Dresden Bonds and Act 60 (Valley News Op-Ed)

To the Editor:

Harland Hoisington's recent Letter to the Editor ("Norwich's Problem Isn't Act 60" - November 28, 2001) provided much-needed perspective regarding the modest property tax reform achieved under Act 60. I admire Mr. Hoisington's long-standing advocacy for such reform and his vigorous defense of Act 60 against its many opponents.

Thus, I was particularly distressed to read Mr. Hoisington's final paragraph, concerning the looming Dresden bond vote, which warns "Hanover taxpayers . . . may jam a $42 million building program down the throats of Norwich taxpayers," and, later, "most Hanover voters imperiously announce that they are ‘not about to subsidize Norwich’." I find such statements as short-sighted as the attacks on Act 60 which Mr. Hoisington himself decries. Unfortunately, these and similar statements are becoming increasingly common within Dresden. They should not go unchallenged.

Norwich’s “problem” isn’t Act 60 or Hanover, our partner in the Dresden Compact. Norwich’s problem is far more simple: Our middle and high schools are overcrowded and physically decaying. Overcrowding and decay will not improve by themselves and the cost of either renovating or relocating one or both of these schools will be very, very high. This problem is simple, unavoidable, and getting worse. It's the solution, and how to pay for it, that becomes complex.

There is no question Act 60 and the Dresden Compact complicate how Norwich will pay for its portion of any improvements to the Dresden schools. Due to our higher than average per pupil spending, Norwich has become a "donor" town under Act 60. Due to our lower property grand list and a proportionately higher number of students attending Dresden schools, proportionately, Norwich must raise more tax revenue on a lower tax base than Hanover. Norwich is, I believe, in a unique predicament: Required to share property tax revenues under Act 60; pressed to raise more with less under the Dresden Compact; and inextricably bound to both.

Yes, for all practical purposes, Norwich is inextricably bound to both Act 60 and the Dresden Compact. Once we acknowledge this fact, the persistent grumbling that Act 60 should be repealed, muttered threats to dissolve the Dresden Compact, and cross-river finger-pointing accusing others of being “the problem,” are revealed as but empty words which only succeed in inflaming passions, making any practical solution that much more difficult to achieve.

Consider Act 60. This law was enacted in direct response to the 1997 Brigham decision which declared Vermont’s then-existing school financing scheme unconstitutional. The Brigham decision was not a bolt out of the blue, but rather the weary culmination of years of legislative paralysis in which successive attempts to achieve property tax reform were smothered in Montpelier. The Vermont Legislature admitted as much, when legislators rose to their feet, giving Amanda Brigham’s attorney a standing ovation as he addressed their chamber following the ruling. There’s no question aspects of Act 60 remain highly controversial. Nevertheless, none of the major political parties in Vermont have yet come forward with a viable alternative to the deeply unpopular Act 60 “sharing” pool which can both provide an equal level of property tax relief and pass constitutional muster under Brigham. Under any viable alternative, the tax revenue currently distributed through the Act 60 “sharing pool” to provide property tax relief for “receiving” towns would have to come from somewhere. Norwich, one of the wealthiest towns in Vermont, will continue to be on the giving end of any such redistribution, whether it’s called a “sharing pool” or something else.

As for the Dresden Compact, while dissolution may appear within our power, as a practical matter, dissolving Dresden would be disastrous for both member towns. It should be recalled that the Dresden Compact was created in 1963 to address the same problem we currently face. Prior to 1963, Norwich students “tuitioned-in” to the upper grades of the Hanover School District. As both towns grew, the middle and high schools became overcrowded, requiring improvements to the physical plant. The Dresden Compact offered the opportunity to pool the resources of both towns and create a larger school, with a wider variety of educational opportunities, than either Hanover or Norwich could afford on their own. The Compact also allowed Norwich to directly participate in middle and high school governance for the first time.
Measured against its original goals, it’s clear the Dresden Compact has been a tremendous success.

Indeed, in many respects, Dresden’s success has exceeded all expectations. Since the Compact was created, both Hanover and Norwich have witnessed a large influx of families drawn to the Dresden schools. Property values in both towns reflect this continuing demand. These families are largely self-selecting, placing a premium on academic achievement and investing in their homes in the expectation that a healthy Dresden school system will justify the investment.

Any serious discussion of dissolving the Dresden Compact must account for both the direct and indirect costs involved with replacing what we now have. I challenge anyone to present a detailed explanation of how our two towns could unwind the Compact and replicate, on our own, what we currently have as partners in the Dresden Compact, at anything near the current cost and current property values. I am convinced the cost to both towns in terms of diminished programs, destabilized property values, increased taxes to support redundant infrastructure, and loss of common purpose between our two towns would be obscene. Casual threats to proceed down this path which do not acknowledge these costs are simply irresponsible.

