Town of Chichester

Committee on Town Organization

Final Report

February 21, 2007

Chichester Committee on Town Organization - Table of Contents

Table of Contents

I.Introduction...... 1

II.Overall Observations...... 2

- Attitudes/Interest in Project ...... 2

- Existing Agreements ...... 2

- A Potentially Greater Role for State & CountyGovernment...... 4

- Local Control ...... 5

- Communication between Towns ...... 5

III.Background Information...... 7

- Committee members...... 7

- Committee's scope of review & approach...... 7

- Project logistics...... 8

- Interaction with other towns...... 8

- Data Collection Methodology ...... 9

IV.Town Budget & Population Historical Trends...... 10

V.Library Organization Analysis & Recommendations...... 14

- Operational Comparisons...... 14

- General Observations...... 15

- LongRange Planning Assumptions...... 15

- Existing/potential Efficiency Improvements & Conclusions...... 16

VI.Fire Department Organization Analysis & Recommendations...... 18

- Operational Comparisons...... 18

- General Observations...... 19

- LongRange Planning Assumptions...... 20

- Existing/potential Efficiency Improvements & Conclusions...... 21

VII.Police Department Organization Analysis & Recommendations...... 23

- Operational Comparisons...... 23

- General Observations...... 25

- LongRange Planning Assumptions...... 25

- Existing/potential Efficiency Improvements & Conclusions...... 26

VIII.Highway Department Organization Analysis & Recommendations...... 29

- Operational Comparisons...... 29

- General Observations...... 30

- LongRange Planning Assumptions...... 31

- Existing/potential Efficiency Improvements & Conclusions...... 32

IX.Road Agent Position Analysis...... 33

X.Cable Franchise Analysis...... 35

XI.Overall Conclusions & Recommendations...... 37

Chichester Committee on Town Organization - Introduction

I. Introduction

The Chichester Committee on Town Organization (the "Committee") was authorized for formation during the March 18, 2006 Town Meeting, as the result of an affirmative vote of a majority of the Town's citizen's in attendance at that meeting.

The vote was taken with respect to Warrant Article #23, which stated:

"To see if the Town will vote to authorize the Board or Selectmen to appoint and convene a Committee on Town Organization, of no less than 5 (five) members of which the majority shall not work for or be associated with any Town Department, which shall be charged with reviewing the current organization and staffing of Town Departments and making proposals of reorganization, if deemed appropriate. The Committee shall at a minimum consider and report on the following issues:

1. Would the Town benefit from entering into regional cooperation agreements with one or more bordering towns in the operation of the police and fire department?

2. Would the town benefit from changing the method of the selection of Road Agent from an elected position to an appointed position? Are there any functions not currently being performed by the elected Road Agent that couldbeperformed by an appointed Public Works Department?"

As a result of the Committee's efforts, this report has been prepared for the Board of Selectmen and residents of Chichester in an effort to:

  • Better inform everyone with respect to the current operation of key town departments.
  • Provide insight as to how the Town of Chichester compares with other towns in terms of operational efficiency.
  • Document existing operational practices within Town departments which the Committee deems noteworthy with respect to operational efficiency.
  • Identify potential areas where additional efficiencies could be realized either through internal operational changes and/or collaborative arrangements with bordering towns.

The Committee is pleased to present this report to the Selectmen and residents of Chichester. We are hopeful the information provided in this report will prove to be a valuable resource for town officials and taxpayers. We believe it will help ensure Chichester residents are receiving an appropriate level of services for a town of our size and the best service quality for the associated cost. We also hope this report willprovide meaningful ideas for improved services and cost savings through internal operational changes and possible collaborative agreements.

1

Chichester Committee on Town Organization - Overall Observations

II. Overall Observations

Attitudes/Interest in the Project

The Committee's efforts were initially met with some resistance in some of the Town's departments, due mainly to a misunderstanding of the Committee's intentions. Once any such misunderstandings were addressed, each of the departments became more engaged and supportive of the review project. The Committee appreciates the time and effort expended by each of the Town departments included in this project. We are hopeful this exercise has fostered a better appreciation for tracking operational efficiency on an on-going basis and the value of pursuing collaborative arrangements with surrounding towns whenever possible, rather than needlessly duplicating resources or efforts.

The Committee's interaction with other towns selected for inclusion in this project was met with a considerable amount of interest and overall participation by each town was quite good. The Committee has received numerous requests for copies of its final report, as many of the other towns believe the information contained within it will be of use to them.

