SmartTranscript of House Environment-2025-02-06-9:00AM

[Chair Amy Sheldon ]: Okay. You're live. Alright. Good morning, and welcome to the House Environments Committee. This morning, we are going to be looking further at the three acre storm rule and hearing from a few affected citizens, with an and a and a town and, then give the agency of natural resources a chance to help us understand their perspective on this. So welcome, Paige. Kalita. [Paige Kalita ]: Thank you. Thank you for having me today. First of all, I wanna say I love my state. I love clean air. I love clean water. My husband and I have lived here for over thirty five years. We met at UVM. He was a soccer player on the nineteen eighty eight, eighty nine almost championship team. And so it's been exciting year for us, but we got a letter in August of this year from the state telling us that we live in a three acre parcel, and we are out of compliance with a stormwater permit. So needless to say, this was confusing, scary, worrisome, not something I ever thought I'd be dealing with as a homeowner. And I'd like to point out that this was not, excuse me, a law or a rule when I bought my home. So the letter, which you can see online and in front of you, is what we got in the mail. And I have put a red box around some of the areas to just sort of point out some things, the language in this that was scary to us. So, you know, we were notified that we if we didn't comply with this, there were all kinds of scary things that would happen that we needed to submit as NOI, all language that I didn't know anything about. You then scroll down to the third page of this. What if I don't comply? So if I don't comply, we can be subject to financial penalties, penalties, encumbrance on our properties, and scary things, in my opinion. So during this time, the neighborhood obviously started communicating and trying to figure this out. So a bunch of us have spent a lot of time, nights, select board meetings, trying to understand this. I didn't know anything about stormwater. It's not something I've ever studied or been, but I really do understand the effect of how it can affect Lake Champlain. And I am all for cleaning up Lake Champlain and having clean water. The other issue that this has created is a conflict between neighbors, between other residents in the town, between the neighborhood and select board, the neighborhood and the town. We've had several contentious select board meetings. There's been postings on front porch forum about why should I have to pay for your stormwater, and it's upsetting to say the least. Yes. And, you know, I've always felt that Vermont is a welcoming and a state where people get along for the most part, and this has really kind of pitted us against each other. The other issue is just the uncertainty that it brings. And I'll refer back to the last paragraph in the letter encumbrance to my property. So if for some reason I have to move because of a job change or whatever, what does that mean? Should I sell my home? Do I have to put money in escrow to deal with this? What is this gonna cost? There's just so many unanswered questions. And the other thing I'd like to point out is that we have about a twelve percent property tax increase this year. On top of that and the potential cost from this, we feel like we're really being taxed out of our home. I I don't know if we can stay if we have to pay this. We probably it's just not in our budgets. So the next slide I would like to show you is exhibit B. And this is an overview of Richmond. I got this from the ANR mapping school where you can put layers on and off that show property lines, agricultural area, highways, things like that. So if you look at this, the greens area is the Southview development. That's where I live. Right below that you can see eighty nine. And this is all uphill. It's just a big hill. We're on the spine of the Green Mountains. So everything flows down from there, under eighty nine through a farm and eventually to the Winooski River. The orange and blue and purple areas are adjoining neighborhoods. Initially, the ANR when they sent their letter, told us that the blue, orange and green areas all had to get this permit. To me, that, I guess, makes sense. Their neighborhoods, they should have stormwater permits. It eventually got carved down to just the pink area. So those are the only homes that have to do this. Why is this? It's really confusing to me. And as I said before, all of this area is uphill. The purple neighborhood drains into the right side of the pink area in the orange and blue drain all down that road. The other thing to note is the green area is the Southview neighborhood. The longest road on that is Southview Drive. Now, why does just the pink ones have to do this? If you see the second slide, there's sort of a closer view of this. And you can sort of see how all of this area is uphill. You can see also the blue streams, which are where the water eventually drains. And it if you can see, it goes under the highway, under a railroad, through farmland, past a school, which is doing a three acre permit, and eventually into Wiganuski. Okay, exhibit C. Make this smaller. There. Okay. So this is a sort of bigger view into the Southview neighborhood. This is where I drew the pink line before. So the yellow lots have to do the permit, the green lots don't. So there are, you can see a big group of green lots on the top of this. That's the uphill area and newer, bigger homes. The yellow areas, the sort of the older part of the neighborhood, smaller homes. They've been there forty to years ago was probably when the first one was built. Then we have these sort of three little green areas. [Representative Sarah Austin ]: Those the first two at [Paige Kalita ]: the bottom are on Southview Drive. The top one on the right is was built by the builder of the neighborhood. Yet those parcels don't have to be in the permit. I I just don't understand it. So the explanation given to us by the ANR, if you see the second page of this, is the original hand drawn map by a developer of the South Bay neighborhood. It mostly reflects what was built, but not exactly. And that's what they've used along with a stormwater permit that was initially permitted for this neighborhood to determine who's in and who's out. Issue I have with this is if the goal is to reduce runoff, reduce phosphorus and clean up the lake, why are we only doing part of the neighborhood? It just doesn't make sense. So we've asked the NR about this, had a lot of conversations. And the other thing that they told us is that we have to build a system that accommodates for all of the water. So that means the yellow areas of the neighborhood have to pay for this, maintain it, do the permits, look for grants, funding, all of those things. But the green areas send us their water, and they don't have to be involved in any way financially, legally, time wise, any of those things. The other issue, which I'm sort of pretty clear from this, is cost. We've been told, and we don't have an engineering plan that's done yet, that this could cost between a half a million and a million dollars to do this in our neighborhood. Forty eight homes have to pay for this. The town of Richmond will be responsible for, I believe, it's, like, thirty percent of it. So that number per household is somewhere between ten and twenty thousand dollars. I I just makes me sick. Something I've learned through my education on this, and this screenshot is from public comment period on this law. I didn't know about this at the time. This was passed in twenty nineteen. The town of Richmond was notified in twenty twenty. I wasn't able to make any public comment on this. I never received a letter. I had no knowledge of this. The first time I learned about it was August of twenty twenty four. We learned during this time, as we started to get educated on this, that the town of Richmond was addressing this issue in twenty twenty three and had started the NOI. At a select board meeting, they went into executive session. And from what we've been told from this, a lot of information's been redacted, is that town attorney advised the town of Richmond to to withdraw the NOI because if they were the only name on it, they'd be fully responsible for the cost. And that didn't serve all of the residents in Richmond. So town did that. They withdrew the NOI, and I ended up us in August with an expired permit out of compliance. So in the public comment period of this, there were a lot of questions asked, and this is like a two hundred page doctrine. But a real number stands out to me. The estimate is that this affects five percent of residential homeowners in the state of Vermont. So the way I interpret that is you're asking five percent of us to pay to clean up the lake. In the town of Richmond, there are two residential sites, and it represents four percent of the homeowners in the town of Richmond. So to conclude, what do I think? I think this is not a scientific approach to the problem. They've picked my neighborhood because it was a stormwater permit forty years ago, or I even owned my property. So if we wanna clean up the lake and we're just picking properties because four years ago, there was a stormwater permit, it's not addressing the problem. Something that the ANR said in one of our meetings is that there are bigger neighborhoods out there with more impervious surface than mine, but they don't have to do this because they never had a stormwater permit because one wasn't required at the time the neighborhood was built. How is that fair? So my thoughts are maybe we should include exclude existing developments and focus on new construction. It's much cheaper to do this when you're building a neighborhood than to try to retrofit. There's so many questions that come up for me. If we have to do this and they say a settling pond should be on your property page, Do I give that land to my neighbors? Do I donate it? Do they buy it from me? Does the town buy it from me? What if my homeowner's insurance says, that's a liability. What if a kid drowns in that? I'm gonna raise your rates. Am I compensated for the loss of that