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.

dailyUV

My new posts appear at the dailyUV. Please follow me there!

Norwich Observer 

LINK:  https://dailyuv.com/organizations/2285

UPDATE: Verizon Wireless Proposed Cell Antenna For Norwich Green

Although no final action was taken at its October 25 meeting, the Selectboard did not object to the Verizon Wireless proposal to place a cell antenna on the Norwich Green, near the Marion Cross School. No public comments, for or against, the antenna were made. In response to questions by Board members, the Verizon Wireless representative said, based on the meeting video at CATV8, that the improved service will be very localized, no trees would need trimming for the installation, and a ‘minimal’ payment to the Town was likely. No information was provided about the proposed or ‘going rate’ of payment.

As a legal matter, the Selectboard is being asked to grant an easement to use Town land for the pole and antenna. It is NOT obligated to grant the easement, but Verizon Wireless does not need DRB approval and residents are barred from participating in the perfunctory  PUC certificate of public good approval process. The November 8 Selectboard meeting is likely the last opportunity for the public and the Town to weigh in on the antenna.

To editorialize briefly, this is a cookie-cutter installation for Verizon Wireless. Whether the cookie fits here, Verizon Wireless has not made that case except to say that service will improve for a limited area. To be fair, hundreds, if not thousands of these small cell antenna are in operation in the United States and Verizon Wireless has received about a dozen approved from the Vermont PUC in 2017. However, based on the feedback I received, the concerns of residents include noise from the equipment and RF emissions affecting children who play on the Green during recess. The State has no design criteria for adding antenna up to 10 feet in height which the statute calls a “de minimis modification”. Also unknown is whether this is a one-off proposal or whether VTel and AT&T may someday want to place antenna on the Green, on that pole or different poles.

Verizon Wireless, Local Control and State Law

On Sunday, I posted about the Verizon Wireless proposal to place a cell antenna on the Norwich Green and wondered why aesthetics and the Town’s zoning regulations were not part of the presentation by the carrier. It turns out that our zoning regulations do not strictly apply as the State has supplanted local control with its certificate of public good (CPG) law that places a streamlined approval process in the hands of the PUC.
However, that is not the end of the discussion. The CPG law does not change landowners rights. If Norwich owns the land, the Selectboard can decline to let Verizon Wireless use the land [for any reason or no reason] or negotiate terms in the best interests of the Town. Of course, the company can say no too, leaving cell coverage spotty, or find a more agreeable landowner to site the antenna.
I do not see the Verizon Wireless request as routine and think the Selectboard should get input from the Historical Society and the Planning Commission. Am I making a mountain out of a molehill? Perhaps. But, I would want to know a little more about the look and noise level of the unit before granting for ‘free’ a broad easement in perpetuity [or even for 5 years].
=====================================
LINK: Title 30 V.S.A. § 248a, Certificate of public good for communications facilities:  http://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/30/005/00248a
PHOTO:  Verizon Wireless small cell short antenna atop a telephone pole, from 2015 Block Island Times story

Verizon Wireless Proposes Cell Phone Antenna For Norwich Green -- On Agenda of October 25 Selectboard Meeting

Verizon Wireless wants to improve cell service in downtown Norwich. That’s a good thing, other than the zoning regulations do not ‘seemingly’ allow what Verizon wants and the single pole antenna ’might’ impact the aesthetics of the historical district. I use ‘seemingly’ and ’might’ because the company's request addresses neither issue. The Selectboard needs more information from Verizon Wireless and the Zoning Administrator, and needs input from the Historical Society and the public before granting an easement to place a cell antenna on the Norwich Green. The topic is item 7 on the Selectboard agenda for October 25. 

The proposal is straightforward. Verizon wants to replace an existing 45 foot wood utility pole near the bandstand with a new metal pole of the same height with the addition of an over three foot high cell antenna on top. Attached to the pole at an undetermined location will be an air conditioner size box. What it will look in reality is uncertain because no photo mock up is supplied.

Visualization of proposed “Micro Cell” by Verizon Wireless in Amherst, NY

Verizon is not offering any money to the Town for the easement. 

The Selectboard is in enviable bargaining position regarding the Verizon request. The Board can presumably can reject the easement request for any reason or no reason. 

Turnpike Road Storm Repairs To Begin By End Of Month

Repairs to Turnpike Road should begin by the end of the month, if not sooner. Nott’s Excavating, Inc will handle the project, being selected as the winning bidder at the special Selectboard meeting on October 19.  The project also includes repairs to Tigertown, Upper Turnpike, and Needham Roads which also suffered damage during the July 1 storm.  If the weather cooperates, most work should be dine by mid-January. Residents will have automobile access during repairs.

