Richmond housing panel to press water & sewer commission for policy, capacity and funding answers ahead of Dec. 1 meeting

A majority of members of the Richmond Housing Committee said the town’s ability to support new housing depends on resolving water and sewer policy, capacity and financing questions raised during the committee’s Oct. 28 meeting.

Mark, a housing committee member who presented the town plan to the select board last week, summarized the board’s reaction and members’ follow-ups: the committee should learn whether the water & sewer district’s current policy prevents any line extensions, how much capacity the treatment plant and wells have, and what funding mechanisms could make extensions feasible. ‘‘We need talking points for December 1st,’’ the group agreed.

Virginia, a committee member, said three issues stood out from the select-board discussion: water and sewer feasibility; a disputed $200,000 payment tied to a Champlain Housing Trust (CHT) project that may not be available until March 2029; and an invitation from Morgan, chair of the water & sewer commission, to convene a community consensus process. ‘‘One piece was water and sewer, one piece was money and one piece was community,’’ Virginia said.

Connie, the committee clerk, urged the group to prepare specific questions for the upcoming commission meeting: why the district’s self-imposed policy effectively ‘‘doesn’t allow expansion,’’ how that policy was adopted and changed in the past, and whether mechanisms exist to spread extension costs beyond the handful of current users who now shoulder most charges. ‘‘We should ask them what their opinions are of the fact that basically it’s a don’t pass go when it comes to funding expansion,’’ she said.

Committee members flagged several practical extension targets that could unlock housing opportunities: the gateway area (noting significant floodplain constraints), stubs at the Far Farm site where water and sewer already end, and a roughly 90-acre Barrett parcel near St. Mary’s Cemetery on Cochran Road that could be walkable to the village if infrastructure were available. One member estimated a $2 million threshold to ‘‘get water started’’ at the gateway, a figure the committee said they would seek to clarify with the commission.

Members agreed on three near-term tasks: (1) prepare concise talking points and a question list for the Dec. 1 water & sewer commission meeting focused on policy rationale, capacity, and finance options; (2) assign a small team to investigate the Champlain Housing Trust/Bordon Street loan/repayment question and report back on whether the $200,000 referenced by some is available or simply a delayed repayment; and (3) determine whether a regional CHIP grant application could be pursued and what its requirements are.

The committee stopped short of recommending a specific funding approach. Members discussed options such as stormwater or user fees, town-managed housing trust funds, or developer-led financing in which private firms assume up-front engineering and permitting costs. ‘‘People that develop land do it for a business and they’re smart,’’ one member said, describing how visible infrastructure makes parcels attractive to developers.

The committee plans to send a small delegation to the Dec. 1 water & sewer commission meeting and to report back. Until that meeting and the CHT investigation, members said, the committee could not recommend a single path forward. The committee also noted that community engagement will be necessary if policy changes or new fees are proposed.

The committee’s next combined November–December meeting was set for Dec. 9; members canceled the Nov. 25 meeting and will use Dec. 9 to review findings and track follow-up tasks.