Bow Select Board authorizes Concord request, SRF pre‑application and Hooksett commitments for water expansion

The Bow Select Board on May 27 voted to ask the City of Concord to consider providing wholesale water service to Bow Junction, authorized submission of a New Hampshire Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) pre‑application and made commitments to support Hooksett’s request for water capacity while approving engineering work to refine project costs and design.

The actions came after a technical presentation and discussion of potential connection charges, estimated demand, funding options and next steps. Cindy, a town staff presenter, summarized a Concord study of connection charges and advised the board on likely costs and capacity ranges. "The 2027 cost would be $7.57 per gallon per day of capacity," Cindy said, adding a possible additional buy‑in of about $1.94 per gallon per day if Concord charges for use of existing infrastructure.

Why it matters: Bow’s water‑system choices affect local businesses, potential development in Bow Junction and South Street, and town budgets. The board’s votes keep multiple funding routes open — low‑interest SRF loans, regional grants and TIF funding — while asking the town’s engineers to sharpen cost and design estimates.

Board discussion and findings

Presenters told the board that Bow Junction’s current measured water use is very low — about 10,000 gallons per day — but future demand for development could be much higher. The town’s working estimate range discussed for a request to Concord was roughly 25,000 to 60,000 gallons per day; DuBois & King’s earlier feasibility work used about 59,000 gpd as a high‑end example. Cindy stressed those were planning‑range figures to use in negotiations.

Using the study’s per‑gpd formula, the presenter laid out order‑of‑magnitude SDC (system development charge) costs: on the low end, SDC charges would total in the low‑hundreds of thousands of dollars for a 25,000‑gpd request; at the high end (about 60,000 gpd) the SDC estimate in the presentation was roughly $454,000 for the expansion charge and about another $116,000 if a full buy‑in fee were assessed, producing a high‑end scenario near $570,000. The presenter emphasized Concord’s final charge structure and whether a buy‑in would be required remain to be negotiated with Concord.

Funding options and timing

The board discussed a short timeline for a state SRF pre‑application; the presenter said the SRF pre‑application packet is due May 30 each year and is nonbinding — it puts a project on the state's list for consideration. The board authorized submitting the SRF pre‑application and directed staff to update the 2023 submission with current costs if the pre‑application is to be filed. DuBois & King agreed to prepare and submit the pre‑application on Bow’s behalf if the board authorized it; the firm told the board it could complete the update and submit by the deadline.

Grant opportunities discussed included applications to the Northern Border Regional Commission for larger study/construction funding and the Drinking Water and Groundwater Trust Fund consolidation grant (a $10,000 grant for small systems). The board authorized staff to apply for the $10,000 consolidation grant and amended that motion to explicitly authorize town staff (David) to submit the application.

Engineering decisions approved

The board approved two supplemental engineering tasks with DuBois & King: - A $27,000 lump‑sum amendment (Amendment 3) to model and provide a conceptual design and cost opinion comparing a booster pump station option to a storage tank alternative. (Vote: approved.) - A $216,296 contract to complete 60% design work for the south water extension (to the Hooksett line), to be funded from the South Bow TIF district. (Vote: approved.)

Hooksett and Niagara Water timeline

Board members reviewed a separate but related request from Hooksett Village. Hooksett had discussed a potential new large water customer (identified in the meeting as "Niagara Water") that would demand substantial supply: phase 1 at about 600,000 gpd (Bow was asked to consider supplying roughly 423,000 gpd of that phase 1 request), and a potential phase 2 another 600,000 gpd later. Bow’s presenters said the town’s current average withdrawal capacity is about 1.0 MGD and present use is only a small fraction of that.

After discussion the board voted to "aggressively support" Hooksett’s request to access Bow water for the prospective project, and also voted a separate motion expressing continued interest in partnering with Hooksett on intermunicipal water solutions regardless of the Niagara proposal. The board heard that any developer commitment or detailed commercial terms would be negotiated later and that an SDC study would still be needed to set connection charges and fund potential capacity upgrades.

Formal actions and next steps

The board submitted (1) a formal request to Concord asking them to consider wholesale water service to Bow Junction consistent with the SDC study; (2) an SRF pre‑application to the NH Drinking Water SRF; (3) a commitment to Hooksett’s phase‑1 needs while keeping regional partnerships open; and (4) authorization for DuBois & King to proceed with the modeling amendment and the 60% design contract. The drinking water committee and consultants were authorized to prepare and submit the small‑system consolidation grant application and to update SRF materials as needed.

What remains unresolved

Key open items are Concord’s final decision on SDC structure (whether Concord will assess a buy‑in), the final gallons‑per‑day Bow will formally request in its letter to Concord, the outcome of SRF and grant applications, and the detailed allocation and commercial terms should Hooksett or an outside developer move forward. Engineering work approved at the meeting is intended to reduce those unknowns and produce cost and feasibility numbers for future votes.

Ending

The board’s votes keep multiple options on the table while funding and design steps proceed: staff and DuBois & King will refine capacity estimates and cost opinions, pursue SRF and other funding, and return with more precise numbers before the board commits to construction or long‑term contracts.