WILMINGTON- Town Meeting issues dominated discussions at the Wednesday, January 6, selectboard meeting, as board members tackled budget issues, a draft warning, and received a surprise petition.

During discussions on the proposed warning, Wilmington residents Kelly Kahler and Skip Morrow stepped forward to offer a petition with 119 qualified signatures, asking the board to warn a question regarding the pergola in the Bank Park. The article, which would be voted by Australian ballot on Town Meeting day, asks voters “Shall the town of Wilmington remove the pergola structure at the Bank Park from the Wilmington Historical Design Control District through the use of private donations and in-kind services (at no cost to the town)?”

Town manager Bob Rusten said the board couldn’t discuss the matter at Wednesday evening’s meeting. “It will have to be warned by the selectboard before there’s any discussion,” he said. “The selectboard has to act within 15 days, and the vote has to be within 30 to 40 days.”

The vote would have to be warned separately from the Town Meeting warning, Rusten said, and suggested that the board take up the matter at their next meeting on Wednesday, January 20.

During discussions on a draft of the warning for the annual Town Meeting, board members debated the possibility of bringing the question of a one percent local option tax before voters again. Two years ago, Town Meeting voters approved the tax, to be used for economic development. But at a subsequent special Town Meeting petitioned by residents, voters rescinded the tax before it was to go into effect. Board member Tom Consolino noted that, if the tax had been in effect over the last fiscal year, the town would have collected $226,000.

Board members agreed that, in the light of Dover’s success with the tax, it may be worthwhile to offer the option to voters again. But they also decided that there wasn’t enough time before Town Meeting for the board to do the homework necessary for a proposal. Referring to the results of the earlier vote, board member Susan Haughwout questioned whether another floor vote on the matter was appropriate. “I would prefer to do that by Australian ballot,” she said. “It would require a special meeting to vote to have it by Australian ballot, but I would be more comfortable that everyone had a chance to vote.”

Board member Bruce Mullen said the town will need funding for the implementation of a recently completed economic development plan, and voters may see the value of using the tax to provide those funds. Dover will pay for their share of the plan, including the employment of a planner, through the tax.

“I think there was a perception that people in this town would bear the whole burden,” said board member Jim Burke, of earlier discussions on the tax. “But it wasn’t explained clearly enough that everyone who comes through this area kicks in. Rather than having this burden on our shoulders, it’s spread evenly among everyone who spends in the community.”

“I don’t think we should kid ourselves that people didn’t understand it,” said selectboard chair Meg Streeter. “I see it as a tax issue, and people don’t have to disagree on the wish to move ahead and have economic development without the burden of more taxes.”

In other matters, listers gave an update on the town’s reappraisal data during a discussion of their proposed budget. Jerry Osler, who recently stepped down as chair of the listers, said Wilmington’s coefficient of dispersion, as calculated by the state, was 6.03%. The coefficient of dispersion, or COD, is a statistical calculation that expresses the difference between the assessed value of properties and actual sales data. “The higher the COD, the greater disparity there is between assessed value and sales,” said Osler.

Lister Michael Seitz, the new chair of the listers, said the state considers a COD between 10% and two percent to be optimal. “If 10% is good and two percent is best, then six percent is real good,” Seitz offered.

Seitz also noted that the common level of appraisal, another state-calculated figure, was set at 100.11%, meaning that Wilmington’s properties were appraised at just about 100% of sales value. The CLA is another figure used to determine the difference between assessed values and actual sales figures. The state uses the figure to “equalize” property values across the state.