 Call to order the April 17 2019 Meeting of the chicken County Regional Planning Commission Are there any changes to the agenda? Hearing none next item is a period for public comment relating to items that are not otherwise on the agenda Are there any members of the public who would like to comment on any such items? Hearing none, and there's no consent agenda will move on to approval of the March 20 minutes Is there a motion to approve? They have Catherine and the second was Jim Trying to help Amy out. She asked me to not use my usual blah blah blah approach to this. So Are there any corrections comments questions? Bartley told me Got to check the tape I guess Any other comments corrections hearing none all in favor of the motion say aye And any abstentions raise your hand so I'm not abstaining even though I wasn't here You don't have to it's a matter of conscience Next item is to warn a public hearing for the fiscal year 2020 UPWP and budget So I will talk to this Briefly so you have a memo in your packet that gives you a little background on the process and also What the UPWP committee and executive committee are recommending? Be considered by the board You'll see we're looking at one point seven seven two million dollars of new funding For those of you on the UPWP committee That's significantly higher than the amount we normally talk about because it includes the GMT funding So it's kind of a whole Additional chunk of funds there and then on the second page of the memo you'll see kind of a summary of the overall program so that includes all the Staff time and non-transportation funded programs grant agreements that we already have in place a little bit over 5.4 million You see the UPWP and executive committee recommended that you warn a public hearing for the draft UPWP and budget for your mark or may 15th meeting at 6 p.m That is the action requested in front of you Following the memo is a table that gives you the detail on the new projects Following that one point seven seven and I think you had in your Probably is a separate attachment sent to you full UPWP and budget so happy to take any questions on those Thank you to the UPWP committee for work over the last two three months. Are there any questions? Okay So we'll go Andy with the second Barbara with the motion to warn the public hearing any further discussion Hearing none all in favor say aye Opposed eyes have it Next up Chris Dubin will Present on our road erosion Thanks, Chris. Again. My name is Chris Dubin. I'm a transportation planner here Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission and today I'll be giving a brief update on Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission's role in assisting municipalities in meeting The goals of the municipal roads general permit and the subsequent road erosion inventory That's needed to complete this Through the phase one Lake Champlain TMDL it was identified that sorry for the poor choice of colors, but Developed lands including paved roads and unpaved roads Total to about 20% of the total and that's really where Through act 64. Additionally The municipal road the impetus for the municipal road general permit came from The permit was issued in 2018 and it's looking to set deadlines for bringing all hydrologically connected roadway segments up to compliance We're going to get into what that definition actually means shortly, but from an operational perspective the The way this this permit will work is to inventory segments of roadway Sort of figure out what's what's happening with them what erosion issues and standards out of what? Compliance issues they may have Prioritize those needs and implement solutions on those roads To some extent yes, we have used water quality planning funds to further Plan for what upgrades would need to be done if it's a more detailed level of work but ultimately Implementation is going to come from either capital funds at a town level or grant programs and other funding sources So we're like oldest where the umbrella and the reason that we're doing this is Because it's a way we integrate with our constituent municipalities Yep, we're assisting them effectively in them reaching the goals of this permit. There's a lot of Inventory work that we've been doing and we want to take the next steps and and help them kind of sift through and prioritize that data But we'll get into some of the solutions that we go And the other thing that I'm curious about just because I'm me is Is this more important to the non-core communities like out in the rural areas or is this more important to the core communities or No difference between the two Every town is under the permit So I mean I think the variety issues that they have may be a little bit of different But they're all Subject to the requirements and I was thinking about it more along the lines of how we're serving our member communities Because I know the core communities have fairly sophisticated public workstaff and our is this an instance where we are providing more technical Assistance to the rural communities versus the core or is everybody in the same boat even Steven? Although I will say from Bolton stand, we've been very appreciative of the health we've gotten I think it's also probably important as you look at this if you look at our budget on a couple of pages prior We're almost a million dollars in water quality now And I don't know the numbers offhand, but I know at least within the UPWP itself and total budget I would bet three years ago was a fraction of that So, you know me as a so this is I've been moving and I expect that to go up This is an extension of the stormwater quality issue and all that kind of stuff So we just keep going deeper and deeper and deeper Getting back to this concept of hydrologic connectivity, it's a term or definition that was coined by DEC the the people that sort of created this permit They basically said that waterways of the state are a determining factor the distance to waterways of the state are a determining factor and Set a threshold of 100 feet Distance to a waterway of the state would or less than that would be a hydrologically connected roadway in addition outlets From catch basins on curved roadways are also covered under this permit and their proximity distance threshold If you will are set at a bit larger of a distance of 500 feet to kind of help towns and Well to help municipalities address this issue in terms of inventorying this work they threw a GIS exercise basically split all the roadways into 100 meter segments So we'll get a little bit into more of the standards and the inventory itself But all of these segments are effectively about a hundred meters in length So you said the hundred meters a hundred foot proximity to the roadway And that's hundred feet on a linear plane or vertically because there are a lot of roadways Travelling the state as much as I have that are sheer, you know So it could be 200 feet, you know before you get down there, but on a plane. It's only 50 feet, you know, this was strictly a two-dimensional exercise. So it's it's yep It was flat plane analysis that that again, yep. Yep. It's a good point But if you think about it if you're 200 feet higher than the water but 50 feet away probably anything going off that road is is ending up in that stream and and the state recognized that this was by no means a perfect exercise and municipalities have the power to kind of Say which segments may not actually be hydrologically connected or you know add or delete as as they feel necessary We decided to mix English and metric measurements And about half of the roads generally across the state were determined to be Connected right so just so you get a sense that's not all the roads about half And it's approximately it's a little less but still pretty close to 50% in Chittenden County as well We're gonna take a quick look at two different timelines sort of the near-term timeline of the municipal roads permit and the Longer term the full timeline these two slides were stolen from DEC's presentation. So One key point is is the issuance of the municipal road general permit which happened in 2018 We backtracked from that a little bit with the draft permit in which the RPC and many other State agencies were involved in providing comments for etc We are obviously just past this date right here the annual mr. GP compliance updates That was a one-page form with which in which your municipalities hopefully just filled out and it basically