Waterville Valley, NH – The annual Waterville Valley Town Meeting convened on March 10, 2026, addressing critical infrastructure projects, the town’s operating budget, and future development considerations. The meeting, which saw a significant turnout, included initial election results and extensive discussions on several warrant articles.
The meeting began with a moment of silence to honor and remember former Town Manager Mark Decoteau and other community members lost in the past year (link). The Select Board Chair, Richard Rita, acknowledged the dedication of town staff in the interim and provided an update on the search for a new Town Manager, noting that three candidates are currently being interviewed (link). The Chair also highlighted the town’s entry into a “new era” with potential major development on the horizon and the establishment of several new committees, including a Financial Analysis Committee (link).
Election Results Announced
Before proceeding with the warrant articles, the Moderator announced the results of the day’s elections. All candidates running for office were elected, and all zoning amendments passed. The question regarding tax collector duties also passed. A unique outcome was a tie in the write-in race for Supervisor of the Checklist, with two write-in candidates each receiving two votes. The Select Board will determine the outcome of this tie (link). A clear winner was declared for Trustee of the Trust Funds.
Wastewater Treatment Facility Bond Approved
Article 3, seeking to raise and appropriate $75,200,000 for new wastewater collection and treatment facilities, was a central point of discussion. The Select Board unanimously recommended approval, emphasizing the urgency of replacing the 55-year-old plant, which can no longer meet federal discharge permits (link). The cost estimate for the project has risen significantly from an estimated $42 million a few years ago to an estimated $117 million all-in by 2031, a figure the Board described as “all but ruinous” to the town’s finances (link).
The Select Board outlined several strategies to mitigate costs, including pursuing an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) from the EPA to avoid substantial daily fines, addressing infiltration and inflow issues in the collection system, implementing value engineering recommendations, and reducing the plant’s size for current needs while ensuring future expandability with developer contributions (link). The Municipal Services Director highlighted the Mad River’s classification as an “outstanding resource water,” leading to one of the strictest discharge permits in the U.S., and the need for groundwater/stormwater treatment due to the facility’s tight footprint (link).
Arguments against the proposed bond focused on the plant’s size and cost. A licensed engineer with 25 years of experience in the industry expressed respect for the engineering process but raised concerns about the proposed plant’s size and associated cost. She stated that while a new plant was necessary, she would only support it if it were “right sized” and priced appropriately. Another resident echoed concerns about the plant’s size, suggesting that downsizing could yield substantial savings. The resident criticized the engineering firm’s assumptions, particularly the projection of a full Town Square build-out within ten years, calling it “folly” given historical development rates. The resident also questioned the inclusion of $11 million for a new pipeline to the mountain, arguing that the original 1986 agreement for this infrastructure had expired in 2006 and had not been legally extended, thus removing the town’s obligation to fund it. A resident further challenged the town’s financial responsibility for the mountain pipeline, citing the 1986 agreement which, in their interpretation, stipulated that the ski area, not the town, was responsible for repayment of financing. The resident highlighted the disproportionate cost of the $117 million project relative to Waterville Valley’s small property tax base, asserting that it was “three times as more expensive” than even the most egregious comparable project cited by town counsel. The same resident also accused the Select Board of not aggressively pursuing alternative funding, such as federal grants, and of “dragging their feet” on cost-saving measures.
A resident proposed an amendment to reduce the bond amount to $25 million, arguing that the proposed plant was too large and that a lower authorization would provide better leverage in negotiations and prevent a “ruinous” tripling of the tax rate (link). The resident detailed the basis for the proposed $25 million amendment, explaining that it removed the mountain pipeline and its associated engineering costs, while retaining necessary elements like lagoon decommissioning, site work, and a new workshop. She further explained that the reduction in process costs was achieved by downsizing the Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) system to two units instead of one and incorporating 10-15% savings from value engineering, leading to a revised total project cost of $67 million (link). The Municipal Services Director countered that such a reduction was not feasible due to MBR (Membrane Bioreactor) regulations requiring redundancy for innovative treatment technologies, citing the costly example of Epping’s wastewater facility (link). The amendment failed, and Article 3 was subsequently approved by secret ballot with 107 “yes” votes to 28 “no” votes, meeting the required three-fifths majority (link).
Road and Utility Improvement Bonds
Several articles related to road and utility improvements were presented. The Director of Public Works, Megan Boobar, provided an overview of the town’s infrastructure challenges, including pavement deterioration and aging utilities, noting that $3 million has already been spent on three miles of road reconstruction in recent years (link).
Article 4: Snow’s Mountain Road, Greeley Hill Road, and Jasinski Road Repaving
- This article initially sought $5,050,000 for engineering, permitting, site work, drainage, and repaving. An amendment was made to reduce the amount to $4,500,000 based on recent bid results (link). The Director of Public Works explained that Snow’s Mountain Road requires full-depth reconstruction due to aging water lines and significant drainage issues, with a closed drainage system being the most cost-effective solution (link). A resident noted the road’s poor condition and frequent water main breaks, which affect the entire town’s water supply (link). Article 4 passed with 101 “yes” votes to 27 “no” votes, exceeding the three-fifths majority (link).
