Jericho Wastewater Task Force weighs disposal scenarios, schedules engineer workshop to refine preferred alternative

The Jericho Wastewater Task Force met June 11 to review study timelines and technical options for village-scale wastewater disposal and to plan a workshop to align capacity, cost and permitting questions.

Kate presented the project timeline and said the team is moving toward wrapping up a 90% package "it's not going to be late June at this point, but maybe in July," and reiterated that an existing Act 250 permit for the Browns River Middle School site would likely need amendment if new development were added to that parcel. The group discussed whether permit amendments would require hearings and noted minor amendments require notification of parties to the original permit and may be elevated to a major amendment upon request.

Consultants and task force members reviewed site-level bounding analysis for disposal options labeled A–E. The presenters described conservative disposal estimates for individual sites (site A roughly 4,000 gpd; site B ~5,200 gpd if a special technology is accepted by regulators; site C ~10,000 gpd with a curtain‑drain approach) and showed how mounding at sites D and E could increase total capacity. The team tested several "mix-and-match" combinations; one lower-cost combination produced a conservative capacity outcome the group called a plausible "moderate" scenario, while a second, mounded combination showed substantially higher capacity. Members flagged an error in one slide about assumed depth (1.5 ft vs. 1.0 ft below grade) and asked the consultants to correct assumptions in the next table.

Task force technical discussion emphasized a regulatory threshold at about 50,000 gallons per day: systems under that threshold typically rely on filtration, while systems above it require tertiary (biological) treatment, which raises treatment costs but can lower the gallons‑per‑unit planning assumption (for example, from 245 to 210 gpd per dwelling unit in some estimates). Using current draft assumptions the consultants said a "moderate" system at 37,500 gpd would yield roughly 128 new dwelling units under the study's per‑unit estimates; an "enhanced" build at about 60,500 gpd would permit a higher unit count and trigger tertiary‑treatment rules.

To move from bounding analysis to a preferred alternative the group agreed to add a workshop with engineer John Ashley to bring costs into the mix and allow members to run mix‑and‑match scenarios in a shared spreadsheet. Proposed dates discussed were June 29, July 1 and July 9; the task force indicated July 9 as a likely next‑meeting option if materials and questions are circulated in advance.

The meeting closed after scheduling next steps. The task force recorded routine actions including approval of the May 14 minutes and set the next meeting for July 9.