Wareham sewer commissioners propose $26 million town‑meeting ask to replace aging Narrows force main

Wareham Sewer Commissioners met Jan. 16 to review plans and financing options for the Narrows Force Main replacement project and to shape the town‑meeting articles that would fund it.

Russ Clem, a consultant with Environmental Design & Research, described a three‑phase project that would replace or re‑route a deteriorating force main and related connections between the Narrows pump station and the town’s wastewater treatment facility (WPCF). Clem said updated cost estimates range from $24.5 million in line‑item sums to a $26 million request to provide contingency and flexibility. “We felt that 26 was an appropriate total,” Clem said, explaining the additional buffer for unexpected expenses.

The commissioners discussed how to pay for the work. The financing proposal under consideration pairs an adjustment to sewer EDUs (equivalent dwelling units) with a one‑time contribution of up to 25% of sewer retained earnings as a down payment. The group offered a preliminary back‑of‑the‑envelope estimate that, before applying retained earnings, a full EDU‑funded loan would imply roughly $130 per EDU per year over a 20‑year loan term (about $11 per month). Commissioners asked the town finance staff to verify those numbers and to model alternative scenarios, including shorter terms and different EDU allocations.

Commissioners confirmed the project phase costs discussed in the meeting: Phase 1 (new force main along Sandwich Road) at about $16 million; Phase 2 (slip‑lining and realigning the Indian Neck pump station force main) at about $3 million; and Phase 3 (redirecting flows on Minet Road and gravity conversions) at about $5.5 million. Those figures sum to $24.5 million; the recommended town‑meeting article would ask for $26 million to provide contingency and clearer public messaging.

Board members debated whether to submit one consolidated article for $26 million or separate contingent articles for each phase. They also discussed rescinding an earlier $6 million borrowing article (previously approved for a related force‑main lining) and presenting the new articles in sequence so that town meeting would see a net increase rather than duplicative borrowings. The commissioners directed staff to draft article text that clearly defines phases and the net increase in borrowing.

Clem and commissioners emphasized the project’s engineering risks and public‑safety implications if the existing force main fails. Clem warned that a major break on the aging cement/ductile iron main—particularly under rail or river crossings—could disrupt large service areas and create significant environmental hazards. Re‑routing the new force main up Sandwich Road, he said, would reduce some of those engineering and environmental risks and could open sewer service to additional areas, which in turn could lower per‑EDU costs if new customers are added.

The commissioners also discussed financing alternatives, including applying to the Massachusetts Clean Water Trust’s State Revolving Fund (SRF) for low‑interest loans; Clem said applications are ranked and SRF decisions are expected within weeks. Commissioners stressed that retained earnings (sewer “free cash” if certified) must be verified and that any use of retained earnings will require town‑meeting appropriation and careful wording so voters understand the purpose and limits of the funds.

On outreach, the board heard about a public‑communications approach used elsewhere and agreed it is prudent to engage a professional to coordinate a broader town education program rather than rely on a single bill insert. Commissioners tentatively agreed to pause a standalone bill insert this cycle pending a proposal and cost estimate from a proposed consultant and requested a public meeting to present the project and the customer impact prior to town meeting.

Next steps: commissioners asked staff to (1) work with the town finance director to certify retained earnings and to model EDU impacts under different scenarios; (2) draft the rescission and $26 million articles with clear phase descriptions; (3) obtain a formal proposal and cost estimate from the outreach consultant; and (4) schedule at least one public meeting before town meeting to explain taxpayer impacts and project rationale.

The board did not take a final vote on funding articles at this meeting; it set timelines and follow‑up staff meetings to finalize numbers and article language.