December 10th Progress Report to Selectboard

Colchester Governance Committee

First Progress Report to the Selectboard

December 10, 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

Executive Summary

Fact Finding

Charter Review

Charter Issues & Topics Identified
Other Issues & Topics Identified

Future Paths

Conclusion

Appendix A: Committee Member Biographies.

Appendix B: Questions To and Responses From Town Officials.

Appendix C: Written Summaries and/or Transcripts of Selectboard Interviews.

Appendix D: Summary of Jim Barlow’s (VLCT) Responses.

Appendix E: Possible Minor Charter Changes

Appendix F: Possible Major Charter Changes.

Appendix G: Resources

INTRODUCTION

The Colchester Governance Committee has met twice a month for the past 11 months. Of the original 8 members, four have left (including one chairperson) and three have been added. The Committee’s Chair is now Jacob Hemmerick and the Vice Chair is David Usher. Pam Loranger is Secretary. A brief biography of each current member is provided in Appendix A: Committee Member Biographies.

The Colchester Selectboard and the Heritage Project charged the Governance Committee with three primary fields of investigation:

●      Rewriting and/or updating the Town Charter.

●      Examining structural, operational and regional options to optimize the accountability, transparency, effectiveness and cost of Colchester's government and public services.

●      Methods of improving citizen participation and investment in municipal governance

This report discusses the Committee’s progress in each of these areas.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

●      We have been meeting for 11 months, primarily in a fact-finding mode.  This has involved extensive research and conversation.  We have interviewed the following:

○      Selectboard Members

○      Town Officials & Staff

○      VLCT Staff Attorney

○      Fire & Water District Leaders

●      We are the in the process of reviewing the Charter on a section-by-section basis to identify major and minor issues/topics for Charter change

●      We have also considered topics outside of the Charter for recommendations.

●      For action on a major issue or topic, we designate agenda time for deliberation.

●      So far, we have formally taken positions on the following:

○      Retain designation of Colchester as a “Town”, instead in a “City.”

●      Presently under consideration are:

○      Fire District Consolidation

○      The Snowplowing of Select Private Roads

●      Our meeting schedule, contacts, agendas, minutes and links to the LCATV recordings
            are posted online at http://colchestergovernance.blogspot.com/.

●      We welcome your feedback and seek guidance on the following:

○      The best way to forward recommendations & update the board.

○      Opportunities for a Governance update at Town Meeting.

FACT FINDING

The Committee has been engaged in extensive fact finding since its formation.  The following individuals were invited to meetings, made presentations and responded to questions from Committee members.

Town Officials

●      Sarah Hadd – Director of Planning and Zoning

●      Charles Kirker -- Former Chief of Police

●      Bryan Osborne --  Director of Public Works

●      Karen Richard – Town Clerk/Treasurer

●      Robert Vickery – Town Assessor

●      Glen Cuttitta  - Director of Parks and Recreation

●      Al Voegele - Former Town Manager

●      Joan Boehm - Former Asst. Town Manager and Finance Director

Each of these individuals had read the Town Charter and responded to a set of questions written by the Committee. They also responded to questions during the meeting. The questions and any written responses are provided in Appendix B: Questions To and Responses From Town Officials.

Selectboard Members

Members of the Committee interviewed Selectboard members one-on-one. Written summaries or transcripts of these interviews are provided in Appendix C: Written Summaries and/or Transcripts of Selectboard Interviews.

Fire District Representatives

During the Committee’s October 24^th meeting, representatives from all of the Colchester Fire Districts* and the Champlain Water District were invited to attend and discuss issues relating to their missions. The meeting was well attended by district leaders and the public.  This meeting has contributed to our ongoing discussion on Fire District Consolidation.

*Fire Districts are independent municipalities within the municipality of Colchester governed by Prudential Committees for the provision of fire protection and water services.

Vermont League of Cities and Towns (VLCT)

Jim Barlow, Former Staff Attorney of VLCT, gave a presentation to the Committee, which was also attended by several Selectboard members. He responded to written questions as well as questions from the attendees. A summary of his responses is provided in Appendix D: Summary of Jim Barlow’s (VLCT) Responses.

Other Interviews

Stephen Wirls, professor at Rhodes College in Memphis, TN (with several years consulting experience for the City of Memphis on charter changes), offered a broad overview of charter change from a national perspective on July 25th.

Miscellaneous Research and Resources

Individual members of the Committee have also researched specific items and provided input to and for discussions. A reference list can be found in Appendix G.

CHARTER REVIEW

The Committee is still in the process of a detailed section-by-section Charter review. However, much of the Charter has been discussed and various experts have pointed out changes that could be made. The Committee is dividing possible changes into two broad categories: Minor and Major.

●      Minor Changes are Considered:

○      Editorial: correction (grammar, spelling etc.)

○      Organizational: Moving and regrouping paragraphs for better understanding

○      Historical: Removing or modifying outdated portions of the Charter

○      Updating Archaic Language

○      Where General State Statute Language Would Serve Best

●      Major Changes are Considered:

○      Controversial

○      Requiring More Research

○      Requiring Action by the Selectboard

Furthermore, changes, both major and minor are still being determined.  The minor changes identified to date are listed in Appendix E: Minor Charter Changes. The major changes are listed in Appendix F: Major Charter Changes.

CHARTER ISSUES AND TOPICS IDENTIFIED

City vs. Town

The Committee determined that the only difference between a city and town is perception. There are no legal benefits to being one rather than the other. The Committee’s recommendation is that Colchester should remain a Town. Colchester lacks the downtown or center that characterizes a city. Anecdotal evidence from residents is that they would rather live in the Town of Colchester.

Mayor-Council vs. Selectboard-Manager vs. Selectboard/Weak Mayor-Manager

The Committee will continue to investigate these forms of government and make a recommendation; however, initial conversations indicate that a departure from a Municipal Manager is unlikely.

At Large vs. Geographic Representation vs. Hybrid Model* for the Election of Selectboard Members

The Committee will continue to investigate these forms of electoral structure.

*Hybrid structures would have some members elected at large and some elected by geographic area.

Representative vs. Traditional vs. Australian Ballot Town Meeting

The Committee will continue to investigate these forms of Town Meeting.

Selectboard Term Limits

The Committee has not yet discussed this issue in detail.

Town Clerk/Treasurer Elected or Appointed

The Committee has not yet discussed this issue in detail.

Local Option Tax

This would require a Charter change, and the Committee understands that the Selectboard is considering this issue.  If requested, we could provide a recommendation on how this might be best structured.

The Snow Plowing of Private Roads

The Committee has had considerable discussion on this topic and will make a recommendation soon.

OTHER ISSUES & TOPICS IDENTIFIED

Fire District Consolidation

The Committee will make a recommendation on this subject in the near future.

School-Town Cooperation

The Committee has not yet discussed this issue in detail.

Citizen Participation

The committee will further investigate ways to invite and encourage participation:  voting, volunteer service, board/commission service, elected office service, etc.

Transparency & Communication

The Committee has not yet discussed in detail how Town government might enhance its transparency.  Though there has been some conversation about posting requirements and communication in an electronic age.

Regionalization

The Town is currently participating in a number of regional efforts including the following:

●      Land Use Planning - Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC)

●      Transportation Planning - Chittenden County Transit Authority (CCTA)

●      Public Transit - Chittenden County Transit Authority (CCTA)

●      Emergency Services - Coordination of Mutual Aid and Shared Dispatching

●      Solid Waste - Chittenden Solid Waste District (CSWD)

●      Storm Water Management - Regional Storm Water Educational Program  (RSEP)

●      Police Department – Chittenden County Law Enforcement Executive Group (CCLEEG) and Chittenden Unit for Special Investigations (CUSI)& Regional Authority

Although the Committee is open to considering consolidation or regionalization options from a structural perspective where is makes economic or operational sense, the Committee does not have the resources to pursue highly detailed analyses.

