"We, the employees who work in the Town Hall building located at 108 Canal Street are not interested in moving our offices to the new Village Hall building (the former Provident Bank building)."

The attached petition included the signature of every full time and part time employee in the building with an additional word of caution to the board that read, "You are elected by the people of the Town of Wawarsing and should be for the people of the Town of Wawarsing." The document finished by paraphrasing John F. Kennedy saying, "Ask not what your taxpayers can do for you but what you can do for your taxpayers."

When speaking with Ms. Eck and listening to her reasons for not supporting the move, she ranges from the practical to the aesthetic. Space – Can both municipalities, even if they "consolidate services", still house all of their employees and their records in the space allotted to them? Parking – Can the building's parking area satisfy the two municipality's workforces and the public – particularly on Wednesdays when the Department of Motor Vehicles' Mobile Unit parks in the town hall parking lot?

Accessibility – Ms. Eck and her co-workers claim that their location on the first floor allows them to assist the public easier. The contention is that the town hall receives more walk-in traffic since it is the place where various permits and licenses are sold. Eck's office also claims that if they are moved to the third floor of the Ellenville Government Center, the elderly's required use of that building's elevator will discourage them from coming to the town for any services. Ms. Eck explains, "Older people don't like to use our elevator. Many of them are intimidated by it. If a senior citizen comes into my office looking to speak with the assessor or the building department, we will ask them to come down to speak with him or her."

Cost – The cost for moving the town's administrative offices is unclear as there hasn't been a public declaration as to what the town's relationship with the village regarding the building would be – tenant or co-owner? Eck says, "The village isn't going to let us over there for free."

To that end, proponents of the move have said that the town could recoup its expenditures by selling their current building and gain profit from the sale as well as the property's return to the tax rolls.

But Town Building Code Enforcement Officer Barron Berg doesn't believe that is what would happen and he cites the village's new home as evidence. "I don't believe this building will sell that fast," he argues. "Look at the bank building they're [the village] moving into. Office space is not at a premium in this area or that would not have sat around as long as it did and the village would not have gotten the price that it paid."

Pat Althouse, the town's municipal bookkeeper, shared all of her co-workers feelings and added, "There's a warmth to this building. It has gotten a lot of tender loving care over the last few years – new windows, new parking lot. We have a good thing right here. There's no need to go someplace else."

Adding to the chorus of voices telling the town to stay put is former Wawarsing Town Supervisor Richard "Doc" Craft who wrote a letter to current Supervisor James Dolaway. The letter, which provides an extensive background for previous dealings with the village with regards to sharing spaces, concludes by saying, "Town government is state mandated. Village government, with its additional layer of taxation, is a luxury to those wishing to create and live in a village setting. To become captive to two floors only weakens our role as the predominant municipality. We must not become dependent on another municipality for our operations. Such a move would be limiting in scope, inconvenient to our citizens, raise our taxes needlessly, and create a less visible presence and availability to our residents. We would not be master of our domain. It is an unsound move."

At the last Town Board meeting, local resident Maggie Heath asked Councilman John Gavaris if he had been able to compile answers to a series of questions regarding the various pros and cons of such a move. Mr. Gavaris assured her and the rest of the audience that he was researching the benefits and drawbacks of the proposal and would make figures relating to utility costs, ownership issues and other concerns available when he was satisfied with his research.

COMMENTS about this article (9)