Flood board presses for clearer master-plan scope, prioritization and joint project management

The Flood Prevention, Climate Resilience and Erosion Control Board pressed town staff on Feb. 17 for clearer scope and timelines for the town's master flood-resilience plan and asked to play a more active role in project oversight. Board members said the consultant contract appears to prioritize coastal concepts while offering only a 'menu' of riverine, nature-based options, and they asked the town to clarify how many concept designs are contractually required and whether riverine sites will receive concept-level work.

The board said the distinction matters because the current contract language appears to deliver eight to 10 coastal concept designs but no riverine concept packages, leaving riverine areas with only a catalog of potential nature-based solutions rather than site-specific concepts. 'That may be a very naive question,' one member said, but 'we need to know whether the contract gives us eight, 10 or 15 concepts so we can prioritize.'

Why it matters: Members argued the town needs a prioritized short list of sites for which the consultant will prepare concept-level designs and ballpark cost estimates, rather than a long, unprioritized laundry list. Without that clarity, they said, the town risks spending consultant funds on work that does not align with near-term engineering or permitting needs.

What the board asked for: The board formed a small subcommittee, led by Dick and another member, to review the consultant's list, add any missing flood-control structures or neighborhoods, and return a prioritized top-8 to top-10 list for both coastal and riverine areas. The subcommittee was asked to circulate its recommendations within a week so the full board can approve them by electronic vote.

Project-management and transparency requests: Board members also requested joint project management with the town engineer for the master-plan contract. They proposed that a designated board point person share project-management responsibilities, be copied on consultant correspondence, and co-run meetings so the board has timely access to invoices, the purchase-order burn rate, and an updated project timeline. A board member said the master-plan contract currently shows approximately 40% to 50% of the purchase order spent, but the exact remaining budget needs confirmation from town accounting (Munis).

Technical concerns: Members questioned presentation choices in the flood-viewer maps, including color schemes and legend clarity, and debated how to use a 20-inch sea-level-rise projection by 2050. One member urged treating the 20-inch figure as a conservative planning scenario rather than a forecast presented as a certainty.

Next steps: The subcommittee will compile the prioritization list and circulate it for an electronic vote; the board will request that the town provide the consultant contract terms (number of concepts and deliverables) and a current accounting of master-plan spending. The board also plans quarterly coordination with planning, conservation and capital-projects staff to ensure early visibility of projects that affect stormwater and flood risk.

The board did not record individual roll-call tallies for any of its voice votes; outcomes are reported as recorded in the meeting minutes.