Future Items that Address the Heritage Charge As May be Identified

FUTURE PATHS

Now that the Committee has recently finished interviewing and hearing from experts, we plan to finish the section-by-section review of the Charter during the coming months, continuing to identify minor and major changes, take positions, and forward them for Selectboard review.

Submission of Charter Changes to the Selectboard

There are a several ways to submit Charter recommendations to the Selectboard and to keep them informed of the Committee’s progress.

1.     Periodic Submissions of Issues – A list of changes may be supplied to the Selectboard at regular intervals as the Committee proceeds with its review.

2.     Comprehensive List of Issues – A comprehensive list may be submitted to the Selectboard when the Committee has completed its review.

Submission of Charter Changes to the Voters and Legislature

Charter changes may be submitted to voters as either amendments to the current Charter or as a complete replacement of that Charter. A ballot can have more than one amendment for the voters to consider. And a ballot can require votes on both an amendment and a complete rewrite. If only a few selected portions of the Charter are to be changed or if a paragraph is to be added or deleted, the best approach is to submit the change to the voters as an amendment. If many small changes are to be suggested, it may be best to submit a complete rewrite of the Charter; a single vote approving any number of small non-controversial changes.

Charter changes can be controversial. Considerable time and energy must be invested in informing the public, receiving and reviewing public input and crafting a ballot item that will be approved. The Colchester Charter has not been changed since 1985 so voters may well have to be re-educated as to what exactly a Charter is and the ramifications of any changes. Once approved by voters, the Charter must be presented to the Legislature.

CONCLUSION

Much of the Committee’s time has been spent understanding the issues and receiving input from those most familiar with the operations of Colchester’s government. The Committee has begun working through the Colchester Charter in detail to identify and enumerate any minor or major changes that might be suggested. This work continues.

The Committee would like direction from the Selectboard regarding the best way to present any Charter changes to them.  The Committee believes that the effective presentation of any recommended Charter Changes to the voters will require a collaborative effort between the Selectboard, the Governance Committee and Town Administration.

Appendix A: Committee Member Biographies

Jacob Hemmerick (Chair)

274 Raymond Rd., Colchester

Email:  jmhemmerick@gmail.com

Phone: 802-363-7831

Originally from Ohio, I moved to Vermont after graduate school.  I’m proud to be a newer resident of Colchester and count myself lucky to live near the Lake.  My educational background is in Political Science, Planning and Public Administration.  I have been a member of the Governance Committee since March of 2013.  I work in professionally in municipal government but have also been a University Enrollment Manager and a Park Ranger.  As someone dedicated to good governance and public participation, I’m glad to be a part of the project.

David Usher (Vice-Chair)

Address

Email:  dusher@gmail.com

Phone:

Member of the Charter Study Group since: 

Retired telecommunications manager. Chaired governance sub-group of Heritage Project. Former chair and vice-chair of CEDAC. Member of Colchester Community Center Committee. UW volunteer and former leader/member of various non-profit organizations.

Pamela Laurence-Dimson

931 Red Rock Road, Colchester

Email: Pamela@faceyourself.com

Phone:

Member of the Charter Study Group since January 2013

Town Service: Volunteer for the Parks and Recreation Committee and Art Teacher for Summer programs – 2004-2005/ Volunteer for the Colchester Center Volunteer Fire Company – 2002-3.

Owner: Decilog: Systems Engineering and Training Services for Military, Government, Homeland Security, Cyber security and Commercial Applications

Owner: Face Your Self® Inc. – Educational Programs on Healthy Living

Author: Face Your Self®: Achieve Your True Potential  ISBN: 13:978-0615568799

Author: You Are Love: A Meditation  ISBN: 978-0-615-77450-3

Columnist House Magazine since 1997 – Go With the Flow

Artist and Sculptor: (works in many corporate collections/Clinton White House)

Plays Tennis

BS: Goucher College

MS: Towson University

Grandma

 

Pamela Loranger

208 Rail Road, Colchester

Email: zatarahinvt@yahoo.com

Phone: 802.865.9234

Member of the Charter Group since January 2013 and served on the initial subcommittee

Town Service:  Conservation Commission, Planning Commission, Community Center Initiative, Historical Society (Schoolhouse volunteer), Bayside Activity Center volunteer...all current.

Self Employed:  Preston Property Management and Leasing Services Inc., and 3 LLCs

Bud Meyers

967 Sunset View Road, Colchester

Email:  Bud.Meyers@uvm.edu

Phone: 802-879-3370

Member of the Charter Study Group since:  January, 2013

Previous town service:  Colchester School Board, 1984-87; Civil Board 2006-2008; Candidate for the House, 2006.

Employment:  Director, James M. Jeffords Center for Policy Research, UVM; Professor, UVM 1971-Present:  Director, Lighthouse Evaluation

Interests:  Educational Equity, Tax Equity, Public Safety and Well Being

Mickey Palmer

262 Bluebird Drive, Colchester

Email mickeypalmer@Comcast.net     

Phone: 802-862-7115

Member of the Charter Committee since July ? 2013

Colchester resident since October 1978

Previous municipal service:

Colchester Planning Commission

Colchester Select Board

Colchester Development Review Board

Member Water Control Board of Rappahannock County, VA where I participated in the planning and implementation of a wastewater system for the town of Sperryville, VA

Education:

SUATI Farmingdale: Biochemistry

Marist College: Environmental Science

Employment:

Esso Research Center 1962-1964

IBM Corp 1964-1992

Self employed consultant 1992-2002

Interests: Town Government, Woodworking, Videography, Target sports

Curt Taylor

436 Sunderland Woods Rd., Colchester

Email:  TaylorCurtD@gmail.com

Phone: 802.324.7188

Member of the Charter Study Group since:  June, 2013

Candidate for Vermont House - 2012, 2014

Curt Taylor, his wife Ruth Blauwiekel and daughter Anna moved to Colchester 10 years ago. Curt has lived off and on in the greater Burlington area since 1972 when he graduated from Beloit College in Beloit, Wisconsin with a BA in Political Science and Philosophy. After graduation he taught fifth grade Math and Social Studies in Essex Junction. During the ensuing eight years Curt held a variety of jobs from disk jockey, farm worker and sawmill operator in Brattleboro to newspaper reporter in Valdez, Alaska. In 1980 he met Ruth on a dairy farm in Brattleboro and Curt’s interests turned to computer operating and programming. In 1985 he graduated with a BS in Computer Science from Washington State University and began work with IBM in Boulder, Colorado. Since then he has held computer related jobs in West Virginia, Helsinki, Finland, Puyallup, WA, Litchfield MN (where he also taught elementary school) and finally Burlington. He is now self-employed as a database programmer working for several departments at the University of Vermont where his wife is the University Veterinarian.

Appendix B: Questions To and Responses From Town Officials

Questions for Key Person Interviews

Town Charter

1.    In what ways, if any, does the current charter conflict with the ways your department/ commission/ area of responsibility does business? What are ways that changing the charter might better support the work you do?

2.    From your perspective and experience what are the current provisions of the Colchester Charter that should be changed? Be specific and tell us why.

3.    Have there been any cases where the current town charter has prevented you from doing something that you thought was in the best interests of the Town?

Governmental Structure

1.    What are your thoughts about having an elected mayor in Colchester? How might a mayor affect your department/committee/area of responsibility? Pros and cons.

2.    Looking to the future, do you think Colchester is governed and structured in the optimal way, i.e., selectboard and town manager form of government? Why? Why not?

3.    If you were to create Colchester’s Governance Structure from scratch, what would you do?

4.    Do you think Colchester, the fourth largest municipality in Vermont, should be a town or a city? Reasons for opinion

5.    Should Colchester’s leadership team, whether a selectboard or a city council, be elected at large or from specific areas, such as wards, precincts or other designated regions? Why, Why not?

Consolidation and Efficiency

1.     Colchester has several ‘municipalities’ contained within its geographic boundaries. [A municipal corporation is an entity organized for and recognized by the State of Vermont for a specific purpose, but funded and governed separately from the Town of Colchester.] These provide fire, sewer, water and education services to residents. Should any of these be combined with others? If yes, which should be combined? If no, do you favor the present situation?

