Fire District Increases, By 50%, Hydrant Rental Fee Paid By Town

The Norwich Fire District set at $18,000 the Hydrant Rental Fee (now known as the Town Fire Protection charge) that it will charge the Town this year, according to draft meeting minutes of the Prudential Committee meeting of October 22. Last year the hydrant rental fee was $11,700, although during budget discussions, the Fire District told the Selectboard to expect the increase.

Both amounts, $18,000 and $11,700, deserve review by the Selectboard. The amount of $18,057 was placed in the budget with the understanding that the Town might need to pay up to that amount, but had not agreed to do so. At least that is my recollection.

It not clear how this Selectboard and the Town Manager will approach the issue. Last budget season, Selectboard member Stephen Flanders questioned the amount of the hydrant rental fee, even at $11,7000. In a memorandum to the Selectboard, in the January 10 2018 Selectboard packet, Mr. Flanders, who has since retired from the Selectboard, suggested $7,000 was an appropriate amount using a cost approach. He recommended an "interim budget figure of $18K, until an agreement is reached" between the Fire District and the Town. 

About 10 months ago, I discussed the hydrant rental fee in a series of four blog posts, How to pay for fire hydrants?. Part I, Part II and Part II-A are located here , here and here.  Part III is here and raises a number of points for the Selectboard to consider. 

As discussed in those blog posts, hydrant rental fees, also known as fire protection charges**, are a legitimate charge.  As currently operated, the Fire District is in essence a water company that provides drinking water to customers and delivers water for fighting fires. To perform the latter, a water company needs added infrastructure in order to provide the high flows and pressures needed to fight fires, such as larger pipes, larger reservoirs and more powerful pumps. That is what the hydrant rental fee is presumably supposed to cover.  

However, of the 67 hydrants of the Fire District, few hydrants, if any, serve the area outside of Village. Plus, the Fire Department already pays for the water to fill its tanker truck. On the other hand, the Town does not pay any property tax to the Fire District. That 'may' mean the Town gets all its water at a discount. See Did you know: The Fire District Charges Property Taxes 

Mr. Flanders' memorandum raised two questions. First, is the amount the Fire District allocates to fire protection overhead, $90,000, appropriate, when maintenance of the hydrants costs $35,000? Second, why should Town taxpayers cover 20% of that $90,000, when the hydrants are all located in the Village. The memo also noted that the Fire District allocation formulas were "based on judgment and rule of thumb," meaning to me, back-of-the-envelope. 

I don't know what is an appropriate amount. A first step might be to see how other municipalities in Vermont  approach the matter. 

In Part III of my blog post,  the opening paragraph says: 

Has the Fire District made a convincing case for the Town paying hydrant rental of over $18,000? If the Selectboard serious about being cost conscious, then it needs to take a hard look at this expense. So far, the Selectboard has not.

Ten months later, it seems the Selectboard is no further along.

===============

** The Fire District now labels the hydrant rental fee as "Town Fire Protection" charge per the draft meeting minutes. 

Originally published on the dailyUV.

Mary Layton: Responses To Selectboard Candidate Questionnaire

Running for 3-year Selectboard seat

Mary Layton is running for the 3-year Selectboard seat. Her responses to the five-question mini questionnaire are below. The responses of her opponent Marcia Calloway are here.
1. The Valley News published a column by Jim Kenyon on January 28, 2018 about Selectboard members attending meetings via video chat. Some Norwich residents prefer in person attendance by public officials, even though electronic attendance is allowed by statute. Question: Absent unforeseen circumstances, do you plan to attend in person all or almost all regular and special Selectboard meetings?

Advertisement: Content continues below...

