The Town of Millis Department of Public Works told the Finance Committee on March 12 that three separate budget pressures — sewer capacity limits under a new MassDEP permitting approach, construction of a PFAS treatment plant, and persistent cost transfers from enterprise funds into the general fund — are driving a request to reallocate labor costs and add staff.

At the meeting Jim McKay, speaking for the DPW, said Millis has secured grant and below‑interest loan funding for a new PFAS treatment plant at Well No. 3, but the project — a roughly $7.1 million capital program — and the town’s sewer permitting status will keep pressure on operating budgets. McKay said the town has applied for and expects an EPA grant of about $3.5 million, a MassDEP SRF loan of about $3.6 million and a recent $100,000 state appropriation for construction; construction work was scheduled to start the week after the committee meeting.

Why it matters: DPW officials said the town’s sewer discharge permit situation has become a direct constraint on future development and on operating costs. Millis must now file its own sewer permit with MassDEP rather than rely on the Charles River Pollution Control District’s consolidated filing, McKay said; the new permit requires the town to demonstrate how it will reduce infiltration and inflow that sends excess water to the regional treatment plant. That permit, he said, caps certain daily flows and triggers penalties if the town exceeds permitted volumes on multiple days.

DPW staff told the committee that the town experienced at least one day last year when more than one million gallons were sent to the Charles River plant, exceeding the town’s permitted per‑day threshold. McKay warned that until Millis can show reductions in infiltration and inflow, the town will need to restrict sewer capacity allocations for new developments and may face higher remediation costs.

McKay also described the PFAS project timeline and funding. He said earlier federal grant funding had been put at risk because of ‘‘Buy American’’ requirements when the town bid its first PFAS plant; the new project is being bid and built to meet that guidance, he said. The town administrator later confirmed the town had executed a state grant agreement and that construction would begin shortly.

Enterprise funds and the general fund: The DPW presentation explained long‑running cost‑allocation problems. McKay said payroll and work‑assignment practices have produced a structural transfer from enterprise funds (water, sewer, stormwater) to the general fund: enterprise funds have been subsidizing general‑fund activities because DPW personnel often perform general‑fund maintenance work but hours and charges were not consistently tracked. That situation, he said, now produces a payroll shortfall in the general fund that the town has covered by transferring enterprise fund money back into the general fund. McKay and the finance staff proposed a reallocation of percentages across divisions and adding full‑time general‑fund DPW positions to reduce the need for transfers.

The DPW request to the Finance Committee includes adding two heavy equipment/operator positions in the general fund and changing how existing positions are split across enterprise and general funds. The committee’s materials show that the proposed change would increase the general‑fund share of DPW payroll by roughly $124,500 while reducing sewer and stormwater shares by about $89,000 and $42,800 respectively; the net effect would be to lessen the repeated year‑end transfers between funds.

Transfer station, capital needs and parks maintenance: McKay said the transfer station is operating at roughly $99,000 in revenues in FY24, with current FY25 receipts down compared with last year; the transfer station carries an operating cost in the town’s budget listing of roughly $270,000. He told the committee that transfer station revenue offsets but does not fully cover operating costs, and that expanding direct town refuse pick‑up is not economically viable at present.

The DPW’s capital list includes a replacement 2013 dump truck shared across funds at an estimated split cost; McKay told the committee the truck is at or near end‑of‑life and must be replaced. He also warned of maintenance needs at town ballfields and other public properties that currently rely heavily on volunteer and youth‑sports fundraising to pay for repairs.

What happens next: The DPW director said collective‑bargaining contract outcomes and final personnel plan details will affect FY26 figures and that the Select Board will need to consider whether to fund the proposed positions in the next budget cycle.

Ending: The Finance Committee asked follow‑up questions; town administrators and select board members present expressed support for pursuing the DPW staffing changes and for continued grant pursuit on PFAS costs. The DPW said it will return with final figures after contracts are ratified and after the enterprise committee and Select Board have reviewed the allocation changes.