Infrastructure Committee - September 16, 2026

Okay, having a quorum and I'll call the meeting to order. And the meeting is being televised and broadcast. And we'll start with our pledge of allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

And the first item on the agenda is the adoption of the minutes from um June.

Well, actually the first thing on the agenda is to go over the uh the quorum and uh to determine um everybody's here actually, right?

But is everybody sworn in?

I am.

I am.

I am.

You are.

I am.

Not yet.

Tim?

Yeah.

You are.

Yes.

Did you ever get appointed?

I did. It was back in June.

Oh, okay.

But I didn't get sworn until like last week.

Okay. So, we're all appointed.

Mhm.

And so, we have a quorum and we want to welcome um new members.

We got Tim Ford who is a contractor who volunteered for us. And we have um Gloria Cabraw.

Gloria Cabraw who's the new representative for Fincom.

And um you might know Duncan represented Fincom for a couple of years, but he went off of FinCom. But he he loved us so much he wanted to come back. So we he found a good group found an atlarge seat for him and so uh so we have those two members and then change of status for Lori.

Yeah.

Are we all appointed at the same time?

No.

Okay.

So in the last meeting in June, I asked people who wanted to be reappointed.

You asked me and I asked you and you said yes. You said yes. I said yes. You said yes. And um so I put a memo um to the to the select board to appoint us and I actually got Evan Almeida on it because he was a little waffling a little bit but then he took his name off right before the meeting. So four of us were appointed in in a in June and maybe

you were at the same time. Yeah, it was okay.

Well, that was you know you were at the meeting obviously. So So we were reappointed in June.

Yes.

So, I don't think I've been sworn in since the last time.

Well, I don't want to do anything at least.

Did you get one of these?

No, you didn't. Well, you probably did it a year ago when I They don't mail them out anymore.

I got to pick them off. I just So, I won't Maybe I shouldn't vote tonight.

You can't You can't vote if you're not sworn in.

Okay.

Okay.

But you can participate in the in the discussions.

Okay. Do you have an extra arm?

We we have You can have this one. I've got Roger. Whoa.

Good. See, Roger sent me one. So, um and then um Mr. Chairman, we have to um reorganize the committee. We have to vote on chair, vice chair, and cler and secretary.

All right. I'll I'll accept nominations.

Do you have an agenda?

I didn't print my agenda. There we go.

Does anybody else need one?

I can.

Okay.

I got mine on my phone.

Huh?

I'll take one if you have an extra one.

I've got an extra one here.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

And so, um, well, I nominate Bob Daylor to be our chair.

I accept the nomination.

I second.

Who second?

I did. Or Duncan. Either one.

Either one.

All in favor?

I.

Okay.

And um I nominate uh Mari May for vice chair.

Look at this. This is I'll second. I second.

All in favor?

I I Who? Who? You did. You you Okay. Okay.

And then secretary. This is a tough one because Evan did it for a couple of years.

Are there any um nominations for secretary?

No.

Anybody know the English language and want to take minutes?

That's that's the primary job.

No.

Well, let's leave that unfilled. Um, okay. I'll just take some notes tonight and type them up and and and make sure if you if you're not sworn in to just drop by the town clerk's office and and and get the form, get sworn in.

Okay. I I will before the next meeting.

I'll be sworn in.

Yep.

Okay. Good.

Now, Mr. Chair, we've come to the approval of the minutes.

Is there a motion to approve the minutes? Second.

Um, yeah, I make a motion to approve.

Hearing a second. All in favor?

I Roger. Oh, well, upcoming meeting.

Should we wait till the end and see where we are?

Um, we can do that. Oh, there's no more calendar.

For 20 years, there was a calendar there.

Can't afford Can't afford it anymore.

Mark can't afford it. Okay. Yeah. Not in the budget, huh, Duncan? You You have a phone. You said no calendars when we have no lawnmowers. So that okay well um the third Wednesday would in October would be the 21st.

Do we do we have to meet monthly or bimonthly? We've been meeting quarterly actually.

But um well let's see if we let's see if we let let's let's postpone that and see when we meet. Why don't we talk about what we're gonna do next?

Um, Roger, why don't you fill us in?

Everyone should have in front of them this report, which is which is um a summary of where we are. um and the two federal earmarks that we have the so-called Keading one and the Keading 2 and and if you recall we voted in June and reflected in the minutes that in the Keading one money we put together state and federal grants and this is the line that's going over to the Briggs fire

station and then the balance of the money will extend up in the um in in neighborhoods off of Route Six. Um and and we also have the Keading 2 monies which will come come good th this winter early spring sometime in in the next few months we'll have the Keing and and that that grant has that earmark is has already been awarded to us but but it takes a long time to get

through an EPA view and to actually have the contract in which we can actually access the cash. So that's that's that's been the hold up on Keing one is we can't even though it's awarded, we can't actually access the cash because we don't we haven't we don't have the contract in hand. We haven't executed it. But but but that's supposedly will happen soon. So we we have we have these

two and it looks like they'll now be running very close to each other and and and one of the things I'd like to discuss tonight the whether or not we just put them together and go out with a single bid try to hit the market in the springs. So let's see where we are and how much money we have and what we need to do to have that happen.

Sure. So just u thank you Mr. Chairman.

So just a brief update on the prior project which just uh which is complete.

We're just waiting to close out um the final state highway access permit and that's a process in of itself as built.

So more of an administrative work that needs to take place uh with respect to the uh route six project. Um, as the chair uh indicated, we've got the two funding sources, keying one, keing two, and then in uh section three of the memo I provided gives you uh gives you the amount of funding that's available in each. The only thing I would add is that in the Keading one, we know that we have

an additional ining one project, we know that we have an additional uh $300,000 um from the um ECSDC.

We've been referring to it as a PAS grant. So um normally we would have already received uh that grant agreement the contract but they instituted a another process where they have that in reviewed by internal council at the state level. So we we did reach out to the folks at the mass de to sort of get a sense of timing. Um and we're feeling like that's that's coming any day now. U

the the holdup is just again their internal review. We don't owe them anything. We have the uh the commitments there. So, we know them the $300,000 in place. Um, so if we combine that along with the uh state federal match um and the CDS funding FY24 and that Keing one uh tranch there's uh one $1.5 million um in the T uh Keading 2 again as the chair indicated that grant from the feds was uh uh $1,92,000.

