Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
UVM study recommends partial regionalization of MS4 compliance to curb staff costs
Loading...
Summary
A UVM study for six Chittenden County communities recommends partially regionalizing Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) compliance tasks — consolidating 70+ tasks to 42 — and estimates about $111,000 in annual staff-time savings from selected regionalized functions.
Andrew Brown, a research specialist at the University of Vermont’s Center for Rural Studies, presented research to the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission’s MS4 Subcommittee on Aug. 5 examining options to regionalize MS4 permit compliance across six communities.
Brown said the project worked with Burlington, Colchester, Essex Junction, Essex, Shelburne and South Burlington and consolidated more than 70 distinct MS4 compliance tasks down to 42 tasks that could be candidates for regional delivery. "From the 70 tasks, we whittled it down to 42 tasks that would be most desirable to regionalize," Brown said.
The study surveyed national examples and found full regionalization is uncommon; Truckee Meadows was cited as the only fully regionalized MS4 program in the United States identified by the team. Brown said tasks such as website management, low-impact BMP technical assistance, educational talks and social media were relatively straightforward to regionalize, while activities like green-up day or local permitting should remain local.
On costs, Brown reported the 42 tasks across the six communities were estimated at about $850,000 and said partial regionalization of selected tasks could yield roughly $111,000 in staff-time savings (figure presented as an estimate). He outlined governance options for regional delivery, including an Interlocal Agreement and a more permanent Union Municipal District, and recommended pursuing partial regionalization first with a transition plan toward fuller regionalization if feasible.
Committee members raised feasibility and implementation questions. Charlie Baker (CCRPC staff) pointed to existing shared-services language in state law and a separate study of regional county governance that could affect models. Emily Bird (DEC) said other studies and models should be reviewed to select the best governance approach. Taylor Newton (CCRPC staff) cautioned that establishing shared administrative services could require a large upfront investment of staff hours to initiate.
Members queried operational detail and contracting options. Brown recommended tracking actual staff time for key tasks, choosing one or two early tasks to regionalize (for example, GIS or staff training), and identifying a provider entity with strong administrative capacity among the participating communities. When asked about contracting out engineering and construction inspection work, members noted that some efficiencies may be possible but that monitoring of construction sites and related inspection tasks are among those least likely to yield savings.
The research team also discussed funding equity, noting that communities vary in population, tax base and impervious surface and would therefore need a defensible method to apportion costs for any regional provider. Anne Jefferson (Lake Champlain Sea Grant) thanked the researchers and communities for their participation and expressed support for continued work.
The Subcommittee did not take a formal vote on regionalization at the meeting; Brown’s recommendations were presented for further consideration and follow-up steps.