Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Supply Well10 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
East Troy board authorizes staff to seek bids for a test bore, OKs up to $90,000 from PFAS funds
Summary
Trustees authorized staff to negotiate a contract and seek bids for a geologic test bore to evaluate a proposed Well 10 site, authorizing up to $90,000 from PFAS settlement funds to move work to bid. Consultants said a bore (about $65,000–$80,000) is a lower‑cost way to check for a protective shale layer before committing to a full well.
The Village of East Troy on Dec. 15 authorized staff to negotiate contracts and seek bids for a geologic test bore to evaluate a potential new municipal water source, with the board agreeing to use up to $90,000 from PFAS settlement funds to support the work.
Jason (village staff) introduced the updated proposal from Strand Associates, and Ryan Wood of Strand summarized options for addressing PFAS and capacity needs. Wood said treating existing wells (6 and 8) would restore current capacity, while a new Well 10 would add future capacity but carried greater cost and schedule uncertainty. He told trustees, “I think it pays to know at least a little bit of something before you spend 1000000 dollars on a full hole,” and recommended a lower‑cost test bore — a narrow, invasive borehole to confirm the presence and thickness of a protective shale layer — rather than immediately drilling a full test well.
Strand estimated the test bore and associated work at roughly $65,000–$80,000 including sampling and administrative costs, with a full new well project costing substantially more (the presentation included scenarios ranging into the high six to low seven figures depending on scope and whether treatment is needed). Wood said the bore will clarify subsurface conditions (including whether a confining shale layer exists and how thick it is), which affects well design, casing depth and competitive bidding.
Board members discussed the tradeoffs between drilling a full test well (which would require casing, pumping and water quality testing) and the less expensive bore that provides geologic data but no pumped water. Several trustees said they preferred the incremental, lower‑cost approach. The board moved to authorize staff to negotiate the work and advertise for bids; Trustee (second) seconded the motion, and the motion carried.
Staff noted timing pressures tied to state grant/loan application deadlines. Strand and village staff said advertisement documents for bidding should be prepared quickly so plans and specs can align with funding timelines. Ryan Wood recommended sending a proposal letter or an RFP to several drillers in early January to keep the schedule on track.
The board’s authorization directs staff to proceed with securing proposals and to use up to $90,000 from existing PFAS settlement funds to pay for the bidding and test‑bore work, with final contract details to be returned to staff execution as negotiated.
The next procedural step is for Strand to submit a scope and cost proposal and for staff to bring agreements and bid documents forward under the delegated authority the board granted.
