BELLOWS FALLS — The prospect of consolidating the complex system of town and village governments into one administrative operation and one tax base under one entity - the town of Rockingham - has created a wave of extremely hostile and emotional responses.
In the wake of a cancelled Dec. 3 agenda item for a “Plan of Merger” discussion at the joint meeting of the Rockingham Selectboard and the Bellows Falls Village Trustees, a spate of emails from irate village residents last week - broadly copied among residents and board members alike - vehemently opposed any consolidation involving the village of Bellows Falls with the town of Rockingham.
Reactions were clearly mixed when The Commons asked for clarification of objections to the idea.
“It's a hugely emotional issue for people,” said Selectboard Chair Thom MacPhee.
A “Plan of Merger” document outlining proposed changes was presented to the joint boards in October by an ad hoc committee.
MacPhee called himself the “driving force” behind the committee, “which just happened,” he said. The committee was comprised of the chairs of town and village boards: MacPhee, Village President Roger Riccio, Saxtons River Chair Louise Luring. It also included Rockingham School Board member “Jiggs” McAuliffe and former Bellows Falls Union High School board member Paul Obuchowski.
As a non-board-sanctioned committee, this group of “longtime pro-merger people,” according to MacPhee, was not obligated to warn meetings, include the public, or take minutes.
This rubbed many village residents the wrong way. Secretary of State Jim Condos upheld MacPhee's assertions, but warned that transparency is “always a better way to go.”
Topping the list of objections: fears that include loss of autonomy and identity of the village of Bellows Falls, the question of “what's in it for Bellows Falls?” and anger over the lack of transparency and exclusion of the public during the process of putting the document together.
According to MacPhee, the Plan of Merger document has not changed from the one presented to the boards in October. An information packet addressing “how it will benefit the Village,” as well as his group's assertions with respect to Saxtons River and Rockingham, will be distributed in preparation for an as-yet unconfirmed joint meeting slated for Dec. 10.
MacPhee told The Commons that the information packet will “tie down and make the comparisons with what it would have been like if the plan had been passed, based on the [FY2014] budget, with a direct correlation as to what taxes would have been, with what they were.”
He also said it breaks down the Bellows Falls and Saxtons River fire districts.
Village Trustee Charlie Hunter said he doubted that “tax rates will tumble hugely” with a consolidation.
“It's not a quick fix to all the challenges we face, [but] it will save money, especially in the long run. And we need to do all we can to save us taxpayers money, while still delivering services that us citizens want.”
Hunter noted one example in particular, which has been raised at nearly every annual Village meeting when considering the fire department budgets.
“Right now, Bellows Falls village residents - since they're also town of Rockingham residents - pay for two fire departments: the full-time BF department and the volunteer Rockingham one. Under consolidation, everybody pays for their own fire protection and nobody else's; nobody is double-billed.”
With police and fire budgets going up due to the need to upgrade or replace aging equipment, as well as the rising costs of benefits for employees, the Village had to make some tough budgetary decisions this year. It took until a special meeting in June to pass a budget.
That budget was subsequently challenged by petition, and a vote to reconsider it failed at a second special meeting called in September.
The approved budget was reduced by eliminating a ninth police officer, offsetting needs to reduce costs in the fire department.
MacPhee said he envisions that with a consolidation proposal, “we would go for separate vote, and if the Trustees and Selectboard [each] agree, to then let the people decide.”
He denied that his committee was racing to get a merger plan vote approved so that it could be considered at the annual town and village meetings.
“That's not the way it works,” he said.
Hunter explained the process further, emphasizing, “What the Trustees and Selectboard would be doing on the 10th is to vote to proceed with exploring the idea. Two hearings - where the plan can be fully discussed by everyone concerned - would be held.
“Then, after the hearings, it goes to a vote. BF residents get to vote twice - once as village residents, once as town residents. If people think the idea sucks, they get to vote it down. If people think the idea makes sense, they get to vote for it.”
If approved, a proposal for restructuring the municipal governments will go to the Legislature for approval. And, according to Condos, speaking at his transparency tour last month in Bellows Falls, such approval is not guaranteed.
Condos noted that consolidation generally works successfully between healthy entities.
'Moving too quick'
Opponents of the merger cited “personalities, transparency, and timing” as some of their biggest objections to considering the ad hoc committee's plan.
Long-serving Trustee Stefan Golec told The Commons, “I felt personally offended” as well as offended on behalf of his colleagues.
The committee “didn't even have the courtesy to tell us what's up,” Golec said.
Describing himself as “kind of old fashioned, I guess,” Golec said it would have “been nice to have been asked,” to the ad hoc committee meetings for the sake of openness and transparency.
Illustrating the great divide between the two sides of the consolidation issue, Trustee Andrew Smith noted, “It's interesting that this issue is considered so highly newsworthy - in light of the highly questionable provenance of the 'plan.' The majority of the plan's details do little more than outline the merger process as required by statute.”
He added, “Just because pro-merger individuals may have been arguing their points, doesn't mean an anti-merger argument is appropriate,” either.
Golec said he felt proponents “are moving too quick” and “there are other options.”
But Hunter countered that, from the perspective of a new business owner looking to relocate to the downtown, “I would certainly think having one governance structure to deal with would be more compelling than to see two different fiefdoms.”
He said that if he were someone looking to invest in the community, “I'd be heartened to see that it had taken steps to address the fact that it has managed to eat enough town/village managers to make the Italian government look stable,” he quipped.
“My inclination is that the idea is a good one. However, if the hearings make it out to be stupid, then, as a resident, I'll vote against it. That seems pretty democratic to me,” Hunter said.