BARRE TOWN — A marriage made in Montpelier was again rebuffed in Barre Town where voters rejected an Act 46-inspired merger and effectively dared the state Board of Education to do something about it.
On a day when their counterparts in Barre easily approved a retooled version of the merger that was derailed by another split decision in 2016, Barre Town voters again spoiled a merger by refusing to embrace the idea.
Town voters, who twice rejected the earlier merger by wide margins, didn’t stray from that script when considering the question for the third time.
Though Barre voters did their part, approving a refined version of the previously failed merger, 1,887-567, it was overwhelmingly defeated, 2,106-1,262, in Barre Town.
That was welcome news to those who sought to undermine a three-district merger they claim the state Board of Education will not impose.
It is a theory that will be tested next week when the state board holds its daylong meeting in Barre. Originally scheduled next Wednesday at Williamstown Middle and High School, the state board will meet a week from Thursday at the Barre Elks Lodge.
The board, which has until Nov. 30 to finalize its statewide school district consolidation plan, could finish that assignment next week and based on the results of Tuesday’s voting Barre and Barre Town will be a prominent part of that conversation.
The state board has made provisional decisions with respect to virtually every other unmerged district in the state and what to do with the supervisory union that includes separately run elementary schools in Barre and Barre Town, as well as jointly owned Spaulding High School is now a question that needs to be answered.
Merger critics have maintained while the now-failed Barre alliance might be “possible” and “practicable” — the metrics written into Act 46 — it isn’t preferable to what now exists and, in their view, isn’t necessary to meet most of the goals of the three-year-old law. They argued another “no” vote would serve notice to the state board and, due to the comparatively large size of the three local districts a merger will not be imposed.
Those on the opposite side of the issue portrayed that stubborn resistance as a massive gamble that would result in a forced merger instead of a voluntary one. In the process, they argued, an estimated $5 million in Act 46 tax incentives would be left on the table and the new district would be forced to operate under state-imposed articles of agreement, not the ones tailored to address many of the concerns they believed led to the first failed vote.
One of those two schools of thought is right, the other isn’t and the state Board of Education that has been threatened with a lawsuit by districts it is poised to merge must decide.
If voting “no” is enough – and to this point it hasn’t been based on the provisional decisions that are pending final approval the math is on both sides.
Barre Town said “no” loudly, but the merger passed in Barre by more than a three-to-one margin and a majority of those who cast ballots in the two-town supervisory union on Tuesday supported the merger, 3,149-2,673.
While the merger vote in Barre was a comparative non-event, the one in Barre Town was the subject of dueling campaigns that continued right up until the polls closed at 7 p.m.
Proponents and opponents of the now-failed merger spent the Election Day seeking to sway voters as they headed into Barre Town Middle and Elementary School to cast ballots. They passed a gauntlet of lawn signs – both for and against the merger – and were offered informational materials to carry into the polling place.
In addition to competing lawn signs, mailings and an election eve robo-call financed by a long-time merger critic, both sides made liberal use of social media with each side accusing the other of cherry-picking information and using “scare tactics” to influence the outcome.
Though the end result was another lopsided loss for a state-sanctioned school district merger, voters interviewed after they cast their ballots expressed mixed opinions about the alliance.
Of three dozen town voters interviewed 20 said they voted in favor of the proposed merger – some more enthusiastically than others – while 15 said they opposed it and one said he refused to answer the question.
The man, who declined to share his name, defended his decision to skip the merger question.
“We have no children and I think it (the merger) is going to happen any way,” he said, even as his wife explained her protest vote.
“It probably will happen anyway, but I still voted ‘no,’” she said.
She wasn’t alone.
Regina Duquette and her mother, Mellie Ladd, both voted against the merger that Duquette said she was tired of hearing about and she believed would result in town taxpayers subsidizing the education of their city counterparts.
“Barre City doesn’t have any money and they want Barre Town to pay for it so the answer is ‘no,’” she said.
George LaRose said a friend persuaded him to vote ‘no’ on the merger and Waldo Mugford said he took his cue from his wife, Lucille.
“I vote the way I’m told,” he said.
Lucille Mugford said her marching orders when it came to voting on the merger were rooted in her belief the town has a superior school system.
“I just think that Barre Town is a lot better than Barre City,” she said, suggesting she wasn’t interested experimenting with a merged system.
Paul Foley, said he didn’t mind paying a premium to support the town’s superior school system and was opposed to a merger whether it be voluntary or compelled.