Total cost of the project based on the Nott’s bid is $1,779,793. Norwich expects to receive 75% reimbursement from FEMA and 12.5% percent from the State, leaving the Town responsible for about $223,000. The town's engineering consultant, Pathways Consulting, expressed "complete confidence in [Nott’s] ability to perform  at prices they proposed”, according to the CATV8 video of the meeting.

MCS Support Staff Negotiations - Numbers Please

As of Friday, the Norwich School Board and Marion Cross School Support Staff — educational assistants and custodians — have not reached agreement on a new labor agreement. The big sticking points are pay and health insurance. The School Board says the pay increases of  over 12% over two years will offset the increase in premiums and out-of-pockets union members are expected to pay. A recent listserv post disagrees, saying “many Norwich support staff stand to lose money.”

If support staff are net losers, then they have a valid point. What is missing are numbers supporting the union’s position. To be sure, support staff do not make big bucks. Still, the Fact Finder stated the wage proposal “should enable employees to absorb the higher health insurance costs and still realize a wage increase [that will] more than keep pace with recent cost of living increases.” Report at 28.

If the union could not convince the Fact Finder, they need a better pitch to the school board (and public) to show support staff end up losing money.  Numbers please.
======================================================================
LINK: Fact Finder's Report for MCS Support Staff
https://www.sau70.org/uploaded/School_Boards/Norwich/Norwich_School_District_Support_Staff_(Fact_Finding).pdf

Tom Gray Receives Award From Renewable Energy Vermont

Tom Gray of Norwich, Vermont, a wind power pioneer, received the  Renewable Energy Champion Award from Renewable Energy Vermont at REV2017, the organization’s annual renewable energy conference held earlier this month. Linda Gray, wife of Tom Gray, accepted the award presented to Mr Gray posthumously, according to an article posted online at VermontBiz. The Renewable Energy Champion Award recognizes an individual “who represents, and tirelessly ‘champions’, the benefits of developing, creating, informing, and striving to improve our state with the deployment of renewable energy generation.”


==================================================
LINK: Renewable energy innovators recognized at REV2017, published on 10/13/2017 at http://www.vermontbiz.com/news/2017/october/13/renewable-energy-innovators-recognized-rev2017

Norwich School Board Starts Work On Budget

Town Meeting is months away but the Norwich School Board has started on the budget for MCS. A “Quick Model” projects an 3.61% increase. The Budget Guidelines for next year are here.
However, in the words of Donald Rumsfield, there are several "known unknowns", including:
• contract with MCS support staff
• cutbacks in federal aid
• cost to establish a Pre-K program at MCS
• five-year building maintenance plan.
A wild card is new state government initiatives. Last year Vermont passed a law “encouraging” school districts to pay no more than 80% of teachers’ health insurance. Norwich pays 83% and as a consequence, will forfeit certain state funds next year.

No word on how much the MCS (or Dresden) budget will cost the taxpayers. Stay tuned.
====================================
LINK: Norwich School District Budget Guidelines: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B0dszyJHBhYXSzRDbk8tUGZMNk0

Selectboard Should Reconsider Takeover Of Fire District Sidewalks

Last Selectboard meeting, the Board authorized the Town Manager “to approach the Prudential Committee with the idea of acquiring the Fire District sidewalks, [in “as is” condition].” Although seen as non-binding, the action backs the Selectboard into a corner when the Fire District gladly and quickly accepts the Town taking over this liability. The matter is again on the Selectboard agenda for October 11 and I hope it gets fuller discussion. Here are some things the Selectboard should consider that were not raised the first time through.

• The Norwich Fire District is a separate and independent municipal entity, with its own tax base. In Vermont, Fire Districts provide a variety of public services, including sidewalks. Our Norwich forefathers created this special entity to provide sidewalks and water to the homes and businesses in that area. By taking over the sidewalks, and the repair and maintenance costs, the Town is making a “gift” to another municipality. The decision to reverse that history and incur ongoing liability should not be taken lightly.  I admit that the Town has been taking over sidewalks on a piecemeal basis for several years but that does not make it right.

•  The Fire District’s sidewalks need over $25,000 in repairs (excluding labor), according to information provided to the Selectboard in the packet for the July 29, 2015 meeting by then Town Manager Neil Fulton. At that 2015 meeting, the Selectboard took the Town Manager’s recommendation and did not accept the proposal that the Town take the sidewalks “as is”.  I don't know what finally happened afterwards. However, the 2017 Selectboard did not have any information about the 2015 Selectboard consideration of the issue.

•  My understanding (although I could be wrong) is that the Town pays approximately $11,000 a year to the Fire District for fire hydrant rental.  I don't know how much a fire hydrant costs or if the Town should pay the “fire” district for hydrants.  However, if the Town is going to take over the liability of sidewalks, perhaps the Fire District should give the Town the hydrants too.