property? Am I compensated for the reduction to the value of my property? What if I wanna sell my home, and the same time, a home five away from me is for sale? They don't have this issue because they're not in the three acre area. Which home would you buy? So final thought I I'd like to say is we had a big meeting with the ANR. Thank you. They came and tried to explain this to us. One of the employees made a statement that has really sat with me. He said, we have an obligation to see that these requirements are met, and we know not everybody likes them, but it often is what it is. I'm sorry. It was really hard to hear that. It is what it is when I'm faced with ten or twenty thousand dollars out of my pocket. The other big word from that is we. We have an obligation. Who's we? We is the state of Vermont. It's not me as an individual homeowner to pay for this for everybody. Thank you. Thank you [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: for your testimony and for joining us today. Members, if you have questions, I think for, well, Paige, will be you'll stay with us the rest of the morning, I think. So do do members have questions? Representative Ted Leavitt and then Austin. [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: With regard to I can't remember which slide it was, but the one that shows the neighborhood you live in plus I believe it's the uphill secondary subdivision. Which one? How much correspondence have you have with the neighbors in the uphill [Paige Kalita ]: So section? Yep. So initially, when we got this letter, this the letter was mailed to most of the green and orange and blue areas. So that's Southview, Mary Drive, and Hidden Plains, but not everybody got one. So we have sort of an email list through the neighborhood, but not everyone's on that. So emails started flying around. We've talked about it. And then the town of Richmond has been pretty supportive. They were, I would say, not so in the beginning, but I think they understand our position now. They've organized select board meeting. They had a big select board meeting, moved to the library, which was, like, three hours long. People from the a and r came, explained this. We were able to ask a lot of questions. So there has been correspondence. But since the properties that have been dropped off of the three acre list, we're now down to just the people that are affected by this. I met a neighbor recently who's, like, five houses away from me. I saw her at something, and she she just said, how's it going? And I said, oh, you know, it's it's stressful. And she said, yeah. I'm just putting my head down and just trying to get, you know, hoping I don't get picked. I know that people in the other areas are worried this may happen to them at some point, but I understand. Like, if if it wasn't me, I'd just stay out of it. K. I will say that they don't think it's fair. But, you know, there's been because people not involved go to the select board meetings, there there's been some chatter on front porch form about it, which is hard to read. You know? People saying this, you know, I shouldn't have to pay for this for you. And that's hard to hear because the goal is to clean up the lates. So they're they're saying I shouldn't have to pay for this, but they're asking me to. [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: How many in in how many, parcels or houses are in this, your area, the original? [Paige Kalita ]: Yep. So the green area is about seventy six, but the amount the affected homes are forty eight. [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: Representative Austin. [Representative Sarah Austin ]: So just to clarify, because I'm I'm hearing from my constituents too in Holchester about this. Is this an EPA mandate? So we'll [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: have more from it's part of our TMDL. Mhmm. And we'll have more from the agency of natural resources later in this morning's segment. So we'll be able to answer those questions, how it fits in with that with them. Further questions about this. Representative Loeber. [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: Thank you. Prior to you purchasing that property, did the plat the town of Richmond have a zoning ordinance or a billion? [Paige Kalita ]: So my understanding so this property that I the Southview neighborhood that I lived in was developed by a man named West Westall is his last name. One of the roads is Westall Drive. He started building you see the the right intersection where the the right line goes down? First, there were six homes built there in, like, the middle of nineteen eighties. Then he built more to the left. Then he went up to the top of the neighborhood in the non pink area, built twelve homes. Then he built the first part of Jonah, which is the one to the right. And he went bankrupt because he apparently built a house on a lot that was too the house was too close to wetland, so we had to tear the house down. So he filed bankruptcy, and the remaining, like, six lots, which is what I purchased, were put were sold by the bank. So I didn't buy from a developer. I bought a lot that was in bankruptcy from the bank. We hired a builder and built the house. Several more of the lots in my area were purchased by Fitzgerald, and then they built the middle section, which is the non pink area of, like, fourteen homes right right after me, like, the next year. So I never knew anything about stormwater permits. I I I just I I didn't know it was attached to my property or anything. The town has always managed them. And in fact, in a bunch of a lot of these select board meetings, and when they split off Mary Drive and Hidden Pines, the orange and blue area, they are still doing their stormwater permits. They're paying for them, managing them, applying for them because they're less expensive. They're, you know, four thousand dollars or something, but they won't do it for us because of the cost and the potential cost for the all of Richmond. And I I understand that. You know, there's that's not in the budget, in the Richmond budget to pay a million bucks for this one neighborhood. So, no, I didn't know there was a stormwater permit. We don't have an HOA. It's not something we've ever managed. It's always been done by the town. The town plows the roads, manages the roads. They've all they've managed the stormwater permits. And I don't know about all this, but at some point, the stormwater permit was deemed abandoned, and there was this orphan program. The Town took it over. It took you know, did that. They did the orphan program, and there was some grant funding for that. So they've been managing it all this time. And something to say, we we've had two major flooding events in Richmond the last two years, July twenty twenty three and July twenty twenty four. So the main road coming into my neighborhood, Brown's Trace Road, there was literally a river coming down it. We didn't have we've never had any damage in our neighborhood. The only damage that we've had is water coming from Brown's Chase Road into the neighborhood because there were blocked culverts and stuff. But our system as it exists works fine. [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: We actually I'm sorry. [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: We have [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: a bunch of witnesses. So [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: Just one more quick. One more question. There was you said caused damage. Was that responsibility of the town or a landowner? [Paige Kalita ]: I believe. And this is all there's a big bridge project happening on the highway, and I think it was from that. And another side note is down below us, along route two, the main road in Richmond, this bridge project has actually diverted a stream and caused a lot of flooding in where the mobile is was, and there's a new Bridge station bridge project. Yes. On the highway. Yeah. And and it literally is, like, keeps flooding this field, and the stream's actually been moved because of, like, earth that they've moved and runoff and all kinds of stuff. So there's been issues related to that that the towns had to deal with. [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: So the roads in your neighborhood, public roads, town roads? [Paige Kalita ]: Yes. They are. [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: Thank you for your testimony. I think we may have another question. [Paige Kalita ]: Thank you. Thank you for having me. [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: We now have Bill Houston joining us via Zoom. [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: Maybe it's Kai. [Bill Houston ]: Hello. This is Bill Houston. [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: Hello. Do you have a camera you wanna use? [Tom DiPietro ]: Oh, you [Bill Houston ]: got you got me. [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: Yes. Alright. Well, we're we're ready to hear your testimony. Yeah. Just do [Bill Houston ]: it. Okay. Well, anyway, thanks for inviting me to testify. My wife and I own a commercial industrial land on Panton Road in Vergennes. The parcel of land, I believe it was, like, fourteen acres. It's been divided into five lots. Two of them are owned by us still, and three of them are owned by other people. They've been sold off. It's had a stormwater permit on it since nineteen ninety eight. There are two vacant lots, two commercial buildings, and a self storage facility on the property. To our knowledge, there's never been any stormwater runoff issues. The system was engineered, and it was consists of grass lined swells. We have we've got an estimate now to upgrade the system. There again, that the system was before two thousand and two. It was built before two thousand and two. So we have gone through engineering, have gotten some estimates on it. It looks like it's gonna be over two hundred thousand dollars to upgrade, I believe it's a little over four acres of impermeable surface. And this will supposedly bring us into compliance with the new law. Basically, what's happened is it's unaffordable