Many months ago, the consultant for the Shenango Valley Intergovernmental Study Committee gave committee members and others a series of questions related to their thoughts on the perception of the community and the impact a consolidation or merger would have.

After months of pressing committee members to fill out the surveys, the league compiled the 17 that had been returned and released the answers Tuesday.

No identities of the respondents were given. Most of them are voting members of the committee, although at least one was from a citizen who attended the meeting in which they were passed out, said Tom Tulip of the Pennsylvania Economy League's Mercer County office, which compiled the answers.

The League of Women Voters, a non-voting member of the committee, filled out a survey, answering as a group.

The voting members of the committee are elected officials and citizen representatives of Sharon, Hermitage, Farrell, Sharpsville and Wheatland. The committee is studying the feasibility of the municipalities merging or consolidating.

Alan Kugler of the League's northwest division in Erie, the consultant hired for the study, said the answers are "all over the place."

Some are hard to decipher, and others showed that respondents have differing levels of understanding, he said.

Kugler said he is unsure of what to make of the responses, but his goal wasn't to get a reading of people's opinions.

"What I was trying to do was get people thinking," Kugler said. "It wasn't very scientific."

Kugler added that some of the answers are three months old, and might change if the same questions were asked today.

The answers show how complex the process is, said Tulip, Farrell's state-appointed economic recovery coordinator. The study was conceived as an 18-month endeavor, but the committee is in its third year.

Kugler said the earliest any communities could vote on a proposed merger or consolidation -- should that be a recommendation of the committee and approved by the municipalities -- is November 2003.

"No one understands how complex this process has become," Tulip said. "Every meeting, it gets more complicated."

Tulip said the answers show a level of objectivity, which is what he hopes for from the members.

"The bottom line is going to be the numbers," he said, referring to a proposed budget and tax structure. The numbers have not been determined.

Kugler added that, with Tuesday's meeting turning into something of a philosophical free-for-all, the committee is not near a consensus.

Here, compiled in an equally unscientific manner as the questions were formulated, is a sampling of the responses:

1. Are the five municipalities distinct communities or a single community with sub-localities?

Nine responded that the municipalities are distinct, and seven consider it a single community. One person gave a mixed response, saying they are socially different, but none are self-sufficient.

Some of the respondents noted the individual histories of each municipality, differences in ethnic and racial makeup, government types, tax base, economic structure and school systems.

No. 9 said the communities rely on each other.

"Socio-economic activity occurs throughout the Valley with little or no regard to political boundaries," said No. 9, noting that someone might live in one town, work in another and shop in a third.

No. 16 said the mindset of being part of the Shenango Valley supports the single community theory.

No. 6 said they are distinct but "could be governed under a central government."

No. 8 said the legal boundaries prevent progressive thinking and acting "due to petty, short sighted, short minded political thinking."

No. 14 seemed to prefer the distinctness.

"Different situations, differing problems," Nov. 14 wrote. "In Hermitage we are doing quite well, and have been for some time now."

2. Would the present municipalities be more likely to grow, prosper and provide high quality services if they remain independent or join as one?

Thirteen answered that joining as one would more likely meet those objectives, three said they could do it by remaining independent, and one said he or she does not have enough information to reach a conclusion.

Although agreeing that joining would be the better way to meet the criteria set in the question, No. 1 said, "There is concern that the smaller communities would be swallowed up (and) not receive the attention they would like."

"The ability to pull resources to provide matching funds would be greater as one single community than as five separate entities," said No. 11. "If you look at what has been perceived in Hermitage as growth it is nothing more than a population shift out of Farrell and Sharon into Hermitage."

Expressing the opposing viewpoint, Nov. 10 said the communities could provide joint services without changing boundaries. "The question assumes consolidation/merger to be the only path to shared services."

No. 14 said Hermitage is already prospering and providing high-quality services. "Joining us one could possibly hold us back."

3. Would a single municipal government eliminate duplication of administration and services, and achieve economies of scale, save money and provide higher quality services?

Nine said yes, two said no and six said maybe.

Of the no votes, No. 5 said bigger isn't necessarily better, and No. 4 said eliminating government and personnel is a wishful thought and unlikely to happen. Nov. 4 added that Hermitage offers higher quality services "thanks to its leaders and volunteers, their dedication and work."

Of the yes votes, No. 8 said the tax bases in most of the communities are stagnant and will stay that way "if we don't pull together in some fashion to provide the most costly public services and activities."

On the maybe side, No. 3 and No. 10 said they are not convinced that individual taxpayers would be better served.

No. 15 said a community might be understaffed in one service, while another community is overstaffed in that same service. "Merging communities may not be able to compensate for the lack of personnel and the new community may be obligated to increase manpower to absorb the shortfall," No. 15 said.

4. Would a single municipal government provide more enhanced public safety services -- police, fire and emergency preparedness -- than are now provided?

Seven said yes, one said probably, four said maybe and four said no. One said yes for Farrell, Sharon, Wheatland and Sharpsville but no for Hermitage.