2.     Should municipal services in Colchester be regionalized, that is, combined with other towns/cities nearby? If so, which services or functions?

3.     What opportunities for greater efficiency and cost effectiveness do you see within Colchester’s current administrative structure? if the charter were revised to allow others, what would you add?

Citizen Participation

1.     How could you raise volunteerism in your department, or get the community more involved? What do other towns do in these regards? What do you most admire in other towns volunteer programs?

Miscellaneous

1.     Have you reviewed, read or participated in the Colchester Heritage Project? Your views on the results?

Town and Schools Relationship

(These questions should be directed at a new study commission (Karen will let us know when they are organized?)

1.     What are some implications of the competition for school and town budgets for crafting a closer working relationship between town and school governance? (for single town districts)

2.     What town services can be supported by the schools and vice-versa? Eg.. Could the town better afford a transportation system if it served both the citizenry and students?

3.     What barriers to consolidating services exist and how can this be remedied?

Responses to Questions for Key Person Interviews

LCATV Recording of Responses to Questions

●      Karen Richard (Town Clerk/Treasurer and Water Commissioner) - May 30th 2013

●      Joan Boehm (Chief Financial Officer) - June 27th 2013

●      Bryan Osborne (Director of Public Works) - July 11th 2013

●      Bob Vickery (Town Assessor) - September 8th 2013

●      Sarah Hadd (Director of Planning and Zoning) - September 8th 2013

●      Glen Cuttitta (Director of Recreation) - September 22nd 2013

Written Responses to Questions

Joan Boehm

Charter Revisions

Section 304 Budget states the following:

“After such budget has been adopted, the selectmen may make emergency appropriations totaling not in excess of 2 percent of the aggregate budget appropriations.  Such emergency appropriations shall be reported to the next town meeting.  Any appropriation in excess of such 2% shall require prior approval of a special town meeting.”

Proposed wording for Section 304:

After such budget has been adopted, the selectmen may spend more than the appropriated budget due to unforeseen circumstances provided the amount of spending does not reduce the Fund Balance to below 5% of total expenditures.  The Selectboard would report the circumstances and the anticipated additional expenditures as they become known.  The overage would also have to be reported to citizens at the next Town Meeting.  If it becomes necessary to reduce the Fund Balance below 5%, the Town would hold a special election after year-end to determine if the amount of expenditures that reduce the Fund Balance below 5% should be taken out of the next year’s budget. 

Section 606 Departmental Budget

“The gross appropriation for each department shall not be exceeded except by consent of the board of selectmen…”

I propose that this section be removed, as it is really the total budget that is important and individual departments are a management responsibility.

[from Joan Boehm, 7/8/13; shared with Governance Committee]

Bryan Osborne

[From Bryan Osborne for discussion at 7/11/13 Colchester Governance Committee Meeting in response to our questions prepared by Governance Committee for use with Department Heads and Selectboard Interviews.]

The following information is intended to facilitate a discussion between the Colchester Public Works Department and the Colchester Governance Committee.  The thoughts, ideas and opinions expressed here are those of the Town’s Public Works Director, and may not be shared by the Town or Colchester, the Town Manager or the Select Board.

Town Charter

Generally the Department of Public Works has no issues with the Town’s current Charter with the exception of Section 104 (7) which states; “To establish a policy whereby the Board of Selectmen may determine it to be in the public interest to plow those private roads serving two (2) or more year round residences, which previous to January 1, 1997 had the town providing winter road maintenance.”

In 1995, the Department of Public Works conducted a study associated with the plowing of private roads. Generally, the Town of Colchester is one of the few communities within Chittenden County that plows private roads. While there were at the time of the study three other communities that plowed some private roads, their efforts were minimal compared to the 22 miles of private roads plowed by the Town of Colchester.

This current practice has resulted from a series of public votes ranging from 1970 to 1990 as outlined in the report. As a part of the study, both the Town’s Attorney and Insurance Carrier characterized the Town’s practice as inadvisable and formally recommended that the Town discontinue the practice. From a performance standpoint, given that the plowing of private roads makes up approximately 20%-25% of the Town’s overall snow removal operation, the Town’s efficiency on publicly owed roads could be increased significantly absent the current practice of plowing private roads. At the time of the study, it was estimated that the discontinuance of plowing private roads could save the Town approximately $42,000 per year. In 1997, the Select Board felt it necessary to address at least the liability issues associated with the plowing of private roads. To accomplish this, the Town’s Charter was revised as shown above.

Currently there are a significant number of private roads that do not fall under these policies and therefore are not plowed by the Town. The Department of Public Works receives multiple calls each year from residents along private roads asking why the Town plows some private roads but not theirs. The Department has no good answer to this question. In some cases, the private roads the Town currently plows are within private trailer parks which are for profit businesses. Again, there is no available explanation for this.

The Department of Public Works would recommend that this language be removed from the Town’s Charter. If the Town would like to address the private road issue, we believe there are two options to consider. First, discontinue the practice of plowing all private roads which would be phased over a period of years to smooth the transition. Alternatively, the Town should plow all private roads in Colchester only after the owners of the roadways have reconstructed the roadways to meet the Town’s minimum public roadway standards.

Governmental Structure

Over the past 30 years, I have had the opportunity to work under both a council-manager form of government, and a mayor-council form of government. In doing so, I have had the opportunity to gain both perspective and understanding of these differing governance structures.

Nationally, the mayor-council form of government is the most common form used in large cities with populations in excess of 250,000 citizens, while middle-sized and smaller communities typically use the council-manager form of government. More than half of the communities in the United States with populations similar to Colchester rely upon the council-manager form of government.

Historically I believe that the council-manager form of government became popular as more and more communities wanted to remove the politics from government and the abuse that can come from such a process. The thought was to have a politically impartial administrator or manager to carry out the administrative functions of the municipality. Additionally, the intent was to take a more scientific approach to run an organization in an objective, scientific fashion to maximize efficiency. Whether it’s planning infrastructure expansion or hiring more public safety officers, growing communities face numerous challenges as they adapt to accommodate more residents. As the communities become larger, the government needs to do more, perform at a higher level, which is typically beyond the capabilities of elected officials.

The council-manager form of government also disperses power among several elected officials who must be responsive to community needs to remain in office, while separating their political role from the daily operation of the government. In this way, government is inclusive of broad citizen input. Under this approach, citizen dissatisfaction can be managed by running for office, while allowing professionally trained administrators and managers to take care of the day to day business of the community without political influences.

An argument can be made however that a popularly elected mayor may do things differently and would presumably listen to citizens more than a council or Select Board, and that centralizing authority in a mayor would change things at Town Hall. In most cases however, I suspect that councils and select boards do listen to the issues presented and simply may not arrive at the same conclusion.

I believe there has been a trend in many larger cities utilizing the mayor-council form of government to employ a Chief Administrative Officer to perform the more complicated administrative functions of a Town or City. However, this layering of governmental structure does add significant additional costs to a governmental budget.

My personal experiences under both forms of government have led me to believe that the council-manager form of government is better suited for the Town of Colchester. While mostly from a public works perspective, my experiences in the City of Burlington prior to coming to Colchester in 1991 offered a unique perspective of the mayor-council form of government. For example, under this form of government, which included the existence of wards, critical decisions were made based upon what small groups of citizens wanted versus what was actually best for the community as a whole. For example, the paving of roads, construction of sidewalks, the plowing of roads and the enactment of traffic ordinances were often misguided by political influences versus sound technical analysis.

Consolidation and Efficiency

From an infrastructure stand point, the Town currently has five separate water departments that are separate from one another, and separate from the Town. The Town currently does not own or operate a municipal water system within Colchester. While the Town has functioned under this arrangement for many years, this is certainly a very unusual governmental structure that from my perspective is not without its problems. The following is a list of some of the issues I have experienced with the current governmental structure as it relates to public infrastructure.

