Monroe committee forwards ordinance to reset industrial wastewater permit limits, adds warning letter before suspension

The Monroe Judiciary and Ordinance Committee voted to forward to the common council a proposed ordinance that would repeal and recreate City of Monroe Code 8-5-11, changing how the city sets and enforces industrial wastewater discharge permits.

Administrator Rindy told the committee the proposal stems from eight to nine months of work tied to the planned wastewater treatment plant expansion and is intended “to make sure that we don't compromise our capacity” by allowing unchecked increases in industrial discharges. She said the ordinance includes permit-level changes, a tiered surcharge structure and an added acknowledgment letter before the city suspends a permit.

Rindy said the ordinance would not immediately increase permit limits but would authorize new limits to take effect in September to give the city time to communicate changes and update permits. “So once this is kind of approved, we have time to communicate that. We also have time to then update the permit levels,” she said.

Committee members questioned how the changes would affect industries that have historically exceeded their permits. The chair noted that, in staff materials, “industry 3 and 4 have been 361, 428% over their permit,” and asked whether the city was asking companies to reduce biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) or simply increasing limits. Staff said one facility has invested and substantially reduced BOD and is close to its permit limit, while another has not taken corrective steps; staff said communication with noncompliant firms is planned and surcharges would apply if they exceed the new limits.

Staff explained that the new permit values will be set using multi‑year averages rather than single high readings, so firms are expected to manage their averages to avoid exceedances. Rindy clarified the averaging approach: the “amount may not be exactly what they've sent us most recently. It's the average over the last couple of years,” and that facilities need to plan accordingly.

On enforcement, staff described a stepped approach. After quarterly review, the city would send an acknowledgment letter to facilities in higher tiers; facilities would have 30 days to return the letter and approximately 60 days to enact changes. “The idea with the acknowledgment letter is … to say that they understand that they're into that tier and that they need to do something,” a staff member said, adding that failure to respond can lead to permit suspension and, ultimately, further enforcement.

Alder Trueheart moved to forward the ordinance to the common council to set a public hearing; the motion was seconded. The clerk recorded aye votes from Alder Miller, Alder Trueheart, Alder Cleveland and Alder McGuire, and the committee agreed to forward the item. Rindy said staff will ask the common council to set a public hearing at the third meeting in May and will present the fee schedule to the finance and tax committee on May 12; the Board of Public Works is scheduled to receive a similar presentation before council consideration.

With no further business, the committee moved to adjourn.

The ordinance will now proceed to the common council for a public hearing and subsequent consideration.