ADUs: Good For Housing Diversity But Not Affordable Housing

Accessory Dwelling Units, fondly referred to as ADUs, are good for housing diversity, but increasing their number will not increase Norwich's stock of affordable housing. That is the conclusion of the report* prepared by Dartmouth students and presented to the Planning Commission at its last meeting.

Fonzie's ADU

What’s an ADU? Think of a garage apartment, in-law suite, backyard cottage, basement apartment, granny flat, or carriage house.** In essence, an ADU is a is a secondary housing unit on a single-family residential lot. 

Garage apartments are called "Fonzie Flats" in Australia (H/T  Norwich Director of Planning Rod Francis), because "The Fonz" from television series Happy Days lived in one. Quiz question: what 60s television series features a newspaper reporter and anthropologist living together in a garage apartment in California? Answer below. (Thanks again to Rod Francis.)

The Norwich rules regarding ADUs are in section 4.14 of the zoning regulations. Among other requirements, the floor area cannot exceed 50% of the "floor area of the principal dwelling, or 1,600 square feet, whichever is less." One of the units needs to be owner occupied, although a one-year waiver is possible.  Septic capacity is another big consideration in adding an ADU. 

Expansion of the number of ADUs in Norwich has been talked about as a way to modestly increase affordable housing in Norwich. The Dartmouth students' report says no, observing that most "ADUs will rent at market rate …, keeping them out of reach of  low-income residents in need of affordable housing." In addition, owners of ADUs in Norwich might use them for short-term rentals, listing them for example with Airbnb.

Nonetheless,  promoting ADUs is a way to increase the types of housing in Norwich. "If you look at housing affordability this way -- as a continuum -- then I would say ADUs contribute to the goal because they increase the number of housing units available for rent in Norwich and because the monthly housing costs of accessing this housing are likely to be lower than that of most newly available single-family homes," said Planning Commission member Jeff Lubell expressing his personal views in an email.

Expect to hear more about ADUs as the Planning Commission develops the Town Plan.

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

*   Accessory Dwelling Units In Norwich, Vermont, Investigating ADUs as an Affordable Housing Solution was written by Dartmouth College undergraduate students Emily Schneider, Paulomi Rao, Justin Kramer, and Michael Morck II, under the direction of professors in the Rockefeller Center.

**  One website lists over two dozen names for ADUs: The many and confusing synonyms for ADUs.

Quiz answer:  My Favorite Martian. According to Wikipedia, Uncle Martin is "a 150 year old anthropologist from Mars" and Tim O'Hara is "a young newspaper reporter." 

Originally posted on HereCast on: 06.05.2019

Selectboard Candidates Questionnaire: John Langhus

John Langhus and Doug Wilberding are running for the two-year seat on the Selectboard. Below are John's responses to all five questions in the Norwich Observer Questionnaire. Doug's responses are here. The video of the Q & A from the Candidates Forum is available for viewing at this link.
Communications. Are you satisfied with how Town government communicates with Norwich residents? Why or why not? By how much would you be willing to INCREASE the Town Budget in order to to improve communications? 
I think we struggle to effectively communicate right now. Part of this is technology- the Norwich website is very outmoded and not searchable. Plus no committees or boards can access it to upload info. We should have a modernized site with each group having custody of its page within the site for posting their announcements, meeting minutes etc.  The other challenge is time. Town staff simply struggle to have enough time to effectively communicate. I proposed adding a new position that would coordinate all Town communications as part of this year’s budget discussion, but that proposal was defeated. I will continue to push for that.  

Development. The Planning Commission is working on a new Town Plan, which may be sent to the Selectboard for public hearings and approval within the next 12 months. It seems inevitable that the topic will arise regarding the creation of a mixed use zoning district in the Route 5 South area. What are your views regarding the possible establishment of a new mixed use zoning district in the Route 5 South area? 

I am hopeful that these discussions can be more fruitful this year by taking place in a broader context of what we want Norwich to be generally. I am part of a group of residents who have worked to get three ballot questions on the Town ballot this year. One of them calls for making a coordinated response to the challenge of global warming a central guiding principle of the new Town Plan. I think this would help us to have more effectively the specific discussions regarding affordable housing, economic development, land use and transportation. 

Affordable Housing. Nearly everybody is in favor of more affordable housing in Norwich. What do you think Norwich’s local government should be doing to promote or create affordable housing in Norwich? 

If you work in Norwich, you should be able to live in Norwich if you’d like to. Housing cannot be affordable as single family homes on 2-acre spacing. Nearer to the village we should encourage denser spacing and multi-family housing with the infrastructure to support that.  

Goals. What are the 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?

 

Global warming. We must begin to take concrete steps because we lose options every year we delay. Solutions also become more expensive each year we delay because we have less time to implement them. We must transform much of how we live within 10-20 years ago. Zero emissions in electricity. Zero emissions in transportation. Zero emissions in heating, agriculture and manufacturing. That is not long. Our three ballot questions we are pushing for Town Meeting all relate to the crisis of global warming and how we might choose to begin to address it.  