• One of assumptions underlying the takeover is that this benefits the Town. That, however, is not axiomatic. In facts, lots of people do not use the sidewalks. Indeed, history in Vermont suggests such costs should be borne by the residents of the Fire District, rather than the entire Town.

•  Another assumption is that the Fire District cannot afford the upkeep of the sidewalks. That assumption has never been analyzed, for example by seeing what tax hike within that municipality would support upkeep. Indeed, in this week’s Selectboard packet is a letter from a solar company offering to pay $75,000 to rent land of the Fire District.

At the end of the day, the Town taking over the sidewalks might be a win-win. That, however, has not been shown nor have all factors been discussed.

=======================================================================
A history of Fire Districts in Vermont is discussed at the website of the Colchester Fire District.

Hydrant rental is a line item in the budget for the Town’s Fire Department. The Town Report for FY 2015 lists the recipients of the payment as the Norwich Fire District. Town Report 2015 at I-98.

The pertinent materials from the July 29, 2015 Selectboard packet are available here

Listers Work To Reset Relationship With Contract Assessor

Relations between the Listers and Contract Assessor was the central topic of the Listers last meeting in September 2017, according to the draft meeting minutes. The two Listers present stressed their “willingness to work cooperatively with the Contract Assessor.”
The current tensions arose under the administration of former Town Manager Neil Fulton when he moved most of the appraising functions to a professional assessor under contract to the Town.  Mr. Fulton went so far as to remove the Listers desks from their Tracy Hall Office and renamed the Department to Assessor. The Listers, who are elected officials, felt marginalized, and appropriately so. However, in a way, the Listers dug their own grave by having a contentious relationship with property owners and by pushing litigation that lacked merit.
New Town Manager Herb Durfee has a fresh outlook and aims to bring civility to the relationship. As noted in the draft minutes of the meeting: “Durfee would like the trio of the Listers, the Contract Assessor and the Town Manager to put aside their differences, avoid saber-rattling and work together for the good of the Town in an attitude of mutual civility. All parties recognize that the Listers are ultimately responsible for the Grand List.”  Mr. Durfree did not want to amend the current contract to address specific issues in part because it expires in 2018 and conforms to the statute. He observed “the contract language should be no obstacle to the Listers and Contract Assessor working together productively.” The Town Manager plans to speak with the Contract Assessor when next in Norwich. Regarding any personality conflicts, Mr. Durfree recommended the Listers “take a gradual, conciliatory approach to this process.”

Montpellier Misprint - Très Cool

Here’s a story to make you smile.  The French city of Montpellier - spelled with two “l” letters - is home to a professional football [soccer in the US] club.  The team received a batch of misspelled jerseys, using only one “l” letter. Rather than toss the jerseys, the team is sending them here, to the high school soccer team in Montpelier, Vermont. Merci beaucoup!

Read the Times-Argus story here. Hat tip to the Ethan Allen Institute for the news.


LINK: https://www.timesargus.com/articles/misspelled-soccer-jerseys-fit-for-solons/

MCS Teachers Reach Tentative Agreement with Norwich School Board

Marion Cross Teachers have reached a tentative agreement with the Norwich School Board. The press release is available here.

In terms of compensation, the principal terms are:
•  Salary. Taking into account step increase, the teachers will see increases of 2.75% in year one and 3.00% in year two.
•  Health Insurance. Teachers will contribute to health insurance premiums 16% of the cost in year one and 17% in year two. Out of pocket maximums are at $400 for a single plan, $800 for parent/child or two-person plan, and $1,200 for a family plan.

No word on the tax impact to property owners. The tentative agreement is subject to ratification by the Norwich Teachers and approval by the School Board.  Meanwhile, in the northwest part of the state, the South Burlington teachers announced a plan to strike on Wednesday. Burlington students recently recently returned to class after a four-day strike.

LINK: http://hanovernorwichschoolsorg.finalsite.com/school-boards/norwich-school-board

VT Lawmakers: After Equifax, please ban consumer fees for security/credit freezes

After the Equifax security breach, I put a security freeze on my credit reports with the big three credit reporting agencies. Equifax waived the fee but the other two charged $10

each. These fees are set by state law and in at least six states (including Maine and New York) there is no fee. Vermont lawmakers from the Upper Valley, please take note. Amend 9 V.S.A § 2480h, so that no fees are charged to consumers for placing or removing a security freeze on his or her credit report.

This is not the first time credit bureaus have experienced a security breach.  As observed  at the website Krebs on Security: "The credit bureaus - which make piles of money by compiling incredibly detailed dossiers on consumers and selling that information to marketers - have for the most part shown themselves to be terrible stewards of very sensitive data." Protecting my identity should be their cost of business.  Allowing consumers to freeze and unfreeze their credit reports for FREE is a good but small step.