Mr. Hoisington’s letter itself makes no mention of dissolving the Dresden Compact, only that he fears Hanover’s greater size when it comes time for a bond vote and suspects Hanover voters may be insensitive to Norwich’s predicament. The intemperance with which he expressed these fears is surprisingly inconsistent with the many other thoughtful expositions on property tax reform which Mr. Hoisington has shared in the past. While it is clear these fears are deeply felt, I believe they are largely unfounded.

Are Hanover voters poised “to jam” the proposed bond “down the throats of Norwich taxpayers”? Are “most” Hanover voters “imperiously” insensitive to Norwich’s tax burden?

For Hanover residents (and many Norwich residents who work in or simply enjoy downtown Hanover) the site options under consideration are not merely a matter of taxes, but also concern the future character of Hanover’s civic center. Would Norwich residents view a proposal to sell the Marion Cross School and Green to Dartmouth as merely a matter of money?

Moreover, while in broad terms Hanover may be considered affluent, many individual Hanover households will also find the increased tax burden of the proposed bond difficult to bear. Nor has the dust yet settled on New Hampshire’s own school finance reform program as the litigants in the Claremont saga prepare to relitigate the current fragile legislative compromise. Hanover is also a “donor” town and the eventual price tag of the new school finance scheme remains unclear.

This is simply no time for finger-pointing. Together, Norwich and Hanover have created and maintained a bigger, more diverse, school system that either could have achieved on our own. Together, we’ve allowed our shared schools to become overcrowded and outdated. And together, we need to find a way to address these physical limitations within the complex financial, social, and political constraints upon each town. This will involve some very tough decisions. Hanover and Norwich face significant -- and significantly different --challenges which will require our collective patience, understanding, and perhaps a few failed bond votes before we reach a workable solution. But Hanover and Norwich are in this together, for good reasons, as valid now as they were nearly forty years ago. As in 1963, it is the physical state of our schools that is the problem and the Dresden Compact remains the best answer.

Letter to Planning Commission re: Open Meetings

I've followed, with interest, the recent "open meetings" dispute regarding your site visit to Maple Leaf Partners' properties on their subdivision application. I have no agenda regarding that application or the lawsuit which preceded it. I do want to express my hope that, in the future, the PC will, as a matter of policy, refuse to conduct a site visit where an applicant seeks to deprive access to certain members of the public in attendance.

The subdivision application and evidentiary support for that application are matters of public record and we have a strong tradition, supported by statute, of permitting the public access to these aspects of the application process. I hope the Planning Commission will dispense with any further consideration of the specific statute in question and simply adopt this policy, as it reflects the values of public access and accountability without, in any substantive way, infringing upon an applicant's rights or expectation of privacy. It's a shame you've been put in this position and I see little purpose in dwelling upon it. The solution seems to me to be a statement of policy upholding the importance of public access and a new site visit.

Slow Down on Town Manager (Valley News Op-Ed)

To The Editor:

I am writing to urge Norwich residents to vote against Article 16 -- authorizing the creation of a town manager for the Town of Norwich -- on March 6th. The decision to adopt a town manager form of government is a very big step for a small town which should not be taken lightly. Article 16, well-intentioned as it may be, simply has not and cannot receive the careful consideration it deserves before we must vote on it.

This Article was placed on the Town Warning by petition in early January. The fact that such a momentous decision has arisen by petition, rather than through a deliberate and considered debate within the Selectboard should concern us. As a practical matter, placing this particular Article by petition has limited our opportunity to adquately consider its meaning through the time-tested traditions of public debate which have served this town very well throughout its long history.

We are being asked to consider a fundamental change in our form of town government; however, our current Selectboard has not yet had the opportunity to weigh the costs and benefits of such a change, identify its own administrative needs based on its own experience, or even take an official position as a board on the merits of the proposal. Further discussion, drawing upon the collective experience of the many generous and thoughtful volunteers who have kept this town running through the years, is absolutely essential before we decide to fetter ourselves with a statutory town manager. A vote against Article 16 will allow us time to pursue this debate and seek an informed consensus regarding our town's administrative and governmental
needs.

I appreciate the concerns of the author and proponents of this petition and recognize they were motivated by the best of intentions. They deserve credit for having raised the issue. Without their efforts the town's administrative needs might have continued to fester unheeded. The petition's author, in particular, has worked hard to foster this debate and was instrumental in convening an excellent expert panel for the February 7th public forum on this Article. I applaud these efforts and hope they will serve as a good foundation for a broader and more considered debate on the issue in the coming months. Please vote "NO" on Article 16 on March 6th.