June 17th 2015 Minutes - As Approved

MINUTES OF COLCHESTER GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE

COLCHESTER TOWN OFFICES

KIRKER RM
COLCHESTER, VT

June 17^th @ 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 17^th 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 10^th 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 18^th 2015 (Draft), June 25^th (Approved)