control. 

A shared Driggs facility was expected to require four full-time treatment operators. A Victor-owned mechanical facility is projected to require two part-time operators. Labor represents a significant component of annual operations and maintenance costs.

While cost-sharing at a regional plant might suggest proportional staffing expense, Victor must already employ personnel to operate its collection system. Remaining with Driggs would effectively add additional staffing obligations beyond those already required locally.

So, Victor now faces a structural choice: Continue investing in a regional facility with documented compliance challenges and expansion costs or invest locally in a modern system designed to meet higher treatment standards with aquifer return potential.

Victor has transitioned from a customer model to planning for a local infrastructure asset under its own control. Council meeting links and staff reports related to the March and August 2025 decisions are cataloged in the City Council Meeting Links tab for public reference and can be found on the Wastewater Treatment Facility Page. Future wastewater actions will continue to be documented there.

Ratepayer impact under different scenarios

Project timeline and financing considerations