Orange County details $185 million Harriman wastewater plant upgrade; households face roughly $1,000–$1,063 annual cost in worst-case model

Orange County officials and consultants presented a technical design and financing update for the Harriman Wastewater Treatment Plant on Feb. 24, 2025, reporting a preliminary 2028 bid estimate of about $185,000,000 and saying the county’s worst-case model would raise costs for typical single‑family households to roughly $1,000 a year (a table in the report showed $1,063 in the highest‑cost scenario).

The presentation, led by Marybeth Bianconi, partner, Delaware Engineering DPC, covered design work now under way, regulatory steps with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and a financing strategy that relies heavily on competitive state and federal grants. “We are rounding that figure to a hundred and $85,000,000 for a 2028 bid,” Bianconi said. She also told the committee that consultants estimate an increase in first‑year operation and maintenance costs of about $1,400,000, driven largely by chemicals and sludge disposal.

Why it matters: the county is seeking low‑cost financing and grants to limit the burden on ratepayers. Bianconi and county staff outlined several funding sources the project will pursue, said applications for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and related Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) set‑asides are due May 30, and described additional state programs — the Water Infrastructure Improvement Act (WIIA) and the Water Quality Improvement Program (WQIP) — as potential grant sources.

Design and regulatory status Bianconi said the project has moved through site survey and technical working‑group meetings and that consultants are selecting equipment and completing the basis of design report. The team has scheduled a filter‑unit process tour in New Jersey for technical staff. Work that remains includes geotechnical investigations, an asbestos survey (work targeted to start mid‑April), and design for buoyancy mitigation and shoring near existing tank walls.

On permits, Bianconi described recent DEC engagement about phosphorus limits and said an interim submission has been filed so DEC can provide feedback on the expected phosphorus limit. The submission included a municipal SPDES form, a preliminary outfall design and a wetland delineation. The team has also submitted a draft “notice of anticipated noncompliance,” intended to explain how taking unit processes offline during construction would affect permit limits. Separately, the team is pursuing variances for total dissolved solids and chloride and responded to a DEC Notice of Incomplete Application on Feb. 3.

Financing strategy and schedule County and consulting staff described four primary funding pools the project will target: the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF, a mix of loans and grants), Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funds (the current BIL set‑aside offers sizable grant/loan mixes), the Water Infrastructure Improvement Act (WIIA) and the DEC‑run Water Quality Improvement Program (WQIP). Bianconi said CWSRF/BIL material is the most time‑sensitive; those applications are due May 30.

Committee members were told the county is pursuing a phased approach, advancing the plant upgrade first so the project scores more competitively for grants; collection‑system work (the pipes delivering wastewater) will be a separate, later project. “When we make our applications, our applications are evaluated and actually scored,” Bianconi said, adding that the Ramco (as referenced in the report) is considered a stressed watershed and that fact helps the project’s score.

Cost assumptions and household impact The engineering team said the $185 million figure is intentionally conservative and includes escalation and contingency assumptions. The report applies escalation to categories and then a 15% contingency; staff noted funding agencies commonly prefer contingency assumptions in the 30–35% range when applied to escalated numbers, which would raise modeled totals.

Borrowing assumptions used in the scenarios include a conservative 5% interest rate. The consultants presented tabled scenarios showing how combinations of grants and low‑cost borrowing would change the projected household cost; the worst‑case scenario presented to the committee assumed limited grant receipt and produced a per‑household impact shown as $1,063, while a more optimistic grant mix reduced the modeled household burden to about $875 annually. Committee members clarified that the per‑household figures refer to properties inside Orange County Sewer District No. 1; towns and outside users set their own local rates and would face different bills.

Oversight and regulatory contacts Staff said the plant is an EPA‑designated major facility (discharge greater than one million gallons per day). The DEC administers Clean Water Act permitting in New York and will be the principal regulator on permit limits and variances; EPA will review key regulatory actions and variances. Bianconi noted recent DEC guidance on phosphorus and the need to file a supplemental climate risk form because of the plant’s location and its designation as serving disadvantaged communities.

Next steps and committee actions The presentation materials included a draft map and report required by County Law 5‑a; the committee discussed forwarding that material to Physical Services and Fiscal Services so the legislature can consider it. Committee members discussed scheduling a public hearing: the committee set a tentative public hearing for March 24 at 3:15 p.m., and staff said the resolution forwarding the County Law 5‑a materials will go before the full legislature on March 6, with a final determination anticipated on May 1 to allow the county to meet May 30 grant deadlines. The committee also agreed to schedule a site tour of the Harriman plant in spring (April or May) and asked for an update on a separate Village of South Blooming Road project at a future meeting.

Decisions and formal actions No construction contracts or bond resolutions were approved at the Feb. 24 meeting. The committee discussed and planned referrals and hearings but did not adopt final financing or rate actions. The meeting closed by unanimous procedural voice vote on a motion to adjourn.

Ending County staff and consultants emphasized the competitiveness of the grant process and the effect grant awards would have on homeowner costs. The technical team said it will continue equipment selection and the basis‑of‑design work, complete required surveys and environmental investigations, and pursue the grant and loan applications needed to reduce borrowing and rate impacts.