asked Did you complete your inventory yet? If so who did it? If not, when do you intend to do it? In future years, we will be asked or required to report on the actual data that we collected But we're not necessarily there yet Looking forward. Yep We've got a minimum of 15% of non-compliance segments upgraded to meet the standards This is going to take multiple years and as you knock stuff off 15% becomes more and more Right, so is that is that how it's intended to be or is that just kind of a language malfunction it? Well in the correct me if I'm wrong, but it's from the initial right set Oh, so even though you so you keep dropping it down. All right So you cured some if you will that counts is right and we'll get into a graph that Yes, oh That's a word right we have a graph that may help sort of get at that in a little bit a couple intermediate deadlines In the longer term. Well, I guess I'll start with the very end by December 31st 20 36 this 20-year timeline All roadways that are not in compliance or not meeting MRGP standards will need to be brought up to standards Some other deadlines are looking at very high priority roads That's a definition of roadways that do not meet standards. They're non-compliant and they're over 10% in slope DC is recognized them as very high priority if you will And there are intermediate deadlines for for those as well in addition We have a separate intermediate deadline for class 4 roads as well some of the standards that are sort of embedded in the inventory process are crowning of the roadway ditch Dimensions and type we can have stone line ditching Grass line ditches with check dams grass ditches and those are dependent on things like slope of the road Outlet stabilization is another standard within this permit for curved roadways obviously and another one is turnouts or locations in which water is directed off of the road and The requirement is to make sure that those areas are stabilized and filtered with things like rock swales and vegetation As we talked about briefly there's different types of roadways It as defined in this permit things like class 4 roads and curb and catch basin roads some of these Specific standards within the permit don't necessarily apply to all roadway types So there's some differences there for example on a paved roadway when we will go out and inventory these roads We're not actually evaluating whether or not there's a crown on the roadway at least relative to this specific permit and In class 4 roadways for example, we're really not inventorying much at all We're simply looking if there is severe or gully erosion which in this permit is defined as erosion of one foot in depth or greater This is a screenshot of the road erosion inventory form that DEC has created as you can see again Not applicable for paved This is again how they help people whether it be Municipal staff or PC Folk anyone who may be doing this inventory Work through these questions What we did is Converted this form effectively into a GIS database We use that for collection data collection data management Quality control mapping analysis and reporting. We just have sort of one Centralized database that can kind of do all that instead of relying on paper forms So starting in the summer of 2016 we began using our team of interns to actually go out and do these inventories Over two summers. We've completed all Chittenden County municipalities that needed to apply for this permit and With that we decided to Take this data and roll it up into what is called a dashboard, but it's a web-based Application that allows anyone really to go to that URL and begin to explore the results of this road erosion inventory We're going to come back to this at the end and it's kind of go through a tutorial of what the tool is intended to be used for As I briefly spoke about earlier outlets are a large Part of this permit, especially in Chittenden County about 30% of the roadways that are Covered under this permit are curbed that ultimately drain to an outlet This is an area in the new north end of Burlington And what we see here is a series of points colored points that represent Outlet locations and the colored line segments that have now been correctly mapped and Sort of fixed in our database to be sort of connected to that specific outlet This is really critical for Everything from prioritization of projects to reporting Because as you can see for example in this pink Group of segments and respective outlet some outlets may serve a large much larger impervious surface area than others But some of those that are small are incredibly steep Right and And those very well for example in this this situation with our pink outlet That one could be perfectly fine and not so show any signs of erosion So we're still going out to inspect and inventory these outlets themselves But we really need to know how many segments are draining to them This is a manual GIS project. I've been working with many MS4 communities already these totals are segment totals For curbed roadways and overall segment totals in your town The difference would be things like gravel roads paved roads without curbs But what you can see here is The additions and subtractions to Incorrectly identified hydrologically connected segments. So for example in Burlington We needed to add 138 segments that initially DEC did not tell us were connected and we needed to remove 147 so the net change was not very much, but We we severely changed the actual segments that that are part of this Database for for Burlington and conversely in a town like Essex We do in fact see quite a drop in the number of segments that are truly eligible under or covered under this permit The question That's correct. Yep Yep, this is the municipal roads general permit. So they filtered out all state routes before they gave us the original data set Then we're also excluding IBM Any any wire, I mean says nothing to do with private property And it doesn't mean that they aren't required to do stuff so they're under separate permits So right when the state was addressing the TMDL the municipal roads general permit was the thing for municipal roads There's a TS4 TS3 TS4 Permit for the state highways and then there's just stormwater and three-acre permits for private property owners And then of course and then we also have the MS4 permits in our urban towns So there's a lot of other permits going on besides this one. This is just the town road permit They're probably under that three-acre permit Just make sure I'm understanding this correctly. What that's saying is that there's 783 1,000 meter hundred meter. I mean, yes, I mean hundred meter sections of curbed roadways That was what the state gave us initially we ended up with 774 once we went through this exercise. We pretty much had to evaluate every single one of them from scratch It was a lengthy process John getting back to your earlier point of this 15% rule as it changes Looking into how Chittin and County municipalities have been implementing projects and tracking that work For the 10,000 plus segments across all of Chittin and County about 1,747 of them are non-compliant that number of 262 is 15% of that total so that this is that this is part of this near-term compliance targets that we're talking about and We'll get into a little bit later as I'll explain well, you know Our team internally will constantly be going out and meeting with municipalities to update the inventory But we have achieved upgrades of 147 segments over the last year Of those 42 have been in the hot very high priority category So that 138 is the total of all very high priority segments that need to be upgraded by the dates shown here That just that's just how it happened right so you're asking like of all the things that we need to upgrade How many fall into the very high priority category? Well, the 262 is actually only 15% of that entire total. Whereas the 138 is all of them should have reiterated Oh, all right. I assume by looking at this that the 138 was a subset of the 262. That's not the case. No, it's not the case Yeah, so I mean basically in the first couple years. We got more than 50 percent towards that 15% sorry, I shouldn't do that, but 50% over 15% And you know, we're a quarter of the way to meeting the Very high priority segment improvements. I say we the municipalities are doing this work, right? Careful with this graph as you go around with it because that's that's certainly not clear I knew I knew the 262 was