Concord advisory board reviews DCAM offer for MCI wastewater plant; engineers flag major repairs and capacity questions

The MCI Concord advisory board spent the bulk of its meeting discussing a state offer for the wastewater treatment facility at the former MCI site and the engineering review the town has commissioned.

Megan Smooter, deputy town manager, told the board that “the select board received an offer from DCAM for the wastewater treatment facility” and that the town is reviewing the letter with counsel and planning a meeting with DCAM later this month. She said the town had contracted Weston & Sampson to perform the technical review of the plant.

Why it matters: the wastewater plant’s condition, capacity and any financial or operational obligations tied to an acquisition would affect whether the town can support new housing, master-planed redevelopment on the MCI campus, or other nearby projects.

Town staff described the engineering scope as an initial needs assessment that will be folded into an update of the Comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan. A staff speaker said the consultant identified “somewhere about $25,000,000 over 5 to 10 years of investment to restore it and make it a viable treatment facility for the next 20–30 years.” The town also emphasized it has work to share with any state-hired engineers so the state does not duplicate effort.

Capacity and constraints were central to the discussion. Board members and staff cited several planning figures; staff warned that the town is near its allocation at the municipal wastewater plant and that decisions about what portion of any state-held permit could be used for redevelopment require careful scenario work. Town staff said a facility permit of about 310,000 gallons per day is “in the hand” and indicated roughly 80,000 gallons could be available for redevelopment after accounting for existing commitments. Staff also noted the town has about 150,000 gallons of possible expansion at its existing plant, but that expansion has cost and technical limits.

Concerns about who pays for upgrades and how responsibilities would be shared surfaced repeatedly. One board member asked why the state would not retain ownership and sell excess capacity to the town; staff replied the mechanics have not been determined and stressed that “it has to be mutually beneficial.” Another member worried that state housing goals may not align with who ultimately pays for infrastructure; staff pointed to a state task force working on regulatory constraints for housing and said the conversation is already underway at higher levels.

Paul, a DCAM representative, framed the upcoming public session as an early engagement step and said the state will use the hearing to take resident input. “This is not a one and done deal,” he said, adding DCAM expects to continue coordination with the town as planning proceeds.

Next steps: staff said they will meet with DCAM, continue the Weston & Sampson review, and return regular updates to the advisory board. The town emphasized that any formal decision or transfer would follow the technical review, counsel review and further negotiations.