for the owners that that now own the property. And the other thing is we don't know if the old system doesn't work. It may be just as good as what's been designed to replace it. So anyway, there's oh, another thing I'd like to just mention, there's in this the industrial buildings that are there, there's twenty approximately twenty employees in two different buildings here. So I guess that's all I can say about that. If you would like to ask me any questions, I'll try to answer them. [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: Oh, okay. Thank you for your testimony. Representative Taglia Viet. [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: Have any water tests to show high phosphorus counts or any other pollutants been done on stormwater? Probably probably the trillions of money coming from those lands. [Bill Houston ]: Not that I know of. I, you know, I've talked to the state several times, but far as I know, they've never come out and looked at it. Well, they've looked at it I don't know. We're doing an audition ten years ago or eight years ago on a on the industrial building. They came out and said it looked great. So Okay. But that was visual. [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: Got your last name. Paige, were there any testing where the water is coming from your neighborhood as well? Or [Paige Kalita ]: No. Like [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: Are there further questions? Alright. Thanks for joining us, and, perhaps you can stay on the line with us while we hear from other witnesses. [Bill Houston ]: Yeah. I'll be able to stay until about ten o'clock, and then I've got another appointment. But, yes. Thank you. Appreciate it. [Representative Chris Pritchard ]: Thanks, man. Thank you. [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: Next up, we have Tom DiPietro. [Tom DiPietro ]: Morning, everybody. Tom DiPietro. I'm director of public works for for the city of South Burlington. I've been in that position for three years. Prior to that, I managed the city's stormwater utility for about sixteen years. And prior to that, I worked over at DEC in the stormwater division. So I guess what I wanted to provide today is a little bit of municipal perspective on this whole issue and sort of I know in some ways, South Burlington is a bit of an outlier because of our robust stormwater program that we've had since two thousand five. But we have quite a bit of experience dealing with this and trying to work with homeowners like Paige and industrial park owners like Bill to kind of resolve and come into compliance. So I've got a very brief couple of things I wanted to say, and then I thought maybe I'd open up to questions, kinda what's on your mind. So as I said, South Burlington has been in the center of all these state stormwater issues going back over twenty years now, kind of a lot of the stormwater impaired watershed issues in the state, kind of, we were the the epicenter of those, which drove a lot of policy. We've got about two hundred state stormwater permits in the city. That's just total. We have about forty seven sites in South Burlington that have over three acres of some pervious surface on them. Of those forty seven, fifteen do not yet have coverage under the state's ninety fifty permit or the so called three acre permit that you folks are talking about today. And of those fifteen, two are orphan systems. And I wanna talk about those a little bit as well because I wanna make sure we're all kinda using the same term here a little bit. Those ones are especially difficult to manage, but they've proven to be for us. And there's also three additional sites in the city that have expired permits, but they're not three acre sites. These are orphan sites. So they're less than three acre, but they have expired permits. So very similar concerns in those areas. So I think Paige has described in her testimony orphan systems. But just generally speaking, those are neighborhoods that were built by a developer. The developer sold off all the lots. It's no longer financially or legally involved with the neighborhood. Right? Maybe the town has taken over the roads and has managed, you know, road maintenance for however long. But the state stormwater permit exists for some of those areas. And pages is a great example in Richmond because we have situations in South Burlington where part of the neighborhood was built before, stormwater regulations and permits were required. So the main road in this half of the neighborhood doesn't have a permit. But on this side of the road, not inclusive of the road, they are covered under a permit, and they are being asked to do more work. So it just gets a little and you try to explain that to somebody that lives here versus their neighbor across the street, and it's really hard, to to comprehend sort of why that difference and why they're being treated differently. [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: Say that one more time. So speak because some of them were built later and already were subject to a stormwater permit. [Tom DiPietro ]: That's correct. So, you know, there's a a one acre threshold to be simple right now. With impervious surface, you have to get a state permit. Those thresholds are different back decades ago. So when this maybe before a state had a permitting program or the threshold was different, kind of this half of the area didn't have to get it. But then this was built ten years later. Stormwater regulations were in place. So now they have a state permit. So they're sort of in, right, for lack of a better term. They're they're part of a regulated entities. Like, agent Bill have described a little bit already. [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: Didn't we move to or are moving to a half acre? [Tom DiPietro ]: The permitting official. Yeah. So I'm gonna I think so. I'm gonna steer away from why we have this permit because I know Neil and Kevin are speaking after me, and I think they're better suited to answer that question. So why at the state level? I I do I [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: wanted to point out that we're moving to an even lower threshold. Yes. [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: One quick question. Yeah. That [Representative Rob North ]: that one acre perimeter, is that what went into place in two thousand two? [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: Is that why the two thousand two boundary here is So, [Tom DiPietro ]: I'm gonna let Kevin in Yeah. But Neil will give you the history. But, yeah, generally speaking, there's a couple different thresholds that pull you into getting a state permit or requiring a state permit. But I wanted to talk a little bit about what we're doing at the local level in South Burlington. Because like I said, we've had the stormwater utility. We were the first in the state in two thousand five. And we have some policies in place to really try to help folks come into compliance. And they're they're certainly they're very similar to other stormwater utilities, but in some ways, they're different. So, again, what we'll do to try to help folks out is we have we have three staff in our utility that deal with for the permitting, the engineering. We've also got maintenance staff. But, sort of our engineering staff will go out, and they'll provide some limited technical assistance to neighborhoods. When we own the roads, we pitch in part of the cost for those roads. That's a city policy decision on how we wanna handle it. Again, I don't know that other municipalities have made that decision. And we'll also spend our staff time, trying to get state grants and funds to try to help move these projects forward. So once we get through the engineering and the difficult conversations about what are we gonna build and where we're gonna build it, let's just kinda jump past those. We'll go out and we'll try to find grant funds. We'll administer those, which is, I think, another large effort. It's a big task to ask of a homeowner association or in the case of an orphan system, there's no association. So in one instance, our staff literally went door to door to let folks know, hey, we're trying to find a grant to help you resolve this issue. And I think some of the response they got was, wait, what issue? You know? So it definitely created some of that neighborhood strife. Sometimes we were the messenger. You know, we tell folks, hey. There's this issue. Our roads are part of it. Right? The city roads are part of it, but it's also all of your homes. So it does set up some of those antagonistic and difficult conversations and try to move forward with solutions. But we've worked through those in some cases. Certainly, grant funding that is available, it helps bring people to the table, but it doesn't solve all of the problems. As other folks have testified, these are expensive systems to build. Pre pandemic, we we've done quite a few projects. We estimated about seventy thousand dollars per impervious acre to implement solutions. Post pandemic, that's more, due to cost increases. And partially, some of the I'll quote, unquote, easier projects we had an ability to do prior to the pandemic. So nowadays, the cost of some of these projects is quite a bit more than seventy thousand dollars per impervious acre. And the rules change too. So some of the settling ponds, or, you know, the the manual, the state guidelines have changed as well. So we we're implementing, you know, constructed wetlands and things like that. [Representative Rob North ]: Representative, I believe, Dan? [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: You represent reference to stormwater permits. The city of Burlington has stormwater permits. Is the city responsible for some of its own stormwater permits for some of the maintenance of runoff? [Tom DiPietro ]: South Burlington. Yep. We have our own stormwater permits. We are a co permittee. So it's us because we own the roads. These permits run with the land. And so if you own impervious surface, you're sort of pulled in to be part of that permit. We're also an MS4 community, which is a whole different