Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultant to seek state and federal aid for Good Thunder water project; council OKs $5,000 task order
Summary
Bolling Engineering briefed the council on water infrastructure funding steps, congressional and bonding options and the firm’s plan to pursue grants; the council approved a one-year $5,000 task order to let the consultant pursue and administer funding opportunities.
The Good Thunder council heard a detailed funding update from Laura Osley, funding program manager at Bolling Engineering, and voted to approve a one‑time $5,000 authorization (Task Order 4) to let the firm pursue short‑window grant opportunities and help administer awards if the city is successful.
Osley told the council that the firm completed the town’s annual Water Infrastructure Funding (WIF/WIP) update and submitted a clean-water PPL entry and drinking-water cost estimates to keep the project prioritized for PFA funding. She said Bolling submitted a congressional directed spending application after the city provided support letters and that the firm will testify to a capital investment committee to explain cost pressures facing small communities. Osley described Task Order 4 as an annual $5,000 authorization allowing Bolling to act quickly in short application windows and to manage funding paperwork on behalf of the city with the clerk’s authorization when time is tight.
Council members asked about the bonding bill, municipal advisers and how much state funding typically covers; Osley said state bonding appropriations typically do not fund 100% of a project and are often used to leverage federal dollars. She recommended the council consult a municipal adviser ahead of major financing decisions and said PFA loan interest rates, when available, have been in the 1.5%–2% range for projects that qualify.
A motion to accept Task Order 4 and authorize Bolling Engineering to pursue funding passed after a recorded procedural vote. The transcript contains inconsistent spellings of the consultant’s name (both "Bolling" and "Bullock" appear); Osley self‑identified earlier in the meeting as representing Bolling Engineering.