The nos said police and fire departments already collaborate, although one acknowledged a side benefit to joining: a lower cost.

Some respondents commented on what has become the fire subcommittee's recommendation: keeping the fire services that already exist in place. No. 3 said Farrell, Hermitage, Sharpsville and Wheatland would not support keeping a full-time force in Sharon, and No. 10 called the proposal "unjust."

No. 8 said the paid vs. volunteer mentality "must be defeated." No. 8 would like to see a combination paid-volunteer fire department, and believes, through proper training, all members will save lives and provide faster and better staffed responses.

5. Is there value in a tax structure similar to Hermitage's that places less emphasis on property taxes and more on earned income taxes?

Eight said yes, four said yes but had reservations, four said no and one said he or she didn't know.

A Hermitage-style tax system would make it easier on retired people, said No. 11.

No. 6 said the proposal sounds good, but wasn't convinced the dollars would balance.

"I am not yet confident that this issue will be a point of strength from which to promote consolidation," said No. 9, who generally agreed the Hermitage-style system would be more fair.

No. 3 questioned whether the long-term needs of a community with more retirees and less working-class people could function with a Hermitage-style tax system. No. 4 said Hermitage taxes are already too high and the city would have to take on the burden of Sharon, Sharpsville, Wheatland and Farrell in a consolidated government.

Others suggested the state needs to step in and allow other forms of taxation, such as on unearned income, and proposed reform at the county and school levels to achieve a truly uniform tax structure.

6. Would a single municipal government create a more unified community image both internally and to the outside world, and would that image be better able to retain businesses and families and attract new ones?

Ten said yes, four said yes with reservations and three said no.

"We would market better with a single, big name beside a big dot on the map rather than several smaller names and smaller dots," said No. 9.

No. 2 warned that a single community image is not always good, and cited Youngstown as an example. No. 8 said the question would depend on how future governments would approach the issue.

No. 10 said families would be more interested in the school districts, and No. 11 said people who do not support a merger or consolidation would "use all their power base to undo what is done."

No. 14 said the state and federal governments would have to offer a "solid commitment" before a local image will have much impact.

On the no side, No. 4 said "it is silly to think that a single government and a new name would attract young people, new business, and retain existing business," while No. 17 said, "Government does not form image. People form community which forms image."

7. Would a single municipal government be better able to get state and federal funds for local projects?

Thirteen said yes, one said no, one didn't know, one said maybe and one said probably.

"The single municipal government will have more political clout and attract larger attention for the elected officials and bureaucrats and, thus, will likely obtain more dollars," No, 9 said.

No. 4, the lone naysayer, said, "If a single existing community cannot secure the necessary funding for community facilities then the leaders of that community are not doing their job!" The state and federal governments also could be criticized for not helping as they are supposed to and not responding to the needs of their constituents, No. 4 said.

8. Would a single municipal government be better able to promote coordinated land use planning and development benefiting the entire area, by helping to ensure the economic vitality of the present urban areas, high quality residential neighborhoods, residential, commercial and industrial development, and desired open space and rural character?

Ten said yes, three said no, one was not sure, one said probably, one said maybe and one did not specifically answer the question.

The answers ranged from "How could anyone honestly answer this question no? DUH!?!" -- No. 9 -- to "This is a rather stupid question and really deserves no answer" -- No. 4.

9. Would a single municipal government be better able to ensure community identity and traditional democratic access to government?

Nine said yes, five said no, one said maybe and two said yes and no.

No. 3 said a new government would "cross traditional party areas and lines of power," and be a refreshing change from the "old system of nepotism and 'old boy' politics."

No. 9 said a smaller legislative body is more effective in running a government than a larger one.

No. 6 said people who are inclined to get involved in the political process and seek out their elected officials would continue to do so.

No. 7 said the proposed structure of a mayor, a city manager and wards gives people a local contact.

No. 5 said it could work "if Hermitage was left out of the loop."

No. 10 said a single municipal government would better ensure community identity, but not access to government.

No. 9 said a new city might have to hang onto some of the existing municipal buildings and staff them "so that people without transportation can access their government," while No. 13 thought older citizens would cling to their traditional identities no matter what happens.

"There are six council representatives responsive to me and 742 other Wheatland residents," said No. 10. "Why would I want to dilute that with 4,300 other people?"

"People have better access to their local representatives," said No. 2, a no voter. "Now, it is no secret that the larger government the harder it is to talk to those in charge."

No. 4 used the question to claim the country is in moral, economic, religious and educational decline, and to criticize state and federal intervention in local problems, and the league.

"The personnel of Pennsylvania Economy League were not born and raised in Sharon, Farrell, Sharpsville, Wheatland or Hermitage, and do not know what is best for these communities."

The committee has a Web site at www.mcrpc.com/svisc

You can e-mail Herald Staff Writer Joe Pinchot atjpinchot@sharon-herald.com