level of federally required permit and regulation that we have to comply with. And the the city itself [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: is actually, subject to fines if the [Tom DiPietro ]: city does not comply. Is that correct? We we could be. Yeah. I mean, we've always we've never been fined, but, you know, that that's in the rules. [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: I'm fine. Can you explain a little bit about what an MS four is for for folks? [Tom DiPietro ]: Yeah. So this is a federal permit program usually based on population density. And with once you're identified as being an MS four community based on size, there's these six minimum measures you have to implement. It's very it's different than the state permit program in some ways, but it's also very related. Right? It's all about stormwater. So some of those minimum measures are like education. Right? Doing stormwater education. Why does stormwater pollute? Best management practices, putting those in place. Right? So, and there's any that goes along with that. You know, under each of those six minimum measures, there's a list of things that we have to comply with and do in a report on on a manual basis. And so many of the larger communities with these stormwater impaired watersheds are MS4s. So there's the lake phosphorus TMDL, but there's also these stormwater impaired stream TMDLs. That that we're working to implement as well. [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: And I I see you represent Pritchard, but I just wanna follow-up with how does MS four interact or relate to the three acre? [Tom DiPietro ]: So, again, different permit programs. But I will note. So with under our MS four permit, we do have the ability to pull under state permits. So let's just say there was a permit for city hall. It could then take that permit and sort of roll it under my MS four. And I could also do that on these other permits that we're talking about. So we could go to city council, ask to do it. And the city has policies in place to sort of protect us from some liability there because, again, we have requirements under, the phosphorus TMDL and the stormwater TMDLs, etcetera. So when we pull somebody in under those permits, we kind of get the load reductions that they're required to do as well. So the way we handle it when we pull someone in is we say, okay. You've gotta upgrade your system to the current standards. Right? So if there was a system out there, an older neighborhood that didn't have stormwater treatment, we say, upgrade to the current standards, and then we'll roll you under. And then at that point, the city would maintain the permitting, maintenance, and all that going forward. It is a big lift to get those systems upgraded as you're hearing. Right? So it's not that we remove the need for permitting. We just offer a bit of a alternative route to permit compliance, I would say, so you can work more at the local level to organize and collaborate to get that work done. [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: Representative Prichard. Is there point [Representative Chris Pritchard ]: source water testing as part of this plan that ultimately goes to the people to you know, I I've heard that there's the water has not been tested. So how do you determine what the Yeah. The plan is for being compliant? [Tom DiPietro ]: That's a great question, Debaki. [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: And how [Representative Chris Pritchard ]: do we know that there isn't a problem? So there [Tom DiPietro ]: are some of the basics of how does stormwater pollute. Right? I always try to explain it. It pollutes in two ways. One, obviously, all the stuff it picks up off parking lots and roads as it flows to a stream in the lake, all that stuff washes in. That's one way. [Representative Chris Pritchard ]: Doesn't I don't swales filter that stuff? [Tom DiPietro ]: They can. Yeah. But also, it's it's just erosion in streams. So when you create that extra volume, if that water is not soaking into the ground, if it's all rushing off a parking lot, it'll ruin stream banks. Whether that sediment's coming off a parking lot or eroding from a stream bank, it's all sediment that contains phosphorus and those pollutants sort of roll down into the lake, right, or flow down when they're into the lake and have impacts on the streams. To the specific question of testing. So the state has treatment standards in place. Those treatment standards developed through a rigorous engineering process. So they know that when you build a gravel wetland, you're gonna get this type of removal. So there's not testing that is required as part of the state permits. It is assumed if you build the system to the standards and you size them correctly, you're gonna get this amount of removal based on a lot of studies that [Representative Chris Pritchard ]: have been done around the country. That's a pretty expensive assumption to make for these folks in this in this guy. [Tom DiPietro ]: So this is yeah. So I think those are great questions to ask of, our state regulators too, as well because, you know, we're we're, a regulated entity much like, other folks you've heard from this morning. We we work constantly to maintain compliance and get ourselves and others into compliance with these regulations. [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: Representative Taglia. [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: I believe we heard testimony a couple of times about point source. I I'm not sure if I'm remembering this correctly, but phosphorus TMD l from, like, sewage and stormwater runoff overflows. [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: Mhmm. [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: It's, like, four percent. In those overflows with those overflows because of whether it be lack of funding or whatever lack of upgrades, how much over the past three years has the city of Burlington paid in fines because of the excess phosphorus in Lake Champlain? Once again, I'll correct [Tom DiPietro ]: your representative. I'm city of South Burlington. [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: Okay. [Tom DiPietro ]: I don't know the fines Burlington has paid. Okay. I can tell you that we don't have combined system in South Burlington, just a benefit in one sense. But because that water is disconnected, [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: we have a lot more water that flows to [Tom DiPietro ]: our local stream and causes corrosion. And so that's sort of our challenge. It's it's not the CSO challenge that Burlington and other communities with CSOs happen. It's the stormwater impaired streams. [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: So I would appreciate if you would since you've kinda grown up with city of South Burlington a little bit, and if you can relate to the Richmond challenge that we just heard laid out and that the delta, if you will, between a town like the size of Richmond versus a town like like city of South Burlington. And just thoughts you have. I guess I'm particularly interested in the concerns brought up around the town's liability and how that interacts. [Tom DiPietro ]: Yeah. So I'm happy to see that you're receiving testimony from some of the residents, right, that are impacted by this because we hear those stories at the local level all the time. People are saying, hey. This has cost me ten thousand dollars. I've got car payments and kids to put me out. This is a real impact, which has certainly driven some of our policy where we do cost sharing and we go out and we try to find grants. And even despite that, it's still rather expensive. So I think to your point about how we're you know, Richmond doesn't have the staff. I think just in local funds raised through stormwater utility fees this current year, we're two point nine million dollars in South Burlington is what we raise. So if you have a single family home, you pay about ninety two dollars ninety two dollars and sixteen cents a year. And I'm not gonna get into the utility billing. It's too but if you're a single family homeowner, that's what you're putting in. Right? Within our utility budget, I think the whole budget this fiscal year is four point two million. So some of that's grants and other sources of income that we've got over time. I don't know what Richmond's budget is, stormwater. I I don't think it's that. And like I said, I've got three staff, engineering level kind of folks project managers, if you will. We've got four folks that do maintenance, kind of our maintenance crew in South Burlington. From a liability perspective, that's an interesting one because I think we here in South Burlington have taken on a bit more liabilities or liability and have been willing to take on a little bit more liability than others, because of those resources that we have. But it is a tricky one. So even when we reach out [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: to help, if we were [Tom DiPietro ]: to go get a grant, some of those grant requirements might say, well, you gotta submit an NOI and get a permit. And that's somebody mentioned earlier, but you've got to sign on to that permit. So if just the city signs on, suddenly we might be left as the permittee. And it's really easy, but it's not hard to find us and regulate South Burlington or other municipalities in the state. So we are often there, and there's a liability concern there. There's the cost. So, yes, we do collect money from everyone. At its core, utility is really just a funding mechanism. We've taken that money to maintain the city's compliance with all these regulations and then try to help sort of our residents as well. That [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: Yeah. Yeah. [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: Representative Austin. [Representative Sarah Austin ]: Yeah. I'm just wondering about builders, you know, that create these neighborhoods. I would assume that for them to get a you know, to create a neighborhood of thirty or sixty homes, You know, going back twenty years, thirty years, they