SOUTH HADLEY — While most of the conversation in recent months has revolved around municipal spending in town government, a new group has turned its attention to the other governing bodies in town: the fire districts.

About two dozen residents are collaborating with former and current district personnel to study a potential merger of Fire District 1 and 2. The District Merger Study Committee will bring in an outside consultant to deep-dive into the complexities, costs and benefits of combining the two districts.

“I’m not interested in having another report on paper to have another report on paper,” said Christine Phillips, a member of the District Merger Study Committee. “I want the person who will be potentially supporting us to give us specific things that need to be done or should be done in one- to-three, three-to-five, and five- to-10-year periods. Like marching orders.”

This marks the fifth time South Hadley’s district governments will study the impacts of a merger. Outside consultants assisted with merger studies in 1983, 1990, 2003 and 2024. While some studies concluded that a merger would significantly improve services and efficiency, others recommended maintaining the existing structure.

South Hadley’s two fire districts operate as separate quasi-municipal governments serving different sections of town. Each district includes a Fire Department and Water Department. District 1 encompasses the two-thirds of town near South Hadley Falls, while District 2 covers Mount Holyoke and the Village Commons areas. The merger proposal would examine combining those services under a single district structure.

“There were times when District 2 has been under more financial pressure, and there have been times where District 1 has,” said Ira Brezinsky, another member of the District Merger Study Committee and author of the 2024 shared services report. “There has never really been a time where both districts could come together and find a solution that works best for both.”

South Hadley residents communicated a clear desire for a district merger in 2024 when a nonbinding ballot question on the topic passed by a 2-to-1 margin, a vote that came 16 years after the same question failed.

The idea reemerged this spring when the town faced a significant budget shortfall. Voters ultimately rejected the $9 million and $11 million Proposition 2½ override requests, prompting residents to demand that their governing bodies investigate all cost-saving options.

“Status quo is fine when you can afford it,” Phillips said. “We, like so many other towns and cities, are in an issue where the status quo doesn’t work anymore because it’s not financially feasible.”

Both fire districts were born from a need for better fire and water service.

According to the South Hadley Fire Districts 1 & 2 Shared Services Preliminary Report, not all residents in the village of South Hadley Falls had easy access to a consistent water supply in the 1800s for daily activities and fighting fires, especially in hilly areas. The community established Fire District 1 in 1858, and in 1872 the Legislature expanded its authority to raise money and build a better water system.

Fire District 1 serviced all of South Hadley until April 1909, when the northern section of town opted to create its own fire district. The town had expanded since the formation of District 1, and the horse-drawn fire engine took too long to travel from South Hadley Falls to other areas of town. When a major fire broke out at a Mount Holyoke College seminary building in 1896, the fire service was too late to save the building.

“Between the time that the disastrous fire had happened and the district was formed, the combustion engine became a thing,” Brezinsky said. “By the time the district was formed, they probably had a fire engine, not just a horse and wagon.”

The districts are separate quasi-municipal corporations with many of the same powers as towns and cities. When Massachusetts voters approved Proposition 2½ in 1980, utility districts were exempted by the law’s 2.5% levy limit, Brezinsky said. This year, District 1 increased its tax levy by 6%, while District 2 raised its levy by 5%.

Because the districts can raise revenue independently of the town’s levy cap, Brezinsky said they helped cushion South Hadley’s municipal budget from additional financial pressure.

“It’s a safety belt for the town,” Brezinsky said. “It’s why the town has been able to [operate] for so long without raising property taxes above 2.5%.”

As the districts grew, their operations became starkly different. District 2, for instance, has its own water supply at Dry Brook Well, but District 1 purchases water from the Quabbin Reservoir.

With changing regulations and an increase in call volume, the two fire districts have already begun collaborating to provide South Hadley with the best service. District 1 offers Advanced Life Support medical services for District 2 at a cost. The districts also assist each other in emergencies, borrow equipment and train together.

Under the $6.2 million fiscal year 2027 budget, District 1 employs 26 full-time firefighters and 10 call firefighters, seven water department staff, and two clerk/treasurer staff.

Fire District 2 has four full-time firefighters and over 20 call staff. The Water Department has five staff members. All staff and capital costs for fiscal year 2027 come in at $3.1 million.

Within the last year, the water departments at both districts have implemented two of the shared service recommendations from the 2024 report. Brezinsky said the districts received a $100,000 IT grant from the Division of Local Services to upgrade and expand the wireless metering system. The funds will bring District 1 to the same system as District 2 and reduce meter reading to a fraction of its previous time.

Otherwise, the districts have yet to expand shared services.

“We’re maxed at the collaborations we can do,” District 2 Fire Captain Mike O’Neill said. “We’re two separate departments, so that’s as far as it goes.”

Phillips said it’s too early to say whether the study group’s efforts will result in a merger. According to Brezinsky, the group will likely produce a report in mid- to the late fall. This will give the Division of Local Services time to audit the districts and release their findings.

“You’re talking about people’s’ jobs, you’re talking about people’s’ future. There has to be a level of respect of courtesy when discussing that,” Phillips said. “You can’t go in and just say we’re going to do this. You have to be thoughtful and fair. But that’s where the transparency comes in.”

During their first meeting on May 14, the members agreed that any changes to the districts must not come at the expense of quality service.

“Everyone sits at the table together, has the same vision and makes it a better asset to the community,” O’Neill said. “You don’t go backwards. If you can show that it will be a better service for everyone, we’re on board.”