Isophoric News · Tuesday, October 27, 2026
On Oct. 13 Oswego approved $5.4 million for the first phase of lead service line replacement, and voted 4-3 to add $280,000 to its engineering contract
The Oswego Common Council voted 7-0 on Oct. 13 to accept a $5,389,000 bid from Nardozzi Paving and Construction LLC for the first phase of the city's Lead Service Line Replacement Project, according to the meeting transcript and agenda. It then voted 4-3 to authorize the mayor to sign an amendment, No. 2, worth $280,000 with GHD Consulting Services, Inc. for construction-phase engineering services on the project. Before that vote, Mayor Robert A. Corradino read an email from City Engineer Elizabeth Chrestler into the record, saying the public should have the correct information and not inaccurate information that was circulating. In it, the engineer wrote that the city has coordinated with the Department of Health since 2020 on identifying and replacing lead service lines, that GHD was brought in during July 2022, and that the city secured roughly $6 million in grant funding for this phase. On April 13 the council passed a $6,000,000 bond resolution for the lead water pipe replacement program, with no councillor voting against, and an $11,170,000 bond resolution for improvements to the water distribution system, which the mayor introduced as "again for the cost of the Ellen Street tank project," with five councillors voting yes and one abstaining, according to the roll as called in the transcript; the record we hold does not establish how that borrowing relates to the grant funding the engineer described. The mayor also told the council in April that the city's previous engineer had resigned in January and that the city had had no permanent engineer since, relying on a retired engineer in the interim, before the council authorized the employment agreement for the current City Engineer.
On the fee, the email said the $280,000 is about 4.7% of the project's cost, while construction engineering and inspection is commonly budgeted at 8% to 15%, which on a $6 million project would be roughly $480,000. The engineer wrote that the work would mean full days in the field documenting every water line installed, that city staff could not do it without other work suffering, and that if documentation falls short "the risk is to the $6 million grant," not the $280,000 fee. The email said GHD was selected for the design through a qualifications-based process and has worked with the city on its consent decree for about 20 years. Councillors asked who would do the inspection work in later phases, which are not covered by this grant; two said they supported the resolution reluctantly and described the choice as between two bad options, and one asked that the city build the skill in-house.
One councillor, speaking at length before the vote, said the council had not been given the dialogue leading up to it in the preceding ten days, that the funding decision was made without the council's involvement, and that the council was presented with its choices "or else," which the councillor said makes it very hard for legislators acting as stewards of the people's money. The councillor said the contract administration "could have been paid for by the grant," that the decision was instead to extend more construction services with the grant and pay for the contract administration with taxpayer money, and that no request for qualifications was issued for the contract administration work. The same councillor said the cost "clearly fits within a band" of what construction administration, as a percentage of project scope, would appropriately be, and said they supported the resolution reluctantly. The administration's account, in the city engineer's email read aloud at the meeting, was that GHD was selected for the design through a qualifications-based process, that construction-phase services typically go to the design engineer because they know the plans, and that if documentation falls short the exposure is the $6 million grant rather than the $280,000 fee. The transcript does not show whether the grant allowed its funds to be used for contract administration.
Asked where the $280,000 comes from, the council was told it is taxpayer money from the general fund, recovered from past grant reimbursements for replacement work the DPW did in house, with almost $200,000 of it returned to the general fund last year, which the council was told made it "close to a wash." A councillor said they were hearing from residents who had already replaced their own service lines at their own expense, $5,000 or more, while households in this phase are covered by a grant; phase two may be covered, but later phases are unknown, and when the councillor asked how the city would make that fair, the council was told: "We don't have an answer yet." Officials said the city intends to have its project manager shadow GHD so it can do such work itself next time, and the city engineer said there is additional grant money for next year and that options for phase two would come back soon. Asked why the $280,000 was not in the 2027 budget, which the council adopted 6-1 on Aug. 24, an official said the project had been expected to go out to bid in June and be built this construction season, and a city official said this project, which the grant and the Environmental Protection Agency require, runs from the curb box to the house, while the official said city code has the city replace a leaking lead line only from the main to the curb box.