would need a stormwater permit. Mhmm. So and I would assume that they would have had to have installed that in these developments. So why hasn't that happened? [Tom DiPietro ]: So I'm gonna I'm gonna gear where I was gonna let Kevin and Neil talk a bit about the state permit program, but the standards have changed over time. So some of the original stormwater permits that were issued by the state of Vermont were really about flood protection. Right? So it required a pipe in, storage area for the water, and maybe a smaller pipe out or an outlet structure. Over time, we realized that, hey. We actually need to treat stormwater. We need to detain it. We need to filter it. Right? So there was two thousand two standards that were put in place that required a little bit more treatment to remove phosphorus. Because if you're just detaining water so it doesn't flood, you're not getting the phosphorus removal that might be needed for TMDL. [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: Mhmm. [Tom DiPietro ]: And again, so we've evolved even more now to improve the amount of phosphorus. So now, like I said earlier, there's gravel wetlands that are required because they remove more phosphorus than, say, a pond or just swale or, you know, different systems. [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: That's a great segue, to the next witness. Thank you so much for taking the time to be with us today and help us understand this issue. [Tom DiPietro ]: Of course. Hopefully, I talk too fast. That's [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: Well, thank you very much. Great help. For inviting me. Thank you. [Representative Sarah Austin ]: Maybe the signal. [Bill Houston ]: You may be ready. [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: Welcome, commissioner. [Tom DiPietro ]: Welcome back. [Neil Kamen ]: Good morning, chair Sheldon. How's everybody doing today? Nice to be back. Just wanna quickly thank you for the chance to chat more about this. And also just recognize I'm not with you in the room today. I'm doing you the favor of sparing you the little whatever thing that I am fighting off. And I imagine there's plenty of that in the building as well, I figured that would be the right thing to do. For the record, Neil Kamen, deputy commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation. You know, so I've been listening to the testimony. It's been very interesting and very valuable. I'm here today with my good colleague, Kevin Burke. I'm gonna go first, but then Kevin and I will be available to answer questions together. I just have a few things I wanna touch on. And I kinda wanna start by just saying that, you know, the department does take this work very seriously. It is a big undertaking to implement the Lake Champlain TMDLs, and it is a big undertaking to ask citizens to undertake retrofits repairs to their property stormwater. And, you know, I also wanna recognize that when we came to you a couple weeks ago and talked to you about the outreach we've done in stormwater, we've done a fair bit. You know, we communicated quite a bit with the towns in the twenty nineteen to twenty twenty twenty twenty one space and then began to communicate with, landowners more actively and directly. And in particular, as soon as our American Rescue Plan Act funding programs were available. So we wanted to make sure that residents had access to those funds to help at least get those permits in place and understand what would need to be done to construct. And so that explains why we have very heartfelt testimony coming to you today from the good folks in Richmond or mister Houston from Vergennes or or other areas. You know, there's a lot of dialogue about this. There's a lot of energy, and this is a big program to undertake. And to the to miss Kaleeda, I just wanna make mention, you know, I recognize what you heard at that meeting, and we take that to heart. So as I kinda get on with my comments, I also just wanna note that both the General Assembly, you all, but also the Federal Environmental Protection Agency invested into the state. A lot of sort of regulatory authority and a lot of responsibility to comply with our TMDL requirements. And we do try and do this as equitably and as transparently as possible, and that includes the communications we've done and yet to do. But, you know, it's hard to get to everybody in the way that they're able to receive the messaging all at once. So the first thing I wanna absolutely emphasize for you all is that the three acre retrofit requirement, while it is a difficult one to be getting on with is also really quite critical to the Lake Champlain TMDL. I've got just some numbers here. You know, so the the way the TMDLs are structured is you've got your developed lands allocations and your wastewater allocations, and then you've got your non regulatory clean water projects. So for the developed lands, just some percentages from smallest to largest, the Mesiscoe Basin, the three acre permit only is going to capture about three percent of the total developed land allocation. Lamoille River, nine percent. Winooski River, thirteen percent. Otter Creek, fifteen percent. And the North Lake Direct, which are the smaller watersheds up and down from, say, Shelburne North up to St. Albans, thirty four percent. So these are real percentages of the required reductions that EPA is holding us to so that we can make our water quality goals. And, you know, we recognize the difficulty that some of our residents are facing. And so that's why this is a really good discussion right now. I mentioned to you all, we've provided a lot of assistance already to certain sectors of the three acre retrofit regulated folks. So, all four of the agricultural affairs, nine public private partnership projects, twenty eight manufactured housing communities, sixty eight schools, and one hundred eighty three individual owners do have state financial support on this, but that's not everybody. So, you know, and as the construction deadlines begin to emerge on the horizon, folks are are reasonably getting concerned. So looking forward here, I just wanna communicate to this committee. I've been working with a number of stakeholders, including a number of good people that are standing around the side of the room with you all right now and others, to look at options around how to help owners comply with this. There is a bill, it's s twenty four sponsored by Senator Chittenden. I believe it's gonna start to see some activity in the Senate committees before too long. What that bill generally would do would be to provide a little bit more time for residents to be able to comply. But, it would also look to create a way to facilitate what, Tom DiPietro was just describing around towns, helping their private sites take on, some of the stormwater requirements. You know, the the situation in Richmond is a very interesting one for sure. And I know that the town of Richmond is helping as they can. So we wanna try and use the s twenty four discussion space to see what are some other mechanisms that can be brought to bear to make that easier and to alleviate some of the liability questions, Chair Sheldon, that you just asked about. And lastly, the bill also contains some financial opportunities and incentives, the creation of prospectively either a revolving loan fund or a grant fund for municipalities that do take on private sites and some mechanisms to pay for that. So we're all I'm very much looking forward to getting into that dialog around that specific bill. This is a great opportunity to kick start that conversation, you know, without having to provide a position of support or anything like that on the bill. So I'm gonna stop there and maybe introduce my good colleague, Kevin Burke. Chair, if it's okay if Kevin makes any prefacing remarks he has before we take questions. Sure. Thank you so much. [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: No. Thank you for your testimony. [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: Good morning, chair Sheldon. Good morning. Thanks for having us here today. I'm Kevin Burke, stormwater program manager. I've worked in the stormwater program and the department for close to seventeen years, eighteen years. So I have a good background on our TMDLs, our implementation, our monitoring, but a lot of the work the watershed management division does to achieve our mission. I'm familiar with many of these sites, including the one in Richmond, including the one in Vergennes. I know they're challenging, and there are a lot of folks that have come in and complied and successfully navigated these new requirements with our assistance and some without. So I think there is the opportunity for the folks that have not come in to find ways to comply with the new requirements and meet our TMDL goals. But, clearly, there's maybe some need for help in doing that. So I think that's why we're here and and Neil's here to find those avenues to to better assist going forward. But I'm here to answer, you know, any of the regulatory questions that Tom touched upon. Thank you, Tom. And I did wanna clarify, you had asked about the half acre threshold. That is in place today, but it's really focused on new development, redevelopment. So it doesn't necessarily apply to three acre sites unless there's some other activity going on. Yeah. [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: No. I just wanted people to be aware of the fact that so there's been questions about why three acres and and then the evolution of our stormwater regulatory permit process. So maybe just if you could sketch that out for the committee and help us understand the timelines and how it is we're we're trying to, you know, we have to we're trying to we're trying to be as fair as we can be while addressing the real water quality problems that we have. [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: Yeah, in terms of, I guess I can start with the three acre number. First, I think it's important to identify that, you know, there's lots of different sectors as part of the TMDL, as Neil touched upon, from in stream erosion and rivers, obviously