Richmond panel weighs 1% local option tax to help pay for $20 million wastewater overhaul

Town manager Josh Arneson told the Richmond Water & Sewer Commission on July 6 that renovations to the town’s wastewater treatment facility are likely to cost about $20 million and will require a significant revenue plan to repay bonds.

“That price tag’s gonna be up around $20,000,000 once all is said and done,” Arneson said, summarizing consultant estimates and the scale of needed machinery and process upgrades.

Why it matters: without new non-rate revenue the commission’s modelling showed near-term residential sewer bills rising substantially; under one scenario the average residential bill in the later years would be lower with a local option tax (LOT) than without it. Arneson said a LOT could generate on the order of $300,000 per year based on 2024 state sales figures and the state’s own checks of his estimate, and that one payback model would dedicate about 50% of that revenue to bond payments on the wastewater project.

What the commission heard: commissioners and attendees questioned the precision of the revenue estimates and the fairness of broad LOT language. Several members warned that a broadly worded question that permits proceeds to be used for any municipal project could undermine voter support.

“Broad language is likely to have a chilling effect on voters,” one commissioner said, urging explicit dedication or a sunset provision. Business owners and residents asked for clearer, side-by-side comparisons showing how the LOT would change household and business bills versus a rate-only approach. Mike Parent, who manages the Masonic Block and lives in the village, said he favored asking out-of-towners to share costs but supported a sunset tied to the wastewater bond: “If you put this proposal up … without a sunset, I cannot see that’s just another tax,” he said.

Operational context: the commission and plant staff said the existing wastewater budget is roughly $1 million annually and that bond repayments could reach or exceed $1 million per year at peak borrowing — a figure that, absent LOT revenue, would put larger near-term increases on existing system users. The commission discussed several alternatives including more aggressive user-rate increases, seeking grants, and a property-tax add-on, and noted state-administered programs such as the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and other financing options.

Next steps: the commission asked staff to refine the models, provide simpler public-facing comparison tables and FAQs, and pursue additional data (including contacting larger local retailers about in-town vs. out-of-town sales where possible) before the select board considers a ballot article. Commissioners also said they would check legal details (including whether an LOT question would be handled as a public question on the floor of town meeting or require other procedures) and consult the town attorney on wording and timing.

Arneson said the commission could present a narrowly worded option (LOT proceeds dedicated to the wastewater bond for a defined period) or a broader option, but emphasized that final language and timing would rest with the select board. The commission agreed to follow up and provide more digestible comparisons for voters before any formal ballot question is drafted.