Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wpcf Upgrade topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board weighs single‑phase wastewater plant upgrade after Wright‑Pierce finds $8.4M savings
Summary
Wright‑Pierce’s memo shows a single‑phase Wastewater Treatment Plant upgrade would reduce projected costs by $8.4 million versus a two‑phase approach. The board asked rate consultants to model both options but signaled a preliminary preference for one phase to limit costs and rate impacts.
Chairman Steven Cadorette and the Board of Water & Sewer Commissioners on May 6 discussed phasing options for a major Wastewater Treatment Plant upgrade after Superintendent Christopher Wickman presented a Wright‑Pierce memorandum showing an estimated $76.3 million cost for a single‑phase project versus $84.7 million for a two‑phase delivery — a projected $8.4 million savings for the single‑phase approach.
Why it matters: the board must weigh up‑front capital savings against staging, construction disruption, and annual rate impacts. Vice‑Chairman Joseph Bednarik asked the rate study consultant to run models for both scenarios to illustrate how each option would affect customer rates and debt-service timing; the board indicated a preliminary leaning toward single‑phase delivery based on the cost differential.
Wickman told the board the Wright‑Pierce memo was the starting point for a detailed comparison. "There is an $8.4 million dollar savings" in the single‑phase estimate, he said, and the board asked the rate consultant to quantify the difference for rate modeling.
Board members also discussed implementation sequencing and insurance numbers that still must be finalized for the FY27 budgets; Clerk Robert E. Lima said the Capital Plan discussion will be deferred until phasing is decided and insurance estimates are available. Wright‑Pierce will continue to provide engineering support as the board considers permit and repair needs at the plant, including primary clarifier work tied to NPDES requirements.
Next steps: the board directed staff to have the rate study consultant run scenarios for single‑phase and two‑phase delivery and return with comparative rate and timing data at a future meeting. No formal commitment to a project schedule or contractor was made at this session.