agriculture, forestry, and developed lands. And in order to achieve that overall reduction in phosphorus, the budget for Lake Champlain, develop lands we needed to reduce by such and such amount. To achieve that amount, we could have, say, gone to four acre sites. Sites with four acres of impervious, then we'd be talking about the four acre rule, perhaps. That was kind of, you know, after identifying the impervious surface through GIS and, you know, applying some conservative values as to what known, you know, amount of phosphorus comes off of impervious surfaces. You know, that was determined to be too high of a number. We'd pull in or too too low of a number rather. So bringing that down to three acres seem to be the the number that would get to that that reduction that was need from developed lands. Whereas if we don't meet it with three acres, you know, EPA could perhaps work with us and say, hey. You know, you need to do more. You're not meeting your goal. You know, we get, like, two acre sites now, but we're not. There are a lot of sites that are old standards pre two thousand two that have active permits in these watersheds. And if they're two point eight acres of impervious, they are not required to upgrade because we've, determined that if the three acre sites come into compliance with these newer standards, we would, be able to meet our developed lands reduction of phosphorus. And there are some other sites that do need to come in and retrofit, and that's really focused whether three acres or under three acres, and that's really focused on some of the stormwater impaired streams of Chittenden County, Franklin County, some of our mountain watersheds in Killington and Sugarbush. So those are also some sites that we'll have to retrofit outside of three acre. That's kind of where we landed with the three acre number. I know it's it's a round number, three point zero. A lot of folks like to find ways to how can we get to two point nine? And that's that's legitimate. If there's a site that's right at three acres and they wanna remove some impervious surface to get outside that regulatory threshold, they certainly can. They might need to continue to maintain their existing stormwater permit if they have one, but they wouldn't need to retrofit. [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: Members have questions? Representative Chattanooga, the North. [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: I think I heard in testimony that some of the solutions would include, settlement ponds or catch ponds. How will the permitting for the catch ponds at settlement ponds differ from recreation ponds? Will there be permitting, or is it just dig a hole, make sure you plant grass ways around it, and there won't be any permitting just to make sure you have stormwater because I've heard nightmares about people trying to get permits for recreation ponds because of endangered species. Have we are we deciding to eliminate those because we wanna stop stormwater for certain exceptions? I think recreational ponds is a is a different, a different, topic in a sense, but I I think I gather what you're saying. I think recreational ponds are often proposed in areas that are the low point on a property and, you know, familiar with enough with some of the wetlands regulations that, you know, often they might overlap with a mapped wetland or unmapped wetland and might not be permanent. The stormwater program doesn't regulate the construction of recreational ponds. If a three acre site, for example, found that the most feasible option to provide the treatment and meet the new standards was to build let's say they had soils they couldn't infiltrate. It couldn't quite fit the gravel wetland, but they they have an existing old detention pond. Maybe it was dry at the time or something along those lines, and they wanna retrofit that. That would that would that pond would be either constructed new or retrofitted to have some design elements that are found in the stormwater manual. A pretreatment forebay, which is kind of like a, you know, a a small settling pond before the pond so that sediment can easily be removed. It would have certain side slopes, certain permanent pool depth. The outlet controls control structure would be sized appropriately to release the water over a certain period of time, generally twenty four hours. So there are design specifications that are specific to stormwater treatment and control, that you wouldn't find with a recreational pond. Do you foresee ways to adapt the idea of a recreation pond to stormwater and vice versa to encourage more stormwater ponds? That's a tough question. I think I would I would think that, you know, if somebody was to build a recreational pond, they would have a certain design in mind and not to make it look more like infrastructure. That's that's kind of a I don't know if that's where [Tom DiPietro ]: you're going. [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: Is a way that we could kinda camouflage a stormwater retention pond to make it look more like a recreation pond? Well, there are. I think there's a you know, we have a great engineer engineering community here in Vermont that have been doing stormwater work for a long time. And I have seen some really amazing designs where they've, you know, constructed wetlands and different things that really are aesthetically pleasing. I think, you know, sometimes that's added cost to have, you know, one of those design engineers or landscape architect involved to really make these more than they need to be to be. So it's always nice to see that. Thank you. [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: And then there are the beavers who engineered beautiful ponds for us. Representative North. [Representative Rob North ]: Yeah. I got a series of a numbers related question. First of all, nice to meet you, miss Barrick. We've spoken on the phone so we could meet face to face. So how much phosphorus are we expecting to reduce using this three acre in in total across Vermont? I know it's just a fraction of the overall developed land, but what is allocated specifically to be reduced by the three acre rule? [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: I have to Neil just Neil probably has that number in front of him. [Neil Kamen ]: Yep. I do. It's one point seven metric tons. [Representative Rob North ]: So one point seven empty. Alright. [Paige Kalita ]: Yep. [Representative Rob North ]: And how much of that has been accomplished thus far in our remediation of these three acre, sites? [Neil Kamen ]: So not very much. And the reason for that is the way the permit program is structured, and Kevin can give more details. Folks have to apply for permit coverage, and then they have five years to build the projects after that. So we're in that period now where people are applying for, and once they obtain their permit, they have time to build the project. So I can't tell you what the total number is, but, honestly, not very many projects have constructed yet. Let me if if you give me a quick moment and, Kevin, if you wanna fill in any gaps for me, I can take a look at some resources I have at hand here. [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: Yeah. I think Neil hit the nail on the head. I mean, essentially, folks are in the stage where they've obtained permit coverage. They've engaged with an engineer. In the cases where they've obtained the permit, they have an approved plan. We're gonna build this or retrofit that. I'm different. And when the permit is issued, it establishes that they will implement that engineered plan within five years, which is the permit term. That's the time at which they would renew the permit. So we really I I can only think of probably a handful that have gone to construction. Yep. I can Given the seasonal limitations, we have short construction seasons. Okay. [Representative Rob North ]: So given that not hardly any of it or very, very little of it is actually completed, how much of it has at least been through the engineering stage so that we really have a good handle on the the total cost of of that [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: that's better construction aspect? I would say I mean, we can get some I can certainly get some better specific numbers for you, but I would say close to half. Okay. And there's some you know, we have a lot of applications that also have come in and are engaged with an engineer, but they're working through a lot of the design specifics. So there's some, you know, there's often some back and forth determining what's feasible. Because there are sites that really can't do anything. That's where impact fees kick in. K. But we're really trying to make sure that it makes work closely with their engineer to to get the design that they need that's appropriate for the site. But I'm happy to to look into a little bit. Yeah. Fine tune those numbers. [Representative Rob North ]: So but if we just continue down this path, so we've got roughly half of the one point seven million tons. Is it metric tons or million tons? That's just single okay. Not million metric tons, just metric ton. One point seven metric tons. But we have about half of that at least engineered. [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: I wouldn't say engineered. I would say that, you know, they've they've come in the door to some regard of of trying to comply, and that could be the permit process was actually set up in a two step step process. There was an initial NOI, and that was for these sites to come in. They would engage an engineer, but they would basically just confirm the amount of impervious. So, for example, we might have seen through aerial imagery, they had three point seven. The engineer would fine tune that and basically submit a map, submit the NOI. That would be then they would be issued a permit for eighteen months. And then at that time they get the permit, they have to come back in with with a new NOI at that eighteen month period with the full engineering. So we have a lot of sites that are kind of at different stages. Yeah. [Representative Rob North ]: I'm just trying