Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff turnover prompts Rangeley review of sewer accounts and permit process
Summary
Town staff reported that recent turnover left some properties connected to town sewer without formal accounts; the board asked staff to assemble account information, explore remedies with MMA, and tighten the building-permit checklist to prevent future missed sewer applications.
At the Selectboard meeting on May 18, Rangeley staff and board members discussed a discovery that several properties were connected to the town sewer but lack formal sewer accounts or the required permitting paperwork.
Tracy, a town staff member who brought the issue to the board's attention, said the problem traces in part to staff turnover: when prior staff left last summer, some application files were not completed or were not migrated into the current records system. Tracy said she reviewed minutes and files and found a number of cases where meters are installed and reading but no account exists in the billing system.
Board members said the town has a standing connection fee of $3,000 per structure and expressed concern that recent buyers could be held responsible for fees that were not disclosed or collected at the time of construction. Tracy and other staff reported at least a dozen meters were sold or issued in the past two years; staff said they know of six cases that currently require attention and that the total number could be larger pending further review.
The board discussed options including tightening the building-permit workflow to require a sewer application be submitted before a building permit is issued and reaching out to MMA (the municipal-association reference discussed at the meeting) for guidance on retroactive collection or remedies. Members emphasized that building permits should not be issued without a sewer application and suggested adding an automated checklist or routing so multiple offices are notified when an applicant files online.
Members agreed to have staff identify affected accounts, gather contact information and documentation, and prepare a report on possible next steps and legal or procedural remedies. The board did not vote on retroactive collection; it asked staff to consult MMA and return with potential options and recommended next steps.
Board members noted that chasing past unpaid fees might cost more than it would recover and signaled a preference to ensure robust controls going forward while exploring reasonable remedies for existing cases.
The board directed staff to return with a written report and recommended changes to the permit checklist at a future meeting.