1.     Based upon the number of calls received annually in our office, (probably 25-30) regarding questions from residents about their water bills, service, or other water system related questions, it seems apparent that the general public is not aware of the current governmental structure, and understandably assumes that the water systems are operated by the Town which is the norm for communities like Colchester. Often times out of frustration, property owners request that we provide them with contact information for the Fire Districts as well as answer other questions regarding the water systems. While we are happy to do this, it takes time away from other Town duties.

2.     During events such as water breaks and/or planned and un-planned shut downs of the water systems, it is very common for public works to receive phone calls from property owners with questions about the shut down and expressing frustration with insufficient public outreach or communication regarding the interruption in service. The last call of this type I personally took was from Mary Powell, Chief Executive Officer of Green Mountain Power expressing her concern with the Town regarding the notice of a planned water shut down and how the timing of the shutdown was bad for business in Colchester. Once explained to Mrs. Powell how the water systems were structured in Colchester, she was quite surprised over the fragmented approach to such critical infrastructure.

3.     The Town operates the only municipal wastewater system in Colchester. Wastewater utilities use water meter readings as a basis of billing on the premise that what goes into the building comes out. As both water and wastewater systems are most often municipal functions operated by the same governmental entity, usually the same department, coordination of this data should be seamless. In Colchester however, the Town must contact five separate water departments to obtain water meter readings in order to develop and generate the wastewater bills. When property owners have questions regarding their bills, we often find ourselves needing to refer them to one of the various fire districts in that it is their data that was used to develop the Town’s wastewater bill.

4.     Water lines are most often located within the public right-of-way owned by the municipality which is the case in Colchester. Normally, the coordination of utility work or capital upgrades can be seamlessly planned and coordinated when utilities such as water and sewer fall under one municipal entity that also controls the transportation system. However when water systems are owned by separate municipal entities, this planning and coordination is cumbersome, inefficient and ineffective at best.

5.     Water and sewer are critical and tremendous growth tools that need to be integrated seamlessly with land use planning and economic development efforts. Because the governmental entities that control the water systems in Colchester do not have land use planning and economic development as part of their primary charge, the necessary continuity is lost. As Fire District #2 continues to pursue the construction of sewers within their district, it may provide a critical piece of infrastructure to the community. It may also add to further governmental fragmentation of critical public infrastructure.

6.     Some of the Fire Districts rely upon policy and management philosophies whereby areas in need of capital expansion or additional service are not the responsibility of the utility. This means that within areas of planned development, it is the developer’s responsibility to fund additional capacity or infrastructure. In existing residential areas that lack municipal water, it is the property owners in those areas that are responsible for the additional costs. These philosophies result in a deterrent to economic development as well as significant inequities in the utilities rate structure.

7.     The available water storage for the Town’s designated growth center is insufficient to reach even 50% build out of the growth center.  Facilities’ planning has identified the need for an expanded water storage tank on Water Tower Hill. With the majority of the storage needs being in Fire District #3, which is where the Town’s growth center is located, their proportionate share of the project cost is approximately 50%. For the past five years however, the Town has been unable to gain acceptance of this responsibility from the district whose position has changed several times but continues to fall into the categories of reasons why they won’t fund their share to reasons why they can’t fund their share.

Regionalization

There are already multiple examples of regionalized efforts in place where Colchester is an active participant. These include, but may not be limited to;

●      Land Use Planning

●      Transportation Planning

●      Emergency Services

●      Public Transit

●      Solid Waste

●      Storm Water Management

TO: Governance Committee

FROM: Sarah Hadd, Planning & Zoning Director

DATE: July 17, 2012

RE: Review of Town Charter & Response to Interview Questions

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the Charter with the Governance Committee and have several areas that I would like to review with the Committee which are listed below:

·      Preface, Looseleaf Supplement Service: With the use of ClerkBase and on-line regulations the requirement for looseleaf supplements seems outdated and an expense that should be re-examined.

·      Adopting Ordinance, Section 6: states penalties and references Chapter One, Section Nine of the Colchester Code of Ordinances (1-9).  This section should also perhaps reference “all applicable State Statutes”. 

·      Sections 103(a) does not comply with Chapter One, Section Nine of the Colchester Code of Ordinances (1-9) and should perhaps delete the fine amount and reference Sections 1-9.

·      Section 103(b) lists among municipal concerns “morality” which  should be examined by Town legal counsel as to present day applicability and wording.

·      Section 104(1&2) states the ability to adopt and enforce ordinances relating to public infrastructure.  It should be more clearly stated that per Title 10 and Title 24 of State Statute the Town also has the power to regulate non-public infrastructure and construction such as what is done through Chapter Four, Seven, and Eight of the Code of Ordinances and Appendices A & B (Zoning and Subdivision Regulations).

·      Section 104(2) states that the installation of public infrastructure is precedent to the issuance of a building permit.  Not all projects governed by building permits contain this sort of infrastructure.

·      Section 105 states persons that may prosecute on the behalf of the Town.  This should be cross referenced to Sections 1-9 as there are other municipal officers than police that enforce ordinances now.

·      Section 105 states a fine or penalty shall be by ordinance and should add “or by State Statute”.

·      Section 106(a): I am not aware of any ordinance adopted in the past ten years at the first reading.  This section should be re-written to accurately reflect the public process.

·      Section 106(b): Should an entire ordinance be required to be read in full by the Select Board?

·      Section 107: Required times are not in sync with State law.  Publication generally needs to be at least 15 days before land use ordinance hearings.

·      Section 108: Regulations are effective for most of the Code of Ordinance 60 days after passage not 21 days (only applicable to land use ordinances).

·      Section 206(b): delete the “s” after determines

·      Section 207 should reference the open meeting law and applicable archival requirement of the State of Vermont.

·      Section 208(a)(1): Delete Zoning board of Adjustment in favor of the Development Review Board.

·      Section 208(c): Delete fence views and update town attorney to be referred to as Town legal counsel  as different departments are represented by different attorneys.

·      Section 305 should reference applicable State Statute.

·      Section 404: The Town Manager appoints both the Building Inspector and Zoning Administrator currently.  This conflicts with 24 V.S.A. as this power generally resides with the Select Board.  It would be good to specify that the Select Board has delegated this duty to the Town Manager.  This issue also arises in Section 801.

·      Section 404(k) should perhaps also reference the Town’s personnel regulations.

·      Section 802(a): delete personnel director in favor of human resources.

I have received a list of questions pertaining to current consistency of the Town’s governance offer the following response.  As the Town’s Planner, I served many years as a facilitator in creating plans for the community.  Citizen input is paramount to generating and sustaining successful plans.  While I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these issues with the Governance Committee, the answers need to come from the community and not from a departmental director. 

With regard to the Heritage Plan I am intimately familiar with the document and assisted in its creation and implementation.  The quick pro and con on a mayor form of government is that while it empowers the citizenry directly in the day to day operations of a town, it also creates a potential lack of consistency in leadership and policy that can adversely affect productivity of the governance structure.  As to the Town versus City I believe this is a question best left to the voters as it has much to do with community perception and I believe has little to do with day to day operations of the Town.

There are pros and cons to wards or similar geographic voting areas.  The Town is geographically diverse and has very few population centers.  Ward or similar districts could be beneficial to areas such as the Bay but could result in odd marriages of other areas such as the Mill Pond Road area with the Fort.  These are areas with very different problems and needs and districts would therefore not necessarily create equal representation.

Colchester is very similar to many other Vermont communities with multiple governance structures.  While there are often efficiencies in combining and consolidating these structures, I believe that there is currently good cooperation between many of these structures.   The costs of consolidation versus status quo should be explored first.  Regionalization may be effective for some services such as dispatch and public safety, however, even in the population center of Chittenden County municipal services vastly differ from town to town and homogenization of these services may prove to be difficult and more costly than maintaining separate services.

The Town is thoughtfully pursuing discussions with the School District as to shared services to better support the citizenry.  There are some regulatory issues with Act 68 pertaining to funding these endeavors that need further exploration. 

