Water and Sewer 4/20/26

Printable version

Water and Sewer Minutes 04-20-26 246 KB

Web version

Town of Richmond

Meeting of Water and Sewer Commission

Minutes of April 20, 2026

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

Members Absent: Bard Hill, Erin Farr left at 6:56 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, Jon Olin, Micheal, Paul Hobbs

MMCTV Video:  https://youtu.be/ra9utv9slUY?si=L_Ais10x8inVMrad 

 

Call to Order: 5:00 PM

Welcome: Wolaver

Public Comment: None

 

Additions or Deletions to the Agenda: None

Approval of Minutes, Warrants and Purchase Orders

Minutes:

Rabideau moved to approve the minutes of April 6, 2026.  Sander seconded. 

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

Purchase Orders:

Rabideau moved to approve purchase order number 5379 to East Engineering for engineering services for the Tilden Ave., Bridge St., and Cochran Rd. Waterline Replacement Project in the amount of $180,000. Sander seconded. 
Roll Call Vote: Farr, Sander, Rabideau, Wolaver in favor.  Motion approved.

Warrants: 

Farr moved to approve the Warrants as presented.  Sander seconded.

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

Items for Presentation or Discussion with those present

Consideration of approving the Step II agreement with Hoyle Tanner for engineering for the 20 year study
Timestamp: 0:04
https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Water_Sewer_Commission/Meetings/2026/04/4a1_email_from_John_Olin_on_request_to_proceed_with_Step_II.pdf

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Water_Sewer_Commission/Meetings/2026/04/4a2_EJCDC_Agreement_-_Richmond_WWTF_Upgrade_Step_II_-_2025-10-30__1_.pdf

Olin & Hobbs reviewed how the SRF program categorizes things and what would be eligible for loan reimbursement.  Engineering fees will need to be funded locally or from other funding sources. Olin reviewed other costs that were moved from the non-standard to standard category.  Olin stated that a total of ~$181,000 is considered non-eligible.  Olin & Hobbs reviewed the components of the architectural scope of the building scan.  A lot of it is the renovation work to the main habitable area of the building.  

Farr stated that the building was built in the 1970s and there is a good chance that floor tiles throughout the building have asbestos.  Olin stated that they are not doing heavy renovations but just replacing equipment. Olin stated they typically do it in the 30% design which is why they hold the bond vote until after the 30% design. Cote stated that the only tiles would be in the lab office as every floor below that is concrete.  Wolaver confirmed that if they are cutting a hole in the floor then they need an asbestos abatement.  Olin states that it will fit in with the contingency.

Olin stated that the estimated total fee for Step II is $869,844 in the contract and the construction cost is $10,000,000.  Construction costs of Step I and Step II together is closer to $17,000,000 with the contingency.  Arneson and Olin reviewed that they have $1.46 million in a Congressionally Directed Spending grant and the rest is through the CWSRF loan which will help pay for engineering and construction.  They are also looking at a bond bank loan because that can be deferred. Olin stated they are also talking to USDA Rural Development which might be grant funding at 10%.  Arneson stated that they are also chasing other grant opportunities.     

Rabideau moved to approve the Step II agreement for the Richmond wastewater treatment plant with engineering firm Hoyle Tanner for the 20-year study design fees and other itemized elements in the amount of $869,844.00.  Sander seconded.

Arneson reviewed that this would ultimately be reimbursed through the State loan program.  Olin stated that they would like to have the whole agreement signed and they will only expend up to $50,000 before the SRF program loan is cleared. Olin confirmed that they could continue doing work as they have not expended the previously approved cap of $70,000.  Olin stated that the 30% submission is bumped out to September 2026, 60% submission is January 2027, and 90% submission is June 2027.  They would be looking to bid for the Fall of 2027 and start construction in 2028. 

Rabideau withdrew his motion.

Rabideau moved to approve the Step II agreement with Hoyle Tanner for the engineering design of the Richmond wastewater treatment plant per the 20-year study in the amount of $869,844 subject to an initial limit of $70,000 pending agreement on the State Revolving Fund or other grants and aid as a source of these funds.  Sander seconded.
Roll Call Vote: Farr, Sander, Rabideau, Wolaver in favor.  Motion approved.


