Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wastewater Capacity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultant: Concord faces steep wastewater capacity costs; MCI site may change economics
Summary
Kent Nichols, a wastewater consultant, told the Concord Public Works Commission the per‑gallon value of sewer capacity can be high for smaller systems and that refurbishing or adding capacity could cost tens of millions; the MCI site may offer a cost advantage, but the town must weigh options and equity implications.
Consultant Kent Nichols told the Concord Public Works Commission May 13 that municipalities that built wastewater systems with large federal support decades ago now face a different reality: more recent, smaller systems must recover construction and treatment costs from ratepayers, producing high per‑gallon values for sewer capacity.
Nichols, who has worked with communities across Massachusetts, said the memo provided to the commission updated a 2013 valuation and found that adding roughly 155,000 gallons per day of capacity at Concord's existing plant is estimated at about $13–13.5 million, while earlier‑identified upgrades at the plant amount to roughly $10 million — together a near‑term capital need approaching the low‑tens of millions. He said that when the additional cost of capacity is divided by the value basis used to set SIFs, it produces per‑gallon values that can be “north of” current fee levels.
"The thing that has become a true reality in the state of Massachusetts is that the cost of providing wastewater service is very high," Kent Nichols said. He told commissioners that, in one of the scenario calculations, the per‑gallon value underpinning a capacity fee was near $100/gal using conservative assumptions and could rise under some expansion scenarios.
Nichols framed the town's options: expand the existing plant (groundwater discharge and groundwater‑driven options were discussed but are costly and regulatory‑dependent), build or refurbish capacity at the MCI site (which carries deferred maintenance but includes substantial available capacity), or pursue demand‑management strategies such as infiltration/inflow removal and incentives for lateral repairs. He cautioned there are tradeoffs: cheaper per‑gallon values at scale can encourage development but require large upfront capital or external subsidy.
Town staff advised the commission that the SIF increase being proposed — from roughly $40.07/gal to $60/gal as a baseline adjustment for inflation — is intended to better reflect current asset values while leaving open future changes should the town choose to incorporate MCI capacity into its system. Nichols said the MCI site could change the SIF calculus because it brings substantial capacity but stressed that legal, regulatory and refurbishment costs must be priced in before assuming it reduces per‑unit charges.
Commissioners asked about benchmarking and how the town might respond to critics who compare Concord to rural towns with very different systems; Nichols said scale explains much of the apparent differences in per‑gallon costs and recommended caution comparing communities without careful normalization of assets, service area and past federal support.
The commission asked staff to return with clearer itemized SIF accounting and a plan for next steps so that the board can weigh the relative merits of expansion, refurbishment, reuse of the MCI facility and alternatives such as targeted infiltration removal.
