Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Hello.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Hi. Good morning, and welcome to the House Environment Committee. This morning, we are, looking at the latest draft of s 12 with our legislative council.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Morning. This is Michael Grady. You should have in front of you a draft number 2.3 with the '4 '27 date and 11:34 time stamp. I will just walk through the changes, and then in addition, one question change by a and r. First change is on page five. It is, really clarification of language. The first, page five, line eight, the editors it had previously said 1,000 gallons per day, and there is no requirement. And the editors tend it to be when there is no requirement for any variance. And so that change was made. Page five, line ten and eleven. This was also an editor change for consistency with language elsewhere in the bill. So it says the secretary may adopt a general permit for the permit under this chapter of wastewater systems, and there's two folks there. And then on page five, line thirteen and fifteen, there were Sorry.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: What was the line 10 change? Pardon? What was the line 10 change that was made?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It had it had just said for permitting of wastewater systems, and elsewhere in the chapter, it says permitting under this chapter.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So that's the change that was made. And then page five, line thirteen and fifteen, this was the change to clarify what that term, unless such technologies are allowed by the secretary, modifies. So it's it had previously that term could have been read to apply to the entire subdivision or just to alternative technologies. And so the order was reordered. So it's now do not require a variance of hydrogeologic analysis for innovative or alternative technologies unless such technologies are allowed by the secretary.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: K. Thank you.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Moving on to page seven. This is a clarification to just it was just bad language. Page seven line 15 previously said municipality delegated authority under the section. It it just it wasn't reading right. So it's now a municipality that is delegated authority under the section. So just a clarification. And the next is page 11. This is the request by ANR. It's on line 11. And there is a provision in the e section for or subsection for portable water supply and wastewater system, connections that provides that in in certain Vermont Vermont neighborhoods, those designated under 24 BSA chapter 76 a, that the fee shall not be more than $50 in situations, which the application receive an allocation for sewer capacity from an approved municipal system, and the agency has requested that this be struck. And I believe it's because of effectively, like, the expansion of these types of neighborhoods. Yeah. And We

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: can let Brian explain to us. Welcome.

[Bryan Redmond (Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, ANR)]: For the record, Brian Brenbin, the Director of Drinking Water and Gravel Infection Division in the Agency of Natural Resources. This is an issue we were analyzing, being up to two crossover and have done some preliminary analysis about the expansion of the Vermont neighborhoods and the future land use mapping that is currently underway. We worked with the Vermont Center of Geographic Information Systems, BCGI, on a preliminary analysis based on the maps that have been submitted so far. And what we found is that the designated area under the Vermont neighborhood is going to greatly expand to somewhere in the range of seven to one to nine to one in increases in land area that would be eligible for the revised fee cap. There's going to be a significant expansion and a corresponding loss of revenue for the program. The program itself, Witchwater and Thermal Water Supply program, that's about a $3,000,000 annual budget for the program. Of that, $1,500,000 are special funds, our permit fee revenue to support the activities of the program. And this would represent a fairly substantial reduction in those fees, one that we don't feel comfortable that we could sustain. And just to remind the committee, we are proposing a change in how the fee revenue for general permits is handled in this bill. We're consolidating our existing fee categories down to now three categories, and everybody that would be coming in under our existing fee schedule will get a break under this new fee schedule. So we're already projecting a bit of a loss from the changes in fee. So taken together, the issue had snowballed a little bit, leading us to today to request the change.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: So is that striking out this section?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So the proposal is to strike out section d, yeah, on line 11 in its entirety.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: 11 through 16? Yeah. So

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: okay. If we strike this and make the changes in this bill to the new fee structure, do you know what the loss will be? If

[Bryan Redmond (Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, ANR)]: it's not strict.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: No. Well, either way, both. I was asking, if we strike this and we make the bill passes, sounds like you're going to have a loss anyway, or will you?

[Bryan Redmond (Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, ANR)]: So right now, the Vermont neighborhood designation, which is smaller than what we are

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I get it. I'm looking at your overall budget. The combination of the changing fee structure, what will that what's your net loss?

[Bryan Redmond (Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, ANR)]: Okay, so a little tough to pin it down exactly, but we're projecting about 100,000. That would be effectively mitigated by some of the repeals of the exemptions that are proposed here. There are certain activities that are exempt under existing regulations that we're now pulling back, and everybody gets the same treatment under the general permit for connections. So it is going to be mitigated by that somewhat. It's hard to really put a figure to that. Additionally, with any new program, we're going to be doing a lot more outreach and education to the Vermont public about this new program, and would expect a little bit more revenue coming in from that expanded outreach effort. So the worst case scenario, we're projecting at $100,000 But again, we think that is going to be mitigated pretty significantly and something that we can handle within our existing budget.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Can you help me and the committee understand how outreach brings in more revenues?

