Chestertown Town Manager Bill Ingersoll told the Town Council last night that there was actually $100,000 additional in SAFETEA-LU funds for Rails-to-Trails than he originally thought. The news came moments before Washington College President Mitchell Reiss appeared for a closed session with a freshly minted Memorandum of Understanding to buy the Sgt. John H. Newnam Armory.
The double surprise came less than a week after three councilmen and Reiss appeared to be at an impasse. Last week ended with Councilmen Gibson Anthony, James Gatto, and Marty Stetson vowing to get greater value for selling the Town’s option on the Armory, in response to an ultimatum from Reiss to agree to the original MOU by mid-November.
“We had thought the amount remaining in the original SAFETEA-LU earmark funds was around $100,000. It’s actually around $200,000,” Ingersoll said. “There’s a big difference there, and we’re trying our hardest to get concurrence of award from the SHA…we’re pressing them because I’d like to see the beds of the trail and crusher-run rolled out for the Winter.”
The reversal of fortune comes only two-weeks after Ingersoll said there was no additional SAFETEA-LU funds available beyond the Town’s current earmark. “I’ve been in contact with Victor Barreira of SHA, and there is no more SAFETEA-LU funds,” Ingersoll told the Council on Oct. 4.
Councilmen Gibson Anthony, James Gatto, and Marty Stetson have sought greater financial participation from WC to help with the under-funded the Rails-to-Trails project — in exchange for the Town’s “option” to buy the Armory from the Maryland Department of General Services. The three also wanted greater community access to the facility and an agreement lasting longer than 10 years.
Reiss announced last week he was holding firm to the original MOU submitted to the Council on Sept. 16. He said the college did not need the Armory for plans to build an environmental center on the banks of the Chester River. The three councilmen appeared unshaken by the pressure and said they would consider other suitors for the Armory’s future.
The new MOU offers more tangible language on the councilmen’s concerns, and both sides are now negotiating face-to-face. It is not yet known if the additional $100,000 in SAFETEA-LU funds will make the Rail-to-Trails project less of an issue.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (the “MOU”) is made as of the ___ day of October, 2011, by and among the Board of Visitors and Governors of Washington College (“Washington College”), and the Mayor and Council of Chestertown (“Chestertown”).
WHEREAS, Washington College has long expressed interest in acquiring the property known as 509 Cross Street, Chestertown, Maryland 21620 on which the Sgt. John H. Newnam Armory is constructed (said property being referred to as the “Armory”); and
WHEREAS, Washington College set forth for Chestertown its vision for the use of the Armory in a document entitled, “Washington College and the Chestertown Armory: A Vision for the Future Enhancement of the Chestertown Waterfront” (attached hereto as Exhibit A); and
WHEREAS, Chestertown intends to assign to Washington College an option to acquire the Armory from its current owner, pursuant in part to the terms and conditions set forth herein below; and
WHEREAS, the parties wish to memorialize, in written form, their mutual understandings.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and for other and good valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
1. Transactions. Chestertown will assign to Washington College Chestertown’s option to acquire the Armory and all rights and appurtenances thereto (the “Option”).
2. Costs. Washington College shall bear the following costs and expenses if Washington College accepts the Option and exercises the right to acquire the Armory pursuant thereto:
- A. All settlement costs associated with acquiring the Armory;
- B. Future costs for planning, renovation, and maintenance of the Armory structure, as and when necessary or appropriate in Washington College’s discretion; and
- C. Washington College shall reimburse Chestertown for all costs associated with the Phase 2 Environmental study of the Armory, previously prepared and completed by Earth Data, Inc.
3. Community Access. Washington College will work in good faith to preserve and enhance opportunities for periodic community access, use and enjoyment of the Armory, including but not limited to educational and recreational events, festivals, and other civic programming purposes (collectively, “Community Activities”); provided, however, that the same shall not be scheduled or undertaken at such times or in such fashion as to interfere with or unduly burden the core educational mission and objectives of Washington College.