“I don’t see anything to be gained by it,” he said. “I think the state’s making a mistake forcing districts like this to join together.”
Stephen Brodie and his wife, Janet, both voted against a merger he feared would weaken his ability to influence the school board.
“I like local control,” he said. “The closer it is to home the happier I am.”
Those who voted for the merger were less apt to share their names in a town where there is passionate opposition to changing the current governance structure.
One such woman initially declined to say which side she came down on before confiding that she voted – fingers crossed – in favor of the merger.
“I’m really concerned about the whole bit,” she said. “I don’t trust the state.”
The woman said she was hopeful protections written into the articles of agreement for the merged district would work as advertised if the measure passed.
“That’s what I’m hoping, because I don’t want the state telling us what to do,” she said.
Another woman described herself as a reluctant convert, who voted against the merger two years ago, but believed if the latest version wasn’t approved, it would be imposed on uncertain terms by the state.
“I voted ‘yes,’ not because I wanted to,” she said. “I’m more afraid of what the state will do if we don’t agree to this.”
Steven Keene said it wasn’t the lure of tax incentives that are no longer available that prompted him to vote for the merger.
“I think it will be better for the community at large to have a common voice,” he said, suggesting he was troubled by knee-jerk “no” voters.
“My hope is that we see change,” he said.
“I tend to think people want better for their community not to continue to say ‘no’ to everything,” he said. “My hope is that we see change.”
While Keene wasn’t swayed by the tax incentives Richard Paterson and his wife, Kathleen, were.
Paterson said he believed the system will be merged one way or the other and his preference was to take the state’s money and run.
“If we don’t we’re going to get it (a merger) crammed down our throat anyway,” he said, as his wife nodded in agreement.
Several residents who said they voted voted for the merger – Cynthia Corey and Philip Acebo among them – said they believed the proposed merger would prove educationally and economically beneficial;
“I think it’s probably going to be to the benefit of everyone in the long run,” she said, adding: “I hope.
Acebo, who once taught at Barre Town’s school, noted Barre and Barre Town were once once community and still share a high school. He said he had no trouble with one board being responsible for education from preschool through high school.
“It’s good for both communities in the end,” he said.
Mhairi Paget credited the committee that drafted the latest merger proposal for addressing many of the concerns that doomed the first merger two years ago. She said she comfortably voted for the merger.
So did Judy Benoit, who didn’t come close to forecasting the end result.
“I’ve got a sense it’s going to pass this time,” she said.
MONTPELIER — It was a clean sweep for four articles on the Capital City ballot Tuesday, with a controversial bond vote for a public parking garage passing by healthy margin, and other articles passing by even bigger margins.
In preliminary results, Article 1 for the $10.5 million bond for the garage passed 2,459-1,877.
Article 2, a $16.75 million bond vote to upgrade aging infrastructure at the city sewer plant, passed handsomely 3,770-390.
Article 3, to seek a charter change to allow non-U.S. citizens to vote in municipal elections, passed 2,857-1,488, making Montpelier the first city or town in Vermont to pass the measure that failed in Burlington in 2015 and in Winooski earlier this year.
Article 4, to seek a charter change banning the sale of single-use plastics, such as shopping bags, straws and food containers, passed 3,322-930.
Speaking after the polls closed, Mayor Anne Watson said she was delighted with the outcome of voting on the articles and thanked the people of Montpelier for their input and participation.
“I’m just so grateful to everyone who came out to vote and there was an incredible turnout,” Watson said. “I think it’s really valuable in the way democracy is supposed to work.
“I’m really grateful for the way all of the articles turned out and I’m really exciting to move towards making provisions for these things. Whether people voted for or against the parking garage, that input from the public has been incredibly valuable and we have a better project as a result of people’s engagement.”
City Manager Bill Fraser also welcomed the outcome of polling.
“I think, first of all, it was great that there was large turnout with over 3,300 votes cast,” Fraser said. “It’s great that the city came out and had their voices heard; it’s an important thing.
“I think the garage, which was the most-widely discussed, passed by a good margin, so they were clear about what they wanted. We appreciate everyone’s point of view and we will move on,” he added.
Fraser said he was also encouraged by the overwhelming support for the $16.75 million bond vote for the wastewater treatment facility upgrade.
“It was a lot of money, but I think people really understood the environmental benefits of it,” Fraser said.
Fraser noted that Articles 3 and 4 still require legislative approval.
“Just because it passed doesn’t means it become effective yet; it’s got to be approved by the Legislature and signed by the governor before it becomes law,” Fraser said.