We were also able to secure a state federal match so the town doesn't have to pay for the match for an additional $273,000 which brings the total dollar value in the Keading 2 sort of uh trunch to $1.365 million.

We also did a budget review of what was left in the ORPA funding uh both opera funds and any of the earmarks and we ran that right down to zero which is the intent. you know, we want to get to zero and uh we were able to be in budget for that particular for those particular funds and complete the project.

Now, we don't want to send any money back.

No money's going back.

Um so, in terms of uh just a quick snapshot of where we are with the Keing one. Um that's the section four of the memo. Uh so, we've already submitted the EPA work plan. Uh we've provided them with a budget. We submitted the CADX.

The caddex is a request for a categorical exclusion from a full NEPA filing, but it still needs to go through a cross cutter review. That's a fancy way of saying that every possible office at the federal level, tribal, uh you know, heritage, everybody reviews the um the work plan and the u package that we submit to them. that has been the holdup with getting um it's and it's not that

this particular project is held up, but it's just the process that the the federal government goes through when we're trying to get that that grant awarded. Um so we I spoke with the EPA uh project officer today. She anticipates that we'll have uh something before the end of the month. Um and hopefully that means before the end of the month with no additional comments.

Sometimes we get comments, we have to respond and so, but I'm hoping at that point we'll be we'll be all set. We'll get a grant agreement with them. So, so we're just waiting the final EPA review and the uh CADX determination.

Uh let's see, it's four. Sorry, the page is printed up um upside down on the back, but if you flip the page, still in section four uh with the keying just a quick schedule where we stand with some of this these these funds. So the keying one um uh we're waiting as I said for the contract for the PAS um and we've confirmed that the funds can be used and are eligible for

engineering or bid phase services. So that is to say, if those funds came available first, the $300,000 came first, then we could when I put the budget together, I allocated a little bit money, a little bit of that money toward engineering work and a little bit towards construction so that we wouldn't be pigeonholed just to using it for one particular aspect of the project. Um, but the way it's looking, both the

federal and the PAS might come in pretty close at the same time on the Keing one.

Um so uh we don't currently have a signed agreement with uh Kleinfeld the design engineer for the Keing one. Uh the design is done the permitting is underway but the next phase which would be the bid phase services um we have not executed that contract.

Um, and we've talked with the town administrator and uh uh the chair and the vice chair about how some different ways that we could slice that and potentially get the money. But I think the at the bottom line, the chair can correct me, is that the intent is to have the full fund there, the full funding there for the full contract award so that we're not uh paying uh we're not uh obligating ourselves to a

contract value that we don't have funding for. So, in other words, not spending $100,000 when we don't really have that $100,000 available to us. Yes.

Yet. I don't know if the chair wants to weigh in on that at all or just keep rolling.

Go ahead.

Okay. Um, so uh some additional items we need to talk about uh today with respect to the Keading 2 money. And we'll we'll get into this a little further in the memo, but um we need to identify the priority locations. Uh basically that means where does the committee want to spend that next the FY26 trunch of money that 1 uh 365 million. What what street do you want to go to? What location do you want

to go to? So that's something I'm hoping we can finalize today. Um, we have not started the EPA work plan or CADX for the keying 2 uh because I we need to know where we're going to go so that I can tell them this is where we're going to this is the next project that will uh inform the applications, the work plans, the environmental abuse and all that kind. So the outcome of this meeting

will tell us how we need to fill out that paperwork.

Um the Keing 2 money also if the intent is to go to for example South Burrell to South Berman um there would be an extension in Route 6 that would be required. I think it's about 700 ft roughly uh maybe a little less than that but um that would require us getting another uh mass DOT permit. Uh we can't just modify the old one because it's a new contractor and that requires bonding

through the new contractor. So, I just want to make the committee aware that there's still a process involved, an additional process involved depending on what priority locations you select. Yes.

Yes sir.

Roger, would Digot still be interested in the small?

I think they would.

Yeah. So, that would if they were to do that, it would stream like the streamline the uh permitting process a little bit.

It would be a a whole new permit.

Yeah.

It what?

It would be a whole new permit.

Oh, yeah. I know. But um they would they Okay. Yep.

So it doesn't really it's it's it's really from starting from scratch in that particular case.

Okay.

Um so uh and we'll talk about this a little further. There's some strategies we can we can approach to the next next role which is uh funding the engineering for the Keing too work. So, if the intent is to start some of the process, meaning design, permitting, um, uh, all the administrative reviews to the EPA over the winter time, uh, late fall and winter so that we're ready to go in late

winter with a bid, which would be ideal.

Uh, then we need to figure out how to pay for all that. Um, and we have some ideas. We're going to socialize with with the with the committee. Um uh in section five we talk about just some planning uh cost assumptions. We applied some values to try to give um assign a total dollar amount for some of the alternative locations. So for example, if we wanted to go to South Baralt as an option, what would that

cost? Um, and the section 5 just looks at what those lineal footage costs would be and it it would include some contingency police details, um, the design work, uh, PM service. So, those those footage costs are really all inclusive. So, then we can just apply that to the amount of footage we need on that road and get a pretty decent idea of what that would cost.

Um but what um in in looking at the at the the handout what Roger's done a terrific piece of of work for us. So if you look at he he's taken the unit prices based on our bids.

So this is what what all-in costs are running a foot and then said okay and then and then in six and seven we look at various options of we we know on page one we've got a million and a half and a million three plus to spend what what does it what does that buy how you know and so we look at what our our per per foot costs are running and then

we can look at the various options And so we so so we can then what I want the committee to to do today and what we need to do is to do do two things. one um authorize uh town administrator to um to to take the funds to pay for this design and everything so we can have the design ready to go and then decide where where should we where should we spend

if you know this money and and we have the the options to do that and these are all um Roger extensions off of where we've already got pipelines. So, this is not going off in the blue someplace. This all connects into neighborhoods. And we're trying to to do a couple of things.

