like to lead with the pledge of >> 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.
>> Chris, welcome to your first meeting and welcome to Westport. You've probably been welcomed before, but not by this committee. >> I appreciate it. Thank you. Uh the first item on the agenda is the uh approval of the minutes of the 17th. They were all sent around. Is there a motion to
approve? >> Motion to approve minutes. >> Second. >> Second. >> Okay. >> All in favor? >> I I >> um upcoming meetings. >> So, we've been meeting every two months. >> Oh, administrator. Somebody took the
calendar. Or maybe they never put a 2026 up there. >> Yes. I don't think there's a 26 as of yet. >> It's not in the budget. My >> Duncan usually >> he turned and looked at you. >> We usually meet on a Wednesday and um
two months will be the 15th of April. Um >> tax days. >> Yes. But uh there are no accountants here committing suicide on. So um his 15th when is that holy week? When is Easter this year?
>> I don't know. >> That's a good question. >> I know the town elections are the 14th. It's the day before. >> What is the town elections are? April 14th. So, the day before that is the town election. Not that that matters. I'm just saying. >> Let's see. >> Town elections are the 14th.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Not the 7th. >> No, they're later this year, right? >> Easter is Sunday, April 5th. >> Oh, wow. Early. Okay. >> Yep. So I don't I don't So the 15th is um it looks like the date. Is that okay
with everybody? We don't have to, you know, approve it or anything, but >> Okay. So 15th 6:30 and um I'll get it uh reserved and then hope it works. I know one time I reserved a meeting and uh it got
stolen by uh the uh >> ZBA >> Yeah, that one. >> It's all right. We have to share. >> Okay. Chris, you had a discussion on the old business on uh
>> Bob, can I just I think for Chris's uh sake, we should go around and introduce ourselves. >> Oh, why not? >> Um, do you know Bob? He's our chair. >> I'm I'm Bob. >> Hi, Bob. >> Yeah. And I'm Mari May. You've met me. I'm the vice chair.
>> And uh you met that guy there, I'm sure. What's up, Chris? >> Yeah, >> I'm talking a lot. We've met. >> Yes, I do. >> He represents the finance committee. >> Good evening. >> And um >> Good evening. >> And Evan, introduce yourself. >> Evan Home. We We've We've met before.
>> You've met him? Yes, we have. >> Works for the highway department. >> And Joe, >> we're introduc We're introducing ourselves to the new town administrator. Have you met Chris yet? >> We have not met. Yes. Nice to meet you. >> Nice to meet you. And then out there in
the audience, >> you know, okay, you know, he's a uh a strong advocate of of water and sewer on Route Six. And uh Okay. Sorry to interrupt. >> Oh, it's all right. Yeah. Uh and and
just in the first in the old business on the agenda was the uh uh service connection incentives and the the work that we did to get people um connected and and that's been an issue for us you
know as we extend the water man and if we I think Roger will discuss later um you know the the water mains now run in front of a lot more homes than are connected to it. And um and we
it's it's better now than it has been, but for a long time we were buying water just to waste it. That is to keep the water fresh in the pipeline. >> So we can't have the water aging in the pipeline and and de decreasing in water
quality. So, we've been bleeding off that water and the more people we actually get to consume it, the less we have to do that. So, and and it all goes right back into our enterprise fund. >> Mhm. So, um the the the uh Jim had
suggested that since we had the ability to do that that none of this first u round of connections were extended into the into the neighborhoods prior to this. The water man had only been running on route R route six.
So we we we've done that and we we'd like any kind of insight into how we can continue to get people to connect to the water system. >> Certainly um you know I know that some of the discussion to date has just been
with regards to um you know making sure people get connected um and you know get an account set up and get their meters installed so that we can track that better. Uh we have sent out compliance letters. I know Jim had put together a draft I believe in December or your
November meeting. Um those letters went out to um you know the residents that we're still waiting to hear from. >> They did go out. >> It did go out. Yes. >> Did Jim send them out or did you send them out? >> I sent them out. So um updated Jim's letter obviously >> new date um did provide a little bit of
leeway there um with regards to enough time so people could get into compliance. Roger assisted in pulling together that active list and um I think we gave them through March. And then with regards to the connection
incentive, I know obviously um you know as you go forward in future rounds um I know offering that incentive or continue to offer that incentive of tying in um you know is something that could potentially be factored into the overall budget for the next phase of the
project. But uh obviously you have all a lot more history on that and um really any recommendation that I can have on those efforts going forward. >> Well, we have um we we actually passed
um 166 potential customers >> on Route Six and then in the the Mack Loop and then Briggs Road. And of those, 51 um took advantage of our offer for a free hookup from the stub to the
basement plus a water meter. >> Mhm. >> And of those 51 um 39 have hooked up. They are customers, but we still have 12 people that, you know, might have to get a second edition of that letter. >> Mhm. >> Because we will start charging the uh
fixed fee of of 30 bucks per quarter. >> Yes. >> 120 a year. um even if they don't hook up, right? >> So that's part of the contract, the original contract. >> But the the the the thing here is that of the uh 166, probably about 25 or 26%
agreed to uh you know, the freebies and to hook up. >> Mhm. >> And um that that's kind of low. It's a little disappointing because um well, we'll get to it later, but this new contract with um Fall River, uh we can hit if we go over a certain level of volume in the
water, we hit a break point and the cost of our water goes way down. So, the more volume we can get through this system, the better. And the more volume um over the break point, it means lower rates. So,
>> why wouldn't somebody connect? If somebody has a working well, I I think they they have no impetus really to uh to do that. >> They're going to be charged 30 bucks a month. 30 bucks a >> Oh, you mean the 12 people who Well, they I think they intend to. >> Yeah. >> But they still have to get um you know,
a plumber in their basement and reconfigure the pipings to the >> But you know, away from the well to the u to the connection on the front of the house or wherever it is. >> It just strikes me that those wells are all risky though. >> Yeah. Well, I think they intended to >> at some level there.
