Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Interconnect topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bow Select Board agrees to draft interconnect commitment letter to Hooksett amid bottled‑water developer interest
Summary
Select Board voted to draft a limited capacity‑commitment letter to Hooksett Village Water Precinct supporting a phase‑1 interconnection, conditioned on the private developer funding infrastructure and with a short-term hold period; Hooksett presented demand figures and a tight timeline tied to the developer.
At the June 10 meeting, representatives from the Hooksett Village Water Precinct briefed the Bow Select Board on a potential interconnection and asked Bow to draft a capacity‑commitment letter to help secure site interest from a private bottled‑water company. The board voted to draft that letter with conditions: the commitment would cover phase‑1 capacity, include an expiration (“hold”) period (discussed as roughly six to nine months) and presume the private developer pays for required infrastructure.
Hooksett engineers and staff said their system sees roughly 300,000 gallons per day (gpd) in winter and peaks near 900,000 gpd in summer; they told the board the bottled‑water developer has sought more than 1,000,000 gpd in some proposals, which prompted renewed urgency. Hooksett representatives described prior studies (a Bow‑Hooksett interconnect feasibility study completed in 2021) and said the developer’s preferred site is near Exit 11 (property with water/sewer brought to its edge under a TIF project).
Mike Tidorn, Hooksett superintendent, and the engineer from Tata & Howard emphasized the technical work underway and asked Bow to provide a nonbinding letter showing Bow’s interest in partnering on phase‑1 capacity so Hooksett can present a stronger package to the developer. Hooksett said their intent is to have the developer build and fund infrastructure; Bow’s letter would signal municipal willingness to consider delivering capacity under negotiated terms.
A Select Board member moved to draft a commitment letter reflecting phase‑1 interest and developer‑funded infrastructure; the motion was seconded and approved. The board asked staff (David and the town planner) to prepare the draft letter for the board’s review. The board and Hooksett attendees noted the developer’s timeline is aggressive: Hooksett representatives said the developer aims to start construction by 2026 with phased ramp to higher capacity by 2027–2028, but Hooksett cautioned timelines could change and that additional studies and negotiations would follow.
Board members also discussed short technical next steps, including a possible quick rate study and engineering assessments if the town proceeds. The motion and approval were framed as an early, conditional step to enable negotiations; final contractual commitments would require more detailed engineering, legal review and, if needed, votes at subsequent meetings.