Budget. The Selectboard sent to the voters a FYE 2020 Town budget of $4,271,793. Although the amount of the budget declined by about 5%, the property tax rate [without the separate monetary Articles for various nonprofit organizations] is projected to increase by 1.51%. For John and Linda: How did you vote on that budget and why? For Doug and Roger: How would you have voted on that budget and why?

I voted for the budget. We worked hard on the budget this year. We really dig deep into the various categories of spending to understand how our spending was matching up with our priorities. We found that we had over-saved for several things over the last several years so that we could responsibly find the emergency costs from the July 1 storm without cutting short any key priority and also without raising the budget from last year

Originally published on HereCast on March 3, 2019

Selectboard Candidates Questionnaire: Roger Arnold

Roger Arnold and Linda Cook are running for the three-year seat on the Selectboard. Below are Roger's responses to all five questions in the Norwich Observer Questionnaire. Linda's responses are here. The video of the Q & A from the Candidates Forum is available for viewing at this link.  
Communications. Are you satisfied with how Town government communicates with Norwich residents? Why or why not? By how much would you be willing to INCREASE the Town Budget in order to to improve communications? 
I care deeply about effective communication and have worked on community engagement initiatives for my work in museums, design firms, and libraries. From attending Selectboard meetings over the last two years, I believe that communication with Norwich residents can be improved in two key ways: by running meetings more effectively and by focusing external communications on community engagement. 
Our community benefits when thoughtful research drives Selectboard deliberations. Members should be prepared to support their contributions to meetings with information from a range of citizen perspectives and research. We should accommodate different communication modes, learning styles, and perspectives for all our Selectboard meetings. Additionally, members should work tirelessly to recruit diverse voices—from longtime residents and newcomers alike—and should address the hurdles that may limit attendance at especially important meetings, such as childcare. Members should also respectfully challenge each other to frame issues more broadly so that all meeting attendees can easily understand the discussion, no matter how frequently they attend. 
External Selectboard communication with residents should not just focus on keeping our community informed, but empowered and connected. In addition to distributing communications online as they already do, the Selectboard could consider civic engagement tools, like Meeting-in-a-Box or other kinds of facilitated discussion primers, for use by our community groups to gather and share their ideas around questions relating to town services and community values. 
This work will require little to no increase to the municipal budget, just hard work! 
Development. The Planning Commission is working on a new Town Plan, which may be sent to the Selectboard for public hearings and approval within the next 12 months. It seems inevitable that the topic will arise regarding the creation of a mixed use zoning district in the Route 5 South area. What are your views regarding the possible establishment of a new mixed use zoning district in the Route 5 South area? 
I think zoning decisions must be considered and thoughtful. Community leaders must be actively engaged in listening to town-wide concerns and work hard to see the present in the future. I believe that by making the Selectboard more engaging and accessible, as I outlined above, we’ll be in a better position to enable participation.
A rezoning of Route 5 South to mixed use brings up complex issues around regional housing problems, infrastructure capacity, and land-use values. Like most of our community, I need more information. Here is what I think right now:

1. There may or may not be a tendency for business leaders and community influencers to think of Norwich and the Upper Valley as Burlington and Chittenden County. I do not believe it honors our collective small-town histories to be matched to the needs of our state’s largest metropolitan area, and our community should not be expected to be receptive to any explicit or implicit comparison.  
2. I believe that smart rezoning can be an opportunity to encourage and develop small, locally-owned business and generate tax revenue, while also keeping out big box retailers, as has been done in Brattleboro and elsewhere.
3. We should give ourselves space to imagine what kind of vitality a purposefully planned housing community with school-aged children could contribute to Norwich, including lowering the per-pupil spending rate, which in turn contributes to lower property taxes and may create a cycle of making Norwich more affordable for all residents. 
4. We must also acknowledge that our municipal services, including a lack of our own wastewater treatment, are not currently established to provide long-term care for the people who would live on Route 5 South.

Finally, whether we are talking about a parcel on Route 5 or not, citizens and Selectboard members should always respectfully ask each other questions that deepen our understanding of our individual relationships to land. It is tempting to divide our community based on who wants land use to support agriculture and open space, and who wants the land to be altered for housing development, but the reality may be that nearly every citizen wants the same thing: to make Norwich affordable and accessible, without altering our town’s unique qualities. 

Affordable Housing. Nearly everybody is in favor of more affordable housing in Norwich. What do you think Norwich’s local government should be doing to promote or create affordable housing in Norwich? 

Our Town Plan was rejected by the Two Rivers-Ottauquechee Regional Commission for its failure to address multi-family or affordable housing. Our access to certain state grants will continue to be restricted until a Town Plan is approved, so it is important to support our committees in their work. 

The Selectboard must identify affordable housing as an important, routine agenda item. Through thoughtful research and conversations, the Selectboard can vet the best data for discussing regional housing needs and insist that these numbers be used across town committees. The Selectboard should also more purposefully define the role of experts in housing strategies, and hear stories from renters with special needs, young families relocating from urban locations, and people who are at risk of being displaced because of high taxes or financial insecurity. I believe it is important for leadership to embrace the complexity of affordable housing topics and to demonstrate to our community that all ideas can be discussed, as long as equity and inclusion are central to our thinking.

