Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State stormwater remediation projects delayed by permitting; design work funded with ARPA and capital dollars
Summary
BGS told the committee that permitting and site complexity have delayed design and contracting for seven stormwater mitigation sites tied to the Vermont Clean Water Act; three sites are expected to go to bid by late spring and ARPA funds continue to be used for design and permitting.
Buildings and General Services told the committee it is advancing a statewide stormwater remediation program tied to the Vermont Clean Water Act but that permitting delays and site complexity have pushed back construction timelines.
Director Joe Ajah, director of design and construction, said the program covers seven sites around the state that complement watershed protections for Lake Champlain and other waters. He told the committee three locations—Regens (name as cited), the Milltec site, and the Waterbury State Complex—are expected to go to bid by late spring, pending permits. “We’ll be out very soon,” Ajah said, adding that once a permit is issued the agency generally has five years to complete construction at a site.
Nut graf: The projects are designed to capture and treat runoff through measures such as gravel wetlands that slow and settle sediment before water reaches larger receiving waters. BGS said permitting has taken longer than anticipated at some sites, and that design details affect final costs; the agency does not yet have final cost estimates for the three sites slated for early bidding.
Ajah explained the typical treatment approach: directing runoff from culverts, roofs and driveways into a low point where sediment settles in a gravel media before filtered water continues downstream. “Basically, what we’re looking to do is a gravel wetland,” Ajah said. He told the committee that maintenance expectations vary: some tasks are annual while engineers expect formal inspections and more substantial maintenance on a roughly five‑year cycle.
On ARPA and other funds, committee discussion identified approximately $211,719 of unobligated ARPA funds that were required to be obligated by the end of calendar 2024; Ajah said the remainder of the ARPA allocation intended for permitting and design has been obligated and that the projects must be completed and paid for by December 2026 under the ARPA timelines. Committee members asked for a site breakdown and for cost estimates once permitting is complete.
Ending: BGS said permitting remains the gating factor for construction procurement and that it will return with permit updates, cost estimates and a clearer schedule for each site.
