Special Water and Sewer Commission Meeting 3/30/26

Printable version

Water and Sewer Minutes 03-30-26 221 KB

Web version

Town of Richmond

Special Meeting of Water and Sewer Commission

Minutes of March 30, 2026

Members Present: Erin Farr, Bard Hill, Greg Rabideau, David Sander, Morgan Wolaver

Members Absent: Greg Rabideau arrived at 6:02 PM

Staff Present: Town Manager Josh Arneson; Duncan Wardwell, Deputy Town Manager; Steve Cote, Water Resources Superintendent

 

Others Present: The meeting was recorded for MMCTV Erin Wagg, Maria Poley

MMCTV Video:  https://youtu.be/MR0M5AI2ah0?si=XrtYx0uZKu7QOleq 

 

Call to Order: 6:01 PM

Welcome: Wolaver

Public Comment: None

 

Additions or Deletions to the Agenda:

Farr stated that they should talk about the Housing Committee at the Water and Sewer Commission next week. Arneson suggested they discuss that at the end of the meeting when they “Discuss Items for Next Agenda.”

Items for Presentation or Discussion with those present

Review and discussion of draft FY27 Water and Wastewater Budget
Timestamp: 0:02
https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Water_Sewer_Commission/Meetings/2026/03/3a1_FY27_Water___Wastewater_budget_03-26-26.pdf

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Water_Sewer_Commission/Meetings/2026/03/3a2_FY27_Water___Wastewater_budget_03-26-26.xlsx

Arneson reviewed that this is the first pass of the budget and he will present Water, Wastewater, Restricted funds and Unrestricted funds.  The Annual Meeting occurs on the third Tuesday in May where the Water and Sewer Commission votes and approves the budget.  Water and Sewer customers are welcome to attend 3-4 different budget meetings.  In order to create sample rates, the Commission looks at usage from April 1 last year to March 31 this year. 

Arneson presented items that affect both Water and Wastewater:

-Wages and benefits have been adjusted based on anticipated FY27 with the wage grid increasing by 3%. The projections also include an increase for Brad Snow obtaining his Grade 5 Wastewater license.

-Administrative Support from Town increased due to wages increasing in FY27.

-User Revenue is always based on the amount of operating expenses not covered by other sources of revenue.

Arneson presented notes regarding Water Expenses:

-Uniforms increased from $500 to $750 due to prices increasing in general

-System Permits/Fees/Licenses decreased from $1,900 to $1,000 

-General Insurance increased from $6,825 to $7,300 to match current calendar year 2026 billing.

-Heat increased from $600 to $1,250

-Audit increased from $1,740 to $2,799 to match the actual cost for FY27

-Water Testing increased from $2,500 to $5,300 due mostly to a requirement to test for PFAS four times per year which will cost $2,200.

-Pumps/Tanks reduced from $4,000 to $1,000. We don’t have any anticipated purchases but want to keep something in there in case an unanticipated need arises.

-Water Line Repairs reduced from $15,000 to $10,000 due to anticipation of the Tilden Ave., Bridge St., and Cochran Rd. waterline replacement

 

-Asphalt Repair reduced from $5,000 to $3,000 due to anticipation of the Tilden Ave., Bridge St., and Cochran Rd. waterline replacement

-Added a loan payment of $23,750 for the Tilden Ave., Bridge St., and Cochran Rd. waterline replacement project.

Cote confirmed that everybody rotates to work about 6 hours a weekend for testing. 

Arneson presented the balances forWater Restricted and Unrestricted funds:

There were $172,050 in Water Unrestricted funds at the audited end of FY25.  The projected end of FY26 Balance is $203,738.  The projected FY27 Water budget is $408,089 which means that there should be at least 15% or $61,213 left in Water Unrestricted funds.   

The Projected end of FY26 Balances for Water Restricted funds are $106,902 in Water Capital, $175,991 in Short Term Capital, and $81,100 in Distribution.

Arneson presented notes regarding Wastewater Expenses:

-Uniforms increased from $1,000 to $1,200

-Association Dues increased from $800 to $1,500

-System Permits/Certs/Licenses: increased from $1,200 to $1,500

-General Insurance increased from $17,775 to $19,251 to match the bill for calendar year 2026.