Existing Agreements

There are various examples of existing collaborative arrangements which bring added value and economy of scale to communities. Listed below is a summary of current agreements in which Chichester is involved:

  • BCEP Arrangement - Agreement between the Towns of Barnstead, Chichester, Epsom and Pittsfield for centralized trash sorting/recycling and disposal.
  • Ambulance Arrangement with Loudon - Allows for pooling of resources to accommodate the service needs for both Chichester and Loudon.
  • High School Area Agreement - Per student tuition arrangement along with the towns of Allenstown and Epsom to send high school students to PembrokeAcademy.
  • SAU 53 Agreement – The Chichester School District, although not a town department, provides a good example of how regional sharing arrangements can both lower costs and provide services that would otherwise be cost prohibitive. Perhaps most significantly, the town shares the administrative costs of the superintendent’s office with four other towns in SAU53 and the cost of a high school with three other towns in the Pembroke Academy Area Agreement. The town also shares the costs of many specialized services with other towns, often through the SAU. These include a school psychologist, an English as a second language teacher, an occupational therapist, a physical therapist, and an inclusion specialist, who helps to provide in school services for disabled children who would otherwise need to go to very expensive out of district placements. The district is able to send pre-school children with disabilities to an early learning center in Pembroke. Chichester buys all of its oil, milk and food cooperatively with other SAU towns so as to reduce cost.
  • Hazmat Compact - Provides for emergency response assistance and consulting.

Other notable examples of cooperative arrangements involving other towns around the state include:

  • Regional Prosecutors – In at least six areas of New Hampshire, there are regional prosecutors who handle criminal prosecutions for multiple towns in district courts. These agreements either use an assistant county attorney who is dedicated to providing district court representation or the towns directly hire an attorney for that purpose. Chichester currently uses the services of an assistant county attorney who handles the trials but not juvenile matters or adult arraignments, for which the town has to send an officer. Due to what is essentially a historical accident, the Merrimack County Attorney Office provides this service at a price well below cost and it would be unwise to withdraw from it. Currently the combined juvenile/arraignment caseload for Chichester is fairly low. The town should continue to monitor the caseload of uncovered prosecutions and be prepared to discuss possible sharing arrangements with other towns.
  • Assessing Services – The towns of Newbury, New London, and Sunapee have an agreement for assessing services between the towns.
  • Center Ossipee Mutual Aid – The towns of Effingham, Center Ossipee, Freedom, Madison, Ossipee Corner, Tamworth and West Ossipee have joined to form the Ossipee Valley Mutual Aid Association to:
  • Coordinate the services of all member departments in their response to fires and other emergencies so as to provide a better and more efficient cooperation in protection of life and property within its area.
  • To establish an overall plan for such coordination
  • To acquire and operate property and equipment including dispatch center and dispatch communication
  • To extend advantages of group purchasing for services performed.
  • Monadnock Area Cable TV Consortium - The towns of Jaffrey, Peterborough, New Ipswich, Hancock, Bennington, Temple, and Walpole have an agreement to cooperate with each other on the basis of mutual advantage to acquire cable television services and facilities.
  • Ambulance Compact –The towns of Meredith, Sandwich, Moultonborough, and CenterHarbor have an agreement with Stewarts Ambulance Services Inc. of Meredith for the provision of ambulance services.
  • Public Safety Services Cooperative – The towns of Wakefield and Brookfield have formed a long-term relationship to share police, fire, and solid waste disposal facilities and services. Public safety service delivery is “blind” to municipal boundaries. Response to all calls is based on strict emergency response standards, regardless of community location. A cost sharing formula allocates operating and capital expenses based upon use, population and assessed value.

A Potentially Greater Role for State/County Government

Based oninformation collectedas a part of this project theCommitteebelieves there is a potential benefit to be gained (especially for smaller communities) ifcertain services such as fire/rescue and police were available to supplement at the county government level. This model exists in other areas of the country (mainly outside of the northeast) and appears to work well.

Considering the many services already provided at a county level in NH, such as corrections, nursing homes, sheriff/dispatch, etc. it's difficult to understand why additional services haven't beenprovided by the counties as a fee-based alternative for smaller communities who likely can't achieve the same level of services in a cost-effective manner.

Given the increasing burden on local taxpayers, the Committee believes theremay bean opportunity for both our State and County governments to break-away from traditional thinking and step-up to the challenge of either providing the option of enhanced, fee-based services to towns or providing incentives and guidance to municipalities to form regionalized service compacts in order to achieve better economies of scale and more uniform service levels across communities.

Local Control

There is an inherent conflict between the values promoted by inter-town cooperative agreements and the concept of local control. Citizens of small towns in New Hampshire have a unique opportunity to engage in governing themselves, with all the attendant benefits that accompany the taking of responsibility for making decisions of governance. When the people paying for a service are the ones directly authorizingand funding it, it is far more likely that the actual needs and benefits will be subjected to a far more rigorous level of scrutiny, thus reducing waste and unnecessary expense. When these decisions are delegated in the first instance to a regional or cooperative body, it is difficult for individual citizens and even towns to effectively exercise control over expenditures.

This is true even for bodies that from all appearances seem to function extremely well and save significant amounts, such as the BCEP solid waste facility to which Chichester belongs. There has historically been very little direct oversight of expenditures of the BCEP at town meetings, where the expenditures are generally simply presented as a pre-determined cost not subject to meaningful discussion. The authority to review and make meaningful decisions has instead been delegated to both the selectmen of the participating towns, the BCEP board and a Budget Committee created by the towns. As discussed above, this has seemed to work well with significant savings that justify to loss of self autonomy.