Our department is very dependent on volunteers.  Both the Development Review Board and Planning Commission are volunteer boards that are crucial to the services our department is charged with providing.  With public hearings and planning activities it is always a challenge to try to “participate the public.”  Our department is consistently examining new ways to enhance and maintain both volunteer and general public interest in what we do and be as accessible as we can be.  Thank you for your time and I look forward to the results of the Committee’s work.

Appendix C: Written Summaries and/or Transcripts of Selectboard Interviews

Nadine Scibek (Chair)

Interview with Nadine Scibek, Selectboard Chair - July 17, 2013

Town Charter

-Is Cemetery Commission still needed or can the functions reside elsewhere in Town government? Does State law require a cemetery commission?

-Private road plowing issue  - Need a policy; No policy now other than what is in the current charter.

-Charter should provide flexibility for leaders and administrators while still providing citizen protection and voter control

-A conflict may exist between charter provisions and any contract between the Town and  a town manager

-Review the charter requirement that the town manager attend all meetings of the Selectboard

-May want to formalize in the charter the Ethics Committee and a Governance/Charter Committee to assure more frequent charter review , along with required Planning Commission and Development Review Board (Zoning Board of Adjustment).

-Perhaps should provide enabling language that deals with water issues, e.g., potable, waste, storm. Consider authorizing a water utility, as yet functionally unspecified.

Governmental Structure

-Town seems appropriate with selectboard elected at large, unless there are identifiable advantages, legal or other, in being a city.

-Fire District(s) with a volunteer cadre seems appropriate; encouraged conversation and input from fire chiefs.

-Ambivalent about elected or appointed town clerk position ; critical to insure continued high quality and integrity in the occupant of the position..

Consolidation and Efficiency

-Favors long term consolidation of municipal corporations to provide water-related services centrally; recommends charter language enabling same or at least not preventing same.

Town and Schools Relationship

-Favors as much cooperation and resource sharing as allowed by statute to improve efficiencies.

Marc Landry

Town Charter

1.     In what ways, if any, does the current charter conflict with how the selectboard might better lead the Town? What are ways that changing the charter might better support the work you do?

No conflicts aware of…. But,, Fire districts maybe…  F2 is a water company..F3 growth ctr and Clay Point has no water….F3 won’t respond…

2.     From your perspective and experience what are the current provisions of the Colchester Charter that should be changed? Be specific and tell us why

Yes…Town Clerk should be appointed, not elected…should report to Town Mgr…Services should be provided by an employee, not an official….would promote consolidation of finances…w/cfo for example…  Also, constable, fence viewer, etc…

3.     Have there been any cases where the current town charter has prevented you from doing something that you thought was in the best interests of the Town?    

Water shortage…not responsive…

Governmental Structure

1.     What are your thoughts about having an elected mayor in Colchester? How might a mayor affect leadership? Pros and cons.

Plus…vision to lead the town towards change is absent currently…

But, the consensus is important…Mayor might adversely affect the consensus process…not ready to say we need one…local option tax may be more important…ain’t broke don’t fix..

  

2.     Looking to the future, do you think Colchester is governed and structured in the optimal way, i.e., selectboard and town manager form of government? Why? Why not

It works well with the right people…but geo areas may not get the best people..political parties may not add value..

3.     If you were to create Colchester’s governance structure from scratch, what would you do?

Change the Fire districts…unify them…particularly for water….so, one water company…could be one entity and include sewers…Town can work with volunteers, but we need to plan for fire coverage..  also have a provision that encourages more regional planning and interaction…eg. Winooski dispatching..

4.     Do you think Colchester, the fourth largest municipality in Vermont, should be a town or a city? .   Reasons for opinion   

Could Care less…

5.     Should Colchester’s leadership team, whether a selectboard or a city council, be elected at large or from specific areas, such as wards, precincts or other designated regions? Why, Why not?

At large…Marc worried about lack of interest…and the quality of representation….   You’d want more than 5 if you did geo reps…then it’s a whole new ballgame…

6.     Should the Town Clerk be elected or appointed? Town Treasurer elected or appointed?  

  Appointed

Consolidation and Efficiency

1.     Colchester has several ‘municipalities’ contained within its geographic boundaries. [A municipal corporation is an entity organized for and recognized by the State of Vermont for a specific purpose, but funded and governed separately from the Town of Colchester.] These provide fire, sewer, water and education services to residents. Should any of these be combined with others? If yes, which should be combined? If no, do you favor the present situation?

COMBINED…CHANGE THIS!!!!  PREPARE FOR THE DAY WE GET THE PHONE CALL…NO COVERAGE…

2.     Should municipal services in Colchester be regionalized, that is, combined with other towns/cities nearby? If so, which services or functions?

Yes!!!!!  

Citizen Participation

1.     How could you raise volunteerism or get the community more involved? What do other towns do in this regard? What do you most admire in other towns volunteer programs?

Problem is that there are lots of ways to be involved….churches, rec, etc…so, it is hard to attract folks to governance….no great ideas…but, maybe reimburse people better…..

Town and Schools Relationship

1.     What are some implications of the competition for school and town budgets for crafting a closer working relationship between town and school governance? (for single town districts)

We work well…but, the town budget is a smaller number…we get a pass…schools pay a price…the funding needs fixing…we are #3 in the county for tax rates…Currently the structure of the distribution of the total tax bill…school + town favors the town….this is a problem for Colchester…eg…SB gets a larger slice for school funding…Rescue is expensive..and funded rather than bill for services…

2.     What town services can be supported by the schools and vice-versa? e.g., Could the town better afford a transportation system if it served both the citizenry and students?

Transportation for school and town ought to look like Burlington…why not fix this with the charter??

3.     What barriers to consolidating services exist and how can this be remedied?

The interests of current providers to maintain the status quo…some would lose income and would lobby to resist that….eg.. Change  Title 16 to encourage rather than make it difficult..

Other: 

Overall response to Charter Change Process:   Let’s be strategic about what we change so that we get really important changes and not overload the changes so that people walk away from ….Deal with the Aint Broke Don’t Fix issue and go for the really important changes…..

On the private roads issue….we are taxing on unrealized gain…on property…

The ratios of town and school budgets ought to be studied and compared with other towns…Some towns tax and spend a higher % for schools and a lower % for town than does Colchester.  The school budgets take the hit at town meeting.

Renn Niquette

Curt Taylor’s Interview with Renn Niquette - August 28th 2013

Renn Niquette has been on the Selectboard for about a year and a half and has extensive experience on the school board.

Charter: Renn pointed out that over the last year and half there has not been any time when the charter has prevented the board from doing what it thought best. The charter has been consulted regarding procedures. Some members of the Selectboard have expressed an interest in discussing a local option tax to fund sewers in town .  A Local Option Tax would require the charter to be modified and voted on by the VT Legislature. This has not been discussed by the Selectboard.

Communication and Transparency: Renn finds the current Selectboard to be very transparent and willing to communicate with the public. She mentioned Front Porch Forum and the weekly newsletter in the Sun as current means of keeping the public informed. In addition Renn produces a local access TV show, Straight Talk, during which town issues are discussed. The town manager has developed and implemented a protocol for handling emails Selectboard members receive from the public. That procedure has worked well and avoids too many people responding in an uncoordinated manner.

Mayor/Council vs Selectboard: Renn echoed others in questioning the continuity of policy when a mayor is elected every two years. She is happy with a Selectboard form of governance. When asked about whether the members should be elected at-large or by districts she pointed out that it is difficult enough to get people to run for office when the whole town is the pool of possible candidates. Districts with that much smaller a pool would make it even more difficult.

Town vs. City: Renn prefers Town

Citizen participation/Volunteerism: Her remarks were again similar to others in that participation is good but the participants tend to be the same people doing most of the work. Older people not making similar commitments to their children's activities and needs are more likely to volunteer or participate.

Other Selectboards in Vermont: Renn felt that other boards function pretty much as does Colchester's and do not have any tools or policies that she would like to see implemented in Colchester.