Follow up on funding alternatives for the wastewater treatment facility 20-year upgrade
Timestamp: 0:49
https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Water_Sewer_Commission/Meetings/2026/04/4b1_User_Rate_Alt_1_-_Base_Model.xlsx

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Water_Sewer_Commission/Meetings/2026/04/4b2_User_Rate_Alt_2_-_No_LOT.xlsx

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Water_Sewer_Commission/Meetings/2026/04/4b3_User_Rate_Alt_3_-_No_LOT_Add_Tax_Share.xlsx

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Water_Sewer_Commission/Meetings/2026/04/4b4_User_Rate_Alt_4_-_Add_Tax_Share.xlsx

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Water_Sewer_Commission/Meetings/2026/04/4b5_User_Rate_Alt_5_-_Add_Tax_Share_No_Loan_Suppression.xlsx

Farr asked if they spread out the cost to the other taxpayers in Town, would current users be excluded from the tax bill charge.  Farr observed that the users would actually pay more per year in one of the higher scenarios than if they had a house appraised at $500,000.  Olin observed that taking a portion of the loan to the full tax base has to reduce down the total cost to the users, because more people are paying in.  Olin stated that they should be comparing models of alternative one to alternative four for the taxpayer burden.  Olin summarized the request to keep the taxpayer cost at $20 per $100,000.  Olin reviewed the variables associated with different models explored in previous meetings.

Cote stated that the rate payers in Richmond get upset if we start banking money for future projects.  Olin stated that they are focused on the next 10 years and how to get a model of user rates and septage rates to finance the project. Cote observed that after an upgrade the repair bill will not be as huge as it is now.  Arneson stated the facility repair budget is currently $45,000 per year for water and wastewater.  Wolaver observed that the argument is to avoid mountains and valleys and to keep rates down over the long run.  Arneson compared the User Inputs and Results for alternative one and alternative four to observe the influence of adding a taxpayer burden.  Olin stated that nobody should worry about FY50 and beyond as that is when new Commission members would be making decisions for their user rates.  Every year, it is an adjustment.  Rabideau stated that he struggles with the taxpayer burden as it is accelerating faster than the background rate of inflation.  Olin summarized that they would help with public outreach with a website, public meetings, and hosting an event at the plant.  Olin confirmed that if someone puts in a 10-unit (instead of the model’s 2-unit growth) subdivision then it would help the payoff cause.  

Arneson reviewed the bond, the local option tax, and the tax burden sharing.  Olin summarized that they have the ability to decide what is best for the users and the system on a year-to-year basis, so it is not really a 60-year plan. Farr stated that she does not think they should use both the local option tax and the taxpayer burden. Rabideau stated that he would prefer the extra $100 a year on property taxes than paying 1% on everything he buys in Richmond.  Cote observed that the local option tax also applies to online orders that get delivered in Richmond.  Arneson and Farr debated voting on the local option tax in November versus March.  Olin illustrated scenarios where the SRF saved $200,000 over the 20-year loan in interest but less favorable than the bond bank scenario which cannot do loan suppression.  The discussion will be continued and the Selectboard will eventually get involved. 


Discuss pump station locations
Timestamp: 1:34

Arneson reviewed the possible locations down the road from the current location or across the street from Gary Bressor’s by the bridge or keeping it in its current place.  The Commission wanted to move forward with test drilling at the Bridge St location.  Arneson stated that they are scheduling it next week as soon as there is an agreement with Bressor to drill at those locations.  Olin summarized that they relocated a couple of the probe locations to avoid the risk of any utility location.  Cote stated that he does not have much paperwork on the current sewer line.  Cote summarized that he is meeting with Bressor this week and he is going to mark out things as he has a more exact drawing.  If the pump station were to be moved it would be ~3 ft above ground level where if it stays in its current location, it would ~ 8ft above ground.  


Consideration of setting a date for the Annual Meeting
Timestamp: 1:48

Arneson reviewed that they typically hold the Annual meeting the Tuesday after the second regular Water/Sewer meeting in May.  Arneson suggested that they wait to set the actual date at the next meeting to make sure they would have quorum.


Update on easement obtainment for the Tilden Ave., Bridge St., and Cochran Rd. Waterline Replacement Project
Timestamp: 1:52

Arneson summarized that they have all the easements in hand and all the information for the PTTRs.  Arneson stated that they are going to have a contract signing later this week or next, a pre-construction meeting in early May, and breaking ground in June.


Superintendent’s report
Timestamp: 1:54

Cote stated that the estimate for the filter cloth is closer to $10,000.  Cote stated that the filter tank estimate is $53,000 because they have to change both filter tank program setups for SCADA.  He does not see spending that money right now, but it only gives them one filter that works.  Cote illustrated that everything that is computerized in the plant is outdated as it is 20-years old.  They do not make parts or pieces to replace the filters and control panel.  

Cote stated that water has been rock solid and they are working on 20 Zenner meters still with trouble codes.  There will be 4-5 days where they are good but then there will be a day when there’s unavailable reading and then a lot of gallons in one hour the next day.  There was one meter that was truncated right so Cote had to physically the meter for billing.  Going forward, there should be flawless readings on the bill.


