LEBANON — Officials in Lebanon and Enfield have reached an agreement to equalize the sewer rates that residents in both communities pay.
The Lebanon City Council approved a new methodology for calculating sewer rates at its May 21 meeting.
Under the new methodology, Lebanon would charge Enfield $8.20 per 100 cubic feet, based on the rates set in the 2025 budget, Lebanon Public Works Director Jay Cairelli said, which is significant reduction from the $15.20 per 100 cubic feet the city currently charges the town of Enfield. Those amounts would be recalculated during the 2026 budget planning cycle using the new methodology.
“I think it’s fair for both the residents of Enfield and the residents of Lebanon,” Enfield Town Manager Ed Morris said during a recording of the meeting.
Based on the rate change for Enfield, Lebanon users would have to make up around $330,000 of the difference.
That would amount to a 65 cent increase on the rate for each Lebanon user, based on 2025 numbers.
Lebanon has about 3,700 sewer users compared to Enfield’s roughly 600, so the difference would be spread out among more people.
Lebanon currently charges its residents $13.36 per 100 cubic feet, which is based on the amount of water that they use.
Under the 2025 rates, Lebanon users would be charged $14.01 based on the new methodology. The Lebanon City Council approved the methodology at its meeting, but did not approve numbers for the 2026 budget.
Before the new rate structure can be finalized, the Lebanon City Council would need to approve it as part of the 2026 budget, which the council will take up in the fall.
If it goes through, rates will change on Jan. 1, 2026.
While Enfield has its own water and sewer system, it does not have a wastewater treatment plant. Enfield users send their wastewater to Lebanon’s treatment facility. Enfield gets its drinking water from wells located near Enfield Village, while Lebanon relies on the Mascoma River for water.
Under the existing rate structure, Enfield has been paying for infrastructure improvements to Lebanon’s sewer system, which the town does not directly benefit from.
“Things in neighborhoods, things they don’t even use at all, they’ve been paying a higher rate,” then Lebanon City Manager Shaun Mulholland said during the May 21 meeting. Mulholland’s last day was May 31. “They should be paying for what they use.”
Lebanon is looking into the way it charges all users — including businesses — to see if there are ways to lessen the potential increase on Lebanon homeowners, Cairelli said.
The financial impact that the proposed change will have on Enfield users is uncertain, Enfield Public Works Director Jim Taylor said.
After Lebanon sets the rate for Enfield as a whole, the town sets its own payment structure for residents, which is based on usage, as well as what Enfield pays to operate its own water and sewer system.
Enfield users have been charged annual increases ranging from 6 to 8% in recent years, Taylor said in a phone interview last week. That is partly because the Enfield water and sewer system is making up for a roughly $750,000 deficit that was discovered years ago, Taylor said.
“We were not billing enough to pay our bills,” he said.
Enfield users are still paying toward that difference.
Taylor was hesitant to say how much Enfield users could expect to save on their bills, citing a confluence of factors including the deficit.
“I think that they’ll see a reduction in the increases that they’ve been experiencing,” Taylor said. “That’s my hope.”
The more equitable rates could prove beneficial for both municipalities in the long term.
“We want them to build housing in their community because we don’t want to take it all on ours and they need the sewer capacity in which to do that,” Mulholland said during the meeting. “This is, I would suggest, a win-win for (both) Enfield and the city.”
Liz Sauchelli can be reached at esauchelli@vnews.com or 603-727-3221.
CORRECTION: Enfield get s its drinking water from wells located near Enfield Village and Lebanon gets its water from the Mascoma River. A previous version of this story incorrectly stated the water sources for both communities.