4. Collaboration. Washington College will cooperate and seek opportunities for mutually-beneficial and productive collaboration with Chestertown’s master planning efforts with respect to the Chestertown River Walk and Stepne Manor.
5. Successors and Assigns. This MOU shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns.
6. Amendment. This MOU and the terms hereof may not be amended except in a written instrument, signed by all of the parties hereto.
7. Term and Termination. This MOU shall remain valid and in full force and effect until the earlier of (i) twenty-five (25) years from the date on which this MOU is executed by all parties hereto; or (ii) the date on which this MOU is rescinded by both parties hereto, in written form.
8. Non-Binding Effect. It is understood and that this MOU (i) merely constitutes a statement of the mutual intentions of the parties with respect to the Option and its assignment to and acceptance by Washington College; (ii) does not contain all matters upon which agreement must be reached in order for the Option to be assigned and accepted and Washington College’s acquisition of the Armory to be consummated; (iii) creates no binding rights in favor of any party. A binding commitment with respect to the Option and Washington College’s acquisition of the Armory will result only if definitive agreements are executed and delivered, and then, only subject to the terms and conditions contained therein.
Kevin Shertz says
Congratulations to both the Mayor and Council and Washington College. It’s a win-win.
And thank you to The Spy for including the MOU so we can all comment in an informed way on its content. The “Community Access” and “Collaboration” portions — my biggest personal concern with the deal — seem like a very common sense approach for both parties.
Eliott Fuhrman says
I still do not understand this whole situation. Seems ct has an option but is not written any where ,where by it is only a right of first refusial.How long is this so called option for because an option MUST have dates. The college should just offer to take over from state and if chestertown then wants to jump in front and buy they should. I would tell state they have resposibility for enviroment for ground under building but if deed college building they will take responsibility from state. and will give state 50,000 for their time and effort they have in it.
Joe Diamond says
Uh?
Have the cops and residents along this rail / trail rung in on this?
This place, like everywhere else in the world, has that 1/2 of one percent who will look on project with the eyes of a predator. So the rail / trail will need cops on bikes to kick their ass and arrest them up. The residents along the trail will tire of tourists taking a leak in their back yards and may shoot wandering crunch dogs.
This exact concept was discussed with the Community Playground in back of Garnett. There were issues after dark.
So Washington College acquires a building and waterfront property (or not). If it fits their plans great. Would the purchase go through without the trail? Where would the trail go if the Armory was suddenly a public facility or a private yacht club?
I just do not see a lot of variations on this plan.
Anyone?
Joe
Kevin Shertz says
Joe, the trail “ends” across from Wilmer Park. The issue (I am second-guessing the Council Members here, and could be wrong) is that the Rail-Trail is a potential connector between the existing campus and the satellite campus… one that would be less likely to have students or faculty to get in their car to traverse the two locations. The logic is that since WC has a direct interest in streamlining the connection between the two locations, it’s an opportunity to convert that self-interest into quantified funding towards the project.
I agree with this notion — in principle, the logic makes sense — but don’t think it should be a deal-breaker if push comes to shove.
As to Rail-Trail and crime, it’s a frequent (and unsubstantiated) comment that crime would somehow increase as a result of such a project entering a community. However, multiple studies have shown no increase in crime when a Rail-Trail project is introduced. In some cases, crime has actually been reduced because it increases traffic to an otherwise neglected area. And, in fact, it’s actually increased property values for adjacent owners.
Here are some links to relevant studies undertaken:
https://www.brucefreemanrailtrail.org/trail_plans/rail_trail_studies.html#existing
https://www.railstotrails.org/resources/documents/resource_docs/tgc_safecomm.pdf
Joe Diamond says
Kevin,
Interesting reading.
I had in mind a trail that would begin somewhere near the armory and go past the WC campus on the way to Worton.
In cities children are taught to avoid isolated, unlit and remote places especially when walking alone. So it seems counterintuitive to provide such a place for students and tourists.
As with all crime………the actual occurrences are are way below the fear and expectations of crime.This planned trail location has had no use or crime statistic so just one littering arrest will, statistically, wreck the deal. The properties the trail would pass, with the exception of the historic manor, can only go up in value.