I think that Accessory Dwelling Units—also known as in-law apartments—deserve more attention in Norwich. ADUs can increase housing supply without further land development, and facilitate the efficient use of existing housing stock. ADUs can also accommodate multigenerational living and house caregivers for the population who wishes to age in place. However, like all housing solutions, ADUs have their own particular cost burdens and unique septic considerations. To aid citizens in creating ADUs, the Selectboard, in dialogue with the Planning Commission, should consider using recently allocated affordable-housing designated funds to help residents offset costs after an achievable design plan has been secured. 

Goals. What are the 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?  

There are a couple of things that come to mind:

1. Storm damage from 2011 and 2017 was extensive, and climate change scientists suggest that extreme weather trends will become more frequent in coming years. We should work with our Town Manager and Director of Public Works to assess vulnerable infrastructure and to better understand the unique challenges of our narrow valleys and their relationship to water velocity. Being prepared for these storms can help mitigate future costs.
2. We need to more meaningfully prepare for climate change and the impact it will have on our lives, particularly to those who are already on or soon will be on fixed-incomes. Low- and middle-income Vermonters typically are spending much higher percentage of their incomes on transportation energy than high-income Vermonters, to say nothing of the substantial burden of heating and electric energy expenses that we all face. When we work with our Energy Committees to support community solar projects and weatherization projects, we are improving the community’s well-being. We should also continue an appropriately paced transition of our town’s heating towards full renewables. 
3. We should consider using basic project management strategies that allow us to index town resources, like salt and sand in the winter, to weather conditions, so that we can begin to make more educated inferences about what kind of expenditures to budget. We should, of course, work in dialogue with our Town Manager on this. 

Budget. The Selectboard sent to the voters a FYE 2020 Town budget of $4,271,793. Although the amount of the budget declined by about 5%, the property tax rate [without the separate monetary Articles for various nonprofit organizations] is projected to increase by 1.51%. For John and Linda: How did you vote on that budget and why? For Doug and Roger: How would you have voted on that budget and why?

I think greater clarification and communication needs to happen around our budgeting process. For example, I believe many taxpayers will be confused about why their tax rate is projected to increase despite the budget decrease. By way of explanation: due in part to continual costs from storm damage that took place on July 1, 2017, and faced with certain unknowns relating to FEMA reimbursement, the Selectboard made the decision to largely level-fund the designated fund balances. 

I am concerned that altering the appropriations to these funds without making major cuts to the operating budget will just push this problem to the next budget season, though I, too, understand the need to balance our town services with being fiscally responsible. 

There were several instances in this year’s budget where a department’s line item was insufficiently explained. It is important that next year’s budget demonstrates to the taxpayer that every line item has a committed purpose and that funding dollars are valued. Often, a budgeted expense was proposed based on an assumption about our community’s desire for a certain level of service. Next year, the Selectboard should work more closely with our Town Manager to make sure our department heads have early and reliable citizen feedback for their budget preparation, to ensure that there is no budgetary waste on unwanted services.

Originally published on HereCast on March 2, 2019

UPDATE: Emergency Power Generators Are Cause For Concern

The Selectboard received good news and bad news regarding the status of the Town's three emergency generators.  See State Of Emergency Power Generators Is Cause For Concern. Town Manager Herb Durfee Town Manager provided a brief update at the last Selectboard meeting, as seen on CATV. 

The good news is with respect to public safety building generator.  Upon further review, that generator is of sufficient size to power the entire building. Electrical work needs to be so that the generator is connected to the police station. 

The bad news pertains to the Tracy Hall and DPW emergency power generators. Both have reached the end of their useful life. "Just repairing for the next breakdown," is how Town Manager Durfee described their status. He, along with DPW Director Wiggins, are collecting information to replace both units this year.

Town Manager Herb Durfee briefs Selectboard. Source: CATV

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

Originally posted on HereCast on 02.22.2019

Thank You, Norwich Selectboard

Norwich Selectboard meeting 1/23/19. Source: CATV screen shot.

If you see a Norwich Selectboard member, shake her or his hand and thank the Selectboard member for the hard work on the budget.  Even if you disagree with the final product.  †

This was no ordinary budget year. The Selectboard rolled up its sleeves, donned a green eyeshade, sharpened its pencils, and got down to work

It wasn't all peaches and cream. To quote John Pepper's blog, there were "moments of tension and WTF-ness." That is to be expected. 

I don't agree with every decision made.  That is to be expected too. 

Board members came to the meetings prepared and with thoughtful points of view. Discussions were not driven by the Town Manager or one or two members of the Selectboard. That was my impression, from watching the various meetings on CATV.  

I appreciate the diligent effort. Thank you, Norwich Selectboard.

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

†  If you want to contribute as a Selectboard member, there is still time to run for one of the two Selectboard seats up for election this year. Deadline is Monday. See Information for Candidates for Local Office.

Published on HereCast on 01.26.19

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/