Findings and Recommendations on Fire District Governance in Colchester

Findings and Recommendations on Fire District Governance in Colchester

January 2014

Colchester Governance Committee:

Jacob Hemmerick, Chair; David Usher, Vice-Chair; Pam Loranger, Secretary; Mickey Palmer; Curt Taylor; Pamela Laurence-Dimson; Bud Meyers

Introduction

The Colchester Selectboard tasked the Governance Committee, an ad hoc advisory committee, with making a recommendation regarding the supply and management of the Town’s water and/or wastewater management and fire protection services. The Heritage Project Report, in its discussion of Governance, recommends that the “Leaders of Colchester and other chartered corporations appoint a team to evaluate the potential benefits of consolidation of Colchester’s fire and water/sewer districts and their relationship to Town of Colchester governance” (Objective 1, Action 2). Action 3, of the same report, further charged the Committee to energetically pursue regionalization, including, but not limited to, fire and water services.

Recommendation

Given these directives, the Governance Committee identified several key challenges with the existing structures of water management. The Committee also familiarized itself with Fire District governance within Colchester’s boundaries and discussed possible approaches to the problems identified. The problems and solutions are described below.

The Committee was not able to recommend any single solution as we feel it requires considerably more input, expertise, time and effort than the Committee has available. Instead, the Committee recommends following the lead of "Action 2" mentioned above; the formation of a new committee tasked specifically with this issue.  This Water Management committee must contain representatives from each Fire District, the Champlain Water District, the Town and the Town's citizens. A solution to the Town's water management problems cannot be solved without the expertise, participation, cooperation and consent of all interested parties: the Fire Districts and their voters, the Town and its voters, and the Champlain Water District.

Governance Overview

The January edition of Currently Colchester offered a concise background of the governance of Fire and Water Service provision within Colchester.  This article is available upon request from the Town.  In brief, it states that, “Water supply and fire protection service in the Town of Colchester are provided by five distinct entities for water and three fire departments, all operating under different forms of governance structures, boards and bylaws.  These organizations were formed out of necessity, as the Town did not wish to pay for this infrastructure or service at the time they were established.”

Challenge Identification

The Governance Committee began their investigation by identifying challenges stakeholders experience within the current Governance Structure. They are as follows:

·       Customer confusion:  Many of Colchester’s residents, particularly new residents, do not understand the governance of publicly supplied water and fire protection services in Colchester.  There is often confusion about whom to contact regarding water sources, quality or cost.  Fire protection services are simpler, from a user’s perspective, but their governance is also complex.  Questions regarding water and fire services often land with the Town, as a coordinating agent, and divert resources and productivity from other tasks.

·       Developer confusion: Chapter 14 of Colchester’s Code of Ordinances deals with Construction Standards Applicable to Land Development. This as an adoption of Champlain Water District’s codes with some modifications. However, each Fire District has its own by-laws that can be in conflict with these codes (an example is when plastic pipe can be used for water main extensions). Developers operating in Colchester face complex and sometimes conflicting regulatory structures, discouraging well planned economic development.

·       Crisis resolution: Customer confusion is further strained in moments of crisis.  When a crisis occurs (such as a water main break) citizens do not know whom to call. Several entities (Town, Fire District and water provider) may be involved in the management and repair of the situation.

·       Roadblocks to Town Planning:  The number of players involved inhibits coordination of infrastructure development. Town ordinances and State statutes mandate planning and public review procedures for town growth, under the auspices of the Town. They do not specifically describe how Fire Districts, tasked with providing an important infrastructure for that growth, fit into the planning and review process. 

·       Distortion of voter representation, review and participation in Town planning. Each Fire District represents a geographic portion of the Town yet the water and fire service they provide must be integrated into the development and implementation of environmental and infrastructure planning of the Town at-large. A single Fire District can have an inordinate influence on projects that have already been approved by the Selectboard and subjected to a town-wide review process.  The current structure essentially vests key planning and development decisions with the Fire Districts, which can result in a conflict-prone governance misalignment.

·       Sewer allotment billing inefficiencies: Collecting fees for payment of the Town’s sewer allotments involves contacting and processing information from several water districts. Though the Committee did not do a detailed cost analysis of this process, it is said to be manual and time-consuming.

·       Fire protection accountability and management:  The billing of fire protection services is not completely understood by the Governance Committee.  If fire protection budgets are developed by each Fire Department and submitted to the Town for payment (based on contractual obligations), this could make oversight and cost control of those expenses difficult and inhibit town-wide coordination of capital expenditures for fire protection.

·       Transparency, accountability, and participation:  The Fire Districts have limited staffing and hours of operation, which saves taxpayers/ratepayers money, but also limits administrative capacity to respond to changing times.  Obtaining public information about the management of the districts is not reflective of citizens’ expectations in an electronic information age.  Limited access and transparency may result in a low level of participation and therefore accountability.