So we will watch. If the trail idea fail for any reason WC has enough horsepower to run a shuttle bus, ski lift or subway system should it require one.
Hope I end up as one of those nay-sayer-nuts who questioned such a great addition to the Chestertown experience. Got mugged once but the mugger got hurt……….know friends who didn’t do as well………probably too close to the issue
Joe
Kevin Shertz says
Joe, yes I believe the ultimate plan is for the trail to go to Worton… but have no idea what the construction timing of that is.
Oliver Randall says
I would like to join Kevin in thanking WC and Ctown for giving this proposal, and the development of the waterfront, their thoughtful attention in a private session. Very encouraging.
Janice Dickson says
Did anyone else wonder how was this extra $100,000 was conveniently found? Aren’t there 2 or more people looking over the same set of dollars making sure numbers add up and down? Somehow this does not inspire confidence in someone’s bookkeeping ability. What if there had been a $100,000 error in the other direction? Would Anthony et al have tried to hold up the college for that money?
In the end the deal appears to be done which seems to be what most people wanted from the beginning.
Joe Diamond says
Janice, Janice Janice!
There are several types of accounting.
PERSONAL ACCOUNTING………….keeps you from bouncing checks and accurately predicting your personal finances. You go to jail if you get it wrong often enough and in great enough amounts.
COMMERCIAL ACCOUNTING…………this is what you are thinking about. This is the iron balance system that shows where every penny came from and where it went. Universities and road side business schools teach this stuff because it looks so good on paper. Kids love it and major in it in college.
POLITICAL ACCOUNTING…………..is where funds get found and lost. By sliding dates around you can change a deficit into a surplus. Based on pious hopes of future successful funding you can spend money that has not yet been printed. Advanced POLITICAL ACCOUNTING has even printed the money….but that does not happen at the state and county level because the feds keeps the presses locked up.
So in answer to your original question………..nope, money gets “found” all the time (conveniently).
Joe
Gibson Anthony says
The federal trail funding is administered by the State and released to the Town. So, the money isn’t actually in our account until it has been released. I plan to further investigate the mistake.
The Town Council has always known that there would be a shortfall in federal funding for the rail trail project and this is not some desperate response to suddenly running out of money. Unfortunately, instead of looking to the college’s own documents in support of the rail trail, and their description of how it benefits the college and its waterfront campus, many in the community have chosen to not see the connection.
Apparently Smith College sees the connection:
https://fntg.net/?p=152
https://bit.ly/py5bFH
In the end, this has been a huge distraction from the real issues of weighing the opportunity costs for the Armory site and weighing the increased burden on Town services as the college expands in size and student body. In many respects the town is behind the curve in recognizing this. Many other college towns have PILOT agreements (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) which are the result of this very real issue.
Kevin Shertz says
Gibson, the Town and the College working out a PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) agreement is the best — and fairest — way to address the issue of increased usage of the Town’s services as the College continues to grow.
The problem is a real one, an ongoing one, and it needs to be quantified in a way that cannot be interpreted (or “spun”) as a shakedown every time transactions like this one take place between the two parties.
John Seidel says
I think Washington College clearly sees the importance of the rails-to-trails project and the last two administrations have consistently expressed support. The problem was the recent linkage of that project with a completely unrelated transaction, the Armory.
Smith College’s support of trails is laudable, but it might be useful to keep in mind that their endowment is in excess of $1.24 billion. By contrast, Washington College’s endowment is around $170 million. That is a very significant difference.
This difference also plays a role in any discussion of PILOTs. I think you’ll find that most institutions agreeing to PILOTs have significantly larger endowments than Washington College. In any case, non-profits and institutions of higher education are tax exempt for very good reasons having to do with public value. The College pays taxes on those properties not immediately linked to academics, and the economic benefit that Chestertown receives from College activities, employees, students and visitors FAR outstrips the property taxes the town foregoes. Think about a Chestertown without Washington College, and then think about whether this really seems like a good idea.
