Poestenkill officials say Water District 2 faces $284,000 shortfall; schedule public forum with engineer and bond counsel

Poestenkill — The town’s effort to build Water District 2 could cost about $5.5 million, officials said, and the board voted to schedule a public forum with the engineering firm and bond counsel after advisors identified a roughly $284,000 shortfall that could delay construction without a bonding or short‑term borrowing plan.

The supervisor summarized the funding picture, saying the project relies on four sources: an EPA award (about $1.69 million), county ARPA funds (about $600,000), a federal/state IJA/WEIA package (roughly $2.67 million) and a bond or bond‑anticipation note to cover cash‑flow gaps. “It is an estimated $5.5 million project,” the supervisor told the board, adding that some federal awards are “slated” but not yet executed and that timing for reimbursements creates a cash‑flow risk.

Why it matters: contractors typically invoice during construction and grant reimbursements can arrive 30–45 days later; without interim cash the town risks stalled work and additional costs. Board members said bond counsel had advised the town to consider a larger bond resolution to provide a financing buffer and avoid interruptions.

Engineers told the board that the town previously bonded only about $272,000 for the project and that revised cost estimates produced an additional shortfall of roughly $284,000. Officials outlined three options discussed by advisors: amend the bond for a midrange amount (about $3 million), seek the full $5.5 million bond resolution recommended by bond counsel, or use a bond‑anticipation note (BAN) to cover short‑term cash needs.

Board members and residents focused on who ultimately pays. Several members stressed that any final bond repayment would be charged to Water District 2 ratepayers, warning the increase could be substantial for residents there. One council member summarized the concern: if the full project cost were financed and the grants were delayed, district residents could face decades of debt service.

The board also flagged two outstanding pre‑construction items: required easements from private parties and Department of Health review and comments. Bids require a 30‑day process once the town goes to bid; the speaker said the goal remains to start work by April and finish by year‑end but that easement and health‑department timing could push that schedule.

Public engagement: board members agreed they needed clearer public information and more opportunity for resident questions. The board voted to schedule a public forum with Leurge (the town’s engineering firm) and bond counsel so residents could ask questions and hear the firms’ explanations. The forum will be a fact‑finding public meeting (not a referendum) and the board instructed staff to post notice and advertise the session.

What’s next: the board will arrange the forum and continue working with bond counsel and engineers on whether to amend the bond resolution, take a BAN for cash flow or pursue the full bond. Officials said they would continue to seek additional grant funding to reduce impacts on district residents.