Yarmouth DPW outlines FY‑26 budget needs, PFAS work and sludge disposal concerns

Public Works Director Jeff Colby told the Yarmouth Finance Committee on Feb. 5 that the Department of Public Works’ FY‑26 budget will begin to show debt service and higher operating costs as large water and wastewater projects move into construction.

Colby said the town’s PFAS treatment for Wells 4 and 5 is operational and that design is underway for treatment at Wells 10 and 11. “The Yarmouth project is number 1 for funding for that well, 10 and 11,” Colby said, and he described the state revolving fund (SRF) as providing low‑interest loans and higher debt forgiveness for PFAS projects.

The committee heard that contracts for water and wastewater collection and treatment are actively under construction along Route 28, that contracts 1 and 4 have been awarded, and that construction on portions of the Bass River/Route 28 work will start in the coming week. Colby also highlighted the Parkers River Boardwalk Park under construction and nearing completion of the Higgins Crow Road shared‑use path.

Why it matters: the department said it now expects to borrow for several projects that were previously funded from retained earnings. Colby gave an FY‑26 debt service figure of $450,000 and said debt service will rise in future years as principal and short‑term notes come due.

The presentation flagged several operational pressures. Colby and staff described a growing need for licensed wastewater plant operators before flows begin to enter the new treatment plant. He said the town will likely need to hire trained, licensed operators in FY‑27 or contract operations with private firms. Colby said: “My first preference would be to have municipally operated and staffed and licensed people, but it's unlikely we'd be able to find six people like that on day one.”

Lori Rosala, water and wastewater superintendent, and Robie Whitehouse, assistant DPW director, joined Colby for questions on rates and disposal costs. Whitehouse provided per‑ton contract costs the town is currently paying: “For construction and demolition, the current rate that we're paying is a hundred and $52.15 per ton. We're being charged for MSW $90.04 per ton,” she said.

Colby and staff described sludge disposal as a regional problem and said PFAS in biosolids has severely constrained beneficial reuse options. “Because of the PFAS, they won't let us use it as fertilizer,” Colby said, explaining why some disposal sites and landfill operators have refused biosolids deliveries.

Staff recommended several near‑term and medium‑term steps: planning for additional wastewater staffing in FY‑27, creating a sanitation enterprise fund to separate costs and revenues like the water enterprise, considering bringing more vehicle maintenance in‑house (while noting certification limits and tradeoffs), and working with neighboring towns and contractors on sludge disposal options.

Colby summarized revenue and rate pressures. The DPW estimated roughly $14.7 million in operating revenue across its enterprise activities and said the town will likely propose adjustments to water rates and to beach parking fees this spring to help cover capital and increased operating costs. Laurie (staff member) described the modeling tool the town will use, saying the WaterWorks software “lets you put in all of the future projects, any debt, current expenditures” to model rate options.

Committee members pressed on C&D and MSW fee structures, staffing for certified plant operators, the timeline for collection-system and treatment-plant completion, and the expected timing of sewer connections along Route 28 (staff said connections are unlikely until late 2027 or early 2028). Colby said Contracts 2 and 3 are nearing completion and that the treatment plant being under construction makes the schedule feel more secure.

The DPW presentation also detailed smaller budget adjustments: a $43,500 expense increase in parks tied to Parkers River Boardwalk contract mowing, portable toilets and tight tank pumping until sewer hookups are allowed, and modest increases in septage operating expenses tied to repairs and contract operations.

The Finance Committee did not take a formal vote on the FY‑26 recommendations at this meeting; staff said rate and revenue proposals will be brought to the committee and the Select Board in the spring.

Ending: Colby closed by asking the committee to continue discussions at upcoming meetings and to review a facilities assessment and detailed capital backup that the DPW has provided to the committee.