Warren council approves engineering contract to respond to DEM wastewater permit, raises budget concerns

The Warren Town Council on a special-session voice vote approved a contract with engineering firm Woodard & Curran to prepare the town’s response to a draft wastewater permit from DEM, authorizing a time-and-materials task order with a not-to-exceed figure of about $9,700.

The motion, approved after council discussion, directs the town manager to proceed with the amended contract language and to send a formal communication to DEM asking for clearer timelines and better notice in future permit cycles.

The item grew from a draft permit letter the town received on June 23 that required a response by Aug. 15. John Henley, representing Woodard & Curran, said the permit-review cycle is “typically every 5 years,” and that Warren’s current permit dated from 2013, meaning the town is overdue for renewal. Town Manager Sullivan confirmed, “We got the letter on the 23rd.”

Councilors and staff said the short response window and the unbudgeted cost prompted the special meeting. Council President (unnamed) raised concern about the town’s fiduciary duty, saying it felt “a bit unfair that our sewer treatment facility is under the guidance of the manager’s office” without greater redundancy for technical oversight.

Town Solicitor Desiscoe explained the council could legally approve the contract and that discussing DEM communications in more detail would be appropriate in connection with approval. He also said the town first sought an extension to Sept. 30 but DEM would only extend to Aug. 15, creating the compressed timetable that led to the special meeting.

Henley described the work as a three-step process: review the draft permit, help draft comments for the town and, if DEM issues a revised draft, provide further comments and meet with DEM and town staff. The contract is structured as time-and-materials with a not-to-exceed cap; Henley said actual billing would reflect hours worked and could be less than $9,700. He also told the council there are about five or six new reporting or testing requirements in the draft permit that could create additional, longer-term compliance tasks.

Treatment-plant staff member Kamiga said the draft contained requirements that could be costly — for example, an inspection of an underwater outfall that would require a diver — and that Woodard & Curran’s goal would be to argue to DEM to reduce or eliminate some of those requirements, as had been done in earlier permit negotiations in 2013.

Councilors pressed the engineering firm and manager about why the town was not notified earlier and why the firm had not flagged the impending renewal sooner. Henley and others acknowledged the timing and communications could have been better and agreed to coordinate a shared calendar of recurring permit and inspection deadlines with the manager.

The council approved the contract with an amendment to clarify that Woodard & Curran would assist through the draft-public-comment cycle and with subsequent revised drafts as necessary; any substantial follow-on compliance work after a final permit would be handled under a separate agreement. Councilors also directed the manager to send a strongly worded inquiry up the DEM chain asking for clearer notice and to attempt to secure direct contact with DEM leadership to understand the timing issue.

The council’s discussion repeatedly noted the town’s tight finances and that the $9,700 task order was not budgeted, with multiple councilors saying unexpected, unbudgeted costs accumulate and affect the town’s ability to meet other obligations. No roll-call vote was taken; the contract passed by voice vote.