 |
| Alice Greenspan casts her vote on the one-percent tax. M. Eldred |
|
| Alice Greenspan casts her vote on the one-percent tax. M. Eldred |
By Mike Eldred
Thursday’s bond amount of “up to” $595,000 was $330,000 lower than the $925,000 bond voters defeated 359 to 345 on Town Meeting day. The reduction in the bond offered this time around was achieved by cutting the cost of construction by about $79,000, and by shifting surplus 2007 funds that had been allocated to next year’s budget, and funds in a litigation account, to the garage capital account.
Voters approved the fund swap at a special Town Meeting Wednesday evening, resulting in a change in the projected tax rate for the year beginning
Board members said the latest financing proposal would have saved more than $264,177 in interest costs alone, thanks to the lower bond amount, and a 10-year pay-off period as opposed to the earlier 20-year bond.
Wilmington Town Manager Bob Rusten said selectboard members will discuss the implications of the vote and begin charting a course forward at next week’s board meeting. “The problems haven’t gone away,” Rusten sad. “I’ve heard from a lot of people that believe there are some real issues around the garage, even those who voted against the bond.”
Rusten said the board’s challenge would be to find a way to solve the problems, while respecting the sentiments of the voters who prevailed Thursday. “If people feel there’s a problem (with the garage) and they’re uncomfortable with the strategies of financing, the what’s the alternative?” Rusten says. “How do we understand and address the concerns people had? The board may want to look at it again and listen to what people are saying, as we did last time.”
The selectboard will meet Wednesday, May 21, at
Rusten says the town has been aware of problems at the garage since at least 1994. The issues range from out-of-date code standards and health and safety issues for employees, to space and location problems that create inefficiencies.
There have been several town garage committees over the past 14 years. More than a year ago, the current committee picked up where an earlier group left off. That group recommended a new garage, but no specific plan was proposed. An even earlier group had looked at a number of options, but with the implementation of Act 60, no action was contemplated.
In 2004, Town Meeting voters authorized the purchase of a four-acre parcel of land located behind Deerfield Valley Supply at the recommendation of the previous garage committee. Originally, the town intended to build a new town garage on the land and a sand storage shed in tandem with a planned state highway department facility on an adjacent parcel. The two departments would share infrastructure. But thanks to a change in the interpretation of a federal statute that had been thought to require covered sand storage sheds, the state pulled out, and the deal was tabled.
WILMINGTON- Voters approved the partial financing of a new town garage from town coffers at Wednesday evening’s special Town Meeting, and overwhelmingly rejected the one-percent local option tax passed at the March Town Meeting.
More than 200 voters turned out for the meeting – exceeding the number of voters at the annual Town Meeting.
Article three, a petitioned reconsideration of the one-percent local option tax, garnered the most heated debate. Voters on both sides of the issue shared their views on the tax. Chuck Clerici, who, with several other residents circulated the reconsideration petition, read from a recent letter to the editor explaining his opposition to the tax. Andy Schindel countered by reading from a recent editorial in The Deerfield Valley News supporting the tax.
Schindel also noted that there was no argument that the projects the tax was slated to fund were vital to the town. “The question is who will pay for them,” Schindel said. “Will we shoulder the burden or will we let our visitors participate. The one percent is an investment for the future, and a way to pay without going back to the same taxpayers.”
Wilmington voter John Redd, a supporter of the tax, offered a motion to use 50% of the income from the tax to pay for the garage bond. “This isn’t my idea,” Redd said, “but I agree with it. It offers the opportunity for a win-win.”
Barker Willard said he had been under the impression that the proceeds of the tax couldn’t be used to offset taxes, but said he might support the tax if it could be used to reduce the tax rate. “If it can, I’ll vote for it, if not, I will not,” he said.
But supporters of the tax spoke out against the motion. “I oppose this motion,” said Adam Grinold. “I, for one, would not support using this money for anything that is the responsibility of the town. My support is hinged on the positive momentum that our community has experienced recently.”