>> They intend to. So, but maybe, you know, you could, you know, could push those those those dozen people a little bit more. >> Yeah. No, I mean, we'll um I'll have my office track who contacts us and follows up after we send the letter and we could just plan to put out an additional
letter after that. >> Um, you know, I think as we go forward, just talking about the overall incentive, I think there's kind of two ways to look at this. one is um tying it into the project and that initial buy in you know early adopters
>> and then longterm I guess when you look at the enterprise fund and you look at um whether or not this is a uh a program that's offered >> you know past this um >> well I think the incentive going forward will be you know people who who have a
questionable well might want to hook up this so they can sell their house >> yeah I mean that to me is a huge because we have had you know this system in place for 20 or 30 years and every year you know one or two people have have cooked up
>> and they go down you know seat they pay for it the whole way and so um I think that people who who you know who live on you know Gford Road or Osborne or Briggs they know it's right there I think it's a comfort to them that uh they can hook up if they have to
>> you know I think there's there's the ju just the attitude that the well water is free. >> Yeah. >> You know, and if they don't have to connect, they don't and and and because you know the wells aren't tested
regularly unless you know you selling your house as something, they live with whatever the water quality is. In some cases, it's if they know it's not good or the well has gone dry, then then the water is is definitely, you know,
something they're interested and we've and Roger can, you know, fill you in on the stories, but there are a lot of people that that were really glad that the water came. >> Yeah. I mean, as an ancid, I would say, you know, there's probably people sitting on the sideline.
>> We're seeing how it's going to play out. you know, how their neighbors like it if they've seen an improvement in water quality. Um, so they might, you know, again, just follow the lead of who's tied in so far. You know, I think as
time goes, if you don't see that, um, you know, that that sign on rate, you know, it might be worth just, you know, doing a survey and getting an idea what people's reservations are. if it is, you know, like you're saying, just, hey, we don't have a bill here and, you know, we
don't want to incur a new new bill uh on a monthly basis or if there's another concern. >> Yeah. >> And Chris, as since we put you to work, um why don't you fill us in on the new Fall River agreement?
>> Sure. Uh so, back uh prior to Jim's departure, he had sent that off uh to council for final review. it went before the board at their first meeting in January. Uh the board signed both agreements. Um so the mediation as well
as the updated intermunicipal agreement. Um those were sent over to Fall River. Um now the versions that we had weren't the countersigned version. So we signed first, we sent that over to them and we're waiting the the counter sign. So,
>> um, as we soon as we get those back, you know, we'll >> we'll have those for our records and be able to turn the page. So, >> so the counter sign version on both of them. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And in this in the agreements are both
the settling of the disputed balance. >> That's correct. >> The the older bills and and the new rate going for the new lower rate going forward. >> Yes, that's correct. Okay,
>> Roger, you you're up in uh your I think everyone has uh got a copy of your sort of report on the PAS grant and closing that out. >> Mhm. >> And and essentially except for the punch
list items, um we we're at a good position now to close out that account. >> Correct. Yep. Why don't you uh give us the highlights of your report? >> Okay. So, as you indicated, Mr. Chairman, so the the work is completed.
Some minor housekeeping items that are weather dependent still need to be done. Things as we discussed at the last meeting, loom seating, uh things of that nature, uh and some punch list items. Um we're still working to close out the SHAPS, the state highway access permit.
um they won't close it out anyway until the um those little items that I just described need to be completed cuz the looming and seating needs to take place out on Route 6. So, the state won't do that, but we're going to give them everything they need. So, we're ready to close out the permit um as soon as that
work is done. Um we did also um commission the pressure reducing valve in Route 6. Uh for those don't who don't know what that means essentially it's a valve that regulates the pressure in the main um that that took place uh last
week I believe and it uh was successful. Um next item I've identified here touches a little bit upon what uh Murray uh the vice chair talked about it regarding the private service connections. Um uh the the latest update
and Murray hasn't seen this yet is we're down to nine. >> Okay. three other people jump on and um Monday we have another coordination that's going to take place. So on Tuesday we should be down to eight. >> So >> and just in terms of frame of reference
um at our prior um IOC meeting uh we were at 22. So Murray had the most recent numbers I gave him and as did the as did the uh town administrator Chris. Um so since then we've had some other folks do what they need to do and we continue to coordinate with the building
department with respect to the permitting requirements and the necessary um inspections. Uh so that's gone well. So again down to eight right now. >> Mhm. >> Um let's see what's next. Yes. Okay. And then I I provided here in the
next page um and it ties in the reason why I provided this it ties into the IMA and the work that the town administrator is looking at now regarding the uh fees uh just to and it's just a table that identifies based on what we have now the
the 42 connections um what the added use would be in terms of flow um and that t and the reason why we're bringing that up is because there's an economy of scale in the agreement as I understand it. So it
actually could get substantially less expensive for the end user the more people that tie into the system in addition to the water quality um uh benefits that the chair uh just described. And then in then so we've got a very conservative table because these
just look at each individual property the 200 250 gallon or 300 gallon per day. um uh those are conservative because we have larger projects like Maynard Street that's one connection but it's a big apartment sort of so we know
that that those volumes are going to be much higher just based on uh that particular property um so they're conservative and then the following table uses the same uh approach and it and it just identifies let's say everybody connected all 166 that have
water um available and just in terms of frame reference conservatively that would add an additional 24,00 cubic foot of water to the system which I think might put us over certainly over the threshold for the for the um cost benefit.
>> So we're you say we're now at 24,000 ccf. >> No. Uh currently we're now uh and this is conservative with the with the with the ones that have connected 7,464 annually. >> Annually yes
>> that's 100 cubic foot. Um, yes. Yes. I thought we were in the in the mid20s. >> Uh, you uh total, you know, Yes. >> Yes. This is just the just the ones that just connect, >> right? Yeah. Yeah. So, so these will throw us over that threshold.
>> Yeah. Potentially, >> which is at 26,700 something like that. >> Yep. >> And that's a major threshold. It goes from 55% over the Fall River real retail rate down to to five. So, >> it's a big that's that's a that's good news. That's a
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> I think but um >> and then again the second table is just an addition to it if we're already over the threshold doesn't really apply but just to give you a sense if everybody else connected that's sort of the volumes we'd be looking at. >> All right. This analysis is sort of the
boost we got on top of >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Um again some of this I've already talked about uh in terms of construction substantial completions formal process certificate of substantial completion
has been issued to the contractor. I talked a little bit about the remaining state highway access permit uh items we need to close out which include which include an asbuilt which is being worked on as we speak and then obviously the seasonal constraints with identifying
and finishing up some of these open items. Um, I don't know if the chair wants to move into the grant administration portion of this next or you want to discuss anything. >> Oh, I um I I think uh I think we'll take that up.