I will be able to attend in person almost all of the Select Board meetings. My work schedule allows for it. I do think it is better to attend in person, but it may be unrealistic to think all members can do so.
2. On January 10, 2018, the Selectboard voted to recommend to the voters a FYE 2019 Town budget of $4,502,386. Questions: How would you have voted at that meeting on that budget?  Why? [In Mary’s case: How did you vote on that budget and why?] 
I voted to recommend  the FYE Town budget of $4,502,386. The proposed  budget increased by less than 1%, and supports a level of service that 76% of voters were comfortable with at the last Town Meeting. The increase is about $40,000. I do not support cutting health insurance for employees. Why would you not want healthy employees? When I moved to Norwich as a teenager in 1970 there was far less than is available now. There was a part time constable, no recreation program, no Huntley Meadow, Milt Frye Nature Area or Foley Park, the library had no addition and was open for very limited hours, and Tracy Hall had not been renovated. The aspects of town that seem to be integral are actually value added over the last 37 years. That being said, they are important to the life style of the town. I do worry that the six figure increase in the school budget due to state changes will bounce back with anger towards the municipal side, which I think is reasonable given the services provided. 
3. Multiple Choice Question: What would you like to see happen to the population of Norwich?   Please select one and if you want, explain your choice.

A. Reduced significantly

B. Reduced some

C. Remain relatively stable

D. Grow some

E. Grow significantly

I would like to see the population of Norwich grow some. The current level of growth is about seven households per year. I am particularly interested in seeing some affordable housing units. I would not like to see a large jump from the present growth level, and I think it would be helpful to think about growth both in terms of ten year impact and in terms of a study to show what number of units triggers a large jump in infrastructure costs.

4. Question:  What are your views regarding the possible establishment of a new mixed use zoning district in the Route 5 South and River Road areas?

There has been a lot of emotion regarding the possible establishment of a new mixed use zoning district in the Route 5 South and River Road areas. I do not favor large developments with hundreds of units because they will put too much of a strain on town services. On the other hand, I think positively about mixed use development when sitting at the patio of the Norwich Inn in the summer. I know that within walking distance are homes, apartments, a fantastic general store, restaurants, a library, a public safety facility, parks, trails, a book store, the post office, and the Town Hall. What is not to like about that scenario? It would be helpful to know in regards to the Route Five South and River Road areas whether there is genuine value to residents to have mixed use development. I think it clearly would raise taxes, which is not good. I am not sure what specific type of development could be seen as being worth an increase in taxes to the majority of residents.

5. Other than the adoption of a town plan, what are several issues that you think the Town or Selectboard should or must address in the next 12 to 18 months?  Why? Do you have any specifics on how to address?

Critical issues to be addressed by the Town in this coming year, and which are the responsibility of the Town Manager, are hiring of new employees due to impending retirements or other openings, and negotiating a new Collective Bargaining Agreement. A policy question for the Select Board is whether to compensate union and nonunion employees on the same basis. I would personally like the Select Board to do a capital budget to review our infrastructure condition, costs, and reserve funds. I would like to see as part of our emergency management practices the formation of neighborhood networks that can provide immediate mutual aid in the event that severe storms cut areas off from normal emergency response. I am very concerned that the intensity and frequency of storms will increase, and think it wise for citizens to be prepared to shelter in place if needs be, and think it would be wise if citizens installed generators so they are not reliant on the electrical grid in the aftermath of a storm.

Originally published on HereCast on March 3, 2018

Claudette Brochu: Responses To Selectboard Candidate Questionnaire

Claudette Brochu is running for the 2-year Selectboard seat. Her responses to the five-question mini questionnaire are below. The responses of her opponents Robert Gere and Leah Romano are here and here.

1. The Valley News published a column by Jim Kenyon on January 28, 2018 about Selectboard members attending meetings via video chat. Some Norwich residents prefer in person attendance by public officials, even though electronic attendance is allowed by statute. Question: Absent unforeseen circumstances, do you plan to attend in person all or almost all regular and special Selectboard meetings?
I absolutely plan on attending in person. Having said that, I think when a member needs to attend remotely, we should look at how we can improve remote access. We also need to acknowledge that people take vacations (and should probably take more), travel for business, and have personal emergencies. In my opinion, attending remotely is better than not attending at all.