This is a very tough economy for everyone, colleges included. The last thing the town should be doing is making it more expensive or more difficult for one of the area’s biggest employers to initiate new projects. That would truly be penny-wise, pound foolish. PILOTs in this case are a non-starter, even in a good economy.
Matthew Weir says
Gibson’s PILOT idea is a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line on who pays and who does not? Should the Sultana pay? Should churches pay? What about non-profit organizations that work with unemployed people?
Is it right to ask one non-profit to pay and not others? Would a balanced budget be the threshold for who pays and who does not? Would annual income levels? Who decides who pays?
Janice Dickson says
To Joe Diamond, thanks for the enlightenment.
To Gibson Anthony, what is there to investigate? If the money hadn’t been released, where’s the mistake? Finally, Gibson, to introduce PILOT into the armory equation at this late date will only serve to muddy the waters and, perhaps delay the transfer of the Armory to the college with a try at discussion of an unconnected issue and which looks like another way to have the college pay. Please stay on track, and proceed with what appears to be (from reading posts on this site) the wishes of the majority. Should you wish to discuss PILOT further, why not contact John Siedel away from this site.
Kevin Shertz says
PILOT and the Armory transfer are two entirely separate issues, I agree.
John Seidel, if the mere mention of PILOT is off the table from the College’s perspective, I don’t blame the Council one bit for their aggressive stance. Also, your “trickle down theory” of economic benefits is only successful if the quality of life for Town residents remains a constant while the institution expands. It does not.
Lastly, the Armory location does have commercial value. Microbrewery, anyone? Heck, I’ll throw in unlimited waterfront access, no problem…
Kevin Shertz says
Matthew Weir, here is a link to a 2010 Lincoln Institute of Land Policy study that may help answer some of your questions regarding implementation of PILOTs:
https://www.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/significant-features-property-tax/upload/sources/ContentPages/documents/PILOTs%20PFR%20final.pdf
The challenges are substantial, but not insurmountable.
Bill Kille says
Perhaps the whole problem will be solved when the college moves to Queen Anne County, I’m sure they’d love to have them and there is still loads of farm land there that hasn’t been converted to growing houses.
John Seidel says
Kevin, I do not speak for the College. My statement that PILOTs are a non-starter is my personal opinion that they are not financially viable for the College and that the Town would be short-sighted to pursue it. I’m not aware of the issue being raised anywhere other than in the comments to the Spy, so I don’t know how there could be any linkage between an unstated College response to an unvoiced Town request and the “aggressive stance” of several councilmen.
The commercial value of the Armory a matter of opinion, but the current market outlook is not favorable. There were few takers for the armory back in 2005-2007, before the economy tanked and the real estate bubble burst. There were no takers on the Board of Ed building. I personally think the likelihood of a buyer (or brewer) emerging in the near future is slim. If a majority on the Council feels otherwise and thinks that real estate speculation is a proper role for local government, then the Town should by all means hold out for top dollar.
You can try to diminish the economic impact of the college as “trickle down” theory, but the overwhelming evidence indicates that the college has an enormous, positive impact on the local economy. I’ll be happy to give you chapter and verse off-line. As for evidence that the College’s growth has had a negative impact on the quality of life for town residents, thus necessitating PILOTs, I’d suggest that it is quite the reverse.
First, most of the recent acquisitions of the college (several residential parcels, the LaMotte parcel, and the BoE building) either were not on the tax rolls (as with the Armory) or the College is paying property taxes on them. The Alger Oil and Crop Production Services parcels will come off the tax rolls, but the College is spending a several million $ to clean-up these Brownfields sites. As dependent as we are on the river, I’d say that’s an improvement.
Second, recent investments of the college have arguably improved the overall quality of life, such as the new performing arts center. I suspect that one thing that many current residents find attractive about Chestertown is the wide variety of cultural, intellectual and athletic opportunities provided by Washington College.