only 15% of the total, but then looking at the same graph I would assume 138 is also 15% right the total and that's clearly not what it states So that's a little It's not it's not intuitive. We we struggled a lot with the presentation this data and and we Chris is trying to see how few words you could have on yourself The more words the better noted more words got it These two sort of lines and Trajectories are really meant to be looked at independently from one another. I guess I'd say So getting into implementation We have been over the last year working through various grant programs both through VTrans and DEC to Get money to towns to implement projects. This was a one of the earliest projects We did in Westford on Woods Hollow Road And the before and after clearly shows a substantial change to the roadway this roadway Based on the standards in the MRGP should require a rock-line ditch because of its slope is it's greater than some threshold and We got grant money to Re-establish this ditch and rock-line it there were some other aspects of this project like re-crowding the roadway removing the greater Berm and adding some cross culverts in as well Feedback from like neighbors and stuff that you ugly find their road and their teeth off or is this I mean, I think everybody would agree with what you're doing here. Don't get me wrong But I'm just curious what the public feedback when they're Daily commute changes, right? The only thing we've heard about was was Bolton Just because we've been working with a lot them with them a lot lately and But I don't know. I don't sometimes it doesn't make it make it back to me personally I don't know if anyone else has heard anything from their town specifically. Well, I mean just even when we do ordinary We haven't you know, just regular road work when you have to clean out a ditch or something or take down a tree Do jump all over the the road crew and the select board for doing that People don't want their they like that that can't be drove. You know, even though it's not really the best thing in the world This is an example of An outlet location in the new slash old north end of Burlington draining down to the wetlands by 127 the pipe basically disconnected from itself and and eroded away Pretty substantial area more than yeah, that's that would be deemed very high priority And this last location is is a conveyance area in which down in this ravine. There's there's a stream right there So re-establing this rock swell was pretty critical For this area. So all these projects we got grant money for and assisted municipalities and cutting down their costs effectively So this is a summary of Really what what money grant grant money is coming into Chittenden County specifically As you can see certain grant programs didn't exist in certain years And you know it they do vary across across programs These last two specifically are ones that I've been working with a lot more And they really try to harp on this concept of you know eligibility is defined as non-compliant roadways that are hydrologically connected and Through this process the roadway will be upgraded to meet MRGP standards So we're gonna give a real quick tutorial here on this tool But ultimately our goal is to continue to update our database as towns are making progress for this and continue to assist municipalities and any sort of grant and administrative work So this is the actual tool Along the bottom here. I apologize for the lack of labels These are the individual town segment totals In this pie chart we have the actual overall segment compliance county-wide and the surface type county-wide as well as a mileage tracker The the nice thing about this tool is that you can begin to filter data and these graphs and charts will update dynamically So if we were to zoom in and take a look at what's happening in Westford Which is probably more similar to the rest of Vermont than some other towns We can begin to look at what what is their homework assignment, right? So if we look at only their non-compliant roadways, we're looking at a 173 segments Which totaled to about a little less than 15 miles and eight of those specific segments are deemed very high priority This database is spatially accurate But also contains the actual discreet data that we collected in the field Looks like this was inventoried on July 24th and these are the individual assessment of Standards within This individual segment What we'll also do is make sure that we're updating this with Changes, so if we actually look right around here We will reassess this work done This was that grants and aid this grant project that I showed you the pictures of before and after And now this segment is green it fully meets So this is sort of the live current status of roadways as it pertains the municipal roads permit So we encourage you to use this tool play around with it Comments give me comments and you know questions if you have them and they're all Readily identifiable link. Yep from the RPC's main page to get there I Think there is if not we can make sure that we publicize that We have that I think in here somewhere, but we'll get that out if it's not readily available Train those in turn Yeah, they pick it up pretty quick. They're they're pretty smart, so He's good as their observation Substantial and you know walk away from that at the end of the summer Well, I'm talking about you know partially meets fully meets Type of crown Training them all together so they're using the same Well, we start we start with this right and within Probably less than two weeks. They have all of these standards Memorized so Jeff. That's a good point. You say partially meets well That's a very clear definition of for example roadway crown must be between 50 and 89% of the roadway is crowned properly and They'll have a supplemental documentation Workbook that says exactly what that crown tape measures and strings and all that kind of stuff We're using tools on their phone to measure slope, you know Any other questions? Well, this isn't a question, but I think one of the things that's coming up is the availability of enough stone to do all this and You know 10 years down the road all these ditches are going to need to be cleaned out So how are we going to harvest the stone? How are we going to reclaim that stone? What are the tools that we're going to need? And I mean there's a shortage of that stone at this point I think that the MRGP team at DEC has been sort of punting on the maintenance issue at least now And their focus is how do we get all work? Chittenden County is so far ahead of the game in terms of getting the inventory done the initial sort of look look in on the status of a road So they're still at the first step in this process Replacing 1928 bridges Yeah, the way I heard about the stone thing was from a neighboring RPC who was hearing from their towns that Chittenden County was taking all the stone First come first serve another reason another reason in Chittenden County envy Anything else? Hey, thank you very much Chris appreciate it State would be so much better off if we just send them our money and not take care of ourselves Next item charge to board development committee to develop slate of officers for fiscal year 20 This is chair action I Charge the development committee with coming up with a slate right candidates Yes, and I and I understand this is the last year we can torture you mr. Chair, right? So if anybody's interested in serving on the executive committee being in any of the officer roles Let us know that Charlie know let me know And we'll be meeting the committee will be meeting. Yeah, everybody needs to understand that We try to balance the executive committee membership with certain members from smaller communities And then certain members from the core communities and then we have rules about how long people can serve in the positions and We have a past chair Positions so that when we boot the chair of the commission that person becomes automatic past chair and then Montroll will go out and drink adult beverages Because he's been chat past chair for a long time and head of this committee and and the way this is structured in the bylaws is that the board development committee has to report back to the full board by the May meeting by the May meeting so that you have the slate of officers a month in advance of the annual meeting in June So that's where we vote. It's a little formal process piece here, so All right, well, you're