[Bryan Redmond (Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, ANR)]: Well, I think just more information about a new program will land in municipalities, and there's probably some noncompliance. I don't think it's widespread, but there's probably some noncompliance, people just not knowing they need a certain state permit for the activity. And so I think any time you expand outreach on environmental requirements, you will see an uptick in funds. That is accurate. Yes, so

[Unidentified committee member]: you're predicting at least a small but perhaps significant reduction in fees overall given the changes here. And these changes are in statute, so they're gonna be around for a while. Imagine that your costs over the next few years, say, are not going to be going down, but are probably going to go up, but the fees are going to stay the same. So do you have a plan for how you're going to maintain, you know, your being able to manage these programs in the light of your revenue going to compare to your costs?

[Bryan Redmond (Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, ANR)]: Yeah, I think we've thought pretty significantly about what's being proposed here and feel comfortable with the potential reduction. If we got it wrong, we would be back here requesting an adjustment. But I think at this point, we feel pretty comfortable with our existing funding sources that we'll be able to cover this gap.

[Unidentified committee member]: Over the next few years? Yes. Thank you.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Other questions on this?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So what do you like to get struck?

[Bryan Redmond (Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, ANR)]: Just gonna re reread it and see if

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: I have any further questions.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Can you remind me what the duly delegated municipal program was before that it's referencing?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So remember, there was there was full delegation.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: This Very rare instance.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Very rare. Charlotte and Colchester, and they both gave it back. Okay.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Brian, do you have a sense of how often fees were only $50 prior,

[Bryan Redmond (Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, ANR)]: like, before? We looked at the existing data. We're seeing about 10 to and these, again, are very specific areas within specific communities. And it's pretty limited at this point, between 10 to 15. We looked at three to five years of data. Can't remember 10 to 15 a year? Applications that are And I think this is anecdotal, but I think oftentimes when we are engaging with an applicant on this, there's an element of surprise that they are eligible for this benefit. So yeah, we're seeing about 10 to 15 of these annually.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. Does anyone representative North?

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Just to follow on to that line of questioning. So we're expecting a seven to nine time increase in that 10 to 15 to be more of a 70 to a 100 kind of range, or is that is that is that the concern? That's why you're asking mister Fistra?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yes. I thought that was a land area

[Bryan Redmond (Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, ANR)]: you were talking about. It is area of apples to apples on this comparison, but we looked at the maps that have been submitted so far. This is, again, right around crossover. There's five maps, if I'm not mistaken. And I should say this information has been sent over to the Joint Fiscal Committee, so they have this analysis. Depending on how you look at the data, if it's intersecting boundaries versus within, it's somewhere between seven to nine to one increase in land area. Now, how that transfers into permit activity is difficult guess. We were projecting in the 400 to $600,000 range in revenue loss from the expansion. Again, it's early in the process, so it's hard to this is still happening now. So it's hard to really pin it down, but it does appear to be simplistic.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: And the revenue loss is because it nominally costs a lot more than $50 I don't understand. Where's the revenue loss coming from?

[Bryan Redmond (Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, ANR)]: It would be more properties eligible to receive the CE cap benefit.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: In Whereas what would the fee nominal have been without the cap?

[Bryan Redmond (Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, ANR)]: The fees, it would use the existing fee schedule. Above. Okay. Yeah. Or

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: if this passes and it qualify for the general permit, we'll get the general permit fee.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Which is what? A $100 or something.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It's right on the next page or at the bottom of the page, going to the next page. It's 250 for below 2,000 gallons per day, 2,500 for 2,065, and 5,000 for 65 per

[Bryan Redmond (Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, ANR)]: Sorry. Where are those p's in the middle?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It's page 12.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Top of page 12.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Page 11. We're on page 12.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: So this section d is is already in statute. This is existing statute, existing cap that that these designated Vermont neighborhood areas and started filling them.

[Bryan Redmond (Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, ANR)]: And it's the combination of the expansion in land area and this this new reduced fee structure for connection permits. And presumably, we'll see higher connection permit activity in these areas. So it's that nexus that started to give us concern.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: The estimated loss is on the order of $400,000 to $600,000 you said?

[Bryan Redmond (Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, ANR)]: Setting $500,000 as a nice middle.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Any other questions, Dennis? No. Strike. Does anyone object to striking this?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I am

[Bryan Redmond (Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, ANR)]: not seeing any objections.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Did I move up? Yes. Page 15. This was an internal debate in my mind.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: How did it work out?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: There's two definitions of public treatment work in federal stat in federal regs. And I'd used the one under four zero three point three r before, but when I went back and looked at them again, I cited four zero three point three q was really the more appropriate one. Four zero three three four zero three point three r is publicly owned treatment work plant. And this isn't just the plant. This is the whole pretreatment system. And then I that that's the debate I was having in my head. So queue, which is just publicly on treatment works, which is the entire system. I think that's more appropriate for what is being contemplated here.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Does that make sense to you, Brian?

