The fight over the Bedford Village Common may have come to an end after the Town Council voted against using tax money.

The vote came at a year-end, Dec. 17 meeting in which the council postponed to January any decisions on whether to seek a bond for the road program and financing for a light at the intersection of Route 101 and Nashua Road.

Funding for the Village Common would not have affected the tax rate, at least initially. Instead, it would have been drawn from impact fees paid by residential developers. The citizens committee backing the Village Common had asked the Town Council for $110,000 from that fund, to be matched by $110,000 in private donations.

But Chairman Mike Izbicki said the committee had not given the council enough information on how it would raise the money and how it would spend it. He said the motion to appropriate $110,000 was not contingent on the committee raising its share.

Moreover, once $220,000 had been spent in 2009, he said it was not clear what would have happened in 2010, when the committee expected it would need $140,000 more.

“The majority of the council had some concerns as to how much money will be needed,” Izbicki said. “We couldn’t get answers to our questions about funding in year one and year two.”

The Village Common would be on nearly 10 acres at Route 101 and Bell Hill Road with trails, a skating pond and hut, and birdhouses resembling landmark town buildings. Earlier this fall, the council approved a plan for the park, deferring the question of funding until later.

Councilors Chris Bandazian and Michael Scanlon dissented. “I’m disappointed. I’m disappointed they didn’t support it. They have funds that are specifically designated for that purpose and that purpose only,” Scanlon said.

Scanlon has accused the council of throwing one roadblock after another in the way of the Village Common.

“They don’t support it,” he said. “They’re just looking for excuses. They should just come out and say they don’t support it if that’s the case.”

Scanlon and Izbicki did agree on at least one thing: both said they did not know what would happen to the park now that public funding has been denied.

“I have no idea what they’re going to do. They’ll have to decide whether they’ll want to go out themselves and try to raise funds without the town supporting them,” Scanlon said. “It wouldn’t surprise me if they said, ‘Enough is enough.’” Izbicki called for more creative thinking.

“I’d like to see more funding options, you know, presented to the council,” he said. “Really what I would like to see is a public private partnership.”

The meeting also left unresolved the futures of the town road program as well as the intersection of Route 101 and Nashua Road. Two competing bonds for the road program were defeated in the March 2008 election.

Izbicki said the council has decided to see what the public wants at two public hearings Jan. 14 and 28 at 7 p.m.

Also, the state Department of Transportation has told the town that it in fact cannot guarantee up to two-thirds of a $1.5 million upgrade of the Route 101 and Nashua Road intersection. That contradicts what DOT representatives had explicitly told the council this fall. The council had been counting on a legal agreement guaranteeing the funding before asking voters to front the money. But the copy of the agreement the DOT drafted made the reimbursement contingent on legislative approval.

“They threw us a curveball. We don’t know what happened,” Izbicki said. “We’re going to try one more time and see if they’re willing to rewrite the agreement.” Instead of bonding the work, Izbicki said the town would explore other financing options. He said the March ballot would take a poll of voters asking if they agreed with that plan.

“We want to be sure,” he said. “We didn’t just want to do it. We wanted to make sure the voters really want this before we go forward.”