I just want to make sure that every now the the contractor the financial aspects the contractor's all been paid except for his punch list items and >> retain >> and so all of that's done under the uh under the the grant that we received.
>> Yeah. >> And then the state highway permit is just putting down the striping when we can in the spring and that stuff. >> That's it. >> Okay. Um >> and we've actually we've we've supplied
we provided a the final report um as the town administrator knows to the uh to the D. So they have the final report from us. >> Yep. >> They did ask for a January and a fee and a December report which basically is going to say we didn't do anything
during that time. It's weird. We gave them the final but then they still wanted some of this. But it's not a big deal. We'll get that wrapped up tomorrow. Um but as far as they're concerned, we're done. The money's all been spended uh spent and there's no outstanding issues associated with them. Why don't we uh if there are no
questions about closing out the grant, let's talk about the uh the waterline extension and u and and Mario. So that is something I put on the agenda because we have um our next borderline extension which is largely financed by the the
Keading earmark um and we're we're moving ahead with that. We supported it in our October meeting. We took it to the select board. They supported it and essentially it is connecting the Bridge Road Fire Station plus a few other streets right around uh
Route 6. and um and we are in the process of engaging an engineering company. Um we had thought that we would use uh Kleinfelder which we've used for all the other stuff but
there is a procurement issue. Uh the the money we were working with Kleinfelder with was um either you know directly from um the Rodri's earmark or it was the Keading earmark. I'm sorry the PAS
grant grant >> that was federal money but it was administered by the state. Now we have with the Keading earmark a congressional earmark. It is federal money administered by the feds, the EPA in Boston. And so there's an issue about
whether we should go to bid. So we have an estimate from Kleinfelder of 155,000 and we have the financing more or less in place for that. But um we have to determine whether we'd have to um go to
bid on that. So the procurement process, Roger and Chris, I think you're up on that. >> Sure. >> Can I discuss some finances just for a second? >> Yeah, come on up. You don't have to sit all the way over there. >> Thank you.
>> Back when we were trying to do water and sewer back in a >> 23 and 24, you were practically a member of this committee. >> On on the on the air from the Katon. Uh that's a $5 million air, correct? >> Which one? >> Oh, >> from Senator Keaton. Million.
>> It's about 1 million. >> A million. >> Okay. That's an old one. Correct. >> Well, there's two. >> So, the first one is 959,000. >> I remember that. plus a 20% state match that Senator Rodri has gotten for him. So it gets up to about 1.1. >> Gotcha.
>> The second year mark is close to 1.1 and with the 20% match that'll get us up to 1.3. >> Well, let me just explain a couple things here. First off, Mass DOT a grant for 8 million been awarded to this town. Uh a grant from Senator Keaton was
awarded just uh couple weeks ago for $5 million. It's airmarked sewer, phase two of the sewer, phase three of the sewer, and a continuous water line. Senator uh Governor Healey uh Corin Peterson uh
testified in front of a committee about 98% of the money that was used so far on her budget. The following day or the following day after, she wrote out a check for a million 92,000.
And of course on this grant that you see here, uh, state revolving funds had matched it 1.3. So give or take 1,500 or $2,400,000.
The way I see it here, we've got 15,392 bucks. That's what we got. >> Um 15,000 or 15 million. >> So this is not funding I know anything about. Does anybody know about this? Well, it's posted all over the line.
Everybody does. Just take your computer and uh punch in uh funding for sewer project along six >> and look at uh Mory. >> Now, we actually got approved with the state revolving fund for 35 million to do the whole uh stretch of Route 6. >> That would be a loan. These are all under PF principal fun.
>> I know. But when you mention state revolving fund, you're talking about a loan. >> Uh well, I don't I only mentioned the state revolving fund because it's listed on the paper here. 1.3 million state match. So maybe I I I pronounced it the wrong way to be honest with you. But in
in reality though if you add up the numbers cuz that's usually what I what I do for >> state match does not make sense on a >> state well 1500 2400 give or take a few hundred,000. So that would put me pretty much uh uh at a uh 14 million.
>> Okay. Um we need to get some details. >> Yeah. Yeah. Because in reality, let me explain something to you. uh planning board. Bobby, you was there the other night. A gentleman proposed a project. He's got engineers working on it. They all cost money, you know. And of course, you've got the Oriental Pearl over there
designing a new septic system. They're going to need a permit from the state anyway before it goes through. They're going to be denied because the funding, you know, is already had been put in place, you know. >> Yeah. >> So, uh to get updated on it all. Yeah. Look under uh the, you know, the Healey.
Look under a Katon. Now, when Katon issued a check for the $5 million, he airmarked it phase two of the sewer and phase three and the end of that water line on phase three. So, that's 5 million. And so, across DOT, they have a
$888 million roster list per year. So, early in 26, they already issued the $8 million. >> We haven't heard anything about that. >> As a matter of fact, watch this. I'm going to I'm going to get my phone. I'm going show you a little picture. That's just the five billion that came over the other day. That's all
>> the >> Chris. Roger, do you have any idea? >> I I follow the money heard. >> No, I >> I mean I think it's good to make a distinction between an earmark and >> Yeah. And also at least at the state level, you know, if it's a state earmark, I know that their budget is
still in development. Now, you know, they may have an idea of in your mark that they they are requesting um and they may and I will just say they may have not communicated that to us if it's still in preliminary review. >> Well, not what it is is the deadline for
the application was April 18th of 2025. So, our application was already in prior to that to receive the money. >> And so, with a case like this one here, which you you weren't here, I'm not not looking at >> Oh, yeah. Just >> But but watch this. show the clerk here if you don't mind.
So, here's our here's our uh fiscal year 26. Yeah. Funding submissions. Okay. So, let me let me just flip over the next and you can see the deadline of the application. >> So,
>> right. So, watch this. I'm I'm just going to show you. Watch this. I'm sure >> there's your deadline. Friday, April 18th of 2025. Hold on. Let me just >> for the submissions. >> Sorry, it's version.