-Biosolids Chemicals decreased from $70,000 to $60,000 to better match the actuals which are lower due to buying in bulk that reduces the price and a reduction in what we need to use which was based on a better analysis of what the system needs.

-Electricity – Pump Station increased from $1,250 to $1,625 

-Water for Wastewater Treatment Facility decreased from $32,000 to $20,000 due to a reduced use of water in the process to treat wastewater.

-Audit increased from $4,060 to $6,531 

-Contracted Operators decreased from $41,340 to $0 due to Brad Snow obtaining his Grade 5 license 

-Biosolids Disposal reduced from $140,000 to $120,000 due to dryer solids which reduces volume and weight 

-Equipment Purchases – Small increase from $700 to $1,000

-Building Maintenance increased from $1,000 to $5,000 to better match the needs of the building.

-Wastewater Facility Repair increased from $15,000 to $20,000

-Biosolids Facility Repair increased from $15,000 to $25,000

-Phosphorous loan payments conclude in FY26 this is a reduction of $22,221.

-A repayment for the engineering for Gateway is starting in FY27 for $1,360.

-Overall there is a reduction in expenses in FY26 so this would reduce the revenue raised from user fees from $394,010 to $319,785.  The difference could be put into the Wastewater Capital Reserve to save for the 20-year upgrade. 

Cote summarized there are a lot of things left status-quo but they are looking at getting rid of one phone company. There are small increases as the cost of everything increases.  

Arneson presented the balances for Wastewater Restricted and Unrestricted funds:

There were $458,674 in Wastewater Unrestricted funds at the audited end of FY25.  The projected end of FY26 Balance is $390,660.  The projected FY27 Wastewater budget is $845,785 which means that there should be at least 15% or $126,868 left in Wastewater Unrestricted funds.   

The Projected end of FY26 Balances for Wastewater Restricted funds are $169,933 in Water Capital, $188,305 in Short Term Capital, and $106,350 in Collection System.

Arneson presented the balances for the Fire Protection Calculation

The 5% of the Total Water Budget is $20,404.  There is $18,098 for 48% Tank loan which means a total of $38,503 that is charged to the taxpayers’ general budget.  


Follow up on funding alternatives for the wastewater treatment facility 20-year upgrade
Timestamp: 0:46
https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Water_Sewer_Commission/Meetings/2026/03/3b01_Rate_Increases_for_Repayment_Alternatives.xlsx

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Water_Sewer_Commission/Meetings/2026/03/3b02_Rate_Increases_for_Repayment_Alternatives_including_Commercial_Rates.xlsx

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Water_Sewer_Commission/Meetings/2026/03/3b03_User_Rate_Analysis_-_V5_-_Alt_A.xlsx

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Water_Sewer_Commission/Meetings/2026/03/3b04_User_Rate_Analysis_-_V5_-_Alt_B.xlsx

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Water_Sewer_Commission/Meetings/2026/03/3b05_User_Rate_Analysis_-_V5_-_Alt_C.xlsx

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Water_Sewer_Commission/Meetings/2026/03/3b06_User_Rate_Analysis_-_V5_-_Alt_D1.xlsx

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Water_Sewer_Commission/Meetings/2026/03/3b07_User_Rate_Analysis_-_V5_-_Alt_D2.xlsx

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Water_Sewer_Commission/Meetings/2026/03/3b08_User_Rate_Analysis_-_V5_-_Alt_E1.xlsx

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Water_Sewer_Commission/Meetings/2026/03/3b09_User_Rate_Analysis_-_V5_-_Alt_E2.xlsx

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Water_Sewer_Commission/Meetings/2026/03/3b10_Notes_on_1__Option_Tax_Alternative.pdf

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Water_Sewer_Commission/Meetings/2026/03/3b11_User_Rate_Analysis_-_V6_1__Option_Tax.xlsx

Wolaver summarized that they were all in agreement to get rid of the 30-year loan options.  

Cote summarized the round table in Montpelier with all the septage receivers.  They are one of a few places that wants to increase the amount of septage they take.  Montpelier and Richmond handle 35% of all the septage in the State of Vermont.  Cote stated that they have Congressional money earmarked for dewatering as part of the septage receiving upgrade.  Cote reviewed the rule of thumb to never charge less for septage then you do the rate payers.  The average rate for receiving septage is $0.089 and Richmond charges $0.085 which is not the lowest but on the low end.  There is a fine line for the breaking point of haulers due to the distance to Richmond.  Montpelier increases their rate every year similar to how Richmond changes it’s rates for user.