so charged Chair has acted Next item Winooski master plan approval confirmation of planning process and determination of energy compliance Sure Re-adoptions that are include new content and we'll give eight years before expiration in both cases they're both and At the staff level In both cases throughout the process of a nice iterative process in both cases Regina and our office actually did the writing for the Winooski plan and We have had them before the pack a few times Review them found that they are meeting the statutory requirements for planning They're compatible both with the plans of the surrounding municipalities and with our regional plan and they are meeting the requirements for energy planning that the state of Vermont has put out that's an optional process But both of them have chosen to to pursue it and so that'll give their plans substantial difference before the public utilities Commission much more detail included in your package Or comments for either one of them But in both cases both the planning advisory committee and staff are recommending that the planes be approved the confirmation The cleaning process be confirmed and that they have an affirmative determination of energy compliance Are there any questions with respect to either the Winooski or Colchester town plan and the process that led to them? If not, there's a recommended motion with respect to each of them We can do my guess combined or separately, but if someone wants to do a combined. I'm not going to be averse to that Further discussion Hearing none all in favor say aye Opposed The eyes have it do we need to confirm their planning process in a separate thing or is the approval of plan confirmed It's all part of that same motion. Okay Just wanted to make sure Next item S96 recommendations okay So in your packet, there's a memo giving a little bit of background About this bill S96 it passed out of the Senate a couple weeks ago. It is in front of the house committee on natural resources fish and wildlife currently They really just started taking up testimony last week and Asked me to testify last Thursday in advance of your meeting for which I apologize, but Thought we'd try to introduce some ideas to them early on so I did testify And there I guess I'll give you a little bit of update about Where I think the status of the bill is and what's kind of happening with this? Big picture so this is This bill is really about two different things wanted I believe is intended to be the bill for additional water quality revenue this year so there's kind of one provision that's in there for that and it's proposing to shift some of how water quality funds are distributed across the state By going to this clean water service provider model, which is more of a watershed based there be a Clean water service provider for every watershed. So it's more of a regionalized approach rather than right now everything goes through the DEC office And I think the DEC office. Well, I won't get into that too much, but A&R is the one who kind of proposed that partly in part to address challenges within That they have in terms of getting out hundreds of grants a year So they're proposing that Any questions kind of about the status Yeah So it only went through the Senate program authorizing committee It did not go through the Senate finance committee because it doesn't have a revenue component to it It went through all those committees, but the Senate finance did not add any language to it So they kind of passed it on And then it got voted on by the full Senate. My understanding is that there was some Understanding between the Senate and house that the Senate was drafting this delivery system This regional delivery system and that the house would work more on the specific of the revenue Usually true that it goes through a program authorizing committee They authorized the program and then it goes through the money committee in that chamber And then they say they modified the program to conform to the amount of money They want to earmark towards it and it seems like in the Senate we bypassed that No, it went through those committees Didn't attach any revenue sources to it. That's correct. It did it did nothing to modify the program authorizing committee which Then it seems like it's going to go to the house is at the house It's at the house also a house authorizing program authorizing committee It will then go to house ways and means for the revenue side They will pass a bill and then they will go to conference without having had the Senate Finance Committee Way in on the revenue things is that what I'm understanding that sounds essentially like the process in my understanding Is that there was some some sort of agreement or understanding between the Senate and house where the Senate was okay? Deferring to house ways and means to develop the revenue. So the next question is How much revenue is this going to involve? Yeah, so Thanks for bringing that up if you if you were had a lot of time and you actually read this bill Which I don't expect any of you to have done But there is the money provision is basically one maybe one or two sentences in there that says the Legislature's committing to Have 50 to 60 million dollars annually for water quality. That is pretty much what has been happening And the way I've heard this explained is that coming into FY 20, which is the budget we're talking about the Legislature and the administration both understood that the state was going to back off of the amount of capital Funding so they've been taking some of the bonding authority revenue of the state and The these last two years have significantly increased the amount of Capital funding going to water quality projects In FY 20, and I think a mutual agreement They were stepping that back and the number I've heard is by about 8 million and So the gap in funding that I think house ways and means is trying to plug is around 8 million That is the sense I'm getting that they're trying to Without an early marker from the Senate on where the money is going to come from or I think because they rejected the governor's proposal Yeah, yeah, so sorry for those of you who may be not be following the governor proposed Filling that gap with the estate tax Or part of the estate tax And yeah, that does seems that that was I don't know how formally but or informally But not has not been taken up and not going to happen And so it is now and or should be shortly getting to house ways and means to figure out how to fill that financial gap I'm just trying to get my rating. Well, am I am I my cynical Jeff Wave looking at this is we wrapped ourselves around the axle active 50 reform now. It's not going If we wrap ourselves around the axle weighing in on this kind of stuff again Are we doing this with the idea that's going to sit there for six eight more months before it gets serious again? Or is this do we really have to do this? And use your valuable time and divert our energy to something like this to either do a positive thing or if I'm seeing the way that there's a proposal to Potentially have the RPC on the hook for enforcement. I Just I want to make sure that as a commissioner of this organization that I understand what's going on and I and I And we're not pursuing a fool's errand that this is real and this is a real risk And it's worth your valuable time to be participating in this because we think this is really going to happen. I will give it a 85 to 90 percent Chance that this bill is moving forward I think the what's maybe some things that we're concerned about may not be there in this time this year And there's a role for us to play in that to protect us from becoming an enforcement Stooge For things. I mean basically have no ability to affect the policy, but all the liability for seeing it It's done. That's the concern is it but I'm ready to talk like I want to discuss. Yes Basically I agree. I just wanted to work it out. I Courageously passed a bill that shifts liability to the region's reasonable providing funding. That's what the Senate did I Nicely played well played We already have our stormwater I just wanted to make sure that I understood the totality of what this was. Yeah, I think that's pretty much the whole context going on I mean, yeah Obviously, none of us know what they will actually end up doing. It does feel like there is you know Pressure to get this through this the natural resources committee shortly and by that I mean this week or next week So to