Third, although the town is hurting from reduced revenue and loss of tax dollars that Annapolis has diverted, local finances seem to be in reasonably good shape. For this fiscal year, the Town projected $3,708,513 in revenue and $3,035,052 in general operating expenses. So I don’t see any evidence that we’re experiencing a shortfall that prompts an overhaul of Town-Gown financial relations. I also have no doubt whatsoever that the value of the pro bono services provided by various segments of the College to Chestertown provide an enormous offset against its tax exemptions. That work is not always visible, but I’m sure that the Mayor & Council are aware of it. It seems to me that there has been a fairly well balanced relationship over the years, a relationship that this craziness threatens to upset.
Regarding your comments about Dixon Valve, Mr. O’Rourke, who said that Washington College “is more special” than Dixon Valve, the hospital, or you and your house full of friends? I’m sure that you’re special too, but you’re not a non-profit under the law. There is nothing insulting about pointing out that Dixon Valve is a for-profit corporation, whereas the College is a non-profit. And that is the crux of the matter. Both Washington College and the hospital – yes, the hospital is a non-profit too – are exempt from taxes under law that has a long history and solid reasoning behind it. If you want to change that law, fine – go ahead and work on it. But attempting to circumvent it by attaching what amount to fees for an unrelated transaction is not a legitimate way to do it. To try and cloak this absurdity under the label of “payments in lieu of taxes” is dishonest.
My comment about the College’s endowment had nothing to do with pity, but everything to do with fiscal reality. A college like Smith (or Penn, or Harvard, or the other well-endowed institutions that can finance public projects or pay PILOTs) has a bigger endowment. A bigger endowment allows for more discretionary spending. If you operate on a very tight margin, like WC, and are highly dependent on tuition revenue every year, then if the ground rules change on taxes (or substitutes like PILOTs), that new cost has to be made up somewhere. That “somewhere” is likely to be a combination of higher tuition and decreased labor, neither of which is good for the College’s competitiveness and long-term health or for Chestertown. Kevin, I’ve read Lincoln’s report, and it makes it clear that there are pros and cons to PILOTs – in this particular case, I think the cons outweigh the pros by a long shot.
As for Mr. O’Rourke’s contention that the mayor and town manager were trying to ram this down the council’s throat, read the minutes of the July 18 council meeting. After a long discussion of the pros and cons of transferring the Armory to the College, including arguments that additional financial commitments should be made by the College, the M&C did the following:
“Mrs. Mumford-Pautz moved to assign ownership of the Armory to Washington College, with the understanding that costs borne to the Town would be reimbursed by the College, the Mission Statement would be included as a Memorandum of Understanding, there would be a connection from Quaker Neck Road to the river walk and the College will direct consultant work to tie into the Town’s plans, was seconded by Mr. Gatto and carried with four (4) in favor, Mr. Anthony opposed.”
No matter how you try to spin it after the fact, this pretty clearly was a vote to transfer the property for the amount outstanding on the state’s loan and the town’s related expenses, without other financial requirements. And somehow lost in all this is the fact that the Town doesn’t own the Armory, and wouldn’t own it in any deal they’ve discussed – so how is it that the Town should see a profit from the deal, when others are taking all the risks?
You can speculate all you want about private buyers, but deaccessioning of state property follows pretty straight-forward rules, which give preference to non-profits like Washington College over private buyers. And the state doesn’t tack on additional “fees.” Ironically, it was the state’s suggestion that they might change this rule and ask Chestertown for more than the outstanding debt that derailed the town’s acquisition some time ago – the Town quite properly balked at this. And now it’s going to try to do exactly the same thing to the College? Does this sound at all like hypocrisy?
Kevin Shertz says
John, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on parts of this topic, particularly on the “quality of life” issue. But, I sincerely appreciate your thoughtful response to my message.
Chris Cerino says
Please, please, PLEASE let this “deal” happen!!!!! This will turn a huge albatross on our waterfront into a functional, renovated facility with limited public access and a waterfront walk. Truly a win-win for both the College and the Town – a no-brainer in my humble opinion. A private developer simply would be unable to 1) pay off the 300k loan to the state and then 2) invest 1-2 million dollars to restore the property and then 3) turn a profit. The College is the only institution in Chestertown that is willing and able to take on this project, and if they walk the building will likely sit vacant and continue to deteriorate for at least the next ten years – a lose-lose for all involved. Get ‘er done!