One, go to, you know, problem areas or needs areas. That is, we bring the water where people need the water and and want the water. That's a those are two different things. Um and then also um ju just looking at what what combination serves the the most houses. So you know we're we're trying to provide to to get as much benefit out of this the dollars as we can. Um but but we we still even with

incentives we still have a rather poor uptake of of the water. The mindset is my water is free if it's coming out of my well if if I connect to the public water now someone's going to send me a water bill.

And so now now the water costs something. the wellwater really isn't free, but it but that's the comparison that people make. So, it's a you know, and we'll we can discuss tonight whether or not we want to continue to have incentives of extending connections to people's homes and things, but but that's the purpose of all this is so that we can be informed when we make this decision.

So, I'm sorry for Thank you.

But I well just um you know Bob is right. I mean we had with incentives only about 30% of the of the homes hook up uh when we had the $4 million5 million PAS and that was an incentive that we would take the pipe into the basement and provide a water meter. Uh we don't have that incentive anymore.

Um, but what we do have is in Keing one, we want to go up Arlington and uh come around and loop back to Route 6. And we do have three or four interested uh customers on on on Arlington and on Little School Street just beyond Arlington in and so we do have those and in Keading two if you look at the minutes from the June meeting uh you'll see that residents of South Palt Street addressed

the committee regarding unsafe private well conditions. They described water unsuitable for drinking, health concerns affecting family members, ongoing expenses. associated with bottled water and contamination reported at neighboring premises. So, you know, we do have um you know, one or two houses on South Balt that we we do want to serve.

South Balt actually, you know, the backs up on the the uh I think it's called the Cokes of Commons, which is how far the water line goes now. And so, it's right over the fence for them and they know it's near. They they came to us. They had um just out of the necessity of there was a septic system replaced in in in the backyard of this and the board of health required the

neighborhood to test their wells and when they tested the wells they came back that the water was unfit for human consumption. So they've been using bottled water and not using wells. So they came to us and asked that that when we did the spring contract that we would add Burman Street to them and and and I and I think we should do that uh because we know that that's a real that's a real

problem and and and we you know we we told them that we we would put that in the contract. So I think we should, you know, but I I know from, you know, experience.

I was on the board of health for three years and all along that Route Six Carter are some houses on small lots and um most of them had uh um cesspools.

Some of them have title fives, but basically they do pollute their their neighbors water. So there's problem all all up and down that stretch. And so if even though they don't hook up right away, if water is out on the street and they know it's there, if they start having health problems from their well or if they um can't sell a house because they don't have city water, um they'll

hook up one one at a time as they'll come and hook up. I'm ser um two things. It might be helpful if we jump to the the illustration when you start to talk about Oh yeah.

When you start to talk about these streets, what what what are we talking about? We have that in front of us. And also when we talk about an incentive in the normal water contracts and and for the older members, you just bear with me for a moment, but in a normal water contract, okay, there's a water man that runs down the street and and that's paid that's public. It's paid for by the public. And

then we run service connections at each home over to the the edge of the right of way. So the street has a there's the pave portion of the street. Then there's the right of way. And we bring the normal thing is you build a main and you bring an extension to everyone's right to everyone's property line but you don't go on to their property because there's all kinds of issues of

of getting releases to work on people's property and all that. So that's the standard approach and you go to the curb stop.

It goes to a curb stop and there's a there's a valve there and then that valve is normally closed. when you connect to it, they open the valve and you have water and and there's a meter in in the house. Um, what we did with in in our prior contracts, the ones that we've just closed out, we said if you sign up when the contractors in the street, so while while we're actually

working with we have a contractor, we'll extend the water if you give us permission, we'll extend the water to your house.

and and that's, you know, saves people.

This is a place where we have long driveways, then that saves people, you know, north of $1,000, 1,500 bucks. Um, and and even with that, we didn't have everyone say, "Sure, sign me up." So, we we only still had 30% of of the people who did that. But but we can we can decide whether or not because it all comes out of the budget. All comes out of the grant money. So we can decide whether or

not we want to do that. But let's let's look at um let's look at where we might go, where we should go with the this contract stuff. So Sure. Um without going through every linear foot and every house and all of that, let's just talk about the the various options that we have.

Sure.

So uh first apologies, it's it's difficult to see. Probably should have used dock writing, but if you can on the top right hand corner of the uh of the rendering working uh sort of right to left, the first arrow is South Ball Street. The next one is South Berryman.

Um if you continue down along the yellow line, um the next uh and the and the big the big long streak running across that, that's Route Six.

Route six. Thank you.

So that the the pipelines that you see, the blue pipeline that's in the middle of the yellow streak, that's where the existing water man is.

Yep. So continuing along Route Six, uh the next group on the top of the page is what we we're calling the pine tree uh pine tree loop.

Um that's one potential area. And then continuing along the top of the page, it's the next water line. It's the uh Faulner uh loop. Um the rest of the project or the the rest of the document that has the water line shown is either um uh proposed to be connected as part of the keying one money or already has been installed as part of the prior project. Um, so for example, the bottom

left hand corner, there's an X, that's the fire station. So that that extension along that line up to the the second arrow, that's the Briggs Road project.

That's what we plan on using uh the the uh Keading One money on.

So we we've already voted to do that.

That's that's part of what we're planning to do with the Keading One.

Right.

Correct. and then the the Maya school and the Osborne Street and back out to Route Six that's already built. So, it's it's really these little loops in the neighborhood and the extension in Route Six at the very right hand corner to reach into the uh the contaminated streets at South Bralt and Bman.

Correct. So, so, um, in bullet six where we we list potential water main extension locations, we list those very locations we just identified, South Burall, South Berryman, Pine Tree Loop, Faulner Loop, and we have estimated dollar values for each one of these locations. I would just add that the salt uh Bryman Street if you look all the way to the right um there's a total um with another value of a total of 8

826,000 with another value of 520 572,250.

The reason why there are two values there, it's the incremental increase to go past South Baral Street on Route 6.