>> Community project funding engineering. >> Okay. >> Project sponsor. Massachusetts Maritime Academy. >> Yep. Watch this. See how it's Keaton's office up top. Watch this. Here's the one.
This is the one, Mr. Click. Right here. Trunk line water and sewer submissions. Uh, sections two and three. So it's specified trunk Westport trunk line tour 5 million. >> Yeah, >> that's just one from the other day. When
Haley got up, she did a million 92,000. >> Yeah. And to the chair, I I think just um additional research, I guess, on my end. Uh I I can do that and I'm happy to update the board. >> I'm going to just let you take a look at that. >> Sure. The only reason why I bring up I
try to stay on the funding part of it. Yeah. >> People are designing systems being engineers. I don't want to get in the way of anybody's funding, but we should be ahead of them, not behind them. >> No. >> Well, we can't we can't go to the town again asking for permission for a loan.
So anything we do would have to be >> principal for >> they have to be grants because um it has to be basically free to the town at no expense to >> the latest the latest one out of them all which I would call the oldest one that would be the uh do for 8 million.
So the estimate for the first phase came back at 5.4. Correct. >> Right. >> Right. And so they paid that and more you know so that funding is already available you know >> for the sewer line. Well, I I don't I
>> I don't know if that money is there or not, but uh >> well, it was certainly it's it's allocated. You know what to do is just look under the the DO's money for construction projects year 2026 because what had happened with that money is is it it's they really look at it in 25.
>> It's in the tip. >> It's in the tip. Yeah, I think it's probably what you're looking at. It's in the tip, >> you know, >> state transportation. So, we got we got some big dough coming down, you know, >> no doubt about it. >> Well, Christian, uh, >> I'll look at that. Okay. Update it.
>> The town administrator is going to look at it. >> Yeah. >> Happy. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Um, >> but if you if you find money, we'll uh we'll check it out. Right. >> But, um, >> following up, I know we were getting to
discussion about the procurement. So just based on our review and discussions with the EPA representative, >> um we believe that we're required to go out for qualificationbased selection. So >> and that means bidding
>> kind of. Yeah. So formal procurement process um it's not necessarily based on lowest qualified bidder. it's based off of, you know, a set criteria um that we'd be looking for in terms of overall um >> okay,
>> you know, qualifications, if you will, of that engineering firm. So, that'd be something that we'd have to develop. Um we are still, I believe, waiting to hear back from the EPA to get confirmation of that. Um you know, there is what they
they have described like a waiver process to their procurement requirements. We don't know based off of our activities if that's something that we'd be eligible to apply for or request. Um but you know I think for the time being we should assume that we have
to go out and do a procurement and we should plan accordingly. Yeah, those, you know, I've been through those and I know Roger's been through those process in which the in which the the the fee is
separate from the qualifications and uh Kleinfeller will certainly be qualified, but if you we need to go out and get multiple um quotes, then then I think if we have to do it, then we'll we'll do it.
How long is it add an extra month or two to the >> Yes, >> you were hoping to do the, you know, dig dirt this this summer or at least late summer, early fall. >> Yeah. So, I would say from a procurement standpoint and obviously developing the RFP, advertising it,
I would say conservatively 8 to 12 weeks for that whole process. You know, I would say it's also not necessarily instantaneous from the time where, you know, proposals are submitted to when they're scored and awarded. Um, there's obviously a bit of time for
people to, you know, get their insurance, you know, requirements submitted. >> Yep. >> Um, so I would say this whole process probably puts us back about 12 weeks >> and and Chris, you work with Roger on on that. And Okay. Yep. Yep.
>> Okay. I do agree with you know running a parallel course like tournament is just putting something together is getting it ready to go. We did send a pretty comprehensive list to a project officer
at the EPA asking about clarification regarding this micro purchasing process but the U code of federal regulations require this QBS process where mass general laws don't require that for work that falls on the chap as you know the
channel is chapter 3039 work. So, um, the issue becomes if we need to tap any of the CDS money to pay for some of the engineering services, they might elect not to pay it because we haven't se because we need to provide them all that evidence that we've gone through a process. They might
say we're not going to pay for that. >> Will will we be able to sell any water to Darmmouth? >> I think that's one of the agenda items. >> That's the next item. >> We're not working on that one right now. That's key to number two and we'll get to that.
>> That's the next thing on the agenda. >> Well, the two things down the road. >> Can I just add in terms of just timing just so we we understand the we could put together the U RF RFP uh get that squared away. We've got a meeting
scheduled right now with the IOC um in April April 15. So, a couple months, 8 weeks from now. Um, to so the project at this point, we're getting to the point where we're we're it doesn't seem like it, but we can quickly run out of time and not have
shovels in the ground this summer. Um, because then we still have to design, permit, and construct a project. Um, we we should be thinking about being in a position at least to have something in for the IOC. we won't have a contract necessarily to review um in terms of a
selection a recommended selection or something like that regarding the engineer um um for the project. Um I'm just trying to lay out a schedule >> so that in two months we have a deliverable that we can act on regarding the engineer cuz you know I also want to
say it hasn't been an issue. We've we've had a very good >> they've been good Kleinfelder and they know what you know the what we have out there. So it's not a reflection on them at all. It's just a process driven thing that we're dealing with. But my my bigger point is like if we go and then
there's another eight now we're into 16 weeks if we're meeting every you know you know so something to think about. >> Well we can meet monthly if you feel like you need our support on things. We can meet monthly. >> Okay. >> We used to. It's just that things are slower. We just have this one little
project going right now. >> We don't want to meet if there's nothing to >> okay >> to to meet about. Once that money gets flowing, you you'll need the monthly basis. Yes, you will. >> Yeah. No, and just one other note on the timeline, I'll work with Ranch on this,
is you know, we do have a timeline with regards to expending those ARPA funds that we're still holding on to those balances. So >> I think as part of the overall phasing of this and you know over the next you know 3 to 6 months you know that's something that we'll take into
consideration just so that >> you know we're in compliance with >> the county requirements. >> That brings up a question I have. >> Sure. >> I thought we had 75,000 of ARPA fund left but we have two Bristol County accounts right
still open. And so did one of you guys find some money in one of those two Bristol County accounts? >> So there's going to be funding a little bit of funding in both remaining. >> Okay. So but so one is 75,000. That's what Harden had carved out before he
retired. >> Yes. So >> but then there's another similar amount like 65 or 70,000. >> Yeah. So one line is essentially paying for the remainder of this current phase of work and you know I think the idea
behind that existing line was um you know in addition to the engineering services we also have to take into account OPM services. Uh so I think some of that was intended to be applied towards that uh with some remaining for the town you know I think for um uh
patchwork you know on roads I think he had designated a certain dollar amount there now the remaining account that's 70 I believe 75,000 >> 70 most so here's here it's in it's in Roger's notes >> yes >> ARPA 1244 that's Bristol County 1244 75
grand that's what your predecessor carved Correct. So, >> and there's there's a new 70 grand there in ARPA 1286 that I didn't know about. >> I can't necessarily speak to that piece. >> Oh, wait. You wrote this. Yeah. >> Roger. I'm sorry. >> No.