John Moag Jr. says
This expansive, somewhat divisive, but very open conversation is one of the reason I love this town!
Let me try out a very practical solution of the Spy Readers:
1). Accept President Mitchell’s deadline for what it is. It is reality and I do not believe he enjoys the support of his Board for an upping of the ante on the Armory for a highly discretionary expenditure beyond what has been approved. The College simply doesn’t need the property;
2). Within that deadline, the Mayor and City Council, en masse, should request of visit of the Governor….and they should all attend. In that meeting they should request that the Town receive the Armory free of debt. There is no shortage of evidence it is worth nothing and they should enter that meeting with evidence that it is worth nothing other than the fact that they have a third-party that it is willing to turn a bad property into a community asset. The College and individual Board members would support that effort. There is no shortage of debt holders requesting write-downs on debt and this one is not a tough argument;
3). The College, if the Town is able to convince the State that Chestertown is better off by taking the Armory debt-free and transfers the Armory to the College for $1, in turn takes the $320k in debt it would assume on the Armory, turns that over to the town for Rails to Trails.
That requires some political effort on the Town’s part and some calls by Board Members, but I think we are happy to do that.
It’s just an idea, but there a some of us who will absolutely put in the effort with the Governor who, after all, christened the Chestertown Rails to Trails prior to last May’s Tea Party.
Linda Kuiper says
Let’s look at the Town of Chestertown Budget for the Year Beginning July 1, 2011 and Ending June 30, 2012. Ordinance 02-2011
Grants from State (Schedule C) Remembrance Park $139,000.
Add to that $100,000 additional SAFETEA-LU funds for Rails-to-Trails.
How close can you get to $240,000?
Where is Remembrance Park???
The residents in the proposed area have voiced strong disapproval of the location. Why?
If there is a Rails-to-Trails, wouldn’t that $139,000 be better spent as a dedicated protected segment of the trail?
Remembrance Park is also listed under Capital Expenditures (Schedule R) General Government in the amount of $139,000.
John Seidel says
Kevin, you’re a gentleman, and I would welcome the chance to talk about these issues at some point.
Mr. O’Rourke, I want to keep this civil. I did not say that the College wasn’t a business, and I am aware of how a 501(c)3 works. My comments referred to the different legal status of non-profits and the different business models. I’m also aware of the College’s many other obligations beyond the unnecessary acquisition of the Armory.
My comments are made, whatever you believe, as an individual, not as a representative of the College. It is possible for me to separate the two, and I took a very public stand on the historic district expansion several years ago that was at odds with the College’s policy. But it also happens that this time my view of what’s best for the town I reside in coincides with the College’s position. I see the original deal struck as beneficial to both parties, and this appears to be the view of many who have commented on this issue, most of whom have no relationship to WC. This was a win-win situation, but has turned into a divisive situation, needlessly, for no good reason. This is not the doing of the College, which has been willing to do the same deal that has been on the table with the Town for five years – purchase for the mortgage amount plus town costs, provide public access for events, and extend the riverfront trail.
I don’t dispute the Town’s right to negotiate. But successful bargaining has several elements. 1) It should be done in good faith (the backtracking on the July 18 agreement calls this into question); 2) you should know what your partner can and cannot do; 3) you should know how badly they need the deal; and 4) you should know how much you need the deal – in government, that question is what the community stands to lose if you don’t reach agreement.
I personally believe that you and the three councilmen have badly misjudged several elements here. The college has explained that the armory parcel would be a nice addition, but is not essential in achieving its goals on the river. They have explained the financial constraints that would make it unwise for them to pay more than was on the table originally. They have explained to M&C that the November deadline has nothing to do with bargaining leverage, but is linked to other critical decisions that the College must make by the beginning of December. One of these elements is the clean-up of Alger Oil and Crop Production Services. That work will be affected by whether or not the Armory is part of the plan, and if the work is not completed in the Dec-Jan time-frame currently planned, there is a risk of losing $400,000 in EPA funding for the project. And from the Town’s standpoint, the College is a known partner that has performed in the past – a potential private buyer is likely to be a pig in a poke.
