Winter Park – Already operating a shared police department and teaming up other public services, Winter Park and Fraser are considering a bold new direction: a potential merger.
As the towns try to determine the pros and cons of collaboration, experts say it is an unprecedented process in Colorado.
A panel of officials from the two towns is wrestling with an array of complex issues, including how to resolve tax discrepancies and how to equalize benefits for employees.
The towns even have to determine how a new town would be governed and what it would be called.
“It’s probably a two-edged sword,” said Winter Park Mayor Nick Teverbaugh, who, along with his counterpart in Fraser, Fran Cook, pushed for the formation of the working group. “When all is said and done, you eliminate that level of duplication and, presumably, you get some economies of scale, although that might not be a huge gain in dollar value.”
The panel essentially is considering whether to continue the current separation of the two adjacent towns or increase cooperation. The panel also may recommend that Winter Park annex Fraser or create an entirely new municipality that would absorb both towns. Both town councils, and then voters, would have to approve a merger in dual elections.
Although the possibility of a full merger is considered pretty remote, it has the potential of putting some people, including some of the elected officials backing it, out of work.
“It’s unusual for politicians to be willing to put their jobs on the line, but they’re trying to provide the best governance for their towns,” said Fraser Town Manager Jeff Durbin.
Winter Park and Fraser, which are about 70 miles west of Denver on U.S. 40, are at the vanguard of a counter-movement to share services and revenues in an age when neighboring municipalities frequently compete with each other for the big-box store or insist on operating their own separate agencies.
“What makes the situation unique is that they have been looking at functional consolidations of services, so they would be basically run jointly by the two towns,” said Sam Mamet, executive director of the Colorado Municipal League. “That’s really unusual.”
The devil is in the details, of course, and collaboration on government functions can prove to be logistically and legally difficult.
Last Thursday night, for instance, the finance directors from both towns laid out the differences that would have to be resolved. They discussed employee vacation time and dealing with the intricacies of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights. The TABOR amendment would prohibit Fraser from adopting Winter Park’s real estate transfer tax and would require voter approval to unify the disparate sales- and use-tax rates. Fraser’s tax rates are higher than Winter Park’s.
“It’s not all about the money,” Durbin noted, although the combined towns could see an additional $800,000 annually in pooled revenues and savings. That money is a little less than 10 percent of current revenue.
Winter Park Town Councilor Jimmy Lahrman noted that the money could be put to productive use, such as procuring more open space.
“If you look at that $800,000 over five years, that’d be $4 million. That’s $4 million into this community above what the town of Winter Park is doing already, above what the town of Fraser is doing already,” he said. “It really adds up.”
Although the two towns function effectively as one community, they have their distinct differences that would have to be bridged under a single banner. Ski-resort-based Winter Park is composed mostly of high-priced second homes, while Fraser is considered a more utilitarian place where the majority of the full-time locals live.
Some suggest that a larger Winter Park would be “a bigger spot on the map,” which would be easier to market to outsiders. Fraser real estate could even benefit from the Winter Park cachet.
“It’s the 80482 effect,” joked Fraser finance director Nat Havens, referring to Winter Park’s exclusive ZIP code.
Staff writer Steve Lipsher can be reached at 970-513-9495 or slipsher@denverpost.com.
