Consultants reviewed the town’s water and sewer finances and five‑year capital plans and cautioned that utilities’ long‑term affordability depends on the timing and scale of a large outside user project (referred to in the meeting as the WCC project) and on verified costs for multiple sewer lift‑station and force‑main projects.

On sewer, consultants said the sewage fund had roughly $1,000,006 at the end of the prior year and that, from an operating standpoint, existing revenues cover operating expenses and current debt service. Adam said, “from an operating standpoint... you have sufficient revenues to meet your operating expenses and your debt service. Where you would run short is with your capital improvement plan.” Consultants listed prioritized capital items: clean/televised lines, lift station replacements (New Durham, McDonald's, Westville Estates), force‑main replacements and backup generators at lift stations. The consultants estimated Nathan’s operator list at about $650,000 in aggregate but advised the council to obtain firm, line‑item quotes because early totals may be conservative or high.

Because those capital needs are sizable, consultants described two main funding approaches: (1) cash‑fund projects over multiple years, which may require substantial rate increases, or (2) issue a municipal bond to fund a multi‑project package at once, spreading cost through debt service. Adam said an illustrative municipal bond market interest rate would likely be in the 4–5% range for tax‑exempt borrowing and provided an example debt service estimate that the town could support under current revenue assumptions. Consultants also suggested bond repayment could be structured so rate increases are smaller or delayed compared with a pay‑as‑you‑go approach.

On the water side, consultants said the water fund had a strong cash position (about $2.2 million reported at the end of 2024) but noted that without the large WCC customer connecting, the utility could face substantial rate pressure to fund its capital program. Consultants said staff must finalize SRF loan pricing and project scope before a final rate decision; Adam estimated SRF borrowing costs in the mid‑single digits and said final rate recommendations would follow loan commitments and verified capital costs.

Consultants walked through operational reserve mechanics for utilities, explaining typical bond‑order buckets (operation & maintenance, bond & interest, debt service reserve, and maintenance/improvement funds). They also recommended verifying the list of proposed vehicle and equipment purchases (two utility trucks, dip tanks, large lift‑station generators) to ensure the capital plan matches expected useful lives and available grant/loan resources. No formal financing decision was made; staff were asked to collect firm contractor estimates, confirm SRF terms, and return with an updated capital‑funding recommendation.