Supporters and opponents of the parking garage were outside City Hall Tuesday morning with signs, displays and campaign literature.
Sarah DeFelice, owner of the Bailey Road fashion store on Main Street and president of the Montpelier Business Association, was holding a sign that urged residents to vote for Article 1.
“I’m a supporter of Article 1 because it will bring more economic development to downtown Montpelier,” DeFelice said. “It’s not just a parking garage; it’s the gateway to more improvement to the downtown, such as a hotel, and it will provide parking to more of the housing that’s being built.
“This is a time for Montpelier to move forward because a lot of surrounding towns have already done this, and we’re getting left behind in that way. Everything that we do to keep our downtown vibrant would be awesome and this is just the start to that,” she added.
Chris Turley, a banker and municipal finance consultant, said he also supported Article 1.
“For me, it boils down to the investment in Montpelier that’s been sorely needed for a number of years,” Turley said. “We’re a wonderful downtown and we have an active community, but we seem to have paused and it’s getting a little tired down here.
Les Blomberg, who runs the Noise Pollution Clearinghouse in Montpelier, said he was opposed to Article 1 on the garage.
“The issue I’m concerned about is the parking garage was so rushed, Blomberg said. “We won’t even have a proofed design for another 45 days. The (Design Review Board) had the final hearing on it last night, and it’s too late. It’s kind of like voting for a blank check because we don’t even have a design that we know for sure about.”
Laura Rose Abbott, another opponent of the garage added: “I’m still upset about last night (the DRB meeting), and everything being tabled and separated, but hasn’t been determined, discussed, identified, and how the Development Review Board and the design review process is not doing its due diligence.”
Paul Burns, executive director of the Vermont Public Research Institute, was holding a sign Tuesday morning in support of Article 4, calling for a ban on single-use plastics in Montpelier.
VPIRG was supporting Article 4.
City Clerk John Odum said voting on Tuesday had been constant and higher than usual.
“It’s been very steady with higher traffic than usual; there hasn’t been this high traffic since the last general (election),” Odum said.
BARRE — Incumbents Ann Cummings and Anthony Pollina have been reelected to the Vermont Senate with newcomer Andrew Perchlik joining them.
Cummings, a Democrat, received 16,217 votes from 18 of the 20 towns in Washington County as of 10 p.m. Tuesday. Pollina, a Progressive Democrat, received 13,978 and Perchlik received 12,110. They bested their Republican counterparts where Chris Bradley received 7,241 votes, Ken Alger received 6,993 and Dwayne Tucker received 6,943. Independent Barre Wadle got 2,506 votes.
Cummings, of Montpelier, has been elected to her 12th consecutive term and said she was pleased with Tuesday’s results.
“I never take an election for granted,” she said.
Cummings plans to spend the next two years looking at reducing property taxes. She was on the Senate Finance Committee last session, a committee Cummings assumes she will remain on.
She also wants to find a way to fund education that is more affordable for residents in Vermont.
“We’re going to be looking at a more income-based system for funding education,” she said. The state currently uses a system based on property taxes to pay for education.
Cummings also expects the Legislature to look at raising the state’s minimum wage so that people can make a “livable wage.”
Pollina, of Middlesex, has been elected to his fifth term. He also said he was pleased with the result.
“I think it shows that people support the kinds of things that I support,” he said.
Pollina also wants to work on raising wages in the state so people have more money in their pockets and to move away from a property tax-based funding system for education.
“Right now the system we use to fund schools is not fair to middle income and lower income people because they are paying a larger percentage of their income to fund schools than wealthier people are,” he said.
Pollina was vice chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee last session and if he’s on that committee again he said he wants to see what can be done to help support farmers in Vermont. He said much is talked about when it comes to agriculture, but the state hasn’t really made an investment in it.
Perchlik, of Montpelier, said he was honored to be elected to the state Senate.
“I’m humbled and thankful to be given the chance to work for the whole county,” he said.
Though his campaigning days are done for now, Perchlik said he’s excited to get out into the county and meet even more of his constituents.
At the State House, he plans on working on issues such as child care, energy and economic development.
“As a freshman senator, not like I’m going to be running the show or anything,” he said.
But he said he wants to focus on how families are treated as well as early childhood development because “investing in our youngest citizens is the best way to ensure a prosperous and equitable society in the future.”
Must be 21 and over. Every Thursday, 8 p.m. Gusto’s Bar, 28 Prospect St., Barre.