>> So, so we we um and we'll have to verify the 70, see what's left, but we have some unspent money in the contract itself. So, we have a total contract value. We're down to we've released almost all of the retainage. We're down. So now I can see what we have left on
that contract. Let's say I don't remember what it, but let's say it's $40,000. Um, and we do the math. That means on that contract, the digit contract, we we should have about $70,000 that we don't need to spend. >> Correct. >> On that contract. So 70ish plus the
other we're in the 140ish maybe or >> 145. Yeah. Yeah. So that so if the final engineering number comes in around uh 155 >> no >> we we've almost paid for it >> without digging into the ear mark at
all. Well, you have you you've got so you don't want to go into the contract with nothing, but you've got the you've got two ways you can do this, right? You can procure the RPR, the OPM, and the engineering service. That's three procurements, and then decide how you
want to spend out of the 140 to spread that out. Or you can do one procurement, and the balance of the funding will pay for all the other two except the engineering. So you don't So then you're only going out for one QBS instead of potentially three if that makes sense. Maybe
>> Chris can explain it better than I. >> Yeah. So there's the one, you know, let's call it 145 give or take. Some of that um is obviously being retained to supplement uh what they're doing on punch list right now. >> Um >> okay, >> there's a certain piece of that that's
also being retained in anticipation of you know procuring the OPM services for the next phase of work. So when that's you know expended you essentially have you know 70 to 75 remaining. >> So a portion of the next phase of work
you know would deplete or fully expend our remaining ARP allocation. The other half would come from the earmark. The issue is >> Yeah. Okay. So we're back to the original. >> So we're back to the plan where you know we do the QBS. >> I got it. I just thought we found 70,000 bucks.
>> Yeah. Um, no, but but it was it's allocated to the the RPR, which we're going to talk about next, but >> Okay. Okay. Got it. Thank you. >> That was your um
um issue on the procurement of project management services. >> Yes. So um to review and possible make a recommendation on project management services which is also known as resident project representative.
It's a person or an RPR and that person would be Roger Fernandez and um we talked about this and putting it on the agenda and I I told him I would introduce it but uh Roger can you tell us you know a little bit about this and
especially the the amount? >> Yep. So we have >> uh that pro. So when the contract contract is in addition to the administrative stuff that uh Chris and I are working on um you someone needs to be on site to watch the contract to do
the work. That was the case in the what I'm going to call phase one work in Route 6. Somebody was out there. Um that person is going to identify the quantities used because these are line item bids. So if they put in 100 feet of pipe, they get paid for 100 feet of pipe. if they put in 200 ft of pipe. So,
that person needs to be there recording that. And then um and then it's also a requirement uh for when you you're working in the state layout. Now, we're only going to cross Route 88. It's a much smaller section of state interruption. So, the RPR is a resident
project representative if you it's another word for it. It could be a clerk of the works if you want or somebody that's on site uh during the actual work. It's a little It's a little different than the OP the OPM as when an OPM does a little more of the administrative stuff, grant writing,
grant administration, and contract management and that kind of stuff. So, we've got those. So, there's really three three facets of the work. Um, okay. Kleinfelder, OPM, and sort of RPR. So, so the Kleinfelder or the
engineering and the RPR would be together. >> Would you say together? >> But you said it's it's part of um kind of initial funding for the construction. >> Oh. Um so the so in terms of the the way the funding would would would be
allocated. >> Well, I don't understand. And so this I thought was a uh the RPR was for your services. >> Yes. >> And it's not Kleinfelder or another engineer's services. >> Correct. But but the but the Kleinfelder work because the dollar value is what it
is. We're anticipating we've got to go through a process. It it just and we know there's a potential that we're going to need to tap some of the CDS funding. We need to go through that process just for that contract. >> Oh, I see. Okay. Otherwise, you're doing it three times,
which I mean, you can, but you know, but it doesn't it doesn't. And then, you know, you even if you go through the process and you only need to tap $100,000 or $50,000 of the CDS and there's other funding there, it remains that's that option is available. But
whether it's they're not going to let us split >> Mhm. >> split the contract they call you know it's it's frowned upon to take contract and try to split it in different phases. >> You're discussing from the Gford road to the fire department. Is that where we're at? >> Yeah.
>> Okay. >> But also, you know, a couple of streets are right off of Route Six. >> Gotcha. Because you know when when you run a water line, you really know the town of Westport real good. Some people have brown water coming out of their well. Some people have pretty good water
coming out of their well, you know. So once you're aware of what sections, matter of fact, to give you a little tip is when you're driving down a road and the guy puts irrigation system in, he puts up a brand new plastic fence and you drive by and the fence is all brown, gives you a pretty good idea. He's got
brown water, you know. And so when you're running a water line and you're looking for customers as you're going down, of course, you're always looking for the largest volume of course, you know, >> but that brown water uh usually you collect them all as you're going right along with those. And so the ones uh
like knowing Gford Road like I know it uh pretty much you know what Goldstein's uh farm equipment place is. >> Mhm. >> You guys all familiar with Goldstein's Well, there's the brown water section right there. >> Okay. Well, further go to those people
and see if they don't Yeah. won't hook up. >> And and a little further up the road, it is a bet. Yeah. >> The on these uh on these contracts, both the the OPM services that Roger has been filling in on the grant administration.