It is believed that as the nature of the activities shifts to core functions of civic life, such as schools, fire departments and police protection, it becomes less desirable to give up local control. The recommendations of this Committee have been fashioned so as to limit the diminution of local control in core functions, while attempting to find areas of inter-town cooperation that maximize efficiencies of the locally controlled agencies.

The first and most important step in this process must be to improve communication between the select boards and departments of the neighboring towns, so that areas of cooperative savings are identified early.

Communication Between Towns

Although some level of communication occurs between Chichester and other towns, it's generally at a department-specific level and is informal. There does not appear to be any formal process in place to foster an on-going dialogue at the Selectmen and department level between towns. The Committee believes this lack of communication may have already resulted in missed opportunities for collaboration in some areas over years past.

The Committee believes there is significant value to be gained through a formal, regular (i.e. quarterly) communication process where operational information and ideas could be exchanged, existing collaborative efforts reviewed and future collaborative opportunities identified. In fact, the Committee feels that even the limited dialogue and interaction between towns which was required for completion of this project has helped improve inter-town communication to some degree.

The issue of inter-town communication (or lack thereof) is deemed to be one of the most significant items identified as part of this project. As such the Committee has put forth several recommendations with respect to this area in the last section of this report.

1

Chichester Committee on Town Organization - Background Information

III. Background Information

Committee Members

The Chichester Board of Selectmen created the Committee on Town Organization in April, 2006. Committee members appointed by the Selectmen who have participated in this project include:

Paul Adams

Heather Barker

Lou Barker

Lisa Drouse

Bruce Dyke (Chairman)

Norm Larochelle

Allen Mayville

Paul Twomey

Both Mr. Adams and Mr.Mrs. Barker resigned from the Committee prior to the conclusion of the project. The remaining Committee members appreciate their interest and respective contributions to this project.

Scope of Review & Approach

In addition to the minimum project scope defined within the Warrant Article, the Committee decided to broaden the scope of its efforts to also include a review of the Highway Department and Town Library. In addition, a decision was made to also complete a comparison analysis of the Town's Cable Franchise Agreement in order to determine its equity with other towns and any additional value the Town may be able to derive in future contract renewal negotiations.

The Committee recognized that entering into any potential collaborative agreements with other towns would require a clear understanding of current departmental operations, the strengths and weaknesses of those operations and potential value of any proposed collaboration. It also became evident that even if collaborative arrangements were not deemed appropriate in certain areas, the potential for identifying operational "best practices" employed by other towns that could be implemented by Chichester was significant and should be an integral part of the project.

Based on the Committee's goals, the following objectives were defined:

  • InvolveTown Department Heads - In order to explain the project scope, solicit their cooperation and provide opportunity for an ongoing dialogue.
  • Identify Towns of Interest - For operational comparison purposes and/or to engage in potential collaborative opportunity discussions. This would include contacting Chichester's bordering towns to advise them of the Committee's existence and request their participation.
  • Identify & Collect Key Operating Statistics - This would be done for each of the four departments being reviewed (Fire, Police, Highway & Library). This data would be collected from Chichester's own departments as well as from the other "Towns of Interest."
  • Identify Existing Collaborative Agreements- For any such agreement, identify the specifics of the arrangement, as well as the benefits and/or drawbacks associated with it.
  • Identifying New Collaborative Opportunities - This would include defining the estimated benefit of any such opportunity.
  • Identify Operational "Best practices" -Determine what, if anything, we can learn from other town's operations that should be considered for implementation within our own Town departments.
  • Present a Formal Project Report - This would includerecommendations to the Chichester Selectmen and townspeople for consideration, further analysis and implementation, as deemed appropriate.

Project Logistics

The Committee met a total of 18 times over the course of five months, starting in early September, 2006. Meetings were public, posted in accordance with associated Statutes. In addition, meeting agendas and minutes were maintained and filed with the Selectmen's office as well as posted on the Town website.

Given the broader scope of the Committee's efforts, it was decided that a number of subgroups would be created to allow sufficient time and resources to adequately research each aspect of the project. Despite the existence of the subgroups, all Committee members remained available to assist in any project area, as circumstances may have warranted.

Interaction with Other Towns

At the request of the Committee, the Chichester Selectmen contacted the towns of Barnstead, Epsom, Loudon, Pembroke and Pittsfield to advise them of the Committee's existence, project scope and to request their participation for both sharing of operational data/practices as well as potential discussions regarding collaborative agreements. The overall response by the towns contacted was favorable, with particular interest expressed by the Towns of Barnstead and Pittsfield. Unfortunately, despite multiple requests, the Town of Epsom elected not to participate in this project.

Since Chichester is the smallest community (in terms of population and geographic size) compared to its neighboring towns, the Committee felt the operational review aspect of the project should also include townsthat were reasonably comparable to Chichester in terms of population and demographics. The Committee researched other towns within MerrimackCounty and selected Andover, Dunbarton and Warner. Those towns were contacted in order to obtain operational statistics only.