Arneson presented the User Rate Analysis and suggested that Hoyle-Tanner could put a 1.5-2% increase in septage rates each year.  Hill summarized the risk of overestimating revenues for septage that might not show up and ends up on the rate payers.  Cote confirmed that haulers are encouraged if they go to 24/7 receiving. Hill expressed concern about 24/7 receiving as residents might be woken up by the truck traffic on Esplanade.     Hill observed that there are quiet hours in the Village.  Cote stated that in the summer months, he will have four trucks ready to dump at 6:30 AM. Rabideau suggested a goal of 30,000 gallons of septage a day and increasing the rate by 1.5%  every year.  Arneson notes that Hoyle-Tanner had a septage rate increase at 3.5%. Cote explained Montpelier’s ordinance that charges a few if a septage hauler brings in a bad load that damages the plant.  Wolaver and Cote discussed having a contract with haulers where they would have a lower rate if they guaranteed a certain number of gallons a day.  

Arneson presented the growth models where one is adding two or so customers per year and the other one is bumping it by double digits every 3-4 years.  Hill expressed concern about that being plausible.  Farr preferred the slower growth model.

Arneson presented the taxpayer sharing options. Wolaver stated that his pitch would be the Town needs to have restaurants which serves everybody including taxpayers.  Rabideau observed that a $500,000 house would pay ~$2,500 a year.  Hill stated that he does not think that is ever going to fly. Wolaver and Arneson reviewed that if they set a tax rate of $20 per $100,000 in home value then that would provide ~$150,000 per year to go towards the bond payment.  

Cote asked about the $50,000 a year for future Capital Expenses.  Arneson stated that he would ask about that.  

Arneson presented the Local Options Tax. Farr stated it would be interesting to compare that to the taxpayer’s adding $20 per $100,000 in house value.  Hill observed that some people have talking about using the Local Options Tax to fund improvements to the Town Center. Wolaver stated they would follow up on which towns around Richmond have a Local Options Tax and to gauge how businesses might react to the tax.  

Arneson summarized that they will look at funding models with a 20-year loan, 30,000 gallons in septage receiving, conservative growth, and a Local Option Tax.  Arneson stated that he will confirm the fee for future Capital Expenses.  

Arneson summarized they could look at funding options with or without the Local Options Tax and taxpayer contributions. Arneson stated that he will send the feedback to Hoyle-Tanner and schedule them for an upcoming meeting.


Discussion of next steps in exploring locations for the wastewater pumpstation

Timestamp: 1:54

Arneson reviewed the three different options. One option is rebuilding it in the same place but that includes some elevation and screening concerns.  The second option is on the Kart property down the road but access is a question.  The third option is across from Bressor’s house by the bridge which needs to be checked for ledge.  Arneson estimated that it would cost $3,000-$4,000 to drill some test pits. The access question at the Kart property would require about $1,500 to do some research on the deeds.  Arneson confirmed that the Town would have to purchase some property unless it is rebuilt in the same space.  Poley stated that she was not in favor of putting it on the Kart property and is in favor of keeping it where it is.  Wolaver suggested that they start conversations with Bressor about the cost of obtaining the property by the bridge.  Farr stated that she preferred keeping it where it is.  Cote confirmed that to rebuild in that location is a lot more expensive because it is in the floodplain.

Farr moved to approve conducting ledge probes on the Bressor property in an amount not to exceed $6,000.  Rabideau seconded.
Roll Call Vote: Farr, Hill, Sander, Rabideau, Wolaver in favor.  Motion approved.

Discuss Items for Next Agenda:

-Housing Committee presentation
-Funding Alternatives for 20-year Upgrade
-Septage Rate Comparison


Adjournment

Hill moved to adjourn.  Rabideau seconded.

Roll Call Vote: Farr, Hill, Sander, Rabideau, Wolaver in favor.  Motion approved.

Meeting adjourned at: 8:30 PM

Chat file from Zoom: None