Um hopefully we can have Roger continue with that because I think that's a that was a big benefit and one of the reason we're able to get all this stuff done >> was it wasn't all falling on the town
administrator. Um I I think whatever we can do to put ourselves in a position to you know get out the you know the request for you know for the engineer and all of this
stuff. We should get that process as as quickly as we can. >> Certainly since the feeding money will be here. >> Certainly. Yeah. I know that um you know Roger and I have discussed that you know and I think um you know like I mentioned
before you know we want to make sure we're going down the right path the EPA obviously to make sure um you know we're doing things they the way they want us to do them. Um you know but if there is an opportunity to expedite it in any way while still being compliant you know
we'll do that. Yeah. I see. >> So, um Bob, would you make a motion? It's it's unusual for the chair to make a motion, but you are professional in this along with Roger and Chris. >> And what motion do you looking for?
>> Um recommendation on project management services. >> I don't >> Yeah. So, I don't think the questions What are you doing? I don't I don't think he needs a motion. >> You don't? Okay. >> No, >> no. I mean, I I think, you know, it's a
recommendation of the committee that you want to continue to utilize these services. I think from the town side, um, you know, we can look at the proposal that's put forward and >> um, y >> enter that agreement for the next phase of work. I don't >> Okay.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. Uh why don't we talk about the the route six trunk line and uh your your particularly position to uh talk about an extension to Dartmouth. I know that
discussions were started. I was able to sit in on discussions with Dartmouth while Jim was still here and and I know that that Dartmouth is really looking to get to Fall River and ex and and work cooperatively with
us to extend the water man to their town line. >> Mhm. and and that would be needed at the town line and and we we would wheel the water through our system and and have some kind of cost
arrangement under an agreement with them. But uh why don't you fill us in on >> Yeah. >> where that is and what do you think the chances of that happening? So, you know, I I'll just speak from my time in Dartmouth and obviously there's
been more conversations, I'm sure, internally since my departure. Um, however, Dartmouth um has wells, which it historically has gotten a significant source of its water from. Um, and historically, um, you know, during the
summer months when there is high demand, you know, they've been purchasing water from New Beford. Um now to my knowledge they did not have I would say as favorable of an agreement as we've been able to um come by with
Fall River and so you know in terms of their rates you know they're praying they're paying a pretty penny um now in the last several years um through a few different um you know incidents including wells going down uh including
drier than anticipated months um they've had to pull more and more water from New Befford which you know as a result similar to Westport you know they have an enterprise account which has taken a hit. Um I think you know
exploring you know that enterprise account them doing rate studies them looking at the operations as a whole you know I think that they recognize that it is um it has been a pretty big cost to the town. So in addition to obviously
getting their wells back online so that they're not as reliant on the outside water coming in. you know, I think it it made them more or less reflect on where are we getting our water from and are there other options out there. Now, obviously with the work that we're doing
here in Westport, I think they see an opportunity for a potential alternative source of water. um you know both I guess from an operational standpoint you know potential cost savings you know but also just in terms of um
adding in another redundancy into their system so that you know if the wells were to go down again or if there was ever an issue with um you know the the water coming in to the community they have an alternative that they can turn
to. And so um that has been the discussion at least up to the time that I was with the town. I know you know that there is um you know pretty strong interest from the town's leadership and exploring the option and and seeing
where it goes. I think from a um a project standpoint, I think it really supports the state's goals of regional collaboration. >> Um and resiliency. Um so I think in
terms of potentially funding either, you know, I know design work's been done, but um any construction work that would be needed on both sides, you know, it is a potential application, you know, that I think could um be looked at very
favorably, you know, in the future. Um, I know we were talking a little bit earlier about potentially some uh some TIP funding uh that would potentially fund pieces of this um in the future. And I I would look at that, but that's
kind of the summary to date at least of um this discussions I've had. I don't know if there's any additional specifics you'd be interested in. >> How's it the quality of the water in Dartmouth that they're receiving from New Beford? I have not heard any complaints about the water quality
>> because I give you an example. I've been as far as Swansea. They're buying brown water from the water department. And I've been in Fair Haven and they're buying buying brown water from New Befford. And so, uh, people don't mind paying for water, you know, providing it's, you
know, treated and reasonable and all, you know, and but what comes to my mind is is if their water is not as high as quality as it should be, maybe we can get a little more money for some of the quality water, we might be able to sell them. >> Yeah. I mean, I Yeah. No, I haven't
heard any specific regards to New Beffords water. You know, I would just say I guess you know, similar to here, I think um obviously water quality as a whole and I guess looking at the system integrity as a whole was something >> that Dartmouth had always um you know
prioritized was interested in but I don't know if there was anything >> specific once is there is there a next step that uh town should be doing or the committee could help with? Yeah. So, I know that
um you know, some of the information on design work done to date was sent over to their DPW director to review. Um you know, I would be happy to reach out and just continue a conversation and see where they're at in terms of their evaluation of work that's been done to
date on our side. you know, I think that um you know, obviously looking at um you know, the connection, you know, through the town. I'd have to, you know, I know there's been discussion about potential um you know, pass through
charge. I' me personally, I just have to explore that a little bit further and just see the model out there >> um you know, before I could potentially offer a recommendation there. But >> um no, I mean there's opportunity for sure.
