Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wastewater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Engineers present three wastewater paths for new fire station, with septic cheapest on paper
Summary
AECOM engineers told the committee that connecting the new fire station to municipal sewer would cost $1.1M–$2.0M depending on approach and easements, while a retrofitted on-site septic system was estimated at about $150,000–$175,000; funding eligibility and regulatory phasing complicate a larger sewer tie-in.
Get email alerts on the Wastewater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
AECOM project engineer Tim Harrison summarized three options to handle wastewater from the proposed fire station site: an oversized gravity sewer routed to Route 6A with a new easement (roughly $1.8M–$2.0M), a low-pressure sewer including grinder pumps (about $1.1M), or a traditional on‑site septic system (budget allowance cited at approximately $150,000–$175,000). He cautioned that a gravity main sized for a future phase could sit largely unused for decades and would present operational challenges such as stagnant flows that require active flushing.
Harrison also described a pilot permeable reactive barrier (PRB) at the north end of the middle-school parking lot designed to reduce groundwater nitrogen and said the fire-station site has not been designated a nitrogen-sensitive area by DEP — a designation that would trigger stricter nitrogen-control requirements. "If you look at the lower or I'm sorry, the smaller LPS system...it's going to have power costs," Harrison said, noting the trade-offs between upfront capital cost and long-term operation and maintenance. Committee members asked whether the project phase could be advanced; staff replied that federal and state mandate-driven phasing and SRF funding rules limit how easily the schedule can be changed.
The committee and staff also discussed funding options: SRF financing and Cape and Islands Trust grants could reduce costs for projects eligible within a larger phase, but single-property tie-ins are less competitive for those funds. The committee asked staff to carry forward the site test results and engineering details for the next design-development steps.