to figure out how what percentage of that one point seven metric tons do we feel like we've got a pretty good handle on and we know how much it's gonna cost to to build the remediation for that? Whatever that percentage is, it's only ten percent that's why [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: we gotta handle on it. What is that per That's fully engineered. [Representative Rob North ]: It's fully Man, we've got a couple already. Cost of how much it's gonna cost to repeat that. [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: We don't the application, I should note, doesn't necessarily you if we've approved an engineering design, it doesn't necessarily come in and say this is how much it's gonna cost us to build it. We certainly hear that Yeah. [Representative Rob North ]: From folks. My next question is, okay, given that percentage heads up. Looks like [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: deputy commissioner has a comment to make. [Neil Kamen ]: Thanks. So representative North, I just wanted to offer a couple of quick additional numeric answers to your question since [Paige Kalita ]: Alright. [Neil Kamen ]: I've got command station here so I can pull out resources. Right? We have, among the three acre permits that have gone through permitting, we have nine of those sites that have completed their construction and have notified the stormwater program that they've done so. [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: Okay. [Neil Kamen ]: With with regard to the costs, an engineering feasibility analysis may have a a, like, a probable an engineer's opinion of probable cost. The true cost comes clear when you do the bidding. I have mentioned a couple times the green schools program, and we are looking at a very substantial book of bids coming in for the green schools program during this this winter leading up to construction this spring. So we're gonna have a pretty nice body of additional evidence to fine tune what some of the generalized costs are gonna be. Site by site, you know, it it is still gonna depend on the specific practice. As Kevin notes, there are many. And the conditions of the site, the size of it, and availability of contractors. [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: Right. [Neil Kamen ]: So yeah. Okay. Also, if I could as well, sir, the Clean Water Initiative program folks, my colleague Emily Bird and Claire Madden will have showed will have appeared in front of your committee a couple times, and they submitted the Clean Water Performance Report. There's an appendix in that that has some really good data on the overall achievement of stormwater reduction. I think it's appendix f, and there's some good numbers in that report. That's not three acre. That's stormwater generally, regulated stormwater and its overall contribution. But it's useful. It's helpful. [Representative Rob North ]: You could probably tell where I'm going with this. I'm kinda I'm trying to drive to what is it cost per kilogram of phosphorus to be meet their t EMBL in this method. But and by the method, I mean, by the three rule method. What's the cost per house, and what's the cost per per acre, and what's the cost per kilogram of removed phosphorus using the three acre rule methods that we're applying? That's what I'm driving at, and I you may not be able to answer those questions. [Neil Kamen ]: So what I what I would do is if Kevin wants to fill in any gaps for me, I could go dig into that performance report. There's a figure that I I like I like to look at every year as the new data comes out. And it's the cost efficiency for practices, for stormwater practices, for roads, you know, for agriculture. So your three acre, because it's retrofit and because it is constrained, on a per kilogram basis, you're gonna have higher costs per kilo. Right? I mean, that makes sense because you you're dealing with constrained prebuilt sites. So if I look at that figure and look at that bar, I'm gonna be looking at maybe the upper seventy fifth percentile of that or something as a general number. So now I can go dig that up if you'd like. [Representative Rob North ]: Thank you. Sure. [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: Thanks, representative Logan. Yeah, I guess following up on that question, then I think it would be helpful for us to review what percentage contribution [Paige Kalita ]: impervious surface makes to the total Yeah. That we're trying to Yeah. [Representative Rob North ]: It's one point seven divided by the total TMBL, which is, like, two hundred and thirteen. So it's, like, half a percent at best. Well, we So Okay. [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: Deputy commissioner, you started your testimony with percentages of the three acre contributions to the different segments or different water bodies, and you said the Northlake was thirty four percent. [Neil Kamen ]: Can you remind us of the of the of the of the managed developed lands. [Representative Rob North ]: So All of managed developed lands. Just just do a little slice in five for a good development. [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: Yeah. Oh, [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: I see. Thirty four percent of just this of just the already of the impervious land. [Neil Kamen ]: So the, you know, the re the reduction requirements that we would intend to get from the three acre program from the general sort of industrial stormwater, multi sector general permit from the transportation, and from MS fours. So those four would give you the percentages that I gave you. We actually filed testimony last year or responses last year on this, which is where I why I've got the numbers right in front of me. So I'm happy to actually resubmit the memo, the q and a on that. It may be updated a little bit, but it's it's good information. [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: Great. Yeah. We welcome that. Thank you. Sure. Are you finished? [Paige Kalita ]: Yeah. Thank you very [Neil Kamen ]: much. If I may, representative North? [Representative Rob North ]: Yes, please. [Neil Kamen ]: Let's talk about around ten to twenty k per kilo. So I'm looking at the high end of the stormwater. This is the it's figure twenty one in the clean water performance report. [Representative Rob North ]: Again, I [Neil Kamen ]: know you have that in your in your body of materials, so I won't plug up your inbox with it again. But [Representative Rob North ]: Thank you, sir. [Neil Kamen ]: Yes. [Paige Kalita ]: Can we make a comment? [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: You may. Can you just say for the record again who you are? [Paige Kalita ]: Sure. My name is Paige Collina. I live in Richmond in a three acre site. If I just wanna say if if I'm gonna have to spend ten thousand dollars or twenty thousand dollars of my own money, I really would want it to go to something that makes an impact. I, the most, did a lot of this data, you know, to try to understand it. I have no experience in this, but I think what you're all kinda getting at is what bang for a buck does this give us? And if ten thousand dollars can reduce more in some other application, Sign me up. Like, I would I would rather, like, meet the goal in a better way if I have to spend money. [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: Deputy commissioner, could you hear that? [Neil Kamen ]: I did. Yes. Would you like a reaction? [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: If you have one [Neil Kamen ]: I did. I I do. And I I don't want it to come across poorly. I I absolutely appreciate what you're saying. And if we rewind back to twenty sixteen, when the law was passed that establishes the three acre permit program, you know, the concept there was it was an all in approach, meaning all sectors are contributing. And so while it is a smaller proportion of the total that we need, we do need to get those nutrient reductions somewhere. And so if we don't get them from the stormwater three acre space, they'll need to come from another sector, which is also already kind of pulling ores as well. True that they may be more cost efficient, but the state does have to get the nutrient reductions as we can. [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: Representative Taglia Via then Perturne. [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: You you mentioned that, excuse me, is, was first implemented or enacted in twenty sixteen. Is that correct? [Neil Kamen ]: That's when act sixty four was was was signed. Yes, sir. [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: How soon after that act was any kind of education or information put out to the public at large regarding what was coming down the road? [Neil Kamen ]: I would honestly have to say beginning mid twenty fourteen because act sixty four, the Vermont Clean Water Act, was a instrument that was passed as a result of EPA redoing the TMDL for Lake Champlain and essentially substituting an older TMDL that the state under the state's authority had implemented and instead implementing under their own authority. So legislative counsel O'Grady had spoken about that at his first, you know, water one zero one. So there was a lot of education, a lot of news, a lot of media done at that time over the general components of Act sixty four. So the new road stormwater requirements, three acre requirements, MS4 requirements, the state's transportation TS4 requirements, agriculture, all of the all of the sectors. And then the way the act was structured is it gave Kevin and [Tom DiPietro ]: his [Neil Kamen ]: team, the authority, but also the time to develop the three acre general permit and the new practices, the stormwater manual. Kevin Nod. Yes. So if I'm on the right track here. And then, and then from there, once the general permit was promulgated, began the education specifically to three acre owners. But it takes acre owners. But it takes, you know, it it takes a lot to reach six hundred and fifty thousand citizens, obviously. So it is it is it is very fair that we're here today. And, you know, in in no way does the department shy