So, probably wouldn't make a lot of sense to skip over South Bar Street uh and just go to South Bryman. So, we need to get we we would need to install uh 6 600 ft plus an additional 300 ft to get to uh South um Bryman Street. I know that's complicated to explain, but it's just an incremental dis uh added cost to get there.

I also added number five, six, and seven. These locations are already identified in the Keading one bid. And the reason why I I I install these here is the way the Keing one bid is structured is it's structured with ad alternates. Um I'm explaining what do you want to explain explain what that is?

Sure. So the ad alternates there uh allow the town to put out a bid and award only portions of the bid um incrementally. So you can have the base bid which is going to be Briggs Road and then the Oakland loop is broken up into three additional alternates. So you can choose if you want to do the base bid plus alternate one if funding allows the base bid plus alternate one and alternate two

if the funding allows. And but the only caveat is that um procurement requires that we list the alternates in the sequence of awards. So you cannot have a base bid award and decide I'm going to award alternate three but not one and two. You have to award one and two before you can award three. And the reason why it's structured like that is to avoid bid rigging basically. So that's important because

um and and I'll get confirmation from the group is that if the first per the first loca besides the Briggs Road, the next location we want to hit is Arlington Street, then Arlington Street would have to be alternate one. That's the next if we have money, that's the next spot we want to go to. If the spot after that is Glennwood, then we would want to list that as alternate two. So

there is some strategy associated with that and it's important that that you know we we state that because that's for you guys to decide and we do have the results from the survey that your chair might want to talk about and the vice chair might want to talk about and and and the reason the reason that awkward stuff existing the these alternate bids is rather than just say well do all of it and then bid

it is because we we don't know what the actual prices are going to We know we we know that we we're going to extend to the Brig Street Fire Station and then but we we don't know what the bidder will bid for that work. But we do know we we we do know we only have a million and a half.

So, so then then we we get the bid for going to Briggs and then we look at, oh, we get enough money left over to do alternate one and two. We do alternate one and two. So that that's that's why bidding the ultimates is is that it it we're not in a situation where we can go back to the town and say, "Oh, we need another 25,000 bucks, you know, or

100,000 bucks. So we're going to we this it's always been planned to live within the the grant money we get so that there's no there's no town costs.

So moving on to section seven. Uh what we do here is um we just provide some alternatives and committee might already have a feeling as to where you want to go but just sort of an objective look.

We provide potential combinations A, B, C and in each one of these combinations they'll list you know what those in what those um uh what those locations would add up to. So for example, if we look on at option D, if we included South Balt and South Berman Street, including the incremental, which means extending that little piece of Route 6, we would serve approximately 25 homes, more or less,

and that cost would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.15 million. If we looked at the uh C, it would be South Baralt and the Faulner Loop and so on and so forth. So, these are just combinations that would need it back into um the $1.365 million and that's all that next section does. I don't know if you want me to pause there, Mr. Chairman, or you want me to continue.

So, Roger, um just looking at at the numbers um the money.

Mhm.

Um on KD1, it looks I think you told me that u I don't see the number in here, but I wrote it down. Um, King one hooking up the fire station is 800,000.

Mhm.

The um Arlington Oakland loop is 239.

So that comes to about, you know, a little over a million. So we have 460,000 to add to that.

and uh conveniently you know Greenwood Avenue and Oakland come to about 1.5 million.

So I think that's Keading one.

I think that's pretty well set. Now Keading 2 on the other hand is is less set.

uh we have 1.3 million there and it looks like if we take South Balt and South Berryman we got you know a million150 so we still have about 300 grand and is that 300 grand enough to pay for 210 of a mile on Route 6 or or reaching and I I'd like to propose given where we are and given the fact that it's taken so long to get these these dam approvals that we think about

combining one and two and going out to bid in the spring. Chris, why don't you why don't you come up at least to the uh to the kids table.

Well, I I you know, I had had you know, one more thing to say.

All right.

Um we we know we have one or two uh customers very interested in South Bald.

So, I think South Briald is definitely part of eating too in my opinion. South Berryman though, we have no idea.

And so I want to suggest that we actually send out some kind of uh like we did on Briggs and Arlington uh questionnaire to the residents on South Balt and especially Bryman uh to see whether there's any customers that are possible there. That's just a suggestion of mine.

Chris, we we uh we talked um given given we had we had hoped if you look back in the minutes we had hoped to be going out to bid this this month in with Keing one that didn't happen. So e even if all this money comes good in a few weeks and all of that comes good essentially by the time we advertise, get the bids in, check the bids, do all

that stuff, put in a uh notice of award, it it'll be December. So the you know the the plants closed, we can't cut Route 6 open in the in the winter. Um, so, so now the contractor is is we have a contractor, but he can't start work until the spring. And to think, well, well, we if we're going to go to advertising in the spring, why not put these two contracts together in a single

contract? We'll do one bid and it'll give us six or seven months. We could bid this in March or April and gain all of next summer's construction season into the fall.

Um, and it gives us six months to to get the work plan and all of that. So, uh, here's here's what I propose for discussion.

This this contract comes good by the end of the month.

We now have a pot of money that can use for design. So we decide tonight what we would like to do for phase two. And if we combine these two contracts, what what are the alternates that we we want to have? Do we let's vote to go to South Balt and and into that neighborhood and then it'll all be part of of a single contract. When the money comes good, we take the Rogers contract administration and

Kleinfeld's design money. We take that for for whatever the amendment to the contract we need. So, the bidding assistance next spring, the additional design, survey, all of that, we take that money out of the grant because now we have the money and then we have all the design ready to go in the spring and and then we go out with a with a instead of having two side byside little contracts that that may not be

attractive to people, we've we've got ourselves a, you know, million, you know, roughly a $2.8 million, $2.7 million contract that will will attract some more bidders. So, um, and I think that and I don't think we lose anything.

I think we gain a lot by by playing the money that we have in that fashion.

Does that make sense to folks? Yeah, it does because we have already lost time and so why not?

So now you put it out to bid and then they're going to decide. But the prices are going to flux a lot between now and then. So do is there a okay it could be between this price and this price if you know say if bid comes in all right right now it's going to cost you 1.5 million or 2 point whatever but 6 months from now it may be 25% more or less or does

that come into effect when is your close out saying okay the price we need to at this date this is what it's going to be yes well I can maybe answer some of that and then just um touch on what you had said Right.

