Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Waterfront Maintenance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Landings committee details repairs at Painted Point and Acre Lot, seeks estimates and possible grant funding
Summary
John Chandler told the Phippsburg Select Board the Landings Committee found safety and deterioration issues at Painted Point and Acre Lot and will seek contractor estimates; the committee proposes using existing capital and pursuing a state waterfront grant (5% local match) to cover larger work.
John Chandler, a member of the Landings Committee, told the Phippsburg Select Board on March 11 that deferred maintenance at Painted Point and Acre Lot has reached a stage that requires targeted repairs and contractor bids. "The ramp really is a mess at this stage," Chandler said, and described worn pilings, shifting planks and a damaged outer piling that, he said, had been chewed through "to the point where... a kid could put his arm right in the hole."
Chandler and other committee members described a short-term plan of installing sleeves over existing pilings (typically Schedule 80 PVC), adding a shorter sleeve for floats to allow vertical movement, and building a concrete pad at the shore end to prevent lateral drift of the ramp and floats. The committee has asked Chesterfield Associates and Kingstide Marine to provide written estimates; Chandler said the goal is to have those estimates in time for the budget committee meeting on the 24th and to use them as the basis to go out to bid.
Committee members emphasized safety and uneconomical deferral: if the concrete and pilings continue to deteriorate, repairs will cost substantially more. Chandler estimated some work could be completed within the committee's available capital (he said "around 30,000" was a planning figure for some immediate work), with larger projects slated for fiscal year 2027. He also noted an identified safety estimate for Meadowbrook that was reported at about $225,000.
The committee flagged funding questions. Chandler said $3,000 had been budgeted for maintenance in fiscal year 2026 but committee members said that amount is effectively spent and that a maintenance baseline closer to $5,000–$10,000 annually would be more realistic. The committee discussed a working waterfront grant that requires a 5% local match; staff noted the town’s capital account balance and that approximately $70 of an existing capital allocation had already been earmarked as a local match for another grant (transcript phrasing ambiguous as to units).
Board members discussed trade-offs involved in accepting state grant money: state-funded projects typically require that improved launch facilities be open to the public, which could undercut a nonresident fee structure the town uses now to prioritize town residents. Several members said it would still be worthwhile to apply for grants with very low local matches and then decide later whether to accept funding after reviewing contract terms.
Chandler asked for board support to proceed: get two contractor estimates (Chesterfield Associates and Kingstide Marine were named), present numbers to the budget committee, then go to bid. Staff and committee members said more modest maintenance work (chains, ladder replacement, sleeves and some float work) could be done by local services and folded into maintenance budgets to avoid repeating cycles of deferred work.
The board did not take a final vote to approve specific expenditures on March 11; members asked for the estimates and a formal request to the budget committee.
