Earlier today I received a call from House Speaker Shap Smith, who wanted to let me know he'd read today's article by Louis Porter and myself about stimulus funds for drinking water and sewer projects, and how the current draft of what will be funded favors many smaller, privately-owned water systems.
Smith said Rep. Margaret Andrews from the Rutland City delegation had also visited him to talk about the funding. At her request, Smith said he will be speaking with Tom Evslin, Vermont's chief recovery officer, "to find out how this list was put together and make sure aging infrastructure systems are a priority."
Here's a short snapshot of what's happened:
The draft list, released by the state last week, prioritizes how that money will be used. As it currently stands, many smaller, private water systems - for instance a motel/bowling alley/restaurant in Enosburg Falls called Dairy Center - will receive funding before larger, true infrastructure projects like the replacement of 150-year-old pipes on Woodstock Avenue in Rutland. Some factors that contributed to rankings weighted in favor of these smaller projects were risk to public health, affordability (would the community otherwise have the means to get the funding for the project) and area population. With federal requirements stating 50 percent of the funds have to be allocated by June 1, whether or not a project is "shovel ready" for that date was also a major contributing factor, according to ANR staff.
I was also told that many of the smaller systems are the worst operated and pose the greatest health risks to users, which did a lot to bump them to the top of the point-determined ranks.
Still, Mayor Christopher Louras said last week he believes these types of projects don't live up to the intentions created for these funds. He attended a public hearing on the list at the Agency of Natural Resources on Friday to raise that concern.
From a letter he sent off to ANR at the beginning of the week:
"With expectations running so high, it is truly a daunting task to develop the proper methodology for the allocation of finite resources when considering critical statewide infrastructure needs.
However, as with any purely objective process, anomalies present themselves that should be addressed in order to avoid compromising the intent of the guiding legislation.
... the Agency seems to have inadvertently provided Federal taxpayer dollars (through loan forgiveness) to private or commercial non-residential facilities. At the risk of opening a new front in class warfare, I would contend that it is neither in the state's interest nor within the spirit of the legislation to provide loan forgiveness for non-resident investors/second home-owners at private resort condominiums when true public infrastructure is in critical need of public funding. The state should consider amending the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund criteria for the purposes of the ARRA to affect the outcome of providing relief to municipalities/public schools rather than private commercial entities."
Check out ANR's ranking of drinking water projects here:
Comments