Public Works

Public Works and Buildings Committee City Hall Council Chambers Meeting Minutes February 19, 2026 6:00PM MEMBERS PRESENT Chairman - Councilor Larochelle Vice Chairman-Councilor Fitzpatrick Councilor David Walker Councilor Hamann Councilor Sullivan Mayor Grassie MEMBERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Peter C. Nourse PE, Director of City Service Gretchen Young, P.E., Deputy Director – Technical Services Jenn Marsh, Deputy Director – Operations and Administration Dan Camera, GIS Ian Rohrbacher, Superintendent of the Water Treatment Facility Mark Sullivan, Finance Director Rick Davee, Wright-Pierce Jason Gllant, Wright-Pierce Sam Foritier, CMA Engineers Phil Corbent, CMA Sam Foriter, CMA Engineers MINUTES Councilor Larochelle called the Public Works and Building Committee to order at 6 PM 1. Roll Call Ms. Marsh took the call attendance. Councilor Larochelle, Councilor Fitzpatrick, Mayor Grassie, Councilor Walker, Councilor Hamann and Councilor Sullivan were present for the roll call. 2. Approval January 19, 2026, PWC Minutes Councilor Walker made a motion to accept the minutes of January 15, 2026, meeting as presented. Councilor Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3. Public Input There were no members of the public present for public input. 4. Drinking Water Project Updates Round Pond Reservoir Augmentation Public Works & Building Committee Meeting Minutes February 19, 2026  Mr. Nourse gave an overview of the city’s drinking water projects. The Round Pond Augmentation is the first project which will raise the level of the reservoir from 390 to 398 above sea level, tripling its volume. He explained that with both population and commercial growth that the need for this improvement is necessary. He also noted that the draught of 2016 almost drained Round Pond. Mr. Nourse stated that since 2014 they have worked toward the goal of conducting extensive environmental impact study to retain rights to the entire shoreline of the reservoir, now designing impoundment structures and starting the permitting process. Rick Davee of Wright-Pierce was present with a presentation of the drinking water projects. (see attached). Mr. Davee noted that the primary source of water for the City of Rochester is surface water and this project will enable the city to store more water in Round Pond. Mr. Davee said that the permitting is the next step. The permitting schedule is currently as follows: December 29, 2026 submit the geotechnical report and prepare the abutter shoreland plans, January 5, 2026 to submit abutter shoreland plans to City for review, January 15, 2026 to submit dam design alternatives analysis, January 1, 12-26, 2026 schedule individual correspondence/meetings with abutters to review plans, and February 2026 finalize draft site specific soil map and report and submit request for project review. Councilor Sullivan asked for the materials of the dams. Mr. Davee confirmed there are two dams and each is different; one is concrete and the other is a mix of earth and concrete. Tufts Pond Dam Rehabilitation Mr. Nourse introduced The Tufts Pond Dam Rehabilitation project to the Committee. Mr. Nourse noted this reservoir holds approximately 84 million gallons of drinking water. It was built in 1927 and has had some minor repairs but no major rehabilitation since it’s been built. Jason Gallant of Wright-Pierce presented this project (see attached). Mr. Gallant stated this project will look at specific repairs that will be made including repair to the left and right sides, spillway and low-level outlet, left side training was and to the safety accessway. Berry’s River Impoundment Dam Berry River Impoundment Dam (NHDES dam 224.11) is a non-menace dam (reclassified from significant hazard in 2009, dam was downgraded to poor condition in 2007 due to cracks on several occasions along the dam resulting leakage and loss of water. Mr. Gallant continued with discussion on this project and noted they will look at structural upgrades and reconstruction of the Berry’s River Impoundment Dam, which is currently in early design stages. The most recent repairs were conducted in 2007 under emergency authorization. The repairs were interim and intended to be augmented