During last week’s Woodstock Selectboard and Village Board of Trustees joint meeting on September 29, municipal manager Eric Duffy proposed that the two boards consider a potential merger.
In a presentation he made to highlight the goals and objectives of the selectboard and trustees as they look toward 2026, Duffy said, “I think what’s stopping us from being more effective and more efficient as a governing body, what’s stopping us from taking the next step, is not merging. I ask this board to discuss your goals and objectives, and if this is a priority, urge my staff to investigate and prepare for a merger vote in the next year.”
As his presentation continued, Duffy said, “[A merger would mean] less financial work, which [would mean] less opportunities for mistakes. We can devote more time to grants, more time to extra revenue, and more time to do high-level things that push Woodstock forward. It would decrease the number of boards, decrease overtime, decrease employee earnings, and increase our ability to provide better services to our residents. I believe a merger will streamline ordinances and procedures; I believe a merger is required to move this community forward.”
He concluded by outlining potential next steps, including a series of joint meetings between the selectboard and trustees in the weeks and months to come to discuss whether a merger is a priority for them and what a potential merger would entail.
After the joint meeting, Duffy talked with the Standard to elaborate on why he believes merging is the best step forward. He said, “I think merging is the most efficient solution. My presentation outlined the fact that there are a lot of unknown answers to questions. Some include: What would happen with the police? With ordinances? How do we navigate the fact that the village is chartered but the town is not? What would change? What would stay in place? There are a lot of those questions that we need to begin to get the answers for. My presentation was a means of asking the board for guidance – for them to discuss if this is a priority, and then for me to go and spend time, allocate resources, and look into what a merger would look like. The timeline is ultimately up to them.”
The Standard spoke with Jeffrey Kahn, the vice chair of the trustees, about this subject. He said, “There are two sides to the story. It is certainly more efficient in terms of the work for the financial side of the administration, given that we have two municipalities. There is a separate budget for the village versus the town, etc. However, there’s also some very strong reasons to maintain the two municipalities, in my opinion. Woodstock Village has had a charter since 1836. The Village has had a separate municipality structure for things such as a house numbering system. If we were to merge, a village resident might see a change in their address, from, say, 25 to 176. That would be a big problem for the businesses in our community. Another difference worth highlighting is when we receive government aid through American relief funds and ARPA funds. The town receives about $600k, but since the village has its own separate municipality, we received over a quarter of a million dollars. There are also different ordinances in place for the town and village – from cannabis dispensaries to STR regulations. When it comes to grant writing, the state often takes into consideration how many grants have been offered to a particular municipality. Given the current structure, Woodstock can apply both as a town and separately as a village, and we have fiscally benefited from this in the past. All of this must be considered.”
Kahn says this conversation requires years, not months, of deliberation before a decision can be reached and put to a vote. Trustee chairperson Seton McIlroy partially shares this belief, although ultimately, McIlroy is in favor of an eventual merger. She told the Standard, “My first instinct is to say I think [a merger] would be great. The back end of staff time and the time taken by the selectboard and trustees to physically sign off on hours, bills, accounts is very consuming. Many times, I only see the village side of matters, and the selectboard only sees the town side. I think it would be helpful for elected officials to have a holistic view of their town, as I think it would be helpful for residents to have a broader perspective, and a clear avenue of who to go to when there is a concern.”
McIlroy continued, “Having two governing bodies means two separate audits, a confusing police agreement that is owned by the village and contracted out to the town, along with a number of different systems. The town goes by an emergency 911 addressing system; the village does not. That means that emergency responders coming from Lebanon or Killington would know how to find a home in South Woodstock, but might not instinctively know how to get to, say, 13a in Woodstock Village. Having said all that, if I had to vote today, I would vote no simply because there are so many questions still to be answered. Given the timeframe of the two years it took us to gather information and decide to buy the water company, I would guess we’d need a year of discussion and answered questions to be able to vote on a potential merger. The main question that must be asked is: Do the residents want this to happen?”
Woodstock Selectboard chairman Ray Bourgeois also weighed in on a potential merger, telling the Standard, “I’m in favor [of a merger] mainly because it would consolidate the workload of the office staff. There are multiple accounts that have to be charged and budgeted and so forth, all of which would be simplified through merging.”
He added, “If you live in the village, you pay an extra tax, so that would have to be absorbed, but I do not foresee that being an outrageous increase in the town taxes. The bigger question for me would be what to do about the charter, and what would the role of the trustees become in the event of a merger.”
Regarding a potential timeline, Bourgeois added, “This is in the very early stages. We have to decide the wastewater treatment plan, which will take priority. But I am in favor of a merger and hope to have some of these questions answered soon.”
Selectboard member Laura Powell also added to the discussion, saying, “One reason to support a merger is to help ease confusion in our community. Understanding which rules apply to which resident based on where they live can be perplexing. The village has a governing board, but village residents are also town residents, so the selectboard is in a unique position where we support everybody. I think that, depending on how a merger can be done, there is a real opportunity to unify Woodstock.”
One challenge brought up repeatedly is how to navigate the village charter. Powell said that this conversation has been so prevalent in our state that the Vermont League of Cities and Towns (VLCT) has created a guide on how to merge successfully for towns in similar situations. “Essex Junction’s merger and subsequent divorce from the Town of Essex is something to be studied and considered in Woodstock,” Powell added.
According to the VLCT Handbook for Vermont Municipal Clerks, if an unchartered town and a chartered village in Vermont merge, the most straightforward legal path is for the village to dissolve its charter and fold into the town, leaving the town as the sole government.
Alternatively, both entities could form a new merged chartered municipality, which would require voter approval and legislative ratification. An example of this in practice could be found in Essex, Vermont. Essex Junction (a chartered village) merged with the Town of Essex. They initially intended to keep a consolidated charter, but after later deciding against the merger, Essex Junction seceded and adopted a new city charter, having to forgo their old, historic village charter entirely in accordance with Vermont law. In 2022, the Vermont Legislature passed Act 118, officially incorporating Essex Junction as an independent city, no longer a historic village.
Powell added, “Instead of going back to a system similar to Woodstock – where the town and village co-ran initiatives and shared resources – Essex Junction divorced and became a formal, separate entity, which is an aspect to consider as we discuss this topic further.”