All of the above reflects my personal view, obviously shaped by what I know about what’s happening on the College’s side of things. But the decisions will be made way above my pay grade. Since you raise the issue of the Center I direct, however, I will tell you that our willingness to go along with the armory deal is a function of our desire to do what is best in the longterm for both the College and the Town. I personally think that it would be more complicated than our other options. The only benefit I see is the extra points that come with adaptive reuse of old buildings toward LEED certification, and I suspect that if the Center ends up there, what I’ll be “tasting” is mold. I do not think the property is critical to the College’s vision, but whether you believe that or not is something I can’t control.
What bothers me most about this situation is the mistrust that it seems likely to produce and the rancor that has been expressed in some quarters. This was not a necessary outcome, and the fact is that the future of Chestertown and Washington College are inextricably linked. I hope both sides can get beyond this and learn from it. You are correct that this should have been hammered out in private, and since this is a land deal, any member of the Council could have requested it. At this point we’re all speculating based on what transpired before they tumbled to this. I hope it all turns out well for both parties.
Kevin Shertz says
John, my understanding is that all of this arose because the original MOU drafted by the College did not have the waterfront access specificity that had been originally implied in the July 18th discussion. Hence, the arrival of revised MOU.
Also, I completely empathize with the desire of the Town Council in that they need to have all of their discussion taking place in an open meeting forum, which has unfortunately compounded the issue. Is it reasonable to feel like some of the amendments were unrelated to the issue at hand? Absolutely.
But, to be fair, I think it was also a miscalculation on the part of the College to think they were arriving in the September meeting to a “rubber-stamping” of their original MOU. The subsequent reaction could have been handled better as well.
All in all, hopefully this issue will be resolved and characterized by both parties as a case of inartful communication rather than distrust and malice.
Maybe if the Town and College worked together to create a Town-Gown committee, we’d all be better served. I’d be willing to offer my services to participate as a “Townie” in the inaugural group of such an effort… if the Mayor and Council were crazy enough to accept my offer, of course. 😉
John Seidel says
Kevin, I understand your points, particularly the desire to keep such discussions open and transparent. My sense is that the MOU presented in September attempted to meet the criteria laid out in the M&C’s July resolution. It was to be expected that some details might need tweaking, such as specificity in the community access piece. But the addition of four completely new conditions in September – like an additional quarter of a million dollars and a hotel – went well beyond tweaking.
At that point, I think it could have been predicted that this would cause some consternation and perhaps be controversial, and that might have been the time to discuss to move into private discussions. My concern is that when a very public stance is taken on something like this, it can become politically difficult to back away.
Regarding a point made in another comment to this article, I understand how it might seem that the College has been buying property in a down real estate market. But that’s not really the case. The largest acquisitions in recent years, La Motte and the Alger Oil/Crop Production Services properties, were deals struck before the downturn, as were a couple of houses along Washington Avenue. The BoE deal was much more recent, but it was purchased after several failed attempts by the County to secure bids – it was a win-win for the county and the college. I think the College’s master plan allows for most of its foreseeable growth to occur within its existing footprint.
The committee idea sounds like a good one.
Gibson Anthony says
Hi John,
It’s because of your role in the community that I really hope this works out and as a result have tried to compromise. I have a lot of respect for you. I’m not sure who is aware of this, but everyone should note that the last MOU from the college introduced (for the first time) a time limit of ten years on the commitments. This calls into question the college’s assertion that the negotiations were not still in play. If the college thought that the deal had been finalized, why did they introduce a new condition in the last draft?
As I’ve said many times, I hope this works out in the college’s favor.
John Seidel says
Gibson, I’m no lawyer, but I think that to be valid, a contract of this sort must have an end date – it can’t be open-ended. So to me, this comes into the category of tweaking the MOU, rather than re-negotiation.