Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sewer Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Skowhegan staff urges rewriting septage policy, proposes fees and plant upgrades after year of high septage volumes
Summary
Water Pollution Control staff reported the plant received about 280,000 gallons of septage last year and urged the Select Board to rewrite a 1988 policy, adopt a fee structure (in-network/out-of-network/commercial), and amend the sewer ordinance to give the policy legal force; staff proposed capital upgrades including an aerobic digester and an industrial pretreatment program.
Skowhegan's wastewater staff urged the Select Board to update a decades-old septage receivable policy and amend the sewer ordinance after reporting sharp increases in septage deliveries and recurring equipment costs at the treatment plant.
Speaker 10 (Water Pollution Control staff) told the board the town's existing sewage/"septage receivable" policy dates to 1988 and is not posted online. "We're licensed to receive septage," he said, "but we haven't been following the policy," and staff plan to rewrite the policy, create a fee structure, and then amend the sewer ordinance to give that policy legal backing.
On volumes, Speaker 10 said the plant received about 280,000 gallons of septage last year and that the facility's DEP license allows up to 10,000 gallons per day. "Septage is 80 times harder to treat than regular sewage," he said, arguing anaerobic septage places a disproportionate biological and equipment burden on the plant. He described recurring equipment work and said a single pump rebuild had cost roughly $30,000 over two years.
Staff proposed adopting a tiered fee model (in-network, out-of-network, commercial) similar to the Kennebec Sanitary District and asked the board to consider a modest in-network rate that acknowledges taxpayers already paying for the system while recovering costs from heavy septage loads. Speaker 10 offered an illustrative estimate that applying Kennebec-type fees to last year's volume could yield tens of thousands of dollars in revenue (figures discussed on the record included roughly $30,000'$38,000 depending on assumptions).
Several board members raised equity concerns. Speaker 4 warned that charging residents who are not hooked to the collection system could amount to "double charging" people who already pay property taxes that support system infrastructure. Others asked staff to produce comparative data from towns with similar rural character, and Speaker 10 agreed to compile a primer with historical numbers, volume and cost breakdowns, and treatment-burden analysis.
Looking to the future, Speaker 10 described a facilities upgrade plan that would include aerobic digestion (to reduce sludge volume and disposal costs) and an industrial pretreatment program to regulate high-strength industrial wastewater. He said industrial pretreatment is administratively heavy but helps prevent toxicity events and gives businesses clear permitting expectations.
The board did not take formal action at the meeting; Speaker 10 will return with data and a draft policy/ordinance approach for further consideration.
Next steps: staff to prepare data and a policy redraft, and the board will consider ordinance amendments and possible fee schedules at a future meeting.
