In a moment of potential transformation for the community, New Paltz Village Board members have summoned the expertise of local consultant Peter Fairweather, the visionary behind the pivotal 2011 report on the consolidation of New Paltz’s governments. As the village grapples with the age-old quest to streamline its local levers of power, the stakes have never been higher.
Despite it being raised as an issue multiple times since the village was incorporated late in the 19th century, residents have only ever taken two votes on anything of this sort. Both were initiated by voters, according to mayor Tim Rogers, and were fiercely opposed by elected officials. This time, it’s the village trustees and mayor advancing the idea and hoping to get a referendum set for November, 2026.
Since Rogers first suggested this push, its characterization has changed more than once. First, the mayor and Neil Bettez, then the town supervisor, were going to look at consolidating the two governments, with a vote in 2025. After several changes on the town council, friction about the content of what would in the contract with the consultant that members of both boards had already selected to create a plan for how to consolidate. That’s when the mayor pivoted to looking at simply dissolving the village, cutting council members out of contract negotiations and denying close to half of town residents a vote on the plan. Rogers, who is now running for town supervisor, more recently decided that consolidation is the superior approach — but that pushing back a referendum until 2026 would allow voters time to digest the plan once members of the Laberge consulting group release it.
“If people feel rushed or unsure, you’re better off taking the time to change that,” said the mayor.
During the talk with Fairweather, Rogers said that while the study was focused on dissolution, the content of the plan will “land in the same place” regardless. Voters in either case will be voting on a plan for how to restructure the two existing local governments, and the mayor feels that the bulk of that planning won’t be altered by whether this rejiggering comes from removing the village from the map, or combining town and village halls into a New Paltz monolith of a different sort than is found on Huguenot Street.
One difference is that consolidation would require a joint agreement. Rogers told town council members in March that while most town department heads had been cooperating with Laberge representatives as the consultants gather data, that has not been true of the town’s comptroller, Jean Gallucci. Amanda Gotto, the current supervisor, rejected that premise in an exchange with this reporter on March 21, but never responded to follow-up questions. Rogers’ plan appears to be to hold off on suggesting a joint agreement unless and until the present mayor moves to the town supervisor’s office.
Fairweather recalled that many of the issues faced in other communities are not a factor in New Paltz. The village’s police department was dissolved and officers folded into the town force in the 1970s. There’s never been a village court. There’s no quirky land issues, such as what happened in one Delaware County community with a park that would revert to the heirs of its donors should it stop being maintained by village personnel. “I can’t see a reason why you wouldn’t want a single government,” Fairweather said, particularly since it would not include receiving a million dollars in additional state aid each year.
Rogers noted that there’s skepticism about that money being in perpetuity, as promised, but feels that this puts it in the same category as other forms of aid which are always expected but might dry up, like the money sent to local governments for highway maintenance. Without aid, the mayor asserted, those living outside the village could see an increase of 1.9%. That’s an amount Rogers — who frequently trumpets over a decade of not raising general tax rates on village properties — feels could be eliminated with careful budgeting, if worse came to worst.
“You have the vote, and move on,” said Fairweather. Savings is not even the main benefit, the consultant and local resident feels; it’s about simplifying the experience of navigating government for residents, reducing the number of additional steps required to accomplish tasks like paying someone to water flowers on Main Street, and to facilitate efforts with long-term consequences, such as developing a new comprehensive plan.
Rogers agreed, pointing out that formulas for splitting funding are also frequently unfair, or become distorted over time. These include payments in lieu of taxes, and taxes for recording mortgages, retail sales and the additional tax on sales of cannabis in particular.
There will be an emotional component to this vote, if and when it happens. There’s a concern in some quarters that it would erode community identity if there is not a distinct village within the town, but Rogers doesn’t think that’s true. “I grew up here. The village is called ‘the town'” by most locals. Moreover, no one in Rosendale or Marlborough seems overly stressed over the loss of villages in those towns, the mayor observed. In those communities, villages were eliminated in the in the 1970s and ’40s, respectively.
Join the family! 