Review of Consumer Confidence Report and PFAS data
Timestamp: 2:04
https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Water_Sewer_Commission/Meetings/2026/04/4g1_CCR_2025_for_mailing.pdf

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Water_Sewer_Commission/Meetings/2026/04/4g2_PFAS_Data_2026__1_.pdf

Cote reviewed that the Consumer Confidence Report data is generated by the State and verified by the Water/Sewer staff.  Every quarter they are required to test for PFAS, and the levels were going down again for the first quarter in this year.  The EPA is looking for more data points nationwide, so they are testing every quarter at $580 a test.  

Arneson stated that the Consumer Confidence Report will get mailed out to every single account holder.  It will also be posted on the website, Front Porch Forum, and in physical locations.  Everything was within the acceptable zones.
      

Review of draft FY27 Budget and Rates
Timestamp: 2:08
https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Water_Sewer_Commission/Meetings/2026/04/4h1_FY27_Water___Wastewater_budget_DRAFT_04-20-26.pdf

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Water_Sewer_Commission/Meetings/2026/04/4h2_FY27_Water___Wastewater_budget_DRAFT_04-20-26.xlsx

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Water_Sewer_Commission/Meetings/2026/04/4h3_FY27_Water_and_Wastewater_rates_DRAFT_4-20-26.xlsx

https://www.richmondvt.gov/fileadmin/files/Water_Sewer_Commission/Meetings/2026/04/4h4_WS_Rate_and_Budget_Charts_DRAFT_4-20-26.pdf

Arneson summarized that nothing changed on the Water or Wastewater budget since the last review.  On the Wastewater budget, they added in 5 years for the Gateway loan so that it matured in FY31, but all the numbers stayed the same.  The Water Restricted and Unrestricted funds stayed the same.  The Wastewater Capital will be closer to $9,000.  Arneson highlighted that it still gives them $193,000 over the 15% required.  That could buy a control panel if they needed to be flood ready.  

Arneson illustrated that the Water budget in FY26 was $387,796 which increased to $408,089 in FY27.  Arneson summarized how the rates are set based on the total budget and the Non-Core User Groups.  They are looking to raise $352,000 from Core Users based on the usage in the last 12 months, April 1 of last year to end of March this year.  In order to ensure that metered rates keep up with any conserved water they reduce that amount to 98% usage.  They add in the total number of fixed fees and then adjust the water rates to offset fire protection allocation to the school.  They always increase the School rate by 5% but allocate that reduction between Residential and Commercial based on their gallons used in the last 12 months.  The Residential rates go down from 61.9% to 58% and Commercial/Government from 31% to 30% and School increased from 6.1% to 11.1%.  The School does not pay the property tax for fire protection.  Arneson illustrated the formula that uses the percentages to raise $352,000 from Core Users.  Arneson stated that they want to cover a lot of their fixed costs with the Fixed Rate and Metered Usage.  In Residential they skewed towards 70% Metered Usage and 30% Fixed Rate.  In Commercial/Government it is 65% Metered Usage and 35% Fixed Rate.  In School it is 50%-50% split.  Those percentages are the basis for the rates.  Arneson highlighted the current Metered Usage and Fixed Rate for the Core User groups.  

Arneson illustrated the same process to calculate the Metered Usage and Fixed Rate for $845,785 Sewer budget.  Arneson asked if they wanted to keep those rates higher to put money back into the Reserve account to help pay down the future loan for the upgrades.  Wolaver stated that they are going to need money, so it does not make sense to lower rates.  Arneson reviewed the 10% rate increase projection over the next 3 years.  Arneson stated that he can play with the rates for the next meeting.
     

Discussion of septage rate
Timestamp:  2:27

Cote stated that they are not the lowest septage rate, but they are low.  Cote suggested increasing the rate by at least the cost of living.  Cote stated that they have been averaging 30,000 gallons a day in April.  Rabideau stated that Richmond’s rate is $0.08/gallon and the State average is $0.089.  


Update on Zenner customer online water usage accounts
Timestamp: 2:32

Arnson reviewed the issues he and Cote have experienced.  The online accounts still seem to be off for the time of day.  Cote stated the timing is accurate from his portal, so something is happening in the transfer.  Sander suggested that there are two different software packages that do not interface with each other.  Cote stated that it is getting better, but it is a very slow and painful process.  


Discussion of engaging with MGT to examine the pay grid with a focus on department heads
Timestamp: 2:35

Arneson stated that every year they increase the pay grade by the CPI.  He noticed that the Department Heads are getting similar pay to the second in charge when overtime is factored in.  Arneson reviewed that MGT would charge $4,500 to look at comparable Towns.  Arneson stated he will present a similar request to the Selectboard next week.  Rabideau stated that it is best management practice to make sure you know where you are in the labor market all the time.
    

Adjournment

Rabideau moved to adjourn. Sander seconded.
Roll Call Vote: Sander, Rabideau, Wolaver in favor.  Motion approved.

Meeting adjourned at: 7:39 PM 

Chat file from Zoom: None