Glens Falls water board recommends council reissue purchase resolution, weighs bonding and lead‑service options

The Glens Falls City Water and Sewer Board recommended that the City Common Council reissue a previously approved resolution so the city can finance a planned equipment purchase with a bond rather than a lease, and members discussed options for funding lead‑service‑line replacements.

At the meeting, the board said the original resolution (Resolution No. 18 from the Jan. 13 council meeting) was prepared using an incorrect interest rate calculation. Board members agreed staff should recommend that the common council resend the council resolution reflecting a straight purchase financed through a bond; staff estimated that bonding at this size would save roughly $20,000–$25,000 over the life of the financing compared with the lease approach. The board discussed trading in older equipment as part of the financing package and a roughly six‑year repayment element for some funds.

Brooks of Arcadus, the board’s consultant on financing, told members that federal and state drinking‑water grant programs are highly competitive and that some grant streams (including ARPA‑related opportunities) have largely closed out through 2025, meaning grant timing may not align with immediate project needs. According to Brooks, this creates a need to consider short‑term borrowing or bond financing to keep construction and water‑quality projects on schedule.

The board also reviewed its lead‑service‑line inventory and regulatory timing. Staff reported the city’s initial inventory and noted regulatory milestone dates, including a November 1, 2027 date affecting schools and child‑care facilities, and a later set of obligations projected into the 2030s. Staff said they have identified priority school and child‑care sites and that the overall inventory still contains many unknowns; in the first pass staff listed nine known replacement needs on the city side and nine on the private side.

Board members discussed the legal constraints on using municipal funds for private‑side service replacements under New York State charter provisions. Members referenced other municipalities’ approaches — including Rochester’s declaration of a public‑health emergency and Troy’s mixed contracting model — as potential frameworks for addressing homeowner affordability and liability concerns, but they emphasized that any plan must consider prevailing‑wage implications, contractor arrangements, and the city’s legal authority.

The board did not adopt a final financing resolution at the meeting; instead, members indicated they would forward a recommendation to the common council to resend or replace the earlier council resolution so the purchase can proceed via bond financing. Next steps noted during the meeting included follow‑up discussions with the city’s financial advisors and the bonding attorney and continued work on the inventory and funding strategy for private‑side replacements.