So, you know, to your point, I think because we're so late in the season, I would tend to agree that we should plan for a spring construction cycle for both the Keing one roadways and the Keading 2 roadways. You know, I think it's a little bit tricky because from my sense, I look at it from a procurement lens and I really lean on Roger who's been working with, you know, um, the EPA and

the state with regards to, you know, what restrictions do we have from the grant perspective. And so, you know, what I would say to that is um on its face, I would tend to agree it makes sense to go through one procurement and it's it's cleaner in a certain way.

However, I would maybe just add the caveat there that if it's more trouble than it's worth on the grant side of things to combine those projects because we also have to, you know, we send them a scope of work of what we anticipate for each of those phases and how we pay out invoices and from what how much what percentage from each of those buckets do we have to pay from? that can

get pretty complicated. You know, it's not necessarily impossible, but if it isn't easy, you know, I would still maintain and plan for a spring time frame. The other alternative is, you know, the town could put two procurements out at the same time and you could still get the same benefit. So if for example we did you know do a procurement for keing one and you know maybe within a few weeks or a

month we issue keing 2 as a procurement that contractor is already going to be planning and already going to be in this area. They're already going to be staged.

Theoretically that would be an attractive project for them to bid on because they know they're already going to be in the area and they're going to have their vehicle, you know, their equipment mobilized here. So I think you would again under that idea you get the same benefit. You'd probably have the contractor who would bid on both Kading one and Keing 2. Um you know I will say that as time goes on you know to your

point is you know we'll face escalation cost. Um, however, what I've always found is the later in the fall you put out these procurements, you're paying a premium because a lot of contractors are closing up shop for the year. Um, you know, if they have seasonal, you know, seasonal workers, you know, they've already sent them away. So, if we were able to secure these funds and plan for a winter procurement to

begin in spring and already have the contracts in place, already have the notice to proceeds in place so that you know when the sign of spring arrives, they already know that they can go out and start doing their work. um we might get favorable pricing than we would right now, even though there will be some escalation that's incorporated into whatever pricing comes out. We might

actually get more favorable pricing than if we were to do it right now and try to aggressively get someone in place before the end of this year. Um so those are my recommendations on a couple of it. I definitely think at least from the discussions um and what I've talked to with Roger, I think Keing one seems like a good package. A lot of time's been spent on that. You know, I think um

there's still some additional leg work for Keing 2 that I don't think um I think you could keep it separate and Keing one can keep moving at the pace it's going at. Um that'd be Oh, you really envision kind of, you know, two different contracts parallel rather than merged.

Yeah. And I and again I think that's a likely option. You know, again, I would also agree, you know, if it were one procurement, um again, from my procurement standpoint, um it's definitely ideal. You're going to get different set of contractors. Um, you know, I I've talked with Roger and you know, I think you're going to get certain contractors who are comfortable with a certain project size. So, you

would get different contractors if it's a $3 million project versus if it's a $1 million project. Bonding requirements are different. Um, the amount of, you know, personnel crews that you need available is going to be different. Um, you know, not good or bad, just a consideration when people bid on the work. Um but but if two cont if if one contractor were to win both bids if we bid them separately yes

they could operate as if they were one $2.7 million contract.

Yes.

But from a paperwork standpoint um they would be separate because you seem to prefer separating the paperwork on the two buckets of money. it might benefit you from a um a draw down standpoint because we are pulling those from different sources of funds. So when they invoice us here, you know, hey, we're invoicing you for this segment of the road which we've, you know, designated as coming from this roadway.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Um Yeah. Well, when Hartnet did the um four or five million PAS, Yeah.

he had the PAS grant, but he also had all this ARPA money.

Yeah. And so he could draw from the the Rodric's earmark.

He could draw from Bristol County 3, Bristol County 4.

Yeah.

And he could just shovel the monies all over the place and u and and do the project that way. We don't have ARPA money anymore. You know, the balance is zero.

Yeah. We're we're coming down to earth a little bit at this point. I think and I was actually just mentioning this Raj before the meeting, you know, I think that there was a lot of flexibility that the town was afforded to be able to to pivot and reallocate the funds. you know, as I think it was said at the very beginning of this meeting, we're we're kind of coming back into this phase

where, you know, we're back on this schedule of as these grant, you know, funds become available and as, you know, they go through the review timeline, we have to react to what, you know, they provide us and what we can work with. Chris, I I take your point about the grant administration, you know, having the two contracts that this this came out of this ear, this came out of a different ear um on the

pure grant administration. Are we a little bit pregnant already if we uh if we take the the money out of the the PAS grant to pay for the design work on keying too.

So I think you're talking about the 300,000.

Yeah. So talking about the you know if we draw monies that the monies that come good by the end of the month.

Mhm. and we draw from those money to pay for the design amendment to to Kleinfelder's contract to do Keading 2.

So now you've taken out of out of this grant you've taken design money.

Yeah.

I I I know it's a small amount of money and maybe may be easier to track, but but does does that cut against your your grant administration stuff? I'm not arguing. Oh, no. I I would say not necessarily, you know, I think, you know, the the federal and the state match, you know, and Roger go through that. I think the tracking has to be a lot more stringent there than I think

historically has been for uh the $300,000 fund. You know, I think, you know, and Roger can speak to this is I think when we were looking at the $300,000, there's this idea that it wouldn't all go to design and some of it would be spread out for the construction. The only thing that I would say and I'm not again against again you know allocating more from that bucket of money is we don't have Keading's price proposal

for Keading 2.

If we were to pull money out of that $300,000 for the Keading one, you know, bid assistance and construction administration, it would have to be the full amount for us to be able to sign that contract. So it wouldn't you know um and again that's fine because it's 300,000 and you know Keading's uh not Keing uh client fellow's proposal is less than that it would fit within that.

Um yeah you know, but it's strategy and I would sit with Roger and just say, "Hey, you know, does this make sense based off of, you know, what we provided them for a scope of work? Would they be okay with us maybe doing a little more design out of this bucket versus construction?"