Governance Committee Member Education

Though several of the Governance Committee members have had considerable experience working with Colchester’s Fire Districts, others have not. An effort was made to inform those members of how Fire Districts relate to State statute; what their powers and responsibilities are and how they operate. A copy of the 1961 State statute organizing Colchester’s Fire Districts was obtained as well as the by-laws of Fire District No. 2 (FD#2) and Fire District No. 3 (FD#3).  FD#3 also provided a copy of their most recent budget and audit report. The October 24^th meeting of the Governance Committee was devoted to discussion of the Fire Districts. Representatives from each were invited and attended. One Committee member contacted town clerks in other Vermont towns with multiple Fire Districts as well as the town clerks and/or Public Works departments of towns with a similar population size as Colchester’s. One Committee member also attended a FD#3 Prudential Committee meeting as a private citizen and customer, not as a member of the Governance Committee. Committee members had informal discussions with citizens and administrative officials regarding the Fire Districts and Colchester’s water management future.

Considerations

Water infrastructure (water supply, waste water removal and storm water management) directly influences the health, quality of life, and economic growth of a community.  Environmental considerations and regulations have increased the cost and complexity of water management. This trend may well continue. Colchester citizens concerned about the quality of their water supply, the health of Lake Champlain and the ability of Colchester to manage its economic growth need an understandable, transparent and responsive governmental structure responsible for water management. The Governance Committee is concerned not only with the immediate solution to the problems identified but also with establishing a governmental structure that will serve the community well into the future.

The Governance Committee realizes that each Fire District is a distinct political entity separate from the Town and chartered by State statute. Fire Districts are primarily answerable to their voters and customers. The Selectboard does not have the wherewithal to force Fire Districts to merge or modify their by-laws. That power resides in the Prudential Committees, Fire District voters and Vermont State statute. 

The Governance Committee is fully aware of the valuable services each Fire District has provided the Town and values the civic commitment of their employees and Prudential Committees.  The Committee realizes that several of these recommendations will disrupt the lives of many of Colchester’s most dedicated citizens. But the Town of Colchester has outgrown its current fragmented water management political organization and needs a more responsive and efficient approach. These proposals hope to initiate the development of such an approach.

The Governance Committee is also aware of the tradition and culture of Vermont’s Volunteer Fire Departments and Colchester’s in particular. The spirit of cooperation among Fire Departments has resulted in smooth operations and citizen satisfaction.  While the Committee does not see a need to change fire protection governance, fire protection services are linked to water services through the same governing entity, and so fire and water services, provided by the Fire Districts, must concomitantly be considered.  Although the bulk of this document focuses predominantly on water services, we recognize the possibility of a fire protection services consolidation in the future.

Recommendations Considered

The Committee identified several possible approaches. They are provided here in no particular order but are numbered for ease of reference.

1)     Leave the current structure intact but suggest improved coordination of information. The Selectboard and/or Town officials would work with the Prudential Committees of the three Fire Districts to develop standard operating procedures for citizen inquiries and crisis reporting. A portion of the Town’s website should be devoted to explaining water resources and fire protection services.  An effort should be made to educate new residents regarding water billing systems.

The Town should implement a procedure to receive direct and reliable information regarding all Prudential Board meetings of all Fire Districts. This could take the form of a citizen of each Fire District designated to attend and report on proceedings.  The Fire Districts should also find a way to electronically post all documents of public interest:  bylaws/charter, budget, warrants, audits, policies, agendas, minutes, Prudential Committee contact information, staff contact information etc.

The Fire Districts could also create a position funded by all interested parties and with Town office space to coordinate Fire District information and serve as the focal point for all citizen inquiries. This office may develop, review and modify Fire District by-laws to make them consistent throughout Colchester. In addition the office may perform development review on behalf of the Fire Districts, and serve as a coordinator for municipal planning to include both land use and infrastructure coordination.  S/he may also attend Prudential Committee meetings and Selectboard Meetings, and report to the Selectboard, Prudential Committees and Town departments. This candidate could also serve as the Town’s representative to the Champlain Water District.

This recommendation leaves fire protection as it is.

Pros:

·       Least cost in terms of funds and work.

·       Could be implemented fairly quickly.

·       Could deal effectively with several of the problems identified above.

·       Does not disrupt the current system.

Cons:

·       Does not address several of the important problems regarding town planning described above.

·       Relies on recruiting individuals (or an individual) and receiving accurate and timely information from same.  This could be costly, even when divided.

2)     Work toward merging of Fire Districts under a single Prudential Committee. The Selectboard would encourage and facilitate the legal merger of all three Fire Districts to be governed by a single Prudential Committee representing the whole of Colchester. Water supply via Burlington Water District and Champlain Water District could remain the same. Fire Protection could remain voluntary.