Consolidation of services: She would like to see the fire districts consolidated and under the auspices of the Department of Public Works. Her reason for this is primarily that it will expose the budgetary process to a greater number of people. As it is, each district budget is voted upon separately and that vote usually involves few citizens outside those not directly involved in the district's business. She generally supports consolidation and would consider regionalization of services but does not think the towns are ready for that yet.

Town vs School: Cooperation between the town and school is good. Renn points out that any financial cooperation raises the legal limitations of Act 60/68. The possibility of school children on public buses may not be realistic when considering behavior monitoring and CCTA policies.

Tom Mulcahy

Governance Committee Questions for Key Person Interviews from revised 6/17/13

Interview with Tom Mulcahy by Pamela Laurence

Town Charter:

1. Needs to be brought up to date.  It tends to support or allow the conditions that exist to continue –ie. the fractured fire and water depts.  It is old and allows things to be done as it used to be done.

2. Does not properly represent all of the people.  The charter and town needs to be broken up into sectors of five districts.

3. Not for me.

Governmental Structure:

1.Now you have to start looking at a time line. I believe the next step is a council and a town manager.  There is a big difference: mayor elected by people and town manger selected by select board.  The council is one person in each “district” that would be good for Colchester. Population has something to do with mayor or town manager.  In Vermont when you get to be 40,000 people a mayor may be better – but we are not there yet.

2. As above

3. I would hire a consultant that knows what they are doing and instruct every one who participates to play 25 games of SIM City, a computer game. We need infrastructure.

4. I don’t know all the answers to that, but there are many rules for differences of city and town.

5. Yes, elected through districts.

Consolidation and Efficiency:

1. Education should not be in there.  Education needs to addressed by itself. The water, sewer and fire dept. should belong to the town.  All should be brought into the town and the separate units in the town can combine them at a later date. Yes consolidated into the town.

2. The police – all services to some degree can be combined.   With regard to the possible regional police station with Essex – we missed that one so now there are two police stations.  You cannot have one fire station because you have to disperse the vehicles but the management structure of the fire can be changed and regionalized.    Pluses: Discount rates on fire engine trucks and other tools, etc. – it is good business to regionalize for it gives better rates for the tax payers. 

3. Colchester needs to operate as a business.  When you decide to do something the first thing you do is create a business case – why are we doing this.  2^nd return on investment dollars: happiness, health, ease of access, costs… (Why do you buy new tongs for kitchen??) 3^rd marketing and 4th, then you need to find partners to provide funding.  Once all of the above is in place, now you can go and ask the people to vote and you have a complete story to tell them. If proposal should pass you can enact it with a structured process and then you do an audit.

Citizen Participation:

1, We are very bad in this. The people in Colchester are busy but people need to be convinced that this is their town and these are their problems (or situations) and they need to get involved. People want to help – to give feed back to ideas to get things done. Need to have clarity and make sure it is the business case of what you need to have done.  Tell them this is your opportunity for adjustment and being creative and your opportunity to fix the problem. People will come out when you ask them, especially if they have knowledge in the area of what to do.  We have a lot of talented people in Colchester.   Also need to get the business people involved.

Miscellaneous:

Private roads: either plow them all or do none.  It is not fair.  Tom suggested to feed it back through Brian to the Selectboard.

Herb Downing

Interviewed by Pam Loranger 7/17/13

Town Charter

1.     In what ways, if any, does the current charter conflict with how the selectboard might better lead the Town? What are ways that changing the charter might better support the work you do?

2.     From your perspective and experience what are the current provisions of the Colchester Charter that should be changed? Be specific and tell us why.  Update archaic language.  Leave the question of an ongoing Charter Commission up to the Charter Commission.

3.     Have there been any cases where the current town charter has prevented you from doing something that you thought was in the best interests of the Town?    NO

Governmental Structure

1.     What are your thoughts about having an elected mayor in Colchester? How might a mayor affect leadership? Pros and cons.  Preference for a Town Manager who is answerable to the Select Board.

2.     Looking to the future, do you think Colchester is governed and structured in the optimal way, i.e., selectboard and town manager form of government? Why? Why not?  Satisfied with current structure.  It is transparent and efficient. 

3.     If you were to create Colchester’s governance structure from scratch, what would you do?

No change recommended.

4.     Do you think Colchester, the fourth largest municipality in Vermont, should be a town or a city?Maintaind Colchester as a Town.   Reasons for opinion  No substantial difference between the two entities

5.     Should Colchester’s leadership team, whether a selectboard or a city council, be elected at large or from specific areas, such as wards, precincts or other designated regions? Why, Why not?  Elected at large.  This is a direct democracy with the principal impact the voters have is on the budget. 5 Select persons is a good number.  Would not favor the creation of wards.

6.     Should the Town Clerk be elected or appointed? Town Treasurer elected or appointed? No opinion

Consolidation and Efficiency

1.     Colchester has several ‘municipalities’ contained within its geographic boundaries. [A municipal corporation is an entity organized for and recognized by the State of Vermont for a specific purpose, but funded and governed separately from the Town of Colchester.] These provide fire, sewer, water and education services to residents. Should any of these be combined with others? If yes, which should be combined? If no, do you favor the present situation?

2.     Should municipal services in Colchester be regionalized, that is, combined with other towns/cities nearby? If so, which services or functions?

Consolidation is good in theory but in reality if very unlikely 

Citizen Participation

1.     How could you raise volunteerism or get the community more involved? What do other towns do in this regard? What do you most admire in other towns volunteer programs?

Town and Schools Relationship

(These questions should be directed at a new study commission (Karen Richard will let us know when they are organized?)

1.     What are some implications of the competition for school and town budgets for crafting a closer working relationship between town and school governance? (for single town districts)

2.     What town services can be supported by the schools and vice-versa? e.g., Could the town better afford a transportation system if it served both the citizenry and students?

3.     What barriers to consolidating services exist and how can this be remedied?

Mickey Palmer
Town Charter

1.    In what ways, if any, does the current charter conflict with how the selectboard might better lead the Town?

§  Not a question of leading the town however it does limit the ability of the SB to help individual citizens when they feel they are being aggrieved by town administration.
2.    What are ways that changing the charter might better support the work you do?
§  Specific language on updating & reviewing ordinances. Some ability to initiate changes to ordinances. (have to be careful of that one to minimize political influence)
3.    From your perspective and experience what are the current provisions of the Colchester Charter that should be changed? Be specific and tell us why.
§  Not to cop out on the question but there are many areas of the charter that need to be changed to reflect today's realities. There are also opportunities to simplify and condense several parts that deal with very specific enumerated powers.
4.    Have there been any cases where the current town charter has prevented you from doing something that you thought was in the best interests of the Town?
§  Not interests of the town. However, as I said earlier, it does limit the ability of members of the SB to help individual citizens when they feel they are being aggrieved by town administration.
　
Governmental Structure
1.    What are your thoughts about having an elected mayor in Colchester? How might a mayor affect leadership? Pros and cons.
§  I do not support an elected mayor. You could get Bob Kiss. It is the luck of the draw. With a town manager you can hire a professional and vet them prior to their appointment and they may be removed for proper cause.
2.    Looking to the future, do you think Colchester is governed and structured in the optimal way, i.e., selectboard and town manager form of government? Why? Why not?
§  What we have, works well for our town. Don't fix what isn't broken.
3.    If you were to create Colchester’s governance structure from scratch, what would you do?
§  Just what we are currently doing. Look at what works for other municipalities and integrate the best parts into ours and modify as appropriate to meet the specific needs of Colchester.
4.    Do you think Colchester, the fourth largest municipality in Vermont, should be a town or a city? Reasons for opinion
§  Colchester is too spread out to be a city. Breaking it up into separate villages would make more sence.
5.    Should Colchester’s leadership team, whether a selectboard or a city council, be elected at large or from specific areas, such as wards, precincts or other designated regions? Why, Why not?
§  Elected at large. It would be too difficult to divide the town up into districts where there would be equal representation. The town is too diverse with local pockets of dense population and large areas of sparse population.
6.    Should the Town Clerk be elected or appointed? Town Treasurer elected or appointed?
§  Tough question. If you elect someone with Karen's qualifications great. An appointed Clerk could be vetted to assure a level of competence.
　
Consolidation and Efficiency
1.     Colchester has several ‘municipalities’ contained within its geographic boundaries. [A municipal corporation is an entity organized for and recognized by the State of Vermont for a specific purpose, but funded and governed separately from the Town of Colchester.] These provide fire, sewer, water and education services to residents. Should any of these be combined with others? If yes, which should be combined? If no, do you favor the present situation?
§  The most practical approach would be for the water districts be adsorbed into FD#2 and perhaps eventually integrated into a town department.
2.     Should municipal services in Colchester be regionalized, that is, combined with other towns/cities nearby? If so, which services or functions?
§  Feel very strongly that wastewater should be regionalized into a county wide service much like CSWD and CCTA.
3.     　
Citizen Participation
1.     How could you raise volunteerism or get the community more involved? What do other towns do in this regard? What do you most admire in other towns volunteer programs?
§  All towns have similar problems attracting volunteers. Young people are busy raising a family and working full time jobs. One thing that I have advocated is very public volunteer appreciation events.
　
Town and Schools Relationship
(These questions should be directed at a new study commission (Karen Richard will let us know when they are organized?)
1.     What are some implications of the competition for school and town budgets for crafting a closer working relationship between town and school governance? (for single town districts)
§  I do not see any relationship there. It is in the interest of both to cooperate where allowed to reduce the rate of growth in taxes.
2.     What town services can be supported by the schools and vice-versa? e.g.,
§  There are opportunities to combine some of the finance department activities as well as information systems.
3.      Could the town better afford a transportation system if it served both the citizenry and students?
§  Perhaps however I would guess that the average commuter would want a level of comfort not usually found on a school bus.
4.     What barriers to consolidating services exist and how can this be remedied?
§  The state education law makes it very difficult for the town and school to share in most costs because of the changes made to act 68 to prevent situations like Stowe, where costs were shifted from the school to the town, making the school budget look smaller to avoid the so called shark pool.