[Bryan Redmond (Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, ANR)]: Yeah. I have an interesting language, but that does make sense.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: And that's that's the last change.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. The members have any questions for legislative council or Diane Redmond?

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Senator Chapin. Just related to that last section about ETA notifying the agency, did that already happen? I thought

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm sorry. To what?

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Related to the EPA notifying the agency about authorization. I thought I heard that that was sort of maybe already underway. The agency

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: is that is underway. The last communication I got from Neil, he passed on a correspondence that their attorney, Eric, been having with EPA, and, it's EPA region one basically said it's okay.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Do we still need this section, the contingency section?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm sorry.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: I'm wondering if we still need the contingency section.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: No. You probably don't. You don't. That could go away.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Well I mean, it's it's in conversation now.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: There there was an approval, and then they're they're reevaluating some, but there's approval for the delegation. So I do think the contingency is no longer relevant.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Okay. Follow-up section eight. Yeah.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I guess

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Although I'm not arguing for it to go away.

[Bryan Redmond (Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, ANR)]: Yeah, I know.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Just I want want to actually pause. I'm thinking about institutional memory. And the reality is that none of us would have found this without your institutional memory. And having it here reminds people, the history future people, if it's in the green books, would it be in the green books? This would be session law.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It would be session law. But I I what I'd be concerned about is that last part, ANR notifying the clerk of the house of representatives. And I don't think that's necessary and and what.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I wish part are you concerned.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So my my concern is. This is not a legal concern. It's a practical concern. It's it's with our publisher. They hate contingent effective dates, and they always want to know when the actual contingency happens. And it's just a practical burden, and that's that's my practical concern. My legal concern, I'm trying to find Neil's email and so I could pass on what Eric provided. The communication that they received from EPA is region one pretreatment coordinator stating, I've been checking with headquarters and other regions, but so far, no one has any issue with delegating all aspects of the program to Burlington via an MOU. I think it would be prudent to speak with region one regarding what form of authorization EPA will be willing to provide, but the approval has been granted.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: But it's not just Burlington, is it?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: No. It's not. But it's

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Little disturbing that it was singling out Burlington to me. It's something that would be available to other communities.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I I, you know, I I think they could probably they got approval from Regional One's pretreatment coordinator, but it also says that they are talking to EPA about what form any MOU should take under an EPA authorization. So maybe you keep the contingency.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. And then yeah. I think so. It feels like it's just still underway to me, and I would like to be clear that it's not just the point.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So I have two changes. One is striking the neighborhood fee cap, and one is breaking a duplicative of. Go Yes. After highlighting.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: The member is comfortable voting on this now.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Can I just ask one other question?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Changes you certainly make.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Or is there anything else that was deleted? Because, you know, the deletions don't show up in yellow. Is there anything else that was deleted from the previous

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Any other changes from

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Changes from previous

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It should show up in the end.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Even if it was something that was That's why

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So so the big change from the previous was the side boards and the general permit authority other than the connection authority. So the for boundary line adjustments, subdivisions, that was the big change in the last draft.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: But that did did nothing got taken out in the current draft from the previous draft? Nothing?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: No. Nothing removed. It was that was the big addition.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: In the previous draft, that was and that was yellow in the

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: previous draft. Yes.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: The clarification on the.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: And and then Burlington wanted some clarifying language around the pretreatment, specifically about the environmental division having jurisdiction over any appeals of their permitting.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Representative North is just asking if anything in the new draft, if there was anything taken out

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: From the previous draft. From previous draft.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: No. Nothing was removed. Was my previous draft. Just added things.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And just to clarify, usually, you would you would highlight. So it's what even if it

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: comes And and sometimes it's hard to highlight deletions. Yeah. And and I I try to note that anyway. So there were no deletions. Asking for clarification. Thanks.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Alright. Is there a motion

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: to move? Next so this draft number is this draft number?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: You could you could change it to you could say 2.3 as amended.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: The number come through, though, in the next draft.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I could just say 2.4. The 2.4.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. The motion is to

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: And I can go do that right now. I have twenty minutes before my next committee.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Great.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So is there a motion to approve 2.3 with the changes that will make it 2.4 that we just discussed. Yeah. Alright. Representative Pritchard moves we approve it. And is there further discussion?

[Bryan Redmond (Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, ANR)]: I'm not seeing it.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Will it Chris, please?

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Rep Boston, yes. Rep Chittenden? Rep Hoyt?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Rep Labor?

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Yes.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Rep Logan? Yes. Morris? Yes. North?

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Yes. Rut Pritchard? Yes. Rut Sakeliates? Yes.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Ruttagliavia? Yes. And then we have Sheldon? Yes. We

[Bryan Redmond (Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, ANR)]: want to make sure you can do

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: the math. 11 to zero.