Monroe council hears plan to reset industrial wastewater permits and impose tiered surcharges

The City of Monroe Common Council heard an informational presentation on Dec. 16 about proposed changes to industrial wastewater permits and enforcement tied to a planned wastewater-treatment-plant expansion. The consultant presenting the study (speaker S8, presenter from Fairgram) recommended resetting individual industrial permits to the highest of the current permit or the 2023–2024 measured quarterly averages and allowing up to 12.5% additional capacity after the plant expansion, paired with new penalties for exceedance.

Why it matters: Council members pressed staff on fairness and economic impact because a small number of “wet” industries account for most biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) sent to the plant. Staff said the goal is to protect plant operations and public infrastructure while allowing industry growth that is planned in coordination with permit limits.

The presentation summarized quarterly flow and BOD data for 17 industrial users, emphasizing 2023–2024 measurements because a significant industry left town since earlier datasets. Presenter S8 said flow into the plant is within capacity — the plant is rated at 3,700,000 gallons per day — but BOD loading is the primary constraint. On BOD, the plant’s current design rating was described in the presentation as about 10,000 pounds per day; the proposed expansion would raise that rating to about 12,500 pounds per day, and modeling suggests the facility might be able to handle short-term peaks somewhat higher (the consultant referenced short-term modeled capacity near 18,000 lb/day), though S3 (Chris Da Silva, project lead, Fairgram) cautioned the official capacity and any re-rating depend on DNR review.

Staff described the plan that was labeled Option 4: for industries currently exceeding their permits, reset the permit to the maximum of (a) the existing permit, (b) the 2023 average, or (c) the 2024 average; after the plant expansion, allow a limited growth margin (the presentation suggested up to about 12.5%) for those permits. S8 said this “reset” reflects recent measured loads while preventing a free-for-all increase: “we're taking and kind of doing a reset on everyone,” the presenter said, and later added the recommended 12.5% was a ceiling, not an automatic increase for every user.

To enforce compliance, staff proposed ordinance amendments that add staged consequences for exceedances: first an administrative letter of noncompliance tied to a predetermined fine; repeat exceedances escalated to letters of violation, larger pre-set fines and potentially legal action; and in chronic cases revocation of permits. The presentation gave two surcharge tiers for exceeded quarters: when a measured quarter is 101–150% of permitted values, the charge per unit would increase by 50% (a 1.5× rate on the quarter’s reported load); if the quarter exceeds 150% of permitted values the charge would rise to 100% (about 2×). S8 said, “if they go over a 100% of their permit, say it's a 101%, they're gonna get charged at 1.5 times their current rate.” The stated intent was compliance, not revenue generation.

Council members raised practical and economic concerns. One member (speaker S7) argued the city had been lenient to industry in the past and urged stronger penalties: “To me, it seems like we've been kinda bending over backwards industry and doing whatever they want, and taxpayers are gonna have to pay for it for them to make profits.” Presenter S8 responded that industries have in fact paid for additional loads under existing billing but the new structure would tie legal consequences to permit exceedances: “we're gonna put a hard limit on it… and any future expansion needs to really be worked in with the plant expansion.”

Consultant S3 (Chris Da Silva) summarized the technical trade-offs, calling the modeled extra capacity a built-in safety factor and warning council not to count on a higher state rating until operational data and DNR review support it. Council members proposed adjustments to the proposed enforcement regime, including defining how many exceedances constitute a repeat offender and whether the surcharge calculations should be annualized or reset at the start of a calendar year.

Next steps: staff said they will work with the city attorney to draft ordinance language, schedule a public hearing and return the proposed amendments for formal consideration. The presentation was expressly informational; no ordinance was voted on at the meeting. Staff estimated the plant design and construction timeline at roughly 3–4 years (about 1.5 years for design and approximately 2 years for construction), with the potential to revisit permit ceilings and surcharge levels after the plant is operational and additional operational data are available.

The meeting also approved a consent agenda earlier in the session and adjourned after brief additional business.