Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget And Permitting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mattabassett District presents capital-driven budget increase and warns DEP permit review could require an inflow study
Summary
Mattabassett District presented a budget with a 17.7% overall increase—driven mainly by capital projects—and warned that the state DEP is pressing for reduced inflow/infiltration; the district plans a study to evaluate reductions and said required changes could take years and potentially require plant redesign or expansion.
Arthur Simonian, the Mattabassett District executive director, told the Middletown WPCA that the district’s overall budget rose about 17.7% this year, driven largely by planned capital projects such as sewer-trunk-line work, tank and clarifier rehabilitation and odor-control upgrades. Simonian said the district will use about $2.25 million from reserves and $200,000 of operating funds to soften the capital assessment impact for member towns; Middletown’s assessment increase was described as about $88,000 (roughly 1.7% for the town).
John Dunham, the Mattabassett board chairman, said the district has not yet secured a DEP discharge permit and that state officials are pressing the district to reduce inflow and infiltration (I&I) before approving permit conditions. “They’re really pressing for us to get the communities to reduce the I&I or we’ll have to do expansion at the plant,” Dunham said, and noted the district will commission a study to determine how to reduce inflow.
Simonian and Dunham described a multi-year capital plan and noted the district is paying down a Clean Water Fund loan; they cited a $79,000,000 loan and said debt service allocation among member towns will be revisited as portions of the debt retire in the early 2030s. Board members asked for more details about flow trends and credits Middletown receives for local grit removal and pump-station work; Simonian said Middletown’s five-year average flows have been relatively stable.
Dunham cautioned that resolving permit issues with DEP could be years in the making and might require design changes or construction if the state will not allow certain operational blends even when current discharges meet numeric requirements. The board did not vote on policy changes; members thanked the presenters and asked staff to follow up with any requests for additional budget detail or permit-study timeline information.