 

Appendix D: Summary of Jim Barlow’s (VLCT) Responses

Committee Member Curt Taylor’s recollection of responses given 09/26/13 to VLCT questions.

1./ Do any statutory criteria define a City vs. a Town or is that solely a local voter decision?  Is there really any difference between a City or Town other than perception?

Response: No difference other than perception. But “Cities” tend to be larger, more complex, have hired officers rather than elected, and stress efficiency and accountability over checks and balances.

2./ Is it appropriate or not to include in the charter a section, perhaps in the Preface, a statement of principles or, perhaps, the mission statement from Colchester’s Heritage Project?

Response: Inappropriate. The charter, like any legal document, should be as concise as possible with little room for interpretation.

3./  Colchester Charter Section 103 Powers of the town paragraph (c) states that the Town may acquire real property by purchase, gift, etc. “with approval of the voters.” Some recent real estate gifts to the town were accomplished without such a town vote. Is this a problem? What should be the appropriate language to protect the voters and the tax base, but not tie the hands of leadership for “small” transactions?

Does the language of this section mean that voter approval is required for all property acquisitions within the boundaries of Colchester as well as outside the town’s boundaries?

Response: The “or” in the sentence means that property within Colchester does not require a voter approval while property outside Colchester does. The intention should be made clear. Barlow thought that the Selectboard should be able to acquire property without having to go to the voters. Bond issues require it anyway

4./ Colchester provides snowplowing for ~22 miles of private roads under the authority of this charter language: Section 104 (7) states; “To establish a policy whereby the Board of Selectmen may determine it to be in the public interest to plow those private roads serving two (2) or more year round residences, which previous to January 1, 1997 had the town providing winter road maintenance.”. What does VLCT recommend on this issue with respect to liability and policy?

Response: Barlow’s recommendation was that the town should not be in the business of plowing private roads, but that some towns do. Issues were 1) Liability - it is not clear whether or not the town could be sued. The paragraph in the charter may provide a point from which an argument of sovereign immunity could be made but it is not certain. 2) Implied Acceptance and Dedication. If the roads are ‘maintained’ then after 15 or so years they could suddenly become the town’s responsibility to maintain. However, snowplowing may not be considered ‘maintenance’. 3) Fairness - Discussed but not really decided. Barlow did not seem to think the Snow Plowing paragraph was necessary but did not strongly recommend that it be removed.

5./ On the theory that one municipal corporation’s responsibility, among many, is to protect the public health and safety of its residents (or customers served in the case of a water district), what are the liability implications for failing to do so? How does this play out in the case where Colchester, by today’s charter language has the Town plowing some private roads and not others, arguably a public safety function?

Response: See previous response but I don’t think this was answered directly

6./ Should the Town incorporate language in its charter to accommodate ownership and management of a potable water utility? Future stormwater utility? Wastewater utility? Are other municipalities doing this?

Response: Not necessary. State statute covers all this.

7./ Is it a fair expectation that a duly enacted charter should be seen as a ‘contract’ with the government of a town and its residents, specifically on issues of public health and safety?

Response: Depends on perspective. In a very broad sense any form of representative government is arguably a ‘social contract’ but in strictly legal terms a charter is a grant of authority by the state agreed upon by all parties.

8./ What is the difference between a Policy and an Ordinance with regard to their creation and implementation? In your experience how have other municipalities made information about their policies available to the public? The specific procedure for passing ordinances is codified in state law and charters. Is that also true of the procedures for establishing policies by the governing body? Should a charter specify that policies enacted by the selectboard be published?

Response: A Policy is not legally enforceable. The Selectboard, by majority vote, can create a policy. Department heads can create policies. If the policies are not followed the offender cannot be brought to court.

9./ Open Meeting Law and New Technology:  We’re currently using a Google Drive to organize administratively, but we also see it’s potential as as valuable, interactive tool to write and collectively prepare for actionable items during a duly warned meeting. We’re finding as we undertake the work of Charter revision (in an advisory capacity) that the restrictions of Open Meeting Law (as understood) are impracticable with discussing, drafting and editing text online to prepare for an actionable item.  How can we take on the work of writing a Charter in formats other than the traditional meeting led by oral communication?  Is this in line with the law?  If not, is there a way to duly warn an ongoing online forum made visible and interactive with the public?  Similarly, we are concerned about the law’s take on emails between and among committee members.  What  (if anything) can we discuss in email? Are there no restrictions on what we can discuss if the discussion is between individuals? If two committee members exchange emails regarding a specific issue should those emails be made readily available to the public?  In other words how can we work within the law to efficiently craft the text of documents we will present with electronic or online media?

Response: Working on common documents with various committee members editing portions at will is questionable and should not be done. Do not use “Reply-All” emails to discuss committee business; this establishes a quorum. Documents can be placed on a shared drive and individuals can exchange emails with each other discussing the documents. Documents stating an individual’s reasoning can be placed on the shared drive.

10./As you have worked with municipalities over the past few years what issues have emerged for charter revision that are not covered by the other questions in our list?  How have these issues been resolved?

Response: I don’t recall his response to this but I believe he did say something. 

11./To what extent should the charter include provisions covered by the general law when the Charter does not contradict the general law?  Are there instance where pointing to the general law is a benefit or liability?

Response: If the charter suggestion agrees with the current state law then leave it out of the charter.  When state laws are created they can or cannot have language stating that the law overrides any charters. Having the law in the charter does not guarantee that it will be that way forever. See response to 13 below.

12./The Colchester Charter, Chapter 10, Section 1001 states that the charter may be amended in accordance with state law.  Have any municipalities strengthened this provision to specify a periodic review of the charter?  Do other charters specify any process for initiating the charter review?  Can citizens initiate this process by any specific means? 

Response: Barlow suggested a periodic charter review process build into the current charter. 