LINK: KrebsOnSecurity [no affiliation with website].

Part II - Unpacking the Fact Finders Report for the Marion CrossTeachers Contract

Part II of II

Here is my summary of the Fact Finders Report discussed some on the listserv. 
I broke my summary into two parts to avoid an extremely long listserv post.  
The Fact Finders Report is an important document regarding the labor impasse 
between the Norwich Teachers Association and the Norwich School District. 
Note that this collective bargaining dispute involves only the Marion Cross 
School, its 296 students and 35 teachers. 

In all, the Norwich Fact Finding Report And Recommendations addressed five 
issues, with Issue Number 3 and Number 4 being the big ticket items of salary 
increases and health insurance. Part I addressed those big ticket items. This 
Part II addresses the remaining three issues. 

Issue Number 1 dealt with bereavement leave. Teachers currently get up to 3 
days “per occurrence” for the death a person within a broad definition of 
“immediate family”. The teachers proposed up to 3 days “per occurrence” 
because of “a death”. The teachers said the proposal was to account for 
non-traditional families. However, the proposal seem to allow bereavement 
leave for death of anyone, including the March death of rock n roll legend 
Chuck Berry. The recommendation of the Fact Finder was to add a death of “a 
person living in the teacher’s immediate household,” Report at 7, although I 
think the use of “immediate” in household might create confusion with the 
broad definition of “immediate family”. 

For Issue Number 2, the teachers wanted to expand from 5 to 15, the number of 
accumulated sick days the father of child of a newborn could use for parental 
leave, in addition to the days allowed under the Vermont and Federal family 
leave laws. The Fact Finder side with the School District, finding that the 
use of 5 sick days “already exceeds what is available to teachers in 
comparable districts.” Report at 9.

Finally, Issue Number 5 addressed college course reimbursement for continuing 
education and advanced degrees. The School District wanted to reduce the 
benefit from $40,000 per year to $30,000. Although the Fact Finder agreed 
with the School that the benefit was “generous”, was not convinced that it 
“should be reduced at this time.” Report at 25.

Unpacking the Fact Finders Report For the Marion Cross Teachers Contract - Part I

Part I of II

Here is my summary of the Fact Finders Report discussed some on the listserv. 
I broke my summary into two parts to avoid an extremely long listserv post.  
The Fact Finders Report is an important document regarding the labor impasse 
between the Norwich Teachers Association and the Norwich School District. 
Note that this collective bargaining dispute involves only the Marion Cross 
School, its 296 students and 35 teachers. 

In all, the Norwich Fact Finding Report And Recommendations (“Report”) 
addressed five issues, with Issue Number 3 and Number 4 being the big ticket 
items of salary increases and health insurance. This Part I addresses those 
big ticket items. 

With respect to salary increases, the School District offered “new money” 
increases of 2.2% and 2.16% in years one and two respectively, arguing that 
the the Consumer Price Index has “averaged between 1.0% and 1.4% over the 
past eight years.” Report at 10. The Teachers proposal amounted to 3.85% in 
“new money in year 1, 3.56% new money in year 2, and 3.46% new money in year 
3.” Report at 11. From context, I assume the term “new money” includes the 
step increases teachers receive each year.  

The Fact Finder recommended a two-year contract with “new money” increases in 
salary of 3% in 2017 and 2018. He stated that 3% was the average salary 
increase in “recent teacher settlements” and acknowledged that salaries for 
Norwich teachers are at the “top tier of teachers statewide”. Report at 12. 
Early in the Report, the Fact Finder observed that Norwich had the highest 
education tax rate in Windsor County. Report at 13. In his analysis, he 
concluded that no “unusual economic pressures” hindered the School District 
ability to increase wages. Report at 13

For health insurance, the Fact Finder agreed with the School’s proposal that 
teachers pay 15% of premiums in year 1 and 16% in year 2. Report at 20. On 
the issue of the out-of-pocket maximum, he sought protection for teachers and 
recommended $400 for individual plan and $1200 for the family plan, reasoning 
that the School would still save about $24,000 or more, even after the 
penalty imposed by the State. Report at 22-23.

The penalty arises from recent Vermont legislation. The law assumes that 
teachers will pay 20% of health insurance costs. State funds are withheld 
from school districts based on this assumption. Report at 4. School districts 
that pay more than 80% in essence lose state funding. Under the Report’s 
recommendation, Norwich will lose over $56,000 in state funds. Report at 21.

In the news lately is the settlement that Burlington reached with its 
teachers, after a four-day strike. The WCAX website reports that the new 
contract gives teachers a 2.5 percent pay boost in the first year, and a 2.75 
percent increase the second. Teachers will pay 19% of health insurance 
premiums in year one and 20% in year two. The out-of-pocket limit is a 
maximum of $800.

Onward to Part II.