But just on its face, I don't see any issue with it.

Okay. there's if there's there's no issue then then I think we should well um you're the ones who who have to handle the money and administer the grants and as as long as is you think we could get two sidebyside contracts out in March or April.

Yeah. And I and some of this is going to be I'll just say on that piece is if that's well Keing one we definitely should be able to do that.

We should well and I think that's you know something in terms of a recommendation that you could provide to us you know as a committee is if that's what we want to target for you know we can do that you know and with the understanding that we still have unknowns with regards to keying to and it going through its its review process. So, I would say, "Hey, look,

our goal as a town is we want to put both out at the same time." That might mean, and I'm not suggesting this, but that might mean, well, let's wait 3 weeks because we know that this is going to be in place. You know, Keing two will be ready for us. I'm making it up in February.

Yep.

All right. So, let's wait cuz we know it's going to be ready in February. And then we'll put them out at the same time.

Um, yeah. But I just But some of this isn't driven by us. I guess I just want to make that point is that then I think the contractors the contractors really know you know that they could pick up both of these contracts.

Yeah.

Chair chair, could we make a a motion that would allow either Roger or Chris to make a decision based on, you know, whether it's bundled or unbundled basically and whether it's a package deal or or separate based on what they have for, you know, procurement and grants at the time. I don't know if that'll allow flexibility so we don't have a month go by or two months go by before we meet.

Oh, no. Yes.

I'm I'm perfectly I I would vote to support such a motion.

Okay.

Um and let me just add one more piece to that too is both the grant agreement. So when we get these grants back, we those have to go to the select board to be authorized. Yep.

Same with this construction scope. So anything here tonight would be a recommendation to the select board on this on this pathway. Just Okay. Uh I understand and every we I think the committee understands our job is to advise the the select board.

Yeah.

Um having that I think one of the things that is is missing is we don't have Kleinfelder's scope because we haven't told him what we want him to do. Um so let's decide that now and um and then um and then we can vote to allow the flexibility whether they're simultaneous. So you put them together and you can decide that all out out strictly on on on your on your neck or

Is is it is it easier for you to administer the single grant or the two grants? We don't we don't want to make it harder for you, but we also don't want to lose any more time.

Correct.

So, that's where we are.

Um I would support a a motion to I really felt we made a commitment to the the people who came before us on South Ball Street that we would put them in the spring contract.

Yep. Um and and I think I think the roots the root six extension and and and whether or not we you know is part of Roger your work or Kleinfelder's work um I I think Mur's idea of let's let's send a survey to the u u the residents on on Perryman and and see what the interest is there. But but at least do you know extend that and then um if

if we look at what that is. Um um I would also include the rest of Breal, South Brialt in the survey because we have you know one house that came to us but they said a couple streets a couple of neighbors were interested but that's right around Route Six.

Baral probably has another six or eight houses down the street.

Yep.

Yeah. So yeah. So, I I think I think doing the survey of that neighborhood and then um but but for Kleinfeld's pricing, let's say that we're going to do those two streets.

Option D.

Yep.

Yeah. I think option D and chair just to follow up on that. I think what we've already discussed a it's a problem area.

We know it's problem area. If there's a and then if there's a problem on Balt Street, we also know that there are problems on Berryman because they're back to back. back to back and they're very tight non-conforming lots.

Um obviously the proximity of them and then of course we're getting slightly closer to Dartmouth on that Route Six line. So um I know we you're talking about a survey in my opinion. I don't know if you want to waste the time or effort on that because I know when they came before us we already had three or four that said they would do it. You're already at 16%. We try to get a 30% uh

connection rate and I have a feeling that there's a lot more people there that haven't tested their water because they don't want to know. Um but I I I I think that you know just based upon the other options short of you know we're basically at 25 on the first I don't know four or five options. So I I think you're still in the same you know market

size. Um, so I I would just agree that I think and the problem you're going to have is if you just did South Baralt and then went elsewhere. Um, and somebody back to back on Bryman has an issue, they're going to say, "Well, why'd you just stop there? Now I'm the one with the problem and and you went back along Route Six." So, um, I would obviously second if you have that motion on the South.

I think Joke, you should make the motion.

Yeah. Uh so I will make a motion to uh move forward with Keing to funding for uh option D which would be South Baralt Street and South Berryman Street.

I'll second it.

All in favor?

I I.

Who seconded it?

I did.

Tim.

Okay.

Tim, we should we should gather your expertise here about the the bidding and the contractors. What do you think?

Yeah. Um, well, one thought I had was by keeping the contract separate, you'll have smaller guys that might want to bid on it.

Yep.

Which have less overhead and you'll get more bang for the buck, whereas the higher the contract goes, the bigger the contract is going to be.

Well, well, on the road we're on right now, we'll have the option of doing that. You know, it's someone can bid both of them or we can have smaller guys bid the swans.

No, we haven't spent. Do we need to know cheer? Did we Did we take the vote? I'm sorry.

We did. I guess it was 7 to one to one abstained. Okay. Thank you. I thank you.

Now, do we need a Keing to alternative?

I think we just picked one, right? The key the option D. Am I missing? That's what well option D would be for heating beyond bar and beyond brought and barman.

Oh.

Oh. Based on the dollar value brought and barman spell is is 1.1 one to one.

If you look at section six, there are some other none of them really.

Well, there's also um a 210 of a mile on route six and that'll take some of that.

Huh.

That's true. You can go a little further.

So I think Yeah. Or you could set aside some of the money if you decided to implement the private service incentives and connect people.

Yeah. Well, but we have to get there. We have to do you have No, no. I'm saying on South Bryman and and South Barald option D if there was still money available after the bids or then there would be money potentially to do similar work that we did in the prior project which would be connect residents to the water. What I'm talking about is you're saying that Route 6 is uh $725 a foot right?

Yeah.

So, if we got a fifth of a mile, that's a,000 feet right?

5,280 is a mile. But let's just say, yeah, 1,000 ft on Route 6 at $725 a foot is um I'm like you think when it comes to zero is that 72,000 or is that 74?

Well, I think your bigger point is we can extend the water main up Route 6 further past South Berry.

