Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Chloride Reduction Salt Program topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Municipal leaders back voluntary salt-reduction program but urge a municipal liability cap
Summary
The Vermont League of Cities and Towns told the Natural Resources & Energy committee it supports a voluntary chloride-reduction program for municipal and commercial applicators but said towns need funding and protection from large lawsuits before they can adopt new practices widely.
The Vermont League of Cities and Towns testified to the Natural Resources & Energy committee that towns and cities favor efforts to reduce chloride runoff from road and sidewalk salting but that any state program must be voluntary for municipal and commercial applicators and must include funding, training and liability protections for local governments.
"We believe ... the program must be voluntary, both for municipal applicators and for commercial," Samantha Sheehan, VLCT municipal policy and advocacy specialist, told the committee. Sheehan described the organization's long-standing work supporting municipalities with training, insurance pools and operational assistance.
VLCT supports the bill (filed as S.29) as an advisory and resource program modeled in part on New Hampshire's green-snow municipal approach, but it identified two major concerns that could block municipal participation: the cost of new equipment and training, and exposure to unlimited monetary liability.
On liability, Sheehan told the committee VLCT wants municipalities to receive the same statutory monetary protection the state already has for certain claims. She cited the state cap for some state claims as an example and asked for a comparable municipal protection. "We are asking simply for the same path that the state has," she said, explaining municipal officials fear large awards would come out of local property-tax revenue.
Sheehan provided examples of how insurance market changes and legal exposure have already affected local decisions: municipal ownership of dams faces limited private-market coverage, the insurer operating a municipal pool covers dam liability only up to $1 million, and towns have declined or curtailed public-recreation projects because of insurability concerns. VLCT said such risks make towns cautious about taking on new programs that could increase liability exposure.
VLCT asked that the program focus on training, best-management practices and technical assistance, and be careful to distinguish commercial applicators from municipal operations, since many small towns use private contractors for salting. Sheehan cited New Hampshire's municipal program as more advisory and collaborative than regulatory and said enhanced assistance to buy equipment and develop long-range plans would improve participation.
What stayed unresolved: the bill as drafted includes incentives and training but committee staff and witnesses noted the statutory language and the specific liability protections under consideration would determine whether municipalities could or would participate. Several committee members urged clarifying whether liability protection would apply to a municipality when it hires a private applicator and whether participation would depend on adherence to training and best practices records.
Ending: VLCT representatives said they would support a voluntary, well-resourced program but that the Legislature should also consider broader municipal liability reforms to avoid saddling local taxpayers with new risks. The committee did not take a vote during the session; VLCT asked sponsors to advance the bill with clarified language on voluntary participation, training standards and liability protections.