2. On January 10, 2018, the Selectboard voted to recommend to the voters a FYE 2019 Town budget of $4,502,386. Questions: How would you have voted at that meeting on that budget?  Why?  

I would have voted NO. I believe some of the Designated Fund appropriations were not justified given the balance in the fund as well as a lack of clear understanding what the funds are being set aside for. I also believe there were specific line items in many departments that were not justified. For specifics, see my memo to the board

3. Multiple Choice Question: What would you like to see happen to the population of Norwich?   Please select one and if you want, explain your choice.

A. Reduced significantly

B. Reduced some

C. Remain relatively stable

D. Grow some

E. Grow significantly

D. Grow some but be very clear where and to what scale. One of the subjects raised at the forum was to investigate limited growth in our hamlets (use the term neighborhood vs hamlet). The struggle will be on how we plan the growth so that we can keep our open spaces open as well as maintain large forested tracks of land. I would like us to investigate how we can adapt existing structures vs. building all new structures. I am not a land use expert but I believe we should look outside the box for solutions that work best for the current and future taxpayers of Norwich.  

4. Question:  What are your views regarding the possible establishment of a new mixed use zoning district in the Route 5 South and River Road areas?
Any proposal that would put commercial development on Rt 5 South (western side) and River Rd would NOT get my vote. I also think that "mixed use" may mean different things to different people. Are we talking a multi-story building with retail space on the ground floor and living space above? Stand alone retail space combined with stand-alone housing? Any River Road discussion of mixed use zoning should not be considered where it does not already exist. For Route 5, I do not endorse changing the current zoning on the western side of Route 5. 
 
5.  Other than the adoption of a town plan, what are several issues that you think the Town or Selectboard should or must address in the next 12 to 18 months?  Why? Do you have any specifics on how to address?

a. Revision and adoption of Personnel Policies and Financial Policies. I believe we need to "de-couple" how union employees and non-union employees are compensated with regards to wage increases and benefits. Our current policy was written prior to the Affordable Care Act. Our Town Manager submitted a red lined revision to the board for review that addresses some of my concerns. To date, revisions recommended by Herb have not been addressed. Financial policies should be reviewed in some set time-frame, whether yearly or every other year.

b. Church Street sidewalk project. If the plan goes forward as it is currently designed, I believe the character of Church Street will be changed forever. Think of a NYC sidewalk from the church to Carpenter Street.  For Church Street, continue to investigate how we can meet the safety and needs of the kids walking to school without turning Church Street into a suburban street with a 5 foot sidewalk. If the state says no to any proposal, cut the ties with the state and pay them back the money spent. Then we can come up with a plan for Norwich by Norwich.

c. Establish better communication strategies between the selectboard and town residents. Not everyone reads the Listserve, the newspaper, or the town website. For issues that might be contentious, I would like to see town wide mailings informing the public of the issue. I also think the selectboard should have develop a formal liaison with the schoolboard and have all town committees and commissions periodically submit or present their work to the board. We need to work to eliminate silo thinking. I do not think the town manager's report to the board provides this sharing of information.

d. Improve the Selectboard meeting process. Having sat through many meetings, I leave without a clear understanding of the action the board has decided to take, by whom, and in what time-frame. I would like to see the board review, preferably at the end of each discussion or at the end of the meeting, the final decision made so that each member and the public has a clear understanding of the decision. From attending the meetings, there seems to be material presented at meetings relevant to the discussion that have not been shared with the board members prior to the meeting. I would investigate how this process could be improved.

Originally published on HereCast on March 3, 2018

Part III: How to pay for fire hydrants?

Has the Fire District made a convincing case for the Town paying hydrant rental of over $18,000? If the Selectboard serious about being cost conscious, then it needs to take a hard look at this expense. So far, the Selectboard has not.

The Fire District thinks of itself as a water company serving 310 residences and 20 commercial businesses. For that customer base, charging customers for that fire hydrant infrastructure is a legitimate expense. See Part I .  

