Eastham – The voters have mostly approved the construction of a sewage system around the water sheath of the Salt Pond on the Special Town meeting on Monday, June 23, at the Nauset Regional High School. Of the 633 inhabitants who were submitted to the gym for the discussion and vote, only 96 voted against; 537 favored more than the two-thirds majority, which is required for approval across the plan.
Since the vote was a 2½ debt exclusion, the borrowing for the wastewater system also had to be approved by a simple majority when choosing a city. On Tuesday, the residents voted again for the sewers – this time 798 to 141.
With $ 170 million, the sewage system is the most expensive project in Eastham's history. The work is partially financed with a low -interest loan from the state Revolving Fund (SRF), which the city had to accept until the end of this month.
According to city manager Jacqui Beebe, construction is expected to begin in autumn 2026, although the system will probably be in operation in 2030. The waste treatment plant is built in the back of the city of DPW. The sewer will operate 786 packages around the salt pond, the Minister pond and the Route 6 to the Nauspire Road.
The designer of the facility must guarantee a lifespan of 30 years or more, said Ziad Kary, an APEX company consultant who worked with the city to develop the sewage project. Kary said that about 143,000 gallons of water would flow through the system every day – although this number increases dramatically in summer.
“The technology is up to date with the latest art,” said Beebe. “That's why we pay so much money for it.” The plan is expected to add an average property tax bill per year.
By building sewers, Eastham also pursues a sentence of 2024 regulations of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), in which all CAPE COD cities have to remove nitrogen from river mouths such as salt pond.
The only DEP-related alternative to a municipal sewage system, as explained in this year's arrest warrant for the special cities in the city, was that every owner installs an innovative/alternative septics system. This is the route that the city of Wellfleet selected – but the city officials in Eastham also criticized them too expensive.
“I would rather not pay 30,000 or 40,000,000 US dollars for an I/A system,” said Tom McNellis, Chairman of the Energy and Climate Action Committee in the city. “I think that's a good decision.”
The co-chair of the Finance Committee, Mary Shaw, framed the measure as an opportunity for voters to learn from their decision not to support a local water system in 2007 than a proposal of $ 76 million at this year's annual city assembly. In 2014 and 2015, voters approved a similar project for $ 130.8 million. Shaw emphasized that the delay of eight years had added $ 54.8 million to the costs of this project.
“We are currently paying the award for short -sighted decisions,” said Shaw. She said that the vote against the sewage system was “financially irresponsible”.
Mary Nee repeated Shaw's concern about the costs of delay: she said that in the 1980s she had a similar situation as one of the Canal Commissioners in Boston when the delays doubled the costs of a secondary sewage system of 2 to 4 billion US dollars.
“A central sewage system is not a 'if', but a 'when',” said Nee. She urged those present to coordinate “yes”.
The chairman of the Conservation Commission, Karen Strauss, also spoke in favor of the article and said that “the nutrient problem in our waterways will not solve itself” and that “recovery only begins after action”.
Consideration of the voters
In the weeks that led to the Special Town Meeting, Yard signs appeared in the city, which criticized the sewage plan as a “overdevelopment”. While no voters expressly produced this concern during the meeting, Hillary Greenberg-Lemos Director of Health and Environment, which characterized the plan as “growth-neutral”, means that it does not increase the development permitted on any property in the city.
But there were many other reasons why the voters were skeptical.
Dan Coppelman, chairman of the planning committee, offered the city officials a number of questions, most of which affected the proximity of the treatment facility to one of the three public water supply fountain in Eastham. “It is a known fact that there is a variety of chemicals in waste water,” he said. “What is the reasons for dismissal not identified elements in or near the groundwater conductor?”
Beebe said that she had committed herself to the security of the city's safety and that a municipal sewage system was the best way to protect it.
“At the moment we are putting our waste into our back farms,” said Beebe. “It will not be a treatment. It sits there and then it goes into the environment. A central treatment system is a much better way to protect against these contaminants.”
The deputy city administrator Rich Bienvenue added that a municipal treatment system from the city would help to comply with the future DEP regulations. “If we have to carry out PFAS removal, we can upgrade our centralized treatment system,” he said. “You cannot do this efficiently if you have thousands of systems all over the city.”
Nancy Benben complained that the proposed sewage treatment plant does not have the ability to serve the entire city. She also questioned the estimated increase in property tax of 1,000 US dollars and asked Bienvenue to tell the session of how much property taxes had increased in the past five years.
Eric Radke also criticized the potential costs of the project and asked Beebe and Bienvenue whether “expensive things” such as tanks in the facility had to be replaced. Beebe said the city would regularly maintain the system, so that parts would only have to be replaced much later.
Bienvenue said that the city's capital budget made the maintenance and repair. He also said that every replacement would take place in the future 20 to 40 years after the original debt.
“With a debt and finished in another – perfect!” Said Radke.
Stacey Richardson wondered whether another opportunity for a small extension of an SRF loan could be available in later years. “Maybe in two or three years, if we decide that we still want to do it, it will be,” she started, but she was cut off by mockery.
Ian Drake called the question of a vote and said he thought, “everyone decided pretty much.” His application went 575 to 47 – and the tension in the auditorium at the moment, most of them agreed that it was time for the end of the meeting.
When the city's moderator, Scott Kerry, explained that the article had passed, many voters began to cheer. Some seemed to be pleasantly surprised on the wide edge.