Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Menands delays decision on applying for up to $5M state water grant to replace aging high‑service reservoir
Summary
Consultant Ted of Labella outlined a Water Infrastructure Improvement Act (EFC) strategy to replace the failing high‑service reservoir and pursue up to $5 million in grant funding; board raised application cost concerns and tabled authorization to March 3 to review finances.
Menands Village engineers told the board that the village’s upper/high‑service reservoir is aging, contributing to substantial annual water loss, and that a competitive state grant program (WEA through the Environmental Facilities Corporation) could fund replacement work.
Ted of Labella explained the process: the village would need a preliminary engineering report (PER) to be IUP‑listed by May 30 to be competitive and then to submit a full application in the August window. Labella said grants can be up to $5 million depending on project scope and scoring. The consultant said the PER and grant paperwork are rigorous and that the village should coordinate with the county health department and EFC to maximize scoring.
The board pressed on cost and timing. Labella estimated that initial application planning and PER work would cost the village (the presentation referenced a planning cost figure of roughly $72,000 that could grow), and cautioned that applying in a year where the village faces a general‑fund shortfall risks stretching scarce local funds. The consultant also estimated the reservoir’s water loss at approximately $250,000 per year — a recurring operational cost that factors into the project’s financial case.
After discussion, a motion to table the decision on committing to the PER/grant application until the board’s March 3 meeting passed. The delay will allow trustees to review financial projections, weigh the application cost against potential long‑term savings from reduced water loss, and consider the financial advisor’s recommendations before authorizing spending on the PER.
The board did not authorize the PER at the meeting but instructed staff to continue discussions with Labella and the health department to refine scoring and expected costs.