>> Chair, just just a quick comment on that. I think my concern here is with respect to it seems like Dartmouth has everything to gain in this scenario and obviously will increase their negotiating power with New Bedford with the ability to access for water. So, I
just want to make sure that this committee and and others like you, Chris, involved in this keep Westport's best interest at hand, whether it is, you know, us gaining efficiencies from that. Um, I just don't want to basically connect water to Dartmouth, let them have
>> full full ability to uh throw away their contract with New Bedford and then we're kind of just stuck in the middle moving water like you said, we we' discuss, but I just want to make sure that, you know, we're not being used kind of in that scenario. >> Yeah. Yeah. Well, Jake, there is the um so we're looking at another about 7,500
ft from where our water line is at the Cooxit Common to the Dartmouth line. And um so if we were to put a water line in there, our our commercial properties, Long Breed six, could connect if they wanted to. >> And so that would be a benefit to
Westport. The other thing is we can get a transmission fee. If they buy water from Fall River, we transport it from Fall River to Dartmouth, we would get a transmission fee. It's called a wheeling fee. >> And then the third thing is it would
keep, you know, water quality higher because we keep water flowing more. >> So there are benefits to us. The other thing is the uh the cost. Who's going to pay for this? >> That's where I'm >> if Dartmouth, you know, wants it so much. >> That's right. >> Maybe they can they can pay for the
whole line. >> Now, we've already I'm I'm sorry. Let me just finish, Bob. We have already um contributed our our engineering. We spent a big chunk of Michael Rodrik's million-dollar earmark on engineering the entire route six in water and sewer
and that included an extension of the water line. So, they do have our engineering. The other thing is that, you know, we do have this second keying earmark that maybe we could throw into the pot. Mhm. >> Um with talking to Roger, he did some calculation back of the envelope, really
informal, something in the neighborhood of 5 to6 million. And so if we could contribute a million to it, um that would give it, I guess, more of a bargaining position on the uh on the wheeling fees. >> Mhm. >> So which you know, we have an enterprise
fund. Um it was uh you know fat and happy for a number of years at 300 grand and we're sending you knowund and and half of it to fall river as part of this settlement. So um we we have to maintain
that um that enterprise fund. We have to maintain the balance in that because >> if there may Yes sir. I would definitely start with um you know there's 7,000 ft to go and um um we we have we've got the
state permit. >> Um we've got u at least the for for a good chunk of that flow. We have the interbase and transfer act all approved and we have the state highway
opening permit and the engineering design. So there's there's there's value there and you know I would certainly open with that and you know and then I think
later on you can talk about cautionary but but but I I you know I I think you know I would I would start with you know we you've got the the ability to you you got the ability to go about
to bid with our drawings. >> Mhm. >> And um and and other than the meter design and and pieces at the town line, you know, that that's the only thing just not in there. I mean, if if we if
we if we do that, then I think all the other advantages of, you know, now we're not buying any water that we're wasting because now their demand is running through that pipeline. the water stays fresh, that water stays high quality,
we're not, you know, so all all of those benefits and and for the town residents that are on the the the chunk of the last piece of the pipeline that that they pay for or they paid the
majority for, um, >> you know, that's all benefit to those residents as well. So, I mean, I I I think there's, you know, I think there's mutual benefit and there's mutual benefit for Fall River. They they they've got the capacity in their
infrastructure and and and they might as well get paid for using it. >> Mhm. So I I mean I I think it's it's and you know I don't I don't think it it
hurts to you know to work regionally with our neighbors. >> Okay. >> Uh on on the permitting process of it of course when when the uh state gets down there that curve at Lincoln Park's getting taken out of there. The curve at Whit's getting taken out. The Sanford
Road drop down that's getting dug out. And so the permits that we have or I should say the blueprints that we have shows the water line in one particular spot now. And that's all approved from the state. Correct. >> Yes, it's all approved. >> So So they don't mind the placement of
the line cuz I'm going to tell you why. Take like he was talking a little bit back about uh putting some of his uh you know work forms in there pretty much stating that uh you know work's been done and everything. Unfortunately when you drive down Route Six all those spots have heaved up about 4 in. So I
predict right around 80 degrees they're going to drop another 4 in but downwards you know so there's going to be a little skim work and but what's going to happen there is is as we continue to go on to do work here those roads can become a little bit hazardous you know so there's going to be a time frame when things
pretty much in other words the state's not going to leave Route 6 all cut up like a like a shredded road like it pretty much is right now you know so there's going to be a time frame when the point where is that road time to replace the We're almost there now. I'll be honest with you. And because there's
complaints all around town, you know, driving up and down it. >> So, yeah, I think I think we should definitely stay right on six. It's probably one of the most important. This way, we're not holding the state back in any shape or form. And that's all about them donating the money for the sewer system that they have. Now, those those
checks are airmarked for the sewer system. And of course, they're going to be putting a storm drain in also along Route Six, too. And so, once those two pipes go in, they can finally get that new road in. But take like this summer driving down there with a motorcycle and a couple other things. It can be a little bit dangerous. I mean, we're
going to have to get back out there and uh fix that ash vault. It's up 4 in now. It's going to be down 4 in. >> You're going to have to let us know where you're going to come up with the money cuz it's all gone. >> You read You read my mind. Um just uh one last note I you know I guess just on
the overall um impact on the town. You know I think you know any type of collaboration you know with Dartmouth. Um I would I would look for grant opportunities and other state incentives to support that
project. I think it's a project where I don't know if the town would need to put in anything. So because >> it does check so many boxes. So it so I guess the overall you know idea would be >> you know if if >> to you know Jake's point I don't think
the town wants to be you know putting up its money to just provide water to its neighboring community. I you know I think if it's um you know other grant funds that we can obtain um you know I think that there is you know definitely a benefit that the town can see from
that in the enterprise line but um I'm happy to just keep that conversation going with Dartmouth and um you know make sure we're kind of at the same place they are >> for next steps. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, no problem.
So, um there's a um a state support for regional projects whereby cities and towns work together. >> And I know that um you know from Jim Whiton who is one of our representatives to Serpent um they have established a
subcommittee on on regionalization. So if this were a regional project comprising Fall River, Westport and um Dartmouth, is there money available, grant money available
for regionalization? >> Yeah, >> there is. >> Yep. >> Serpent has no budget. They have to raise their own money. So they get now >> Serpent could be the you know the the engine to draft proposals for for
grants, right? >> Yeah. So every year the town gets a certain number of technical assistance hours through SERD because it's a state, you know, essentially it's a state entity. So >> um you know that resource, you know, at
least in recent years has been done for a lot of our planning projects and studies that have been done. Um, another way that you can utilize them is to help put in applications and and consult the town on these different grant opportunities
um and work on that narrative so that uh essentially you know they're writing the application a way that the state wants to see it >> um >> you know from their review criteria. So that's definitely something that we can explore further. um
>> you potentially utilizing the technical service hours from both communities, right? >> Depending on you how many grant applications, how much time it may take. >> Um >> Okay, good. >> That's definitely an option that's available. >> So, they can be involved. Serpent can be involved in helping us. So, I know we
have two representatives to Serpent and the chair of the planning board has been one of the representatives for a long time. our former chair here, Steve Wlette, who got um elected to uh the state house, was the other representative. Jake, do you know who
the second representative is now? >> I don't. I'd have to check that. I don't. >> So, I mean, I have a good relationship with their executive director because I was one of their commissioners when I was in Dartmouth. Good. >> Um and I work with their team on grant applications pretty regularly. So, >> Okay. >> Um
>> do you know who our second representative is? Uh, not on the top of my head. Um, >> what would the second one be? District five. >> No. Well, >> it used to be a member of the board of select. >> Yes. Usually it's one. >> You're not. >> I am not.