away from the conversation or engagement with the good folks in the room. [Paige Kalita ]: Yes. H Khalid, h for Richmond. First time I learned about that I was in a three acre site. [Representative Rob North ]: Representative Moore Quick question for Paige, actually. So, Paige, in the neighborhoods, above or near your neighborhood that were, I guess, permitted after the two thousand two build up Delta Delta Delta, so per permitted after that. Is there any obvious visible stormwater management, ponds, retention practices anywhere in those areas? [Paige Kalita ]: No. The Southview neighborhood, only part of it is in the three acre. The newer part of it does not have a stormwater permit. So that is sort of reverse of what I'm hearing should have happened. Like, as as rules get stricter and stormwater you know, it seems like that area should have one. I don't know why they don't. [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: Could I just clarify, that's the upstream of you? Upstream of me. [Paige Kalita ]: Yes. We South View Road. So part of Southview Road. Then there's a new development, Bradford Terrace, which was built, within the last ten years. They have a current system. The road, goes uphill, and there's a settling pond at the top of the hill. So I'd say probably about three or four homes, the water flows into may maybe flows into that. The rest of the water from that section flows to me. And that settling pond is dry. There's no there's there's no water in it. And it's up it's uphill. It's, like, at the top of the hill. So but, you know, that's where they put it. I I don't really know other than visually what I see. Thank you. Okay. [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: Oh, representative Pritchard. [Representative Chris Pritchard ]: So I just so I I just wanna make sure I understand this clearly. To me, it seems like the the requirements you are trying to achieve, the reductions, are on the backs of the seven hundred folks that are on this list. Not not six hundred and sixty thousand Vermonters, but the seven hundred people that are on this list. And I wanna make sure I sure I understand this clearly because I have a great concern for this. I have I have folks in my district that are on this list. And I gotta tell you, what they're asked to come up with to comply is ridiculous. It's gonna put them out of business. It it it has a large effect. For example, I'll give you an example. We've set aside four million dollars for four fares. To meet compliance, the Rutland fare is gonna have to spend three point eight million dollars or two million dollars we set aside. It's gonna cost them three point eight million. They don't even have the money to do the engineering study. Here's a fair that's been in the state for a hundred and seventy five a hundred and seventy nine years that's gonna be out of business. We I get the intent of what we're trying to do to to to to meet and and reduce phosphorus. But we put that, you know, we lost we we just you know, we we lost something when we when we got to this three acre thing because we are harming people. We are harming people in the state to achieve that. And and I I I, for one, am just totally against it. It's you know, fix it, but it's broken. And it's it's broken badly. And and and and and I really don't understand these impact fees. I I mean, some of the impact fees for these people on the list are gonna be hun over hundreds of thousands of dollars. It makes no sense to me. And and and so they pay the fine for the or they pay the impact fee. What becomes of reaching that goal for the reduction? And I guess I'm not understanding this clearly. [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: Yeah. I let's let them have a chance to respond to your point. Can speak to [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: me to You wanna speak, Neil? [Neil Kamen ]: I just wanna make note that, you know, I I heard some cost figures thrown you know, tossed out for Rutland there. I'm not sure the engineering has been completed for the Rutland State Fair. I believe they just began to engage with the funding that was provided to them either through our department or through the agency of agriculture for this. So I think that let's wait and see what those actual numbers look like before that. But but to to your point, you know, stormwater retrofits do cost money. So [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: Did you wanna add, Lee? [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: I just wanted to you know, I I'd agree with Neil that, you know, very familiar with the Rutland fair, and I I think we've had a lot of numbers thrown around prior to them engaging with an engineer. They are now engaged with an engineer, very qualified engineer, and then Kesselring. And [Representative Rob North ]: Very good. [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: They they need to be able to do the engineering to really identify what can be done, can't be done, and then that would generate sort of an estimated cost. And in terms of, you know, engineering cost, there is some money that they've got available to contribute to that. But as I understand, they need more. But I'm certainly interested in in in getting into the weeds a little bit with the engineer just to better understand, and I know some of our staff probably have, better understand, you know, where they think things are headed, what they can do, what they can't do, what the site looks like in terms of feasibility. So I I think to Neil's commissioner deputy commissioner's point, there's there's really a need to sort of get through the engineering to to to fine tune what that cost is. [Representative Chris Pritchard ]: But how about the folks that have got through the engineering? And there's still I mean, doesn't change the reality of the cost that they have. [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: No. It's a substantial cost. I mean [Representative Chris Pritchard ]: It's a ridiculous cost. It's a ridiculous cost to to for for these people to bear. [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: So and and if and if [Representative Chris Pritchard ]: you're not one of those seven hundred people, I think it's hard to understand that. [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: We need to begin to wind this conversation down. I see deputy commissioner has his hand up and representative Taglia Via also, but we do need to move on. [Neil Kamen ]: Let me let I I'll I'll hold off for now. Representative, go ahead, please. [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: I just wanted the the record to reflect that I, echo representative Pritchett's sentiments. [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: Representative North. [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: I had a [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: Oh, sorry. I forgot Bartholomew. Go ahead, representative Bartholomew. [Representative John Bartholomew ]: I just it seems inherently unfair that only some of the property owners that contribute the stormwater are being asked to pay. So what's how do we fix that? Seems just an obvious problem. Is there a solution? [Neil Kamen ]: Maybe I can maybe I can hop in with my original point and then and then capitalize on that representative that, you know, some of these difficult conversations like we're having right now, the warmest the room's a little warm. Right? And that's quite alright. Goes all the way back to twenty sixteen and then twenty nineteen, when then treasurer Pierce was leading discussions around how to pay for clean water in Vermont. And it was recognized that, you know, the state would contribute some proportion and that the citizens would contribute an additional proportion. And, you know, the idea, representative, that you're raising is either a statewide some sort of a statewide mechanism that would help the owners out or municipal mechanism that would pass those, you know, the those costs perhaps to the grand list or if more targeted to a special assessment district kind of thing. And that's the kind of mechanism that we hope to talk about as part of that s twenty four is is see what some of the other funding mechanisms specific for the three acre needs would be. But but what you all are raising representatives is a a big discussion that has transpired over the course of time. And it's coming back now because, you know, these regulations are now landing. So we welcome the conversation. [Representative John Bartholomew ]: Legislative a legislative fix as opposed to an agency fix. [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: I'm sorry. That's that's what that's. So And that and that's why we're here today, and so this is the beginning of the conversation. And I thank you all for participating in it. Alright. We do need to move on to representative Are [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: are you staffed appropriately [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: to to [Representative Rob North ]: deal with this? How many how many EFTs do we have in the the [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: people that deal with the the three can roll within [Representative Rob North ]: the the each? [Neil Kamen ]: Kevin, I'll let you take that one, please. [Representative Mike Tagliavia ]: We we've got quite a program. Five or six of us that strictly deal with, operational permitting, the impervious services, and that that includes new development, redevelopment. They're also dealing with the three acre stuff, which is you know, it's been challenging. I wouldn't, say otherwise. And they've been really good at at trying to to work with folks on getting them on board. Thank you. [Chair Amy Sheldon ]: Alright. Thank you all again. And with that, we will take a a ten minute break. [Neil Kamen ]: Thank you. Everybody have a good day. I look forward to seeing you next time. Thank you so much.

Play Clip Play Full Video Pause

SmartTranscript of House Environment-2025-02-06-9:00AM

This is useful for seeing what happened at the meeting without wading through the whole transcript: