To the Editor:

If you thought last September's public vote defeating the big-money renovations to Westerlo buildings was the end of it, think again.

It's been repackaged: Town hall now, town garage later. Add to that tax levies needed by the volunteer fire department to build and/or upgrade its aged facility.

The Building Committee, made up of the town board, added two private residents a few months ago. Committee meetings are conducted without a chance for public comment and the committee has never solicited public input to the project. Even employees who work at Town Hall seem to have been largely ignored.

Delaware Engineering, the firm that designed last year’s failed plan, has been retained again to design this version, which is not substantially different. Further testing found asbestos in the main-floor walls, so abatement procedures must be added to the cost of renovation. The asbestos abatement for the basement, to be paid for from the remains of a grant and from the annual budget, is still pending and no bids have been solicited.

The roof replacement is not part of the new plan, and neither is a new driveway and parking lot. That work would likely be done by the highway department with other town taxpayer money.

Delaware Engineering still has not provided cost estimates for the town hall project, promised now by Sept. 2. At best, it will include Delaware Engineering’s main-floor asbestos abatement estimate but no actual bids. The Building Committee will not have time to meet publicly between then and the Sept. 6 regular town board meeting.

At a recent Building Committee meeting, one member commented on what might be a justifiable cost ($350,000 to $400,000), and what wouldn’t ($1 million). But it seems whatever Delaware Engineering comes up with may be voted on by the town board regardless of cost.

How is the Building Committee going to review the cost and decide whether it is a reasonable investment for the town to make? How and when is the committee going to poll members to see if each agrees to the cost? If the matter is not discussed in public before the Building Committee makes its recommendation, the town board will likely once again violate the state’s Open Meetings Law.

The urgency to vote on the plan by the Sept. 6 meeting is to meet the filing deadline for a referendum on the November ballot. This, at least, is an improvement from last time, when residents were forced to petition for referendum in order to have any say at all.

To its credit, the Building Committee seems committed to giving taxpayers a voice and defended the public right to vote on the project, against town attorney Aline Galgay's suggestions for how to avoid a vote. The committee also largely resisted her suggestion to leave the total project cost off the ballot.

There was discussion about how best to sell the project to the public, including a glossy mailer supplied by Delaware Engineering, and paid for by us, of course. Rather than present the plan and tax burden in the most honest and objective way, it will be marketed in a way that is most favorable to passage. For example, future highway garage repairs/replacement would not be mentioned.

Ability to pay seems to be off the radar. For example, the town petitioned Albany County to intervene in collecting unpaid water bills from water district residents. I've spoken with residents who say they have to chose between food and medicine and can't afford any increase. Many residents are older and living on fixed incomes, and there are younger people struggling to make ends meet.

There is no economic development plan or any such effort to create property-tax relief that is appropriate for a rural community. If you really cared about people being able to stay in their homes or raise children here, you would watch every penny of their money that you spend.

Ms. Galgay said that most properties in Westerlo are assessed below the $1,400 value used last year to arrive at the $100 per average parcel that was voted down for the combined garage-town hall project. She said people could find their assessments by looking at the “fair market value” on their school tax bills, and that people with higher assessments should be able to afford to pay more.

There is nothing “fair” about “fair market value” in Westerlo. Property assessments here are discriminatory. There hasn't been a town-wide assessment since the 1950s. Many people are assessed at 1950s values, 60 years and more away from what is fair market value in 2016.

It is not fair or just for some people to pay more for than their share for town services. As far as I'm concerned the “Welcome to Westerlo” signs that greet newcomers should have the tag line “What's in Your Wallet?”

There is a need to attend to these buildings, but I will not support this project unless it is a reasonable cost that is based on real need and the value and benefits we will all get. Unless there is a majority against it, the town board will likely approve placing the town hall building project on the ballot, regardless of the 11th-hour cost estimate Delaware Engineering comes back with.

If you attend the Sept. 6 Westerlo Town Board meeting, you may to be able to hear and comment on the discussion about this potential tax increase. At least one Building Committee member and the town attorney have said at more than one meeting that people in town don't understand or don't listen. Listening is one thing, and it should work both ways. Listening, however, does not imply or require agreement, which is what some in town government seem to think.

Dianne Sefcik

Westerlo