Article 5: Snow’s Mountain Road and Greeley Hill Road Sewer Line
- This article proposed $1,200,000 for a new sewer line. An amendment increased the amount to $1,600,000 due to bid results (link). The Municipal Services Director stated this was intended to extend sewer service to these roads, aligning with a past consensus that the entire town should be connected if a new wastewater facility is built (link). A resident questioned the cost, noting that homeowners are not required to connect unless their septic systems fail, and suggested alternative fairness mechanisms like a sewer district or rent (link). Concerns were also raised by a resident about the potential for the line to deteriorate if underutilized (link). Article 5 failed to pass, receiving 68 “yes” votes and 64 “no” votes, falling short of the required three-fifths majority (link).
Article 6: Jasinski Road Sewer Line
Article 7: Valley Road Engineering
- This article requested $221,000 for engineering and permitting for Valley Road, the town’s most heavily traveled road, which has experienced a sinkhole and pavement degradation (link). The funds are also crucial for continuing the FEMA reimbursement process. Article 7 passed with 93 “yes” votes to 27 “no” votes, meeting the three-fifths majority (link).
Article 8: Lost Pass, Cascade Ridge, and Beanbender Road Engineering
- A request for $190,000 for engineering for these roads, with Lost Pass Road noted as the “worst road in town” for plowing (link). This article requires a secret ballot and a three-fifths majority to pass.
Article 9: Tripoli Road Engineering and Repaving
- This article sought $120,000 for engineering and repaving Tripoli Road, an alternate route out of town and a heavily used access to the Livermore parking area. The Director of Public Works expressed hope that the Forest Service would allow a reclaim and repave, which would be more cost-effective than a full rebuild. This article requires a secret ballot and a three-fifths majority to pass.
Operating Budget Discussion
The meeting then moved to Article 12, the town’s operating budget. The Interim Town Manager, Stephen Royer, presented the proposed budget, which included a 12% year-over-year increase. A resident challenged this, stating that the proposed budget represented a 15.5% increase over actual spending from the previous year, and an average of 16% annual increase in general tax spending over the last three years, which the resident deemed “way out of whack with our historical averages” (link). The resident also noted a discrepancy with the financial consultants’ assumption of a 3% year-over-year operating expense increase in their tax rate projections. The Select Board Chair, Richard Rita, clarified that the budget is developed through a line-item incremental, zero-based budgeting process, aiming to keep non-personnel expenses close to the Municipal Cost Index (MCI) rather than a fixed percentage increase (link).
A resident expressed frustration over property taxes nearly doubling in eight years, rising from approximately $8,000 to over $14,500. The resident called the situation “unacceptable” and proposed an amendment to reduce the budget to a clean $7 million (link). He argued that the town had a $303,000 surplus from the previous year, largely due to unfilled positions, and that the proposed $7 million would still provide $700,000 more than the previous year’s actual spending. The Interim Town Manager, Stephen Royer, explained that the proposed budget already accounted for three-quarters of a year’s salary for the four vacant positions (two in wastewater, one in DPW, and the Town Manager), and that the surplus funds were necessary to successfully recruit for these critical roles (link).
A former Select Board member countered that a $7 million budget, after accounting for mandatory debt service, would leave virtually no funds for employee raises or recruitment, jeopardizing the retention of the town’s “best group of employees we have ever had” (link). Other residents echoed sentiments of being “pissed” and on fixed incomes, arguing that the board had not “sharpened the pencil” enough and that the town could find ways to cut costs without impacting essential services or personnel (link). A resident challenged the notion that cuts couldn’t be found, stating that if the board couldn’t figure it out, he and others would help. He also criticized the board for “playing the pity card” with employees and for the “unacceptable” 16% increases over several years (link). The Select Board Chair, Richard Rita, acknowledged the frustration but stated that current increases were a consequence of past underinvestment in capital reserves and major projects (link).
The amendment to reduce the operating budget to $7 million passed by a show of cards (link). The amended Article 12 was then put to a secret ballot vote and passed with 92 “yes” votes to 12 “no” votes (link).
Aerial Rights Petition for Gondola Project
Article 11, a petition to authorize the Select Board to lease air rights over public lands, was also discussed. The Resort General Manager, Tim Smith, a Waterville Valley resident, presented the article, clarifying that it does not approve a gondola project or authorize construction, but merely provides the legal authority for the town to consider negotiating such rights under RSA 48-B (link). He noted that the resort is currently in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, with an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) expected to be completed in late 2027.
A resident proposed an amendment to ensure that any negotiated lease agreement would be brought back to a future town meeting for approval, which passed (link). The Select Board supported this amendment, emphasizing the importance of town buy-in for any final agreement (link).
Concerns were raised by residents about the scope of air rights, clarifying that this article pertains only to public lands (roadways) and not private condominium properties, though negotiations with private owners are also ongoing (link). A resident noted the potential for revenue generation for the municipality from such leases, as well as the need to integrate infrastructure considerations like parking and shuttles into any future development plans (link). Article 11 passed by a show of cards (link).
The meeting was recessed until the following evening at 6 p.m. to address the remaining warrant articles.