This would require voter approval from each Fire District and/or Legislative action repealing or rewriting the 1961 Act that organized Colchester’s Fire Districts. With the cooperation of the Prudential Boards, the Town should educate town voters and assist in disseminating information that might help achieve this goal.

With the establishment of a single Prudential Committee and Fire District administration, coordination with the Town’s planning and infrastructure management would be between two entities instead of four. This solution has been implemented elsewhere but not in a town the size (population and area) of Colchester.

Pros:

·       Formalizes an already existing relationship. FD#2 and FD#3 cooperate in a number of important aspects: shared administrator, and shared maintenance and installation of infrastructure.

·       Simplifies communication and coordination with the Town.

·       Is more likely to be understood by Colchester’s citizens.

·       Broadens the voter base of the Fire District thereby making the Prudential Committee responsive to the Town in general.

·       Would standardize the by-laws governing water service and infrastructure.

·       Cost to the Town in time or labor is minimal.

Cons:

·       If voters are not active enough to participate in Fire District affairs, the issue of voter distortion is not solved. The Town’s interests may be in conflict with the Fire District’s.

·       For some issues, particularly planning and development issues, this may create what amounts to a second Selectboard.

·       Requires considerable cooperation from the Fire Districts and their voters. There are a number of legal and financial hurdles that would have to be surmounted.

·       Success depends on a continuing voter interest in Prudential Committee affairs.

·       Does not integrate the Town’s interest in sewers with water provision.

3)     Work toward merging all Fire Districts under the direction of the Champlain Water District (CWD). The Selectboard would encourage and facilitate the legal merger of all three Fire Districts under the auspices of the Champlain Water District. Fire Protection organizations may need to be restructured as separate entities (or entity), or provided by the Town. Several Chittenden County Towns are already relying on CWD for wholesale and retail water supply. For Colchester to do the same would serve to regionalize water service.

Pros:

·       Economies of scale may be reflected in the costs of services.

·       CWD is a large capable organization able to transition to this structure with minimal disruption.

·       The simplified structure is more understandable to citizens.

·       Would standardize the by-laws governing water service and infrastructure.

·       Cost to the Town would be minimal.

Cons:

·       There is but a single elected representative from Colchester to CWD’s Board, with representatives from many towns. CWD voluntarily cooperates with the Selectboard and Colchester’s municipal departments. This could lead to a serious hindrance to environmental and infrastructure planning.

·       Requires considerable cooperation from the Fire Districts, their voters and the Champlain Water District. There are a number of legal and financial hurdles that would have to be surmounted.

·       Would not address wastewater needs.

4)     Work toward merging all Fire Districts under the direction of a department within the Town of Colchester’s administration. The Selectboard would encourage and facilitate the legal merger of all three Fire Districts under the auspices of the Selectboard and Town administration. Water supply via CWD and the Burlington Water District could remain the same. This is the structure implemented by the cities of Vermont most comparable to Colchester in population size.

Pros:

·       Planning and maintenance of water and/or wastewater infrastructure would be coordinated within the Town administration and subject to public and Selectboard review.

·       The current inefficient handling of wastewater allotment payments could be greatly improved.  There could be further integration of water provision with wastewater provision.

·       Citizens see the management of water and wastewater services as a legitimate Town enterprise. Many falsely assume that this is already the case.

·       Infrastructure, environmental and code requirements would be consistent throughout Colchester and coordinated with the Town’s planned growth.

·       More of the Town’s existing human and capital resources would be available for managing and maintaining the Town’s water and/or waste water system.

Cons:

·       Requires considerable cooperation from the Fire Districts and their voters. There are a number of legal and financial hurdles that would have to be surmounted.

·       Is disruptive in the short term, with an impact on all interested parties.

Further Research

The Governance Committee has not performed an exhaustive study of the Fire Districts. That is the task of a Blue Ribbon Committee, first suggested by the Selectboard. The following are suggestions:

·       Direct Fire District involvement – The Fire Districts have not been formally consulted on the various options considered by the Committee. Fire District representation on the proposed  committee will make this possible. Fire District officials may well have solutions not yet considered.

·       Town management involvement – Though there have been informal discussions with town officials there has not been an in-depth review of possible recommendations. Town officials may well have suggestions not yet considered.

·       Fire Department and Fire District relationships – The Committee does not fully understand the relationship (financial and political) of the Volunteer Fire Departments and the Fire Districts.

·       Fire Department Reorganization -- Other methods of organizing the fire departments could be considered.

·       Implementation details – Some of the options considered by the Governance Committee will require a number of legal steps: votes by boards, citizens and State legislators, warnings and public hearings. There are also financial details about which the Committee is ignorant: disposition of bonds, employee salaries, benefits, retirement plans, etc.