Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Contracts And Bonds topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board approves engineering services contract and discusses bond worksheet escalation and contingency

New Boston Planning Board · April 28, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The planning board approved a professional engineering services contract through Feb. 29, 2028 with updated hourly rates and discussed bond worksheet changes including an "escalation to expiration" line (discussed at 10%) and raising contingency levels (current 10%, suggestions 15–20%).

The New Boston Planning Board on April 28 approved an updated professional engineering services contract that extends through Feb. 29, 2028 and reflects higher hourly rates for the principal and project engineers. Planning staff noted the principal rate increased by roughly $10 an hour from the previous contract and that project engineer rates were adjusted.

A board member moved to approve the contract, the motion was seconded and the board voted in favor. Staff asked the board to sign the contract copies for the select board as part of the administrative completion.

Separately, staff and board members reviewed revised bond worksheets circulated by the community development director. Staff said the worksheets used DOT average unit pricing and included a proposed line item, "adjust for escalation to expiration," described as a 10% escalation that would apply at project expiration or when conditions are not met. Board members discussed the legal language needed to determine when escalation would kick in and how it would interact with standard contingency and reductions over multi‑phase projects.

Board members debated contingency rates: staff said the worksheet currently uses a 10% contingency line (and a general 10% contingency is common), while board members suggested contingencies in the 15–20% range in some cases and recalled a prior instance when contingency rose to about 30% during bond reductions. Staff agreed to research practices in other towns and return with recommended language and percentages for the worksheet.

No changes to bond policy were finalized at the meeting; staff will bring back research and suggested wording for how escalation and contingency are calculated and applied.