Okay.

I think that's what you're saying.

I think if you already have the permit there, right? Or in the cuts, but you don't you don't get much benefit out of that.

Yeah. Other than getting closer to closer to Dartmouth, though.

Yeah.

Yeah. Well, Dartmouth has a checkbook application.

I like but it benefits us too, you know, if we can we can if we can get to Dartmouth, it benefits us three ways because we keep the motor moving which is healthier and we can maybe hook up a couple of commercial properties and we got wheeling fees. Don't forget those three things.

The wheeling the the wheeling fees are there whether we extended or they extended.

They are.

Yes.

So but just my chair quick question. So basically based on the budget of 1.365 we're at 1.155. So we're basically 200,000 less than what is has allotted.

I think given and I don't know if you can do this but given obviously the environment right now and asphalt pricing and petroleum pricing.

Who knows what the I I don't know if you want to start playing and putting more stuff in there because that you may need that cushion of that 200,000. I I I I I agree with that and I also agree that that we should um let's I I would propose that we um allow the incentive again as long as the money lasts.

Yeah.

Um question on that just from this last time. Did you put that in as an ad alternate in the proposal in the bid package you put out or did you do that?

It was it was actually a change order.

Uh we did a change order within the contract.

Did you want to consider putting it as an ad alternate?

We could do that.

Okay.

Yeah, we could do that for So yeah, so for the Keing 2, putting it as an ad alternate so that way you know as was just said if you know the construction costs are higher than we're estimating, we can say it's not financially feasible or Yep.

it'll be put in there. Let's let's set the contract up that way because it's a good idea.

If we can we know if we go to Burman Street there are some people who are going to connect if we have that as an alternative they get a little extra taste for getting the the piece in the up to their their house done.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Y So where do we stand at the end of this discussion?

So it sounds like you voted on We're going to do we're going to do two contracts.

Yep.

Um we're going to we're going to get a price. You're going to tell the the Keing 2 is Route 6 and Bryman and South Bralt.

Mhm.

We're going to get a price from Kinfelder for the design bidding heating one and bidding heating two. So that's we don't need to get any more contract money whatever the contract administration your contract. So all of that Chris is you you have that cash all in hand and you'll have you'll have the bids so that when um when the money comes good you can and you'll have uh Kleinfelder's proposal

you'll be able to go to the board with our vote um and our authorization so the selectman can act to to get the contracts ready for the two contracts ready for the spring.

Good.

Yeah.

Is that sounds good?

Is that in agreement with everyone?

Yes.

Small twist. Yeah.

It's a good twist problem.

I thought we're good. Roger.

A good twist. No, we're supposed to be helpful.

This will be helpful. I talked to Chris about this just a little while ago. So, I spoke to our project officer at the EPA today. Yep. And one of the things we were trying to figure out is how do we get the funding for the engineering for the keing two?

Yep.

And could we tap the keying one? That would mean a reduction in construction scope doing less work. And so we went back and forth. So she was she responded to me. She said, "Well, there isn't an alternate option." And that would be uh submitting a um incremental request for the Keing 2 money which means we would just ask for the uh design and whatever services are needed for the keying too.

That process she feels will take would take no more than a month for their review because you would not have to go through an environmental review a NEA review. So that means that we'd be able to pull from the Keading 2 money to design a Keing 2 project before the Keading 2 project has been formally awarded in total by the EPA.

Um, so, uh, that would still mean submitting an application, a very basic work plan because it's just a design. So, it wouldn't be that would well it might have to include but the pro, but there's a potential that we can pull that money quickly to get to working for us and start that so that we're ready to go in the spring.

So, I have very little confidence and you know, people have taken months and months and months and months to review.

No, this will be an easy fix when we have an option that that that in two or three weeks he has all the cash to Yeah. Talking with Roger, you know, I think it it's worth a conversation. You know, I mean, if nothing else that it opens up more funds in the interim. Um, but I think working with Roger, I can kind of figure out what buckets we pay

for things out of. I think just from a procurement standpoint, it's just going to be a matter of, you know, are we doing everything that we need to do, which I think either option would we'd be in compliance. So, yeah, but still raises the question. So, for the keying to design work to be ready to go in the spring, that money needs to come from somewhere.

It can't come from the PAS.

So, I have a question.

Yeah.

Well, why is state match easier to work with than the uh Keing? So, one of the outstanding questions there, just to answer that, and I'm sorry for cutting in, is I think one of the outstanding questions on that option is going to the state and saying what conditions are on the match. You know, do they are they good with the understanding that we've been awarded and working through the contract? Do

they need to see the contract before they issue any funds? And if we were to draw down any of that federal money, does some of that have to come from the local match or can we invoice the total amount against, you know, against the Or does it have to be 8020 all the time?

That's right. 8020.

So there's So I I at this point in time, I I think there's a lot of hypotheticals I just we can't answer here tonight.

Yeah. Um, but it's something that I think I'll continue to work with Roger on. And yeah, the plan was to call the finance office at the state level, answer that, try to answer that.

I I understood that we could take Keing one money and use it for design of Keing 2. Is that not correct?

We can, but we would just need to uh so we have two two paths. we can do that and I did check with it but it would mean um obviously doing less work a little bit less work because it's not a big ticket but uh updating the work plan and updating the SF 424 budget which can all be done u um so it's you're right that's that's an option versus so I mean my um

I I will be uh less than pleased if we're back here in November saying well you Well, it didn't take a month. It would took three months and yeah, it's not really coming yet. And yeah, we can't, you know, and and we're not going to do anything to start Kleinfelder um because the money hasn't come good.

And you know, I don't think just for the record, I don't think anyone wants that. But, um I if the grant these grant agreements come in, I think we're all going to be sitting here in the same position with the same feeling. Um, but I mean, trust me when I say this in working with Roger, if there's a way that that makes sense and isn't putting us through unnecessary hoops, if it if we can

unlock funding sooner to get both Keing one and King 2 moving forward on the track, we'll do that.

So, so I I would say that just just so that we have a plain language understanding.

Yeah. I would like to see Keading, I mean, uh, Kleinfelder under under contract and working in, you know, October.