Map Of Fire District Hydrants

What about properties outside of the Fire District, that are not customers?  There are over 1300 residence and business parcels on the Grand List in Norwich. The Fire District covers an area somewhat larger than Inset 1 and 2 of the General Highway Map of Norwich. See map below. Why should non customers (Town taxpayers) pay a hydrant rental of 20%, when they are neither the primary nor intended beneficiaries of the 67 hydrants that serve a small part of Town?  

Insets 1 and 2 of General Highway Map of Norwich are outlined in red

It is important to note that hydrant rental has no relationship with funding the fire department. which is paid by the Town. 

Question: How do other towns and fire districts in Vermont address the issue of hydrant rental, when most residents do not get their water from the the fire district? That question was posed in Part I and the Selectboard should want to know. 

A similar issue arose in the Village of Weston, Wisconsin in 2012. It decided that only customers should pay for hydrants because “the Village can no longer afford to artificially subsidize the [Water] Utility through the use of general property taxes.” The Village’s Talking Points Memo, the Village of Weston included this question and response:

I’m not on Public Water, but I do have hydrants near my house, will I still have to pay the fee? The public fire protection charge will only be collected from customers of the water utility within the Village of Weston. State law requires that if any non-utility customers are directly charged for PFP, then ALL non-utility customers must be charged. As a rule, our Fire Department indicates that the longest they can run a hose line is 1,000 feet. If you’re on the public water supply you’re generally within 500 feet of a fire hydrant. Although some residents outside the area served by the utility will be within 500 feet of a fire hydrant, the majority are not. Therefore non-utility customers do not benefit from the water utility’s public fire protection capabilities to the same degree as people served by the water utility. No method of billing Public Fire Protection will ever be perfect.

 Other items the Selectboard may want to consider: 

• Agreement: The Fire District says there is a long standing agreement for the Town to pay 20% of the hydrant budget. As observed in Part II-A , the 20%  seems derivative, not expressed. The real terms of that “agreement” are not actually known because a written agreement has not yet surfaced. In addition, there is another agreement the Fire District does not mention - the agreement with the Town to repair its sidewalks before giving them to the Town. In 2015, the Fire District abandoned this agreement unilaterally. 
• Fire Insurance: My local insurance agent said homeowners get a discount on insurance if they live within a 1000 feet of a Fire District hydrant. That is a monetary benefit not available to most of the Town. 
• Hydrants Serving Town: The Fire District has 67 hydrants within its system. Selectboard member Flanders estimated that six or seven, approximately ten per cent, are accessible to SOME residents outside of the Fire District. See map above of hydrant locations. The Town also maintains a number of dry hydrants, the latest installed at 1285 Union Village Road in 2018. 
• Firefighting benefits: In Part I, I surmised that running a tanker shuttle was a benefit to residents outside the Fire District. At the Fire District's suggestion, I emailed the Town's Fire Chief over a week ago to get his take on the topic but have not heard back. Should that be taken as a lack of support for paying hydrant rental or simply a less than high opinion of this blog?  In Part II-B, the Fire District identified a number of benefits to the Town other than firefighting. The Selectboard needs to decide if the sum of these benefits should be compensable as hydrant rental of 20%. That is the question. 
• Water Use: The hydrant rental issue is not about water use. The Fire Department pays the metered rate when it fills the tanker at the Fire Station. Plus, the cost of unmetered water from hydrants for fighting fires is "relatively insignificant" compared the infrastructure costs. See Part I.  

Hydrant rental is probably a top 25 line item in the budget, putting aside compensation and capital costs. The Selectboard's decision on sidewalks put the hydrant rental issue front and center. See Sidewalk Repairs More Costly Than Anticipated.  It is budget season. Time for the Selectboard and Fire District to justify this expenditure

======================

LINKS: 

Public Fire Protection Charges On Water Utility Bill, Talking Points Memo; Village of Weston, Wisconsin

http://westonwi.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/386

General Highway Map, Norwich VT

http://norwich.vt.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/map1.pdf

 

Originally published on the dailyUV.