me this the timing of our meeting tonight is fortuitous because I think I have at least one Significant question to kind of put on the table and and ask for feedback That would be I think helpful to the deliberations of that committee before they voted out just my last clarifying question The revenue source if it is not a capital item That could become an item in the big bill the budget for this year Which could then become something that gets involved in into the session stuff Like we've seen the last two or three absolutely Yeah Yeah, I mean my this is a fun one my little p political sense is that both Well, the leadership of the two chambers have committed to getting something done on water quality We've made that commitment for multiple years. Well, I haven't been able to arrive at a consensus this time for real Yes, so I the fun of also being the chair of the natural resources committee for the RPC statewide So So for good and bad That that means to Jeff's point about my time that doesn't mean I spend more time herding cats and seeing to what extent and I think a Lot of these major points we have come to agreement on you know that that you know we You know we was trying to be a good partner with the state And can help where we can help but we also don't want this to feel like a permit And getting back to this enforcement question, which is really to me the big sticking point About how this is structured right now Any other background questions To be clear Thanks projects that are in the tactical basin plans or some place so this is not about regular meeting regulatory things and the majority of what we have to do is on private land and It means that you have to get Landowners to agree to do these projects and so it's It's a tall task. It's a lot of money that's needed and Yeah, actually, let me give a little more content. Thanks for bringing that up so this this restructuring I think was also The secretary more realizing that particularly in the north and south ends of Lake Champlain where and Lake Champlain basin Which we all know well is where they've done most of the modeling but When they looked at what was going to get accomplished via peep permits so everything regulatory the things we just mentioned in the Chris's presentation Julie had the her first two years. Sorry secretary more had been testifying that probably 90% of Meeting our water quality goals was going to get accomplished just by people meeting the permit requirements. I Think as she's dug into that a little bit more She's realized there are at least parts of the Lake Champlain watershed where The Compliant it like it's not really possible to get there Just through permit And really those are the areas Frankly outside of Chittenden County the areas further north and south to us where There were very high assumptions about how much farmers are going to be able to do Like in Like that they were going to be able to reduce 80 something percent of their pollution Where they're 40% of the problem? So there was kind of an unrealistic demand expectation about what was going to get accomplished to the permit So this I believe is a shift in strategy to say we need more to happen in terms of voluntary projects We need more work to happen more locally with property owners The watershed groups conservation districts to get voluntary projects done But so this whole Structure this regional structure is to focus on these voluntary projects not municipal roads not stormwater improvements or anything so Thanks for that part of the context And we lost the lottery last week right Well the clean energy project through Lake Champlain isn't going to happen because central main power won the distribution Thing over in Maine Maine got the transmission corridor of the Canadian power to the Boston market the clean energy Link through Lake Champlain was one that didn't stand a great probability success And you know there was another one through Granite State, which everybody knows about a year and a half go failed And then there was another one that Velco was talking about going through the Northeast Kingdom and down into New Hampshire that Vermont would have got a little piece of but the TDI project had what? 50 60 million dollars a year for clean water is part of it five million over 30 years five million per year over 20 or 30 years along with all sorts of other green mail to get it approved But it didn't stand the chance Against some of the other transmission corridors that I think all central main power had to do was enhance one that already existed To get the power over so that decision was only made last week So now TDI clean energy thing is off the table done Well, everything's always under appeal Until it isn't so They're not gonna they're not gonna pay what they have to pay to go through the Cable through Lake Champlain so for those of you that don't know we had a presentation on that about three years ago With a guy came actually came in with a cross-section of the cable. It's really quite interesting So that's how all this ties together that's why we're now I think finally getting serious about the funding Yeah, right well, there's no more lottery out there as a possibility for us That would have been very helpful if it happened So if I can turn your page to the attachment to the memo, which was just a two-pager, which is somewhat basically written as I testified last week and I'll give some credit to ANR their general council presented yesterday and Had addressed a lot of these so and there's a really no No debate Issues on in terms of the the first page. I'm going to turn to the second page of this And Maintenance responsibility was one big thing. They also made some changes similar to the language that came out of our Our clean water advisory committee and from our executive committee a couple weeks ago The so they have some language similar to this now in the latest draft the ANR proposed back The the one big issue is in the middle of the page and F accountability for pollution reduction goals Right now use or I'm sorry previously That language Had you see number two struck through there That strike through language basically said they could take enforcement action against a clean water service provider I'm going to pass out and just to explain to people the default clean water service provider is Well, it was the RPCs by the time they got Through the Senate they took out the predisposition towards RPCs so it was kind of any Any organization, but mostly the conversation has been about RPCs Conservation districts and maybe you water set group might want to be a clean water service provider Who would want the liability There's the provider There's a basin Council I mean it's just adding a whole level of Government of kind of governance Is there anybody On this commission that believes that we should accept the enforcement liability without having a say without having the oversight and it was done I Know We don't do that Yeah, so I pass out this one page because at the bottom of page 12 here you'll see That A&R was proposing they struck the language that was there and put in some different language I'm not sure how much better or not, but I just wanted in fairness to them Share with you the latest version so it says Instead of an initiate enforcement action it says assess penalties Establish as a term of its grant agreement with the clean water service prior which shall increase So so I don't want to read the rest of the sentence after assess penalties which shall increase Penalty Statutory penalty if I'm penalized for a thousand bucks you can call it Fred. I'm still paying a thousand bucks So I don't care where it comes. Yeah Yeah, so they changed the language a little bit Oh, I still has penalties in there. So I'm just trying to be fair to them that they did They did update It's penalized the state when they don't do what they're supposed to yeah That can Just like we penalized the feds So I would I'd love to ask for a strong a vote as you want then The feelings of the of the Commission with regard to this provision especially because I'd like to get back in front of them and Tell them that either we could live with this or we can't live with this I would I would move that is the sense of the commissioners on this board That the RPC is not in a position technically or financially To be assessed penalties of any kind for non-compliance by another party Second second and he's seconded any further discussion Yep, sorry Amy. I would say