MINUTES OF COLCHESTER GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE
COLCHESTER TOWN OFFICES
KIRKER RM
COLCHESTER, VT
June 17th @ 9:00 a.m.
Present: Curt Taylor, Mickey Palmer,
Bud Meyers and David Usher
LCATV was present. An audio recording was also made of the
meeting. The first hour was used to go over the use of Google Drive and was not
part of the regular meeting.
1.
Call to Order:
Chair David Usher called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.
2. Agenda Changes
No Changes
3. No public input
None
4. Approval of minutes from Nov 17th 2014
MOTION by Bud
Meyers
SECONDED by Mickey
Palmer
APPROVED by
unanimous vote.
David Usher mentioned that making
the Governance Committee permanent was in the minutes and might be considered
again.
5. Approval of minutes from June 10th
2015
MOTION by Mickey
Palmer
SECONDED by Curt
Taylor
APPROVED by
unanimous vote.
6. Snow Plowing of Public Roads
While waiting for Bryan Osborne to
attend the issue of the plowing private roads by the town was briefly discussed.
A misunderstanding about the map of which roads are being plowed was resolved.
7. Bryan
Osborne – Director of Public Works
Osborne first reviewed a little
history of the Storm Water Utility issue. The Integrated Water Resources
Management Plan (IWRMP) recommended that the Town move forward to develop a
storm water utility. The Selectboard agreed and a Storm Water Advisory Committee
(SWAC - which meets every first Thursday of the month, 6:00 PM at the Town
Offices) has been established. The Utility can be created by ordinance or by a
Town-wide vote.
The basic question of most concern
to the Governance Committee is whether or not regionalization of a Storm Water
Utility might be appropriate.
Osborne responded that the
Regional Planning Commission (RPC) as well as the Regional Storm Water
Education Program (RSEP), both with Colchester representation, have considered
the issue of a regionalized Storm Water Utility. The consensus is that though
there are opportunities for cooperation, there is no need to create a regional
storm water utility.
The storm water needs of the
different municipalities vary greatly due to population density and the number
of impaired streams within that municipality. Colchester’s Sunderland Brook and
Morehouse Brook are impaired. Colchester is currently in full conformance with
all requirements of the MS4 permit and is in very good condition. South
Burlington on the other hands may need more than $25 million to fix Potash
Creek. The concern is that Colchester tax payers should not have to pay for the
fixing of significant problems in other communities. Osborne does not think Colchester
to contribute to the addressing the needs of more urbanized communities with
far greater problems that Colchester.
Osborne explained several examples
of the current regionalized approach to the requirements for MS4 compliance:
outreach education, flow monitoring of impaired streams and sharing of
equipment.
The State is generally supportive
of regionalization because of the complexity of managing regulations. H.35
proposes the creation of statewide utility to collect fees.
Bud Meyers asked if there has been
discussion of climate change. Osborne’s response was that we need to re-evaluate
our design standard due to climate change. What has traditionally been
considered appropriate is now continually being demonstrated to be inadequate.
David Usher asked about future
plans for storm water management in Colchester. Osborne responded that although
the Town is in full compliance, he believe the effort has been minimalistic.
There are substantial storm water needs beyond water quality. The Town is
currently spending about $460k a year on storm water. He estimates that we
should be spending $2.5 million to do the job correctly. Because much of
Colchester was built in the 60s, 70s and 80s there is a growing need for
upgrading the Town infrastructure as well as providing storm water
infrastructure where it is lacking.
Osborne feels strongly that the
Town needs a storm water utility for the following three reasons:
1)
Our current effort is fragmented throughout the
department of public works and needs to be centralized under a Storm Water
Coordinator position funded by fees to the utility.
2)
The funds used to handle storm water issues currently
come from the Town’s budget and are based on property taxes not the degree to
which a person or business contributes to the storm water problem. A Utility’s
user fee would be considerably more equitable.
3)
There are significant amounts of impervious surface
associated with properties that are exempt from property taxes. Storm water
utility fees will be paid by those properties as well.
When asked by David Usher about
the time line for all this Bryan Osborne responded that he does not think the
utility will be part of the FY17 budget, however the Selectboard could move
forward in FY16 with the development of the utility.
Regarding the impact on the Town’s
budget Osborne stated that some activities now funded within the Town’s general
fund will move to the Utilities budget. Funding would be more equitable.
Mickey Palmer asked about St.
Michaels which may well already handle its storm water appropriately. Osborne
responded that a Credit Manual would be developed to allow fees to be reduced
for those that handle their storm water appropriately.
David Usher asked about what the
governance structure of the utility might be. Osborne responded that it may
well be similar to the way sewers are currently handled. The Selectboard currently
acts as a Sewer Commission and may well act as a Strom Water Commission as well.
The Utility would be a divisional operation within the department of public
works. It would be funded as an enterprise fund financed by user fees. Rates
would be set by the Selectboard acting as the Storm Water Commission after
considering a budget submitted by the utility.
In further discussion about fees
Osborne made it clear that fees would have to be collected from many entities
that currently do not pay property taxes (i.e. the school district). In
addition the Town itself would be subject to the fees and the Town budget would
have to reflect that cost.
Bryan Osborne was warmly thanked
for his time and input. The Governance Committee will have to consider what was
said and determine if any further action is required.
8. Adjournment
MOTION to adjourn
by Curt Taylor
SECOND by Mickey
Palmer
APPROVED unanimously
at 11:00 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Curt Taylor, Secretary
June 18th 2015 (Draft), June 25th
(Approved)