with permanent repairs or reconstruction in three-to-five year timeframe and valve maintenance completed in 2007. Dam has been in good condition since repairs but not suitable for further rehabilitation focus is reconstruction this is currently in study phase for structural upgrades at intake and dam and raw water transmission redundancy. Mr. Gallant reviewed the construction costs of the project. Tufts Pond Reservoir Dam Repairs $1.65- Public Works & Building Committee Meeting Minutes February 19, 2026  1.93 million, Upper Raw Water Transmission Main Construction $1.30-1.50 million, Berry’s River Impoundment Dam Reconstruction $3 -$4.50 million the total for all three projects is between $5.95-$7.93 million. Mr. Gallant said that the project’s necessity is maintaining state of good repair for water storage and transmission infrastructure and will provide needed drinking water for the City of Rochester for the next 50-year period. He noted prior repairs have exceeded their useful service life and these projects allow the city to proactively our drinking water system. Councilor Fitzpatrick commended the city for its impressive drinking water system. Councilor Hamann asked for the timeframe of the project. Mr. Gallant said The Berry’s River project would be one construction season project. Councilor Larochelle said as a State representative, Rochester has set a good example at the state level for their wastewater and water systems. Mr. Nourse stated that the prices presented were current prices and could ultimately cost more. Councilor Walker asked about the wells on Salmon Falls Road and if they were viable. Mr. Nourse stated there were 12 sites they were looking at however all were expensive. Mr. Rohrbacher said they investigated many sites, and they ranged from 100 to 300 gallons per minute but were million dollars a well to treat. Councilor LaRochelle asked about PFAS in drinking water. Mr. Nourse stated they follow the Environmental Protection Agency and are in compliance with all regulations. Ms. Young stated that it makes sense to use the reservoir and Berry River and it is critical to keep it in good shape. 5. Pavement Preservation Program Overview Mr. Nourse gave the committee an overview of the pavement preservation program. He stated the city revised their pavement program over a decade ago and started using CMA as a more cost effective and efficient way to analyze the 152 miles of roads in Rochester. Phil Corbet and Sam Foriter from CMA Engineers were present to go over the pavement preservation program (see attached presentation). CMA presented a presentation on the pavement preservation program to familiarize the committee with how the program works. Mr. Corbet said that they get ratings for the condition of the roads they use in the pavement condition index (PCI), this is based on surface distress and ride quality. Mr. Corbet said that the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) method was used in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D6433 to assess the condition of the City’s pavements. The city-wide average PCI was=61, Target range 70-80. Rochester measures pavement conditions by an automated survey by IMS using laser-based technology. CMA analysis the roads every five years. The Committee discussed the amount of funding the paving program has received in recent years. Mr. Nourse stated he typically requests $2 million with cuts usually made to $1.5 to $1 million. Public Works & Building Committee Meeting Minutes February 19, 2026  Mr. Nourse stated the $3,000,000 in pavement funding is needed to maintain the current PCI of 61, and not 70-80. Mr. Nourse also stated that because the city has not funded the program to that extend in the past that they are behind on maintaining the 61 PCI. Mr. Nourse stated that once roads are paved, they typically start cracking within one to two years. He noted that if we used a deeper pavement like the State of NH then the cost of paving would increase but the roads would deteriorate at a slower rate. Rochester’s standard is 4-inches of asphalt, and the State has an 11-inches standard with added curbing and drainage. 6. Northridge Development Agreement: Finance Director Director of Finance, Mark Sullivan, was present to give an update on Northridge Development, which is located north of Tractor Supply, on Route 11. His presentation attached shows three lots that make up what Waterstone Development calls Northridge Development and are looking to purchase in the next year. Mr. Sullivan said Waterstone is bringing their proposal to the Public Works Committee and is also planning on attending the Finance and Planning Committee’s as well. Mr. Sullivan noted the plans are at preliminary phases, but he wanted to bring the committee’s attention to it now since it’s a large development. There would be approximately three phases which would include medical, residential, commercial and entertainment uses. This is also located in an aquifer protection zone, and the entire parcel is part of the Tax Increment Financing District (TIF). Councilor Hamann asked if there were any discussions on expanding Two Rod Road, in which Mr. Mark Sullivan answered no, not at this time. Councilor LaRochelle asked if there was a master plan that included Two Rod Road at one time. Some discussion was had were Councilors believed there may have been at one time, and they will follow up to see if they can find said plans. 7. Veterans Park Plaque Mr. Nourse stated the City Council approved the removal of the Shaw Park plaque and renaming the park to Veteran’s Park. Mr. Nourse asked for the sense of the committee on how the new plaque should look. Councilor Sullivan suggested asking the Veteran’s Council for their opinion. The census of the committee is to move forward and have DPW request input from the Veteran’s Committee. 8. Other Little Falls Bridge Road Maintenance Mr. Nourse noted there will be upcoming maintenance on Little Falls Road Bridge and that the message boards will be going out soon. The Bridge will be closed starting March 19, 2026, through April 30, 2026, the police and Fire Department are aware of this closure. This work is scheduled to be completed before the Route 11 project begins in May of 2026. Copy of Slides from Presentation Mayor Grassie requested a copy of the slides from tonight’s presentation. Sig Saur Project Update Public Works & Building Committee Meeting Minutes February 19, 2026  Councilor Hamann asked when the Sig Saur Project was going to begin. Mr. Nourse stated that due to some process issues on Sig Sauer’s side, the bid was held up and will most likely go out in April of 2026. Meeting adjourned at 7:42 PM Minutes respectfully submitted by Laura McDormand, Admin. Services & Utility Billing Supervisor Public Works & Building Committee Meeting Minutes February 19, 2026 Surface Water Supply Expansion Project Rochester, New Hampshire February 2026 Richard Davee, PE Wright-Pierce Berry’s River Watershed 2 Major Impoundment Round Pond • Round Pond is located entirely in Barrington, approximately 3,000 feet south of the Rochester Reservoir • Largest of the reservoirs (Tuffs Pond, Rochester Reservoir, Round Pond) • It can either receive water from Berry's River through the diversion pipeline or discharge water to the Rochester Reservoir • Filled primarily during the spring melt and rainy seasons 3 Supply Capacities (Firm Yield) Rochester’s Reservoirs – Existing Elevations Reservoir Full Pond Elevation Firm Yield (mgd) Tufts Pond Reservoir 482 ft. 1 mgd Berry River Dam Impoundment 401 ft. -0- Rochester Reservoir 375 ft. 0.25 mgd Round Pond Reservoir 390 ft. 1.0 mgd Total 2.25 mgd • Firm yields of Rochester’s existing reservoirs (existing elevations) subject to stream flow agreement w/ NHDES 4 Existing & Projected 40-Year Demands with Alternative Firm Yields 5.00 Annual FW ADD (from Records) 4.50 Projected FW ADD (from population and GPCD) Firm Yield = 4.40 MGD 4.00 Annual FW MDD (from Records) Million Gallons per Day, MGD Firm Yield = 3.89 MGD Projected FW MDD (from 5-Yr Avg Ratio MDD/ADD) 3.50 Annual RW MDD (from Records) 3.00 Projected Future RW MDD (from 5-Yr Avg Ratio RW ADD/RW MDD) 2.50 Firm Yield without increase to Round Pond elevation, and with 2 cfs downstream req't Firm Yield = 2.25 MGD Firm Yield with 8-Ft increase to Round Pond elevation, and 2.00 with 2 cfs downstream flow req't Firm Yield without pond elevation increase and without 2 cfs minimum downstreatm flow requirement 1.50 5 Project Need • Raw Water Supply – Berry’s River , One Well w/ Limited Capacity • Prior to 2008 Berry’s River Safe Yield 4.4 MGD o Post 2008 (Agreed Minimum Stream Flow) Safe Yield 2.25 MGD • 2040: Average Day Demand 2.2 MGD, Peak Daily Demand 3.7 MGD, Maximum Daily WTP Output > 6 MGD • Multiple Studies have Shown Limited Groundwater Availability • Rasing Round Pond 8 feet can increase Safe Yield by1.6 MGD to a total of 3.8 MGD 6 Round Pond 2016 7 Supply Capacity (Firm Yields) of Rochester’s Reservoirs Round Pond Reservoir Elevation Increased Reservoir Full Pond Elevation Firm Yield (mgd) Tufts Pond Reservoir 482 ft. 1 mgd Berry River Dam Impoundment 401 ft. -0- Rochester Reservoir 375 ft. 0.25 mgd Round Pond Reservoir 398 ft. 2.64 mgd Total 3.89 mgd • Firm yields of Rochester’s reservoirs (Round Pond Reservoir elevation increased to 398 ft) subject to minimum stream flow requirements • Increasing the water elevation Round Pond Reservoir to El 398 bring the Firm Yield of the surface Water Supply close to Firm Yield (3.89MGD) w/out minimum stream flow requirements 8 Future Water Supply Management • Raising Round Pond’s elevation could almost double storage with minimal impact • Harvest a greater abundance of river flow • Periods of >50 cfs (22500 gpm, 32MGD) in river that we could store for the summer months • Help to improve and manage downstream flows • Close diversion valve and draw down Round Pound, maintaining river flow • Prepares us for impact of in-stream flow regulations 9 Project Status • Substantial Field Work has been completed: o Survey o Wetlands Delineation o Vernal Pool Assessment o Endangered Species Identification • Preliminary Dam Design • Easements Obtained from Seven (7) Private Property Owners 10 Preliminary Dam Design 11 Preliminary Dam Design 12 Estimated Construction Costs North and South Dam - $10 Mil Offsite Improvements - $2 Mil 13 Permitting Scope of Work Impact Assessment • Set the baseline with existing data • Comparative analysis of existing pond elevation to 8-foot increase • Used the mapped areas, habitat types, and species data we had to develop a baseline scenario • Assessed the potential for impact to the mapped areas, habitat types, and species data in terms of level of impact • Analyzed the “after” scenario to identify “new” extents of habitat types, in terms of increases and decreases 14 Rare Species In Area of Inundation • Blanding’s = State Endangered • Records known from Round Pond and “Pond C” • Scrub-Shrub, Aquatic Bed, Marshes, and Vernal Pools provide important habitats • Fish and Game requested Trapping 15 Results Rare Species • Turtle trapping was completed during 2015 & 2016 according to regional protocols View of Turtle Trap in “Pond C” 16 Results BL001 “Dragon” Captured in Pond 3 17 Transmitter Attachment 18 Results BL002 “Storm” Captured in Pond 3 – Near BL001 19 Overall Results • Project is expected to maintain large portions of most habitats (except vernal pools) • Maintaining high habitat diversity serves to maintain high wildlife diversity • 11 additional vernal pools were observed nearby outside of inundation area • Project creates 22.25 acres of wetland and open water habitat • Fish and Game will expect minimization of potential habitat changes to Blanding’s turtle habitats 20 Permitting Schedule Round Pond Reservoir Plan development for abutting parcels Ongoing DECEMBER 2026 Geotechnical Report 12/29/2026 Prepare abutter shoreland plans JANUARY 2026 Submit abutter shoreland plans to City for review 1/5/2026 Submit Dam Design Alternatives Analysis to City 1/15/2026 Individual correspondence/meetings with abutters to review plans 1/12 -1/26/26 FEBRUARY 2026 Finalize draft Site Specific Soil Map and Report Submit NH DHR Request for Project Review 21 Permitting Schedule Round Pond Reservoir MARCH 2026 DRAFT abutter Shoreland permit applications to City for review 3/2/2026 30% DRAFT dam design plans to City for review 3/31/2026 APRIL 2026 Submit Ecological Review Request (previously NHB Review) Submit Protected Species Consultation Memo as required by DES MAY 2026 NH DES Pre-Application meeting Protected Species/NHFG Consultation meeting as directed by DES JUNE 2026 60% DRAFT dam design plans to City for review 6/15/2026 22 Permitting Schedule Round Pond Reservoir JULY 2026 Submit draft DES permit applications for proposed dam work (Dam, Wetland, AoT) to City for review 7/27/26 Submit draft Barrington CUP applications to City for review (if 7/27/26 required) AUGUST 2026 Attend Barrington Board Meetings to present project Submit permit applications to the DES SEPTEMBER 2026 90% DRAFT dam design plans to City for review 9/14/2026 NOVEMBER 2026 100% dam design plans to City for review 11/16/26 January 2027 Anticipated NHDES/USACE Permit Approvals 23 Questions? 24 Contact Information RICK DAVEE rick.davee@wright-pierce.com (603).570.7100 25 THANK YOU 26 Sample Layout 27 Isinglass River Watershed 28 Radiotelemetry 29 Keys Issues 1 Water Audit – understanding current usage, natural inefficiencies, and where room for improvement 2 Supply Capacity – existing and how it can be improved 3 Demand/Consumption – now and in the future 30 Pavement Management Program Overview City of Rochester Presented by: Sam Fortier, P.E. & Phil Corbett, P.E. CMA Engineers, Inc. February 19, 2026 Why Pavement Management Matters Rochester maintains ~152 miles of paved roads Pavement is one of the City’s largest capital assets Roads deteriorate every year, regardless of funding Goal: maximize value of limited taxpayer dollars Pavement management is about making smart Key takeaway: tradeoffs Pavement Management Program What is PCI? • Pavement Condition Index (PCI) • Industry Standard Score 0 to 100 (higher is better) • Based on: • Surface distress (cracking, rutting) • Ride quality (roughness) Pavement Management Program What is PCI? • The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) method was used in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D6433 to assess the condition of the City’s pavements. • City-wide average PCI = 61 • Target Range: 70-80 • Neighboring Community PCI • Portsmouth = 82 (2024) • Somersworth = 75 (2023) • Dover = 69 (2022) Pavement Management Program  How Rochester Measures Pavement Condition • Automated survey by IMS using laser-based technology • IMS collects data for 5 state DOTs and over 1,000 agencies • Uses Pavermetrics Laser Crack Measuring System (LCMS) • Measures cracking, rutting, and roughness • Utilizes American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standards • Objective, repeatable, defensible • Updated every 5 years • Key point: • This removes subjectivity from decision-making. Pavement Management Program  In addition to IMS’s quality control, CMA Engineers spot checks roads as the pavement management plan is developed and finalized Pavement Management Program Pavement Continually Degrades ► Slowly at first, then conditions deteriorate rapidly New Pavement Failed Pavement Pavement Management Program Pavement Rehabilitation Costs Increase with Time ► Non-linear: costs increase dramatically once roads fail $1 of Preventive Maintenance here… PCI Eliminates or delays spending $8 - $10 on rehabilitation here. (Pavement Condition Index) Pavement Management Program Types of Pavement Work Right treatment at the right time matters  Preservation (Good roads) Crack sealing, surface treatments – low cost, high return  Resurfacing (Fair roads) Mill & overlay – moderate cost  Reconstruction (Poor roads) Full rebuild – very expensive  Reality: • 1 mile of reconstruction ≈ cost of preserving ~13 miles of good road Pavement Management Program Pavement “Treatments” as function of Pavement Condition Pavement Management Program Pavement Repair Unit Costs Preservation Methods (1-4yrs) Cost Range: up to $ 0.50/sf Crack Seal Spot Repair Resurfacing Methods (4-12 yrs) Cost Range: $ 1.25/sf to $ 2.50/sf Mill, Shim, and Overlay Reconstruction Methods (12-20 yrs) Cost Range: $ 4.00/sf to $ 7.00/sf Reclaim and Overlay Reclaim with Strength Additive & Overlay Full Box Reconstruction Pavement Management Program Preserving Good Pavement Costs Less over Long Term than waiting for Major Repair/Reconstruction Pavement Management Program Current Condition of Rochester’s Roads 45 • After 2021 scan, overall PCI was found to 40 Current Network Average Condition = 61, Backlog = 19.5% be 61 (national average = 65) 35 30 Percentage of Network By Area • The “backlog” is defined as roads that 25 22.0 have deteriorated beyond the point of 20 preservation and maintenance (PCI below 16.6 14.3 16.9 15.2 15 40, requiring reclaim/reconstruction) 12.0 10 5 • Rochester’s backlog was found to be 20% 2.9 of the network (typical goal is 10%) 0 V Poor (0 to 25) Poor (25 to 40) Marginal (40 to Fair (50 to 60) Good (60 to 70) V Good (70 to Excellent (85 to 50) 85) 100) Current Pavement Condition Pavement Management Program  Addressing a Common Concern “The program doesn’t prioritize bad roads” This is not true — but funding limits what can be done.  Poor roads are identified and prioritized  Reconstruction is very expensive  Limited budgets force tradeoffs  Key reality: • Fixing only the worst roads causes the overall system to decline. • Proactive preservation and maintenance is good financial stewardship of tax dollars. Pavement Management Program Pavement Optimization- General Goals Distribute annual budget to: 1. Keep Good Roads Good 2. Maintain or Raise Average PCI These must be done in a practical manner Pavement Management Program Pavement Optimization – Constraints Pavement Optimization: Key Challenges  Reconstruction is extremely expensive • One mile of reconstruction ≈ 13 miles of preservation  Heavy reconstruction spending reduces funds available for maintenance  Preservation-first strategies can be misunderstood by the public  Some physical constraints affect treatment selection: • Curb reveal impacts • Thin pavement sections (<4") limit overlay options • Other City projects Bottom line: • With limited funding, tradeoffs are unavoidable. Pavement Management Program Pavement Optimization How the Strategy Works Pavement Optimization: Strategy in Practice  Use the annual pavement budget as efficiently as possible  Prioritize roads nearing a more expensive treatment threshold  Coordinate with Capital Improvement Projects (CIP)  Group projects geographically to reduce inefficiencies  Rescan roadways every 5 years • Objective, repeatable, ASTM-based • Calibrated to Rochester’s road conditions  Identify roads with underlying issues • Drainage problems accelerate deterioration Result: Preservation and resurfacing maximize network-wide condition. Pavement Management Program Current Pavement Funding Current Annual Pavement Investment: ~$2.0M  Includes: • ~$1.5M in annual pavement maintenance & rehabilitation funding • ~$0.5M in new pavement constructed as part of Capital Improvement Projects (CIP)  Key takeaway: • At this funding level, overall pavement condition declines over time. Pavement Management Program Current Pavement Funding Cont. • ~1.5M in annual paving funding has been fixed for years (steady funding since pre-2008) Source: New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT), Bureau of Asset Management, Performance, and Strategy, January 1, 2026 Pavement Management Program If the Program is Underfunded • More roads fall into the “reconstruction” category • Backlog grows faster • Future costs increase • Fewer options for Council in future budgets This is a compounding problem Pavement Management Program Funding vs. Pavement Condition 80 Five Year Post Rehab PCI Versus Annual Budget Analysis Start Date = 3/1/2023 Analysis Period 2023 to 2027 75 2023 to 2027 Rehab Analysis Results Post Rehab Network Average Condition Rochester Budget: PCI = 59, Backlog = 26%, Annual Budget = $2000k/Yr Steady State PCI: Final PCI = 62, Backlog = 22%, Annual Budget = $2630k/Yr 70 Maintain Current Backlog: Final PCI = 64, Backlog = 20%, Annual Budget = $3220k/Yr 65 Current PCI = 61 (2023) 60 55 50 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 Annual Budget Each Year for Five Years ($1,000/Yr) Pavement Management Program Neighboring Community Comparison Portsmouth Rochester • 104 miles of paved roads • 152 miles of paved roads • PCI = 82 (2024) • PCI = 61 (2021) • $2m annual budget • $1.5m annual budget • $19,230/mi • $9,868/mi Dover Key takeaway: • 126 miles of paved roads • PCI = 69 (2022) • Larger sustained funding = improved • $2m annual budget roads and more cost-efficient • $15,873/mi maintenance Somersworth • 50 miles of paved roads • PCI = 75 (2023) • $1.3m annual budget • $26,000/mi Pavement Management Program  Questions? Pavement Management Program