that It's not just the financial burden of it. It's just a whole operation operation of it. Yeah So, I mean I mean Technically or fees I said technically I said technically as well. I used pop it did put technically in it And it's actually not consistent with our mission So I can I don't mind if the seconder of the motion would say and say and that is inconsistent with the RPC stated mission Friendly the colloquial Charlie could use the term non-starter in his discussions I've been using poison pill, but yeah That's the most diplomatic I've seen I've seen Zirconi be in about Any further discussion questions hearing none all in favor of the motion say aye Opposed unanimous vote noted I'm staying out. Yes, Amy abstain. I have to abstain Everyone who could vote voted It was an RPC You're not a member community that a member community Your transportation funder and MPO member a voting member of the depends on what you call this but an MPO issues, right? But she's not subject to this to the to the penalty mean I didn't know that is that our charter? It will put a burn after what the look at that The only thing I officially can't vote on is your town plan. It's down plans. Yeah, I just wanted to point out that I think that within a and r there's and even with the presentation from Chris the amount of technology and data That's been coming in to help assess and do this type of work for clean water is just Kind of increasing exponentially of what the staff at a and r is doing and their capacity Their reluctance to do this is that they they made a quick assumption that they didn't really have the staff capacity to do all of this But I'm not sure that they they really did a full assessment of how How internally within a and r they could restructure things to more effectively? Address this aside from where the money's coming from so I have a Kind of confidence that if we push it back to a and r and say what keep doing what you've been doing and I think isn't it more Don't ask us to do something. That's outside of our capability For us and it's not that it's not that we wouldn't help in trying to find out a solution It's just we don't feel in this environment and where our staff capacities are and where our mission is that this is something is in line with what it is that we could or You know much less should accept So I don't I mean yeah, so just before I got myself now I was not what I don't want to but what I don't want to have happen is is then then have the legislature Turn around and change the mission of a ccd and put it as part of our a ccd grant every year And that's the risk yeah, so just to and and push on me as as She need to but I've been saying you know We'd be happy to try to help get money and you know for projects to towns or or whoever Conservation district water because we do that because we do that right but yeah Was this kind of enforcement and you know unrealistic expectations about us taking on maintenance that were Municipal service organization, and then we're going to be enforcing against any any municipal Grant that's done much less the private sector I will say that Mike O'Brien was a bit attracted to the concept that we might get badges inside Be nice His incoming highness In fairness, I'm like I think I may have brought that up I don't understand why even a watershed district would want the responsibility being a clean water provider if they're you know penalized Actually, actually I refer can't accept the responsibility to not want to right the rub becomes somebody has to do it And who would you could you could make an arm of a on R? You could create a board at the state level where the cases get brought because you're gonna need due process You're gonna need lawyers. You're gonna mean it's not just finding somebody right that they're in complying in And you slap them with a fine There's the whole due process on how you fight that back if you don't believe your There are mechanisms to do it But they'd have to create it either within a nr or a state board or something They can't they can't ask us to beat the crap out of our constituent membership organization our members of our own organization We serve that we're gonna enforce it That's John about how about the T board there's always discussions that can be had Well, he is a power-grabbing maniac I don't know if he even wants this but I'm just saying it's you know, it's just way more complicated We don't not only is it our mission. We don't even have an arm of our mission that even gets into anything like it. Yeah Be a radical departure from what we do So we need to find a workable solution For this because we have to do these projects. We just have to find the right way to do it and the right organizational and oversight Enforcement resources that are needed to do the job and there's an appropriate No, I'm not saying we the RPC I'm saying the state just like we're in favor of renewable energy Okay, we are in favor of clean water and last time I checked. Okay, so we are we are proposing to be Constructive in this within the bounds of reason and asking us to be enforcers or even Oversize seers of private entities that do that is utterly inconsistent with our staff resources and our mission and then to add Onto that and then the potential to be held liable if they're not successful in our enforcement activities It's I understand that nobody wants to have this responsibility But somebody has to have that responsibility if this is the way we elect to do it in this way in the state if we elect to farm it out And then have an enforcement function for people to do these things right which if we're given out money from the taxpayers We ought to even if it's bond money. Okay, the taxpayers are still going to pay that back over 20 years with interest Okay, we owe it to ourselves to do this correctly and we as an RPC should position ourselves to be in A could a positive contributor But not in a way which violates our capabilities or a mission That maybe violates is the wrong one is inconsistent Yep, our mission capabilities and resources All right. Thank you next item Executive director report. Oh legislative updates. So there's this bill s96 The other The other thing that is not happening is Jeff reference earlier is the active 50 bills Probably give you a little bit of an update last month It seems get it getting clearer by the day that probably house natural resources committee It's probably going to hold that bill through the summer Yeah, presumably it comes Bill at some point but the draft bill They are still making talking about changes to that draft bill And so they're going to hold on to it. So on the good news front that will probably leave some time for people to work on some specific provisions in particular, I think of Importance to us is figuring out how the enhanced designation Existing settlements, whatever it is whatever however that works to promote smart growth development in our region It's going to be a real important provision So I will leave it at that and just you know, that's the heads up And there's a lot of other things going on in the legislature, but those were the two big things I've been tracking I don't know if there are any questions Thanks No, not at this time, but thank you Amy for taking minutes All right next on the agenda we have a variety of committee and Liaison activities and reports. Are there any members items or other business that you wish to raise at this time? Yes, I Haven't to hear on the radio today about Vermont Perhaps being a state where Driverless cars might be tested. Yeah, and VLCT weighed in that municipalities ought to and and I was kind of mulling over in my head. I'm not sure Where that sits, but I wondered why we wouldn't test the RPC MPO want to at least Talk about it Whether we would have an opinion on this or whether it's just going to go ahead You know, I can think of pros and cons to it But it just seemed like it That they're you'd like someone to come and do a presentation to you I Think that'd be great because I you'll recall the last iteration of the Eco's plan We did include language in there anticipating driverless vehicles and The challenge from a planning perspective at the time, you know, is what a year ago, but that's a that's an eon and Technological terms there still wasn't enough data to really know how to Deal with it in a planning way But certainly as part of the process to educate ourselves about what the implications are positive and negative That allows