>> Okay. I know that much. >> Yeah. So, it's either a member of the planning board, select board, or a design. >> Well, there's two reps, correct? From Westport. So, one is Jim Whiten of the chair of the planning board, >> and he's done that for years. Then Steve Wlette was the other rep, and he did
that for years. But Steve has obviously um left the select board. So >> yeah. >> Okay. >> I could follow up with that. And then >> we should find out who the second rep is. Yeah. >> And Christian, you know that Michael and the planning department is
is is working in a number of these grants with them and everything. And so that's a a resource that I I know you're aware of. >> And working with him. Um we had one last uh uh item on the
agenda and that was the brick road financing and some PAS availability. >> Oh um yeah. So um as everyone knows we the town received a $4 million grant from PAS. It was the biggest one in the
state last year which is great. But I did go back to the well and I did talk to some of uh some of the folks over the U D uh about the option or of being able to go back and ask for more money and they of course said well you know we just
gave you $4 million was the biggest grant. Well, we've got a project and um um at so trying to prime the pump a little bit and uh so the the fire station itself isn't a PWS. Uh
>> it's not >> it's not. >> So who did the water testing? >> I'm still trying to figure that out. >> Okay. Yeah, >> you you wouldn't. >> Your predecessor would know. >> Yeah, I'd have to follow up on that with Roger. Yeah, >> but we but we I did frame it in terms of
it being sort of critical infrastructure. Um so they anyway good news is they're receptive to receiving another it's not really a grant they call it a survey but it's the same thing an application from us. Um, so if I've got the okay from the
committee and town administrator, you know, I would recommend we go ahead and submit that because even if it's$100 to $100,000, we might solve >> an engineering >> discussion and then you know any little bit and sometimes there are these little
gaps that some money >> becomes available if we can hit that spot. I don't recommend we go in and ask for a million dollars because I think our chances are almost zero uh to get those given what we receive but >> so what's the sweet spot? Two 300 grand. >> Yeah, I think so. >> Okay. Well, I mean
>> and then we would frame it in. >> You have my support for that obviously. >> So, if it's okay with you guys, we would start that process and try to get a little bit of money at least for the for that project. >> Roger. How long are the uh permits good for >> uh in the state highway access >> or or take like uh uh Briggs Road for
instance if we got the okay but we didn't have the money. So mass DOT the permits are good for a year and then you have then you can request an extension which is what we're going to do on Route 6. Uh some of the other bigger permits like like the chair talked about the ITA and what were permitted for water like
that that's good forever and the extension is good for how long? for uh so we haven't filed any permits on the extension yet. >> Gotcha. Thank you. But but uh and so uh we just got approved and so we'll go ahead and file. So we got about another
year and a half say for instance >> on the fair to say on the on the route six waterline >> for the permit >> uh to get get the project done altogether even with an extension included. Well, we the we don't for the for the
CPF and the CDF the CPF hasn't been formally I guess we haven't formally received notifications very similar to the CDS the one the 1.09 I'll call it 1.2 two million $1.1 million. Um, we're waiting to get
confirmation on that, but you know, feel like it's looks really good and some in most cases that's not a problem. The CDS funding doesn't go away. It stays, you know, it's not like it has an expiration like the OPA we have to worry about before the end of the year spending that opera down. So, that's not the case
here. Um, the biggest distinction between like the PAS and the Opera is the EPA process is a lot, even though it's less money, it's a lot more cumbersome in terms of what we need to get them paperwork wise. I don't know if
that speaks to your question, but so the process is more ownorous, even though the dollar amount is less. We've got to I've already drafted, for example, the CADEX that needs to go with the project. Um Um, and we'll get that out. always waiting to hear back on our email to to
our project officer at the EPA. Um, but it's a lot more labor intensive in terms of just getting the getting our hands on the money. Um, >> that's because what what would come to my mind is sometimes you uh run, you know, a couple different directions and cost if you had stayed on one steady path. >> Yeah.
>> Uh it'd be uh, you know, economically uh, you know, in getting something done at the same time, you know. >> Yeah. So sometimes you set yourself out a little bit then you can run off the main guideline, right? Because in reality uh uh I think probably the Route Six project would be much more important
than a fire department. I mean I've been in this town for over, you know, say 60 years myself and uh and I've even lived alongside that fire department. They never, you know, they'll just pull over to six and load up the water and just head on their way to headed that way. >> Yeah. >> And so of course I know it's part of the
loop to get over to Sanford Road, which we need to get there. I'm well aware of that, you know, but I just don't want to lose any opportunities along six and then get in say because, you know, remember you're working on state property up there. That property doesn't belong to the town.
That's that's the only issue I have. any any reason not to pursue, you know, if if if D is open into getting a an application,
um, you know, that that PAS money is is is painless as it gets. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, it's true. >> Yeah. I'll u I'll circle back with Roger after that. Just um take it from there.
So, did did the fire department area test for PAS that area? >> I I'm not sure what you said. We're trying. >> We know it did up on Sanford Road up there. So, I I didn't realize that would be part of the loop, you know, to keep that water going by doing it too, >> right? But in some cases, you need to
get better off starting from six and running straight up and getting over to the church area a little faster than you are running all the way up to >> uh we don't have anything else on our agenda. >> I would >> except for public comments. >> We've already received our public.
>> We have Rob. Yeah. Okay. >> Appreciate it. >> So then we can we can adjourn. >> Is there a motion to adjurnn? So moved. >> Second. >> Yeah. All in favor? >> I. >> Gentlemen, thank you all.