13./ What is the relationship of the Charter to State law? What are the responsibilities (if any) of the town vs. state? Does the local charter take precedence when state law is changed? If state law changes does the charter need to be amended? For example: Assume an ordinance is passed in 2012 stating that houses can be built as long as they are more than 75 feet from a lake shore. In 2013 the state passes a law saying no houses can be built within 100 feet of a shoreline. Can a house be built 80 feet from the shoreline in this community?

Response: If there is ambiguity as to whether or not the State or the municipality has a specific authority then the State wins. Considering two statues; one state and one municipal:  “Where two statutes deal with the same subject matter, and one is general and the other specific, the more specific statute controls”. Barlow’s answer to the question in 13 about the house was that in his opinion a house could be build 80 feet from the shoreline, but there may have been some caveats. He may have said that there would have to have been something in the charter giving the municipality the power to regular shoreline construction and there would have to be something in the State law saying that the new restrictions do not negate any restrictions set by the municipality. So this is not completely clear to me.

14.) Remaining respectful of the fact that a Town Manager is apolitical while also being respectful of the checks and balances between the administration and the policy body, are there formal charter mechanisms by which Selectboards can take intermediary steps when a Manager is negligent to or overstepping the authority of the lawmaking body:  e.g., performance evaluation, executive session vote of concern, etc.?

Response: Barlow felt strongly that the Selectboard should have periodic reviews and evaluations of the town manager. He felt it would be a good idea to put this in the charter to assure that the Selectboard follow through.

Appendix E: Minor Charter Changes

ID	Location	Change	Type	Reason	Note
1	Chapter 1	Title changed to General Provisions.	Organizational
2	Sec. 103 a & b	Switch paragraph b with a	Organizational	Clarity	Not in MP's reorganization
3	Sec. 103 a	Remove: "not in excess of a fine of one hundred dollars ($100.00) together with the costs of prosecution, or imprisonment for not more than sixty (60) days or both"	Not Controversial	Punishment should flexible and set by ordinance.
4	Sec. 103 b	Remove: "morality"	Cultural	Not appropriate for a charter
5	Sec. 105 - 109	Move to a new chapter entitled Ordinances	Organizational	Clarity
6	Sec. 106 a	What to do about "in its entirety in a newspaper"	Not Controversial	Historical - Do we need the whole ordinance published? What does 'published' mean with regard to website's etc.	Needs a committee decision.
7	Sec. 106 b	What to do about "read in full"	Not Controversial	Historical - Do we need the whole ordinance published? What does 'published' mean with regard to website's etc.	Needs a committee decision.
8	Sec. 107	What to do about "read in full" and perhaps the reference to "(3) days".	Not Controversial	Historical?	Needs a committee decision.
9	Sec. 109	Update. What does 'publish' mean?	Not Controversial	Historical?	Needs a committee decision.
10	Sec. 110	Moved to new chapter entitled Administrative	Organizational	Clarity
11	Sec. 201 - 204	Moved to a new chapter entitled Elective Officers.
12	Sec. 203 a	Change "Selectmen" to "Selectboard"	Cultural
13	Sec. 203 b	Change "Selectmen" to "Selectboard"	Cultural
14	Sec. 205 - 211	Moved to a new chapter entitled "Selectboard"	Organizational	Clarity
15	Sec. 205 - 211	Change all references to "Selectmen" to "Selectboard."	Cultural
16	Sec. 205 b	Spelling error. "determines" should be "determine"	Editorial
17	Sec. 208	Add Development Review Board?	Not Controversial	Accuracy	Needs a committee decision.
18	Sec. 208 c	Remove "Fence viewers", "tree warden". Change "town attorney"	Historical		Needs a committee decision.
19	Sec. 209	Type-o "for each [which] the . . . "	Editorial
20	Sec. 211-1	Suggest change to clearly state that the Selectboard has the power to supervise all commissions and boards whether or not established by the charter	Editorial	Clarity	Needs a committee decision
21	Sec. 303	Moved to new chapter entitled Administrative	Organizational	Clarity
22	Sec. 304	Moved to new chapter entitled Town Budget	Organizational
23	Sec. 305 - 306	Move to a new chapter entitled Ordinances	Organizational
24	Sec. 306 a	Replace "aye and nay"?	Historical		Needs a committee decision
25	Sec. 401 - 406	Move to a new chapter entitled Town Manager	Organizational
26	Sec. 401 - 406	Do we want something on periodic evaluations?	Not Controversial		Needs a committee decision. Is this really not controversial or should we move this to the Major list?
27	Sec. 501 - 504	Moved to a new chapter entitled Taxation and Appraisal	Organizational
28	Sec. 601	Moved to new chapter entitled Administrative	Organizational
29	Sec. 602 - 607	Moved to new chapter entitled Town Budget	Organizational
30	Sec. 607	Reference to 2% constraint	Not Controversial		Needs a committee decision.
31	Sec. 701 - 702	Moved to a new chapter entitled Taxation and Appraisal	Organizational
32	Sec. 801	Move to a new chapter entitled Town Manager	Organizational
33	Sec. 802	Moved to new chapter entitled Administrative	Organizational
34	Sec. 803	Moved to new chapter entitled General Provisions	Organizational
35	Sec, 1001 - 1003	Moved to new chapter entitled Administrative	Organizational

Appendix F: Major Charter Changes

       

ID	Location	Change	Type	Comment
1	Sec. 103 c	Rework paragraph	Under discussion	Statement regarding when a town vote should be clarified.
2	Sec. 103 (7)	Snow plowing of private roads	Politically Controversial	VLCT says it's a bad idea, but some towns do it. Question of liability is unsettled.
3	Sec. 202 3	Town Clerk - elected or appointed	Not yet discussed
4	Sec. 202	Term Limits for elected officials	Not yet discussed	No limits in current Charter
5	Sec. 302	Town meeting type	Not yet discussed	Representative Town Meeting vs. Traditional Town Meeting vs. Australian Ballot Town Meeting
6	Various	Basic Governmental structure	Not yet discussed	Mayor-Council vs. Selectboard-Manager vs. Selectboard/Weak Mayor-Manager
7	Sec. 202 1 A	Selectboard election method	Not yet discussed	At Large vs. District Representation for the Election of Selectboard vs. Hybrid

Appendix G:  Resources

This is not a comprehensive list, but will give you a sense of references materials:

●      Charters from Williston, South Burlington, Burlington, Winooski, Fire District No. 1, Rutland, Westford (proposed)

●      Vermont Statutes Online

●      Vermont Municipal Index To Laws Affecting Local Government

●      All Those In Favor by Susan Clark and Frank Bryan

●      Guide to Charter Commissions by the National Civic League

●      A Law to Suggest and Encourage Local Government Consolidations by the New Jersey State League of Municipalities

●      Departmental Job Analysis, Classification and Efficiency Study for the Town of Colchester, Vermont (2009) by Evergreen Solutions

●      Town of Colchester Fiscal Year 2014 Citizen Budget Survey

●      Local Government Reform in Indiana (2009) by Ball State University

●      Reforming Local Government By Charter by The Vermont Institute for Government

●      Who’s Got the Power? Roles and Responsibilities in Planning and Zoning by VLCT

●      Municipal Law Basics (2009) by the Vermont Secretary of State

●      The Case for Consolidation (2005) regarding upstate New York by John Freie, Ke Moyne College

●      US voters are not convinced that big is better in local government article by Mayrai Fahim for City Mayors website

●      VLCT's Handbook for Selectboards by Vermont League of Cities and Towns Municipal Assistance Center

●      Hillerby v. Town of Colchester  (96-243); 167 Vt. 270; 706 A.2d 446 regarding sovereign immunity from Vermont Supreme Court archives

●      Model City Charter 8^th Edition (2003) by National Civic League

●      Slow Democracy by Woden Teachout and Susan Clarke

●      2012 Vermont General Municipal Information - VLCT (April 2013)

●      The LUARCC. A Law to Suggest and Encourage Local Government Consolidations - Gregory C. Fehrenbach - New Jersey State League of Municipalities

●      Departmental Job Analysis, Classification and Efficiency Study for the Town of Colchester, Vermont (Evergreen Study) - November 2009