us to develop a base of knowledge that will then in turn Inform our planning processes we go forward. I think it's important because any any testing of that is more likely than not going to be focused In in in great part mentioned in County, so I think we need to be No, I understand that part of the reason they want to do it here is that the technology is coming the Vermont terrain actually has certain challenges if you're not in on the Grand scope of planning, you know, you're liable to have more problems when it actually starts than you want because you Didn't have you know your your foot on the door There's also a comfort level. They've seen At least their studies show that the closer people get to them the more comfortable with the technology They are so if it's being worked in your backyard and people that are get more familiar with it If you really breeds some kind of acceptance You a lot of people now that will tell you in no way know how never and they actually do start to change their minds a bit once They're educated and I'd like to see how they're going to interact as certain interchange in Colchester and Williston and how they perform in rotaries with pedestrians and bicycles They can probably do that Well, they use rocks that are do you want to take Amy up on her offer to have Josie golly come in and talk to us I will try to follow up Coming with Michelle if we include this in the minutes is that I believe in our Ecos plan when we did talk about this a year and a half Two years ago. I think we did have some language about encouraging testing it in Vermont so I think and I got a check double check that That's been in the back of my mind and part of why I didn't think we had a policy I don't think the sentiment was very positive two years ago if I'm remembering correctly I think we had anxiety about it, but wanted to make sure it was tested before it's you know Don't go fully adopted which and have all its accidents before it gets here Because aside from how it works The impact would that mean there's actually more vehicles on the road in less Oh, because they're only that far apart at 55 miles an hour and it drops you off Yeah, drop you off at work and then go back home, so we have We're gonna bring Joe and Joe's very knowledgeable on this is to let him know what we want I mean, he's got a whole presentation on how it all works where it's going what the future looks like it is You know as of today, and then that's kind of Separate them the effort to get the testing yeah here in Vermont So if we're gonna invite Joe in I think it's a great idea We need to give him some guidance on what it is that we actually want him to talk about because it's it's a much bigger Topic than he could ever fill time with that would be able to give him So what is it that you want to actually why shouldn't we want to hear about the testing? My first reaction was why of course we would want them to test it here Why wouldn't we but if you're against them then and it proves that they're really great then Lost your chance to say no And there is a there is a debate you started off with the VLCT position There is a debate about whether town should have to opt into being allowing testing within their municipality or should the Stashory language be that a town has to opt out of being a testing location So that's that's it. That's a debate that's going on legislature by the time of your next board meeting that debate is probably gonna be over But we'll at least know which way it landed RPC that deals with transportation and our municipalities that it would be we would have been a Good place to at least have that discussion as opposed to the LCT weighing in for all the towns when you know We're so much more intimately connected with transportation in Chittenden County Same thing with commuter raw Yes, so on along those lines if you And I'm unclear on this as a transportation body primarily But with the two items that occurred to me in the last week or so where fossil fuel infrastructure I think is getting debated at the state house. We don't have to weigh in on that Do we? Very first one and in today's seven days There was a nice big article not article ad from an organization in Putney that's against 5g Because of radiation concerns are those things that we would get involved in as well when you talk about conversion So, you know more of the utility type it probably under the public utilities more than our Bailey work, but I'd like to know we just We aren't as anchored in it as with transportation. I think is what I'm asking and You know should we inform ourselves? Will we ever have an opportunity to weigh in on either of those two topics? And I don't know enough about 5g to know one way or the other if it's Noise or what? Yeah, our plan has broad probably Well, yes, I actually know a little bit about that and it has to do with weather forecasting Because whenever you see Doppler radar that That's very close to that frequency of 5g and they're concerned that this could cause as much as 18% inaccuracies in weather forecast which Who cares with a big rain shower, but when you're talking about Hurricane Sandy could be a big difference Our Ecos plan has some broad policies related to those two topics, you know item We haven't drilled down is what we're hearing but yeah dating the Ecos plan We have the opportunity to drill down Don't have that stuff the ball in I mean at this point I look at it from the perspective that we're the regional planning Commission, so the issues that we weigh in on need to be or ought to be related to Planning for the region with respect to that So You know as these issues come up I think I mean that's the filter through which I look at it But certainly If if folks feel that there are issues that bear on planning that are more immediate Such as those sorts of things. I think it's appropriateness within the scope of What we do in our Ecos planning process And when we start putting the committees together to I mean what does that start for the next though It's a link. It's a lengthier period of time now For the next Ecos plan yeah, I mean, I'm sorry I've been interpreting the conversation as like what do we want to get involved in at the legislature Based on what we have in our plan and which would require probably in some of these cases digging in deeper than our plan goes Well, I think it's recognizing things that we may not recognize now that might have a bearing on what our charge is I think that's more than more than getting ready to Participate in the ball game under the gold dome. I think we just got to know whether or not driverless cars the evolving wireless technology And among other things the first time you mentioned the infrastructure for fossil fuels I mean, you know, we have a certain pipe Oh the proposed ban on gas and you know, if you're gonna suddenly have a legislature this but we already have it so You got yours So all those things I think are reasonable things for us to look at Goes to economic development and all those other things that we address as well You know, you know, you talk about the deadheading but an idea for our wireless for the driverless cars is that they could be You know, and you drop people off and stuff so that you're actually saving energy under those conditions shared service But I don't maybe I shouldn't belabor this but I think this to my sense of where I spend my time It's it's worth it if it seems like there is something That is going to move through the legislature that's going to impact policy and our future And that actually has a chance to move so I don't know I've been trying to follow, you know the two major things that I thought we're gonna move this year next year I think there's other issues. Yeah, your short-term and long-term and let's just more short-term. Yeah in my view Anyway, I don't know. I mean they're a long-term that gets to the idea of are we gonna try to get in a position of driving some legislation? You know, if we're trying to affect policy change at the state level Which is really hard, you know in a whole different Yeah, thanks. Yeah, thanks for your comments And that wasn't directed at Jeff that was broadly and the reaction of the legislature, but Yeah, so, you know, I guess partly if you all if or any one of you felt like something was really moving that was gonna Have an impact on us Big-straw polls map out. Yeah, where we perceive that, you know, the development's gonna be that it's going to get served Efficiently