Alan MacDougall also urged voters to turn down the amendment. He said the benefits of the tax for the community would outweigh the impact, because fuel prices discourage traveling long distances to shop, and favor the Deerfield Valley as a “close” tourist destination. “We are a community that has to attract tourists,” he said. “You could say that tourists won’t come because of the tax, but for tourists in the Boston area, there’s a big (fuel cost) difference between coming here or going to Stowe. We’re closer to the population centers.”
Wilmington resident and business owner Jason Crawford said he was concerned that the tax would be permanent, and would encourage more taxation. “I know we have the option of voting it down, but when have our taxes gone down?” he said. “Once the tax is in there, next year they’re going to want two percent, and maybe the state’s going to raise their tax to eight percent.
Cliff Duncan said local businesses with competitors outside the valley would suffer under the tax. “One merchant in town competes with businesses in Brattleboro and Bennington, and it was clear to him that he would be seriously harmed,” Duncan said. “We’ve heard arguments about how well it’s working in Dover, but WW, True Value, and Deerfield Valley Supply compete on a totally different level.”
Redd’s motion failed, and article three failed in a paper ballot, with 128 voting against the local option tax, and 75 voting in favor.
Article one asked voters to appropriate $188,000 in surplus funds from fiscal year 2007. At the March Town Meeting, the town had recommended that the money be used to reduce the tax rate from the current rate of about 75 cents to just over 69 cents, and voters approved.
After a $925,000 bond for a garage failed, some voters indicated that the reason they voted against it was the amount of the bond, the length of the payback, and the interest that the town would pay. Garage committee members cut $79,000 from the cost of the garage, and selectboard members presented a new plan to pay for the garage.
The plan includes reallocating the $188,000 to the garage capital fund, resulting in a new fiscal year 2009 municipal tax rate of about 75 cents – the same as the current rate. The $188,000, along with $138,000 already in the garage fund, and another $16,760 to be added under article two of the special Town Meeting warning, reduces the bond amount to $578,257. “We’ll have the same tax rate, and a lower bond amount,” summed up board member Meg Streeter. “The bond will be paid over fewer years, with less interest expense.” The bond will be paid over 10 years instead of 20, saving $381,812 in interest over the plan presented in March.
Streeter also told voters the board had taken a gamble on saving the town on construction costs. She said the town learned that steel prices were expected to rise sharply, resulting in an additional $15,000 to $20,000 in construction costs. “So we made the decision to spend money to keep the cost at the current rate,” Streeter explained. “We made a payment of $2,000. If the voters don’t approve the garage, we’re sorry that we wasted the money, but we felt the risk of paying $2,000 versus 10 times that much was worth it.”
Voters didn’t balk at the deposit, in fact, there was little discussion on the article. Wilmington resident Dick Joyce urged the board to consider a more energy efficient “green” design for the garage.
After one voter’s motion to “move the question” was approved by voters, and another was made to hold the vote by paper ballot, the article was approved 119 to 79.
Under article two, voters were asked to approve the transfer of $16,760, the balance of the Wilmington Child Equal Opportunity Reserve Fund, to the garage capital fund. Although there wasn’t any opposition to the transfer of funds, voters did ask about the impact of the garage and an expected reappraisal on future tax rates. “What’s going to happen in April of next year? Are we going to finally get the reappraisal buttoned down, and does anyone know what’s going to happen with the tax rate?” asked Wilmington resident John Willard.
Selectboard chair Rob Wheeler said the municipal tax rate would go down as the grand list value increased.
“I don’t know what the effect will be on the school tax,” he said.
When Willard pressed for a projection of the effect of the reappraisal on the school tax rate, town manager Bob Rusten said the common level of appraisal, a calculation the state uses to “equalize” property taxes, would rise dramatically, resulting in a lower nominal rate. “The education rate will not go down as much as the municipal rate,” Rusten said. “In terms of the education tax, some people will end up paying more money because their properties will go up in value more than the rate will drop. Some will pay the same, and only a few will pay less. The rate will drop, but we can’t tell you what the actual education tax rate will be.”
“Now we’re sending $5 million or $6 million a year to Montpelier,” Willard said. “Will that mean we’re now sending $7 million or $8 million to Montpelier? The school, either this year or next, might be faced with a major expense. Without knowing exactly where we’re at, I’m not in favor of a big capital expense.” Article two passed on a voice vote.