Yeah.

So, cheer, just a quick question for for Chris or Roger. What is the downfall trying to pull or you just said slight paper application process in order to go in that one month to see if we can pull from Keing one to supply money for the grants for the design of this project?

Mhm.

So is there is there is there a negative or downfall to at least try that path?

Right. If you're saying it's a month window and if it doesn't go through then we still have obviously the other options.

So, I don't see why if if there's a reason why we would not go down that path.

There wouldn't be a reason. I think I think not to speak for the chair, there's a I'll say it's a there's a there's a a concern about their actual ability to turn. So, to answer the vice chair's question, it's it's a hornets's nest trying to get all this paperwork in, just navigating their website. It's it's not to sound like a crybaby, but it's getting done. Um, I think I think

initially if the if we were trying to push that Keading One project forward this year and and us submitting an amendment to that that would include the design work for Keading 2.

Yeah.

Then that would be a problem, right? But if we're moving that one anyway into next year, maybe it makes I could be convinced either way, I guess, but maybe it makes sense to sort of try to get the funding out of the Keing one money uh since it's a little more sure in terms of timing.

Yeah. And I think I'll just say too is going back to the state match component here is there's just I don't have the those answers here this evening nor is Roger to say whether or not it's worth it if one person says oh it's not going to work because of XYZ. I think just you know with Roger with this committee's understanding that you know we are working behind the scenes to move this

forward as expeditiously within the regulatory review process to get these grants out the door. Um we're going to do so and if we can't then that's just we we can't.

Um so what about the waterline enterprise fund? We have about 150,000 in there and there was an effort a week or two ago to borrow some funds like 15,000 for design work.

Um it didn't seem like you were against it conceptually.

Um you had another reason. You thought you know paperwork would be done quickly or something. It was not necessary. But would you support you know borrowing 15 or 20 grand from the waterline enterprise fund for design work? So we I am I would be opposed to that of you would what I am opposed to that because we would not be able to do that when we sign a contract and this is it's same for

construction as it is design is we need to have the full appropriation available at the time that we sign the contract.

Okay and that's procurement regulations. So okay so you know that's something where you know we procured this as you know the design the bid package and so I think that's the challenge is you know we don't we don't have ARPA anymore you know we don't and it to put forward the full balance of the enterprise fund.

No I'm not talking about that. No, but I'm saying that would be the only option locally to be able to sign that agreement and I couldn't I wouldn't be able to make that recommendation.

No, no, I wouldn't either. I was just talking about 15,000 for if it's time, which is 10% of the fund and it could be reimbursed.

It would be a loan, so to speak.

Yeah, we wouldn't be able to do that.

Yeah, I'm just looking for financial flexibility.

Yeah, I understand. He we uh we explored that and I was convinced that Chris was right.

Okay.

Um do we need to have another meeting soon and if so when?

Well, our schedule um you know in the last year was every three months but I think we're cranking up to do a couple of projects and we should meet more often than every three months. I'm not sure we need to do meet every month, but um you know, maybe every two months, maybe schedule a meeting for early November.

I think that makes sense. You'll probably have a better understanding of where we're at with Yeah.

Or Roger, do you want another meeting next next month?

The only thing I'm thinking would come into play next month would be I don't know if the community needs to act on that would be the potential grants would would start coming in, but yeah. Yeah, we don't need to do anything with that. Maybe let's let's let's I don't like to meet in everyone's holidays, but let's let's try and have a set an early November date and then that'll give us a chance to to check on

you two hardworking people.

Thank you.

Not that we don't love you. We do.

Oh, we do. It's good.

So, um does anybody have a calendar that's working? I can't. You want on a Wednesday in November there's 4 11 and 18 and well 11's a holiday.

Yeah. So 4 and 18 cuz let's say 4 11 4 sounds good.

6:30.

Yeah.

Is there a motion to that?

Yeah. I'll make a motion to have our next meeting on November 4th, 2026 at 6:30 p.m.

Second in this room. All in favor? I I Is there a motion to adjurnn?

Motion to No, we have not finished the agenda. Um, Mr. Chairman, my motion.

We have Oh, Dartmouth.

Nobody.

Dartmouth. So, I have comments on Dartmouth. Were you able to talk to Dartmouth?

So, I did have a conversation with their director yesterday. Um, Tim.

Tim. Yep.

Okay.

Um, so they uh have also had some staffing matters that they've been working on.

They're in the middle of their construction season. He admitted that there are some things that we've sent him you know the plans um you know that we have uh through Westport. He has not had opportunity to review them and I know um he does plan to sit down with their administrator and their finance director to talk a little bit more about that. Um he did assure me there's still interest from them but you know they're

still working internally on their side.

So, um I do plan on following up with him here next week and then again I'm going to keep the conversation going, but um they are still very interested in pursuing this.

Yeah, that's what I got. I talked to them on July 27th and they are still very interested. One thing that's interesting is that um there is this new environmental bond bill um up on Beacon Hill and um our our rep Steve Wlette and Dartmouth's rep Chris Marky um have each put million-dollar earmarks for Route 6 waterline extension in there. Now it passed the Senate in April, it passed the House in June. Um

the legislature has adjourned for the year at the end of July, but it seems like they get together in conferences to see whether while they're officially out of session, they can come into, you know, brief interim sessions to um deal with non-controversial things. And this seems to be one of them. Mhm.

So it could be we have 2 million for that uh route one borderline extension.

Um you're thinking it's going to cost 5 to6 million to get to the Dartmouth line. Tim Barber thought it was going to be 7 to 8 million. Um I don't know what the uh the estimate is, but uh there might be another 2 million in that environmental bond bill to uh extend the water line on Route Six.

So we just have to wait and see.

Okay, that's it. That's what the end of my comments.

A motion.

Motion to adjurnn.

Second.

So who made the motion?

Me for the second time.

Jake. Jake always makes the motion. And I heard a second over here.

Jake second. Okay. He wants to get out of here.

Okay.

Thank you all and new members. Thank you for joining us. Um I my goal is to try to keep the meetings u an hour an hour and a half at at the most. So u thank you. Yeah we are. Thank you.