This article by Josh O’Gorman was published by the Stowe Reporter on Dec. 19.
Stowe’s estimates of what it will cost to comply with Vermont’s clean water law are higher than average, a state official says, and he questions the town manager’s assertion that the law amounts to an “unfunded mandate.”
On Dec. 9, the Stowe Selectboard and town officials reviewed a consultant’s report estimating the town is on the hook for $4.9 million in road upgrades over the next 16 years, about $300,000 a year.
The costs are related to Act 64 of 2015, the Vermont Clean Water Act, enacted after the federal government ordered the state to improve the water quality of Lake Champlain by limiting the amount of phosphorus entering the state’s waterways.
The $40,000 study from engineering firm Milone & MacBroom found that, of the town’s 95 miles of roads, 40.8 miles do not meet the standards required by the act. With a total estimated cost of $4.9 million, that comes out to about $120,100 per mile.
Jim Ryan, the Municipal Roads Program coordinator for the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, said Stowe’s per-mile estimate significantly exceeds the statewide average, based on the road surveys submitted to the state.
The surveys are not due to the state until December 2020; however, of the 128 reports the state has received, the average cost per mile is about $68,000.
Ryan took issue with the report from Milone & MacBroom, saying the cost estimates were based on conversations the engineering firm had with members of the town’s public works department.
Ryan’s description doesn’t capture the full extent of the study, said Jessica Louisos, lead project engineer, water resources, for Milone & MacBroom.
“Engineers walked all the miles found to be hydrologically connected,” Louisos said.
Act 64 governs roads that are “hydrologically connected,” meaning runoff from the roads can enter Vermont’s waterways and wetlands. All told, 49.6 miles of roads in Stowe are considered hydrologically connected.
“We also mapped out practices that needed to be completed and used GPS to measure such things as swales, culverts and if ditches should be stone-lined,” she said.
A perfect storm
Louisos and Ryan are quick to note that Stowe’s situation is not typical.
First and foremost, Ryan said, Vermont towns average about 50 miles of road; across Stowe’s 95 miles of roads — nearly twice the state average — are nearly as many miles of hydrologically connected roads as the average town has in total.
Much of that is due to Stowe’s mountainous nature, with many steep roads and lots of runoff.
“I think that the costs in Stowe might not be a good representation of what it will cost other municipalities across the state,” Louisos said. Her firm is working with municipalities in Chittenden County, where the roads are flatter and costs are expected to be lower.
Ryan also noted that, of Stowe’s 49.6 miles of hydrologically connected roads, only 8.8 miles — 17.7% — meet the permit requirements, compared with a statewide average of 58%.
“Stowe is the perfect storm of high costs,” Ryan said.
Louisos said another factor is that Stowe has surveyed all its roads.
“We have performed similar work for other municipalities, but not exactly this,” Louisos said. “Stowe went beyond what I personally know of for other municipalities. They wanted a big-picture view. When we’ve worked with other municipalities, we’ve only done some segments.”
And yet another factor, she noted, is that Stowe might need to hire contractors to complete the required work in the time frame set by Act 64, which requires significant improvements by 2025 and completion of all improvements by 2036.
Unfunded mandate?
At the Dec. 9 Selectboard meeting, Town Manager Charles Safford took issue with Act 64, saying, “I’ve been in municipal government for 30 years, and I’ve never seen the state come down with something of this scale, which amounts to an unfunded mandate.”
Ryan took issue with that term, noting that Stowe receives state funding for many of its road projects.
The town’s current highway budget is $2,325,451; of that, the state supplies $175,501.
When reached for a follow-up interview, Safford stuck to his guns.
“I don’t know how he defines ‘unfunded mandate’, but I define it as, if the state does not fund it in whole, that’s an unfunded mandate,” Safford said. “I have not received any indication that this will be 100 percent funded.”
