Greenfield proposes sewer-rate increases as plant replacement and state funding shortfall leave financing gap

Greenfield City officials on Tuesday outlined a proposed sewer-rate and fee structure intended to finance a planned replacement of the city's wastewater treatment plant after state funding expectations changed.

Consultant Tony Nisic of M and S Engineers said the replacement and related system work is estimated at about $111 million and that the city's sewer fund currently has a zero balance, requiring early rate increases to cover debt service, reserves and operations. "The current estimates around $111 plus million," Nisic said during the workshop.

The workshop presented two financing scenarios. Under "Option 1," the city would receive roughly $75 million in state grant funding and use a state revolving fund (SRF) loan for the remainder (about $36.3 million in the consultant's example). Under "Option 2," the consultant assumed a smaller SRF loan (an example $50 million) and a larger private loan for the remaining roughly $61.3 million; Nisic said private borrowing would increase interest costs and require earlier debt payments.

To link costs to use, the study proposes a rate design that combines a fixed monthly charge with a variable component billed per thousand gallons treated. Single-family accounts would have a monthly variable-charge cap at 5,000 gallons "to address typical household outdoor use," Nisic explained; the study shows some low-usage households could pay less under the new design while high-usage commercial or multifamily customers could pay substantially more in worst-case scenarios.

City staff said the plant was formerly held at a 1.5 million gallons-per-day capacity but regulators reduced that figure to 1.2 million after inspections; staff reported the system has averaged just above that reduced limit in recent months and that temporary emergency spray fields are being used to manage excess flow. "We have actually been in violation the past 3 to 4 months," a staff speaker said when describing recent average flows and mitigation measures.

Residents who spoke during public comment urged caution about affordability. "Some people are on fixed incomes," a resident said. "They're not gonna be able to afford this." Council members acknowledged those concerns and encouraged residents to contact state officials to press for grant funding.

City staff explained the legal process for adopting utility rates: if council votes to set the rates, the city must mail notices and allow a 45-day protest period during which property-owner protests can prevent implementation if they reach a majority threshold (50% plus one). A staff legal/administrative speaker summarized: "There's a 45 day period where the city public can basically protest the rates... If the city receives 50% protest plus 1, the city council could not implement the rates."

Officials said design work is about 90% complete and that, once funding is secured, the project could be ready for bid in weeks to months. Council members asked staff to publish contact information and guidance so residents can lobby the state for grant support; staff agreed to post details on the city's social media channels.

The council left the item open for further consideration and discussed scheduling an additional workshop; the item is expected to return to a regularly scheduled meeting for further action.