and within the realm of the next 20-25 years, you know, rather than Counting on pie-in-the-sky things because there's no doubt. We want core development And we've always spoken to that and some of the limitations that may be thrust upon you may be countered to that And then at the same time, you know, I'm not sure where the 5g is anything to worry about or anything that gets thrown into the mix. It's It's something I just don't have any knowledge about Chris in the context of our work plan, okay We do a financial plan out to 20 40, whatever Don't you think driverless cars is going to be an issue at some point in time? Time horizon, so that's part of our normal work plan. Absolutely 5g or 6g might be or maybe 10g characteristic of you know making stuff happen even by accident, so I Mean, we just need to I mean that's not outside of our time window to look at those kinds of things and things like fossil fuel Infrastructure, there are a lot of conditions, you know, a lot more impactful than fracking bands in Vermont. So I mean, a lot of things get brought up. I mean the whole, you know, the whole climate Initiative that was you know, that could be very impactful, but At least my sense at the moment is it's not it's not moving through the legislature, so I mean we need to develop some kind of approach For keeping our eye on things that are potentially Well, I mean driverless cars are potentially game-changers from the standpoint of all the work we're doing on interstate Capacity, I mean we're doing a long-term Assessment right now of our interstate system Okay, and the county had a very congested travel quarter all you know We have to be wary of making a recommending large investments where something some disruptive technology comes in and all of a sudden We've sunk a 40-year Investment in that has lifespan of half the amount of time that we thought it was going to and we as an organization have a Responsibility to our constituent communities and the people in those communities did not do that You could say the same thing about the energy the solar panels I mean you go back to anything Jeff you look back 25 30 years ago and it's the dish dishes that people were getting Internet or TV signals from were the size of that screen or bigger and now you've got a little tiny dish That's a little bigger than these plates, you know, and you're doing things So that's that's gonna happen no matter what in many ways we can look at it I'm more concerned about transportation investments as a transportation planning body And the things that could come in to disrupt those because those are big ticket items We are talking about I don't want to I don't want to to to to you know put so much Value or Credence on that belief that this is going to happen I hear you the net that driverless vehicles are probably going to happen It's sometime in the future When who knows but we know right now we have a problem with traffic in this in this county We need to address it. We didn't get the Cirque Highway We've got Cirque alternatives that are stagnant right now many many of our municipalities I want to see that stuff move forward I I'm I'm keeping my eye down the road But I'm living in today and addressing today's problems without trying to to you know My point is we have a fiduciary obligation To the communities that will serve To do our best to anticipate disruptions going forward I'm not talking about not funding Cirque alternatives. I'm not talking about Saying that we shouldn't do studies on interstate capacity to alleviate You know congestion I'm just saying that when we do that long-term assessment We have to recognize there because I'm disruptive technologies that might affect our investment decisions within the timeline of that study And we have to do the best that we can however imperfectly To anticipate that even if we make a mistake Even if we make a mistake, that's two or three x We will be better off when we get 30 years down the road having tried to think about that then putting our Our our heads figuratively. I'm not saying that's what we're saying in the sand and not looking for those things Those are you know, those can result in unrecognized financial obligations Not necessarily from the standpoint in new investments that we would have to make But investments that we make in the wrong area that have a 40-year lifespan that may run out in 15 years I think I mean the role and I know andy has brought this up with the executive committee too is At times we become Creatures of what's the next deadline? What's the next thing we have to generate and we're very reactionary and then at times we try to be more forward-looking Be you know a force behind policy change as opposed to just a reactionary board And there's always a bit of attention there because on one hand We have to do the things that are in our normal cycle things we do But we don't want to lose sight. We won't want to just become You know mechanics we want to we want to think more broadly So I if there's time on next month's agenda I think it would be appropriate for us to have a discussion about Not only how the commission ought to Balance those two things, but also In recognition of what our planning mission is the reality that we meet once a month How and what sorts of things ought we to be weighing in on and what's the best way to do that? And that's you know, that's something I'd ask everybody to sort of you know Put their thinking cap on about and I think we could have a really Good discussion about about that we're planners. We're supposed to at least try to be proactive I go back to my Initial thing on this about whether we could have a straw poll about whether people think that We would want to support vermont being a place where Driverless cars were tested Just aren't you wait can you wait until after joe's presentation because actually one of the parts of the presentation is Is giving it's a lot more complex Autonomous vehicles isn't one thing It's the technology and the application of the technology. So I think you might benefit from the overview part I'd have to say I don't know Right before you. Yeah, but I mean, I guess it's it's just the concept of whether we're open to people coming And you know to to at least someone testing the I'm perfectly willing to wait. I just was curious about That's just a suggestion. I think that's really important the technology understanding the technology is a lot of understanding what the What the bill is addressing. I don't sense anybody being opposed regardless of what information is provided to us on the topic Well, it's like john said earlier john said the whole thing of familiarity brings brings acceptance familiarity what what what what amy's talking about getting joe in here to explain it so we all have a better understanding Maybe we all I'd rather do that than try and draw a conclusion based on a straw poll to satisfy You're just curious Then to get us educated so that we can we can do the straw poll with with some education We're going to do a straw poll. We're just going talking about the timing We are all curious I want to learn more Anything further? Yes I have an announcement that's actually related to what we've been talking about We the university along with ccrpc and some other partners are hosting a forum on may 3rd That is the theme is using multimodal transportation to meet parking and tdm transportation demand management challenges On campuses and in communities It's a pretty broad theme but the three sort of major session areas are autonomous vehicles and electric vehicles is one What vermont's doing to lead the way with transportation innovation? And then the third one is micro mobility and micro transit and how that's used in a rural state So it's a regional conference. We're pulling from the association of commuter transportation members and the new england parking council members But it's open to any and everybody that's interested So it's may 3rd from 9 30 to 3 30 You can come on the uvm website, which is just uvm.edu backslash transportation to see the full agenda But we would definitely encourage anybody that's interested in these topics to come and be a part of the Forum and the conversation Excellent Anyone else got any conferences that would address any of the I'm going to move me adjourn before we get too deep. Let's see. Okay. We have a motion to adjourn. Is there a second? We've got a second from All in favor say aye. Opposed the ayes have it. Thank you very much folks