GREENSBORO — As the select board continues to work with RuralEdge on plans for a Greensboro Town Hall redevelopment project that would create 20 apartments, many in the Greensboro community have taken sides.
As select board members Ellen Celnik and David Kelley work to negotiate a purchase and sale agreement with appropriate contingencies for the sale of the town hall property to RuralEdge, each organization contracted for an appraisal. The town’s appraisal came in 70% higher than an earlier one prepared for RuralEdge.
Recent select board meetings have become contentious and letters to the select board from an attorney representing an organization identified as the Save Town Hall Coalition have suggested an array of improprieties.
Attorney Edward B. French, Esq., counsel for the Coalition, included an 11 point inquiry related to the RuralEdge proposal, dated August 13.
Select board member David Kelley responded point-by-point in a letter dated August 23.
French’s letter indicated several concerns about a lack of transparency on the part of the board, including the suggestion that its “hostility towards questions relating to the project has led to feelings of mistrust, and concealment.”
In his response, which primarily reiterated responses shared in public meetings, Kelley asked, “In the interests of transparency would you let us know what kind of an entity Save Town Hall is and who it represents?” He further inquired about membership in the coalition and how it is raising funds.
The Greensboro Town Hall’s front yard at 82 Craftsbury Road hosts the Community Garden, weekly Farmers Markets, the Funky Fourth celebration and many other activities. The select board plans for those activities to continue as it works with RuralEdge on a housing project at the property.
Kelley said neither he, nor the select board, had received a response to those questions as of Monday, Oct. 14.
Kelley’s point-by-point response reiterated the select board’s plans to put to a vote any proposed conveyance of the town hall property.
He further wrote, “All analyses required by federal and state law will be done as required. Funding is through VHCB, HUD, ARPA and [sic] project has to abide by all state, federal, funding source guidelines, regulations, and permitting requirements.”
The current plan is for town offices to remain in the building, though they might need to be temporarily relocated during construction, wrote Kelley.
The appropriate amount of property tax is under discussion, he noted, adding, “funding for this project requires that it remain affordable in perpetuity.”
To the question, “Will the town green still be accessible for events such as farmers’ markets after the construction of an on-site sewer system?” Kelley offered an unequivocal, “Yes.”
He indicated the proposed project fits into the overall objectives of the town plan by “creating more affordable housing, . . . a central tenet of the town plan.”
Responding to the question, “How much is the property being sold for and what will the proceeds be used for? Kelly wrote, “The price is being negotiated. It depends on multiple factors. The town has huge infrastructure needs with increasing extreme weather events, but ultimately any funds received will go to reduce property taxes.
Another letter to the select board from French on September 30 did not acknowledge Kelley’s previous response. It raises a new issue, suggesting a potential conflict of interest exists “pertaining to a select board member and a certain privately-owned property under consideration as a potential wastewater disposal site for the town hall redevelopment proposal with RuralEdge.”
Kelley again responded for the select board, noting the board is “familiar with the Vermont Statutes governing conflicts of interest, as well as the Greensboro Town policy relative to conflicts of interest, which is stricter than state statutes.”
He also shares, “the negotiating or securing of real estate purchase or lease options is exempt from Vermont’s Open Meeting law for good reasons.” Despite that, Kelley indicates the select board is aware of “heightened controversy around the issues” and detailed activities related to the town wastewater system project and related RuralEdge project.
He said “the engineering firm Hoyle Tanner has been seeking a wastewater site in Greensboro for a number of years. The most recent possible site, property owned by the Catholic Church, fell through when the parish opted not to sell.
“Stone Environmental has been working with Hoyle Tanner and in their study of soil and geographic maps of the area, they recently identified the land of the Perron Farm as a site worthy of consideration for septic and wastewater.
“Because of multiple issues, Stone Environmental also suggested that land might also be appropriate for the housing project under consideration.
Kelley had not heard from Attorney French, or from any Save Town Hall Coalition representative as of October 14.
Attorney French has not responded to inquiries, nor have any representatives of the coalition come forward to speak for it.
A November 2023 appraisal of the town hall building contracted for by RuralEdge valued the 10,706 square foot town office building on its 1.83-acre parcel at $390,000 in “as-is” condition. That appraisal also noted a value for the former grange hall at $50,000 for the 0.3-acre parcel and its 1,705 square foot building, likely because of discussions about the potential move of the town office to that location.
An appraisal contracted for by the town through a different appraiser last month resulted in a significantly higher value of $664,000.
At the October 10 select board meeting, Board Member Ellen Celnik suggested in response to a question posed by resident Gary Circosta, the difference was due to mitigation work, ADA and permit costs.
Both appraisers’ opinions are indicated as being for the property’s market value.
The appraisal for RuralEdge identified the property as being shown on a State of Vermont, Agency of Natural Resources map as a potential hazardous waste generator site. As a recycling drop-off site, the appraiser did not consider that use “to likely impact the value of the property.”
That report identified a buried oil tank, which “can be potentially hazardous because over time the tanks can break down and oil can seep into soils. They can also be costly to remove.” The risk associated with that was considered in the overall valuation of the property.
The town’s appraiser also identified the buried oil tank, which it noted, had “been tested by the potential buyer within the last month with no issues found.“That difference likely affected the appraised values.
The town’s appraiser indicated the $664,000 value took into account “mold remediation that was reported to be in the utility room with a reported cost to cure of $5,000.”
Mold had not been identified in the building at the time of the earlier RuralEdge appraisal, thus potentially lowering that appraisal by $5,000 were it to have been taken into consideration.
The town appraisal noted the building, having been built before 1978, could contain areas of lead paint. That appraiser indicated the market value was based on the assumption that there are no environmental issues from lead paint or the oil tank.
The RuralEdge appraisal did not specifically note the possible presence of lead paint as potentially reducing the value.
Neither appraiser conducted deed research, both suggesting the value might differ were issues to be identified.
Paul Fixx is editor of The Hardwick Gazette and lives in Hardwick.
