Woodstock Early Bird recently reported on the intention of new “A & B Motors” land owners to turn their property into a housing community. But apparently…things have changed…as Woodstock Early Bird’s Gareth Henderson reports from last night’s Woodstock Selectboard meeting. (WEB’s scrawny bird neck has a touch of whiplash!):
Several years after Woodstock voters soundly rejected the town’s proposed purchase of the old A&B Motors property at 25 South Street, the Woodstock Selectboard has chosen to revisit the matter at Town Meeting on Saturday, March 3, 2012. (It’s coming up SOON!)
Woodstock Selectboard member Bruce Gould brought it up at the Board’s regular meeting Tuesday night. Gould explained that he still thinks the purchase would be worth it, especially if the abutting Woodstock Elementary School ever needs room to expand. He noted that there is still plenty of talk in Montpelier about consolidation of small schools, noting that WES might take in students from other towns if that happened.
The previous deal struck down by the voters would have been buying the whole A&B Motors property for over $400,000.
Now, owners Bill and Jennifer Lamb – in recent conversations with Town officials – have offered to sell half of the property to the town, according to Gould. This would be the half extending from the WES property line to the middle of what is now the parking lot – at a cost in the $200,000 range, Gould estimated.
What would happen to the existing building is unclear, although Gould said the Lambs do have plans to add four residential structures to the property. If half of the parcel is sold to the town, Gould explained, the Lambs would add just two new residences to the property.
Gould said the matter would only be brought up for discussion at Town Meeting, under “other business.” “I just think it’s short-sighted if we don’t look at it in a serious way and let the public make a decision,” Gould explained.
Woodstock Municipal Manager Phil Swanson pointed out that the Town will receive some financial credits from FEMA, since the town decided not to replace the Holt Iron Bridge. The town will be credited 67 percent of what the Holt Iron Bridge replacement would have cost. Since the project estimate was $880,000 – 67 percent would be $589,600. The town can use this money for alternate projects, and the purchase of the old A&B Motors property would count as an alternate project, Swanson said.
(Woodstock Early Bird has previously reported that those Holt Bridge funds might be used for new fire safety gear as well)
Julia Carlisle
Woodstock Early Bird 
Posted by Meg Judy Seely on February 22, 2012 at 20:20
Sort of wish I still lived in Woodstock so I could rally support and vote for this investment in the future of elementary aged school children. As long as there are no health ramifications in turning A & B into parking, playground or garden space, I believe this acquisition or annex to the WES could be of great benefit to the greater community.
LikeLike
Posted by Pat Crocker on February 22, 2012 at 21:19
If there are brownfield issues with the property, it will be difficult to locate residential property on the site. The town should buy the entire property if a price can be favorably negotiated for the whole parcel, if for no other reason than to use it as parking that can be a shared asset when school is out of session.
LikeLike
Posted by Donna on February 24, 2012 at 15:45
We need a parking lot about as bad as we need the trolley.
LikeLike
Posted by Hunter Melville on February 23, 2012 at 08:40
Something fishy if you ask me about the wild interest of the Town in buying this property. Why the Selectmen would ever want to buy an allegedly contaminated piece of land to add to the school is beyond me. Would it be too crazy to think the whole thing is intended to ‘launder’ a brown field? You have to wonder why the owners would buy a property that, immediately upon purchase, they tried to sell to the Town. Then, when the citizenry declines the offer, they cook up a mini-housing project. That lasts a few months and it’s back to the Town well. Originally we were told it was needed as a parking lot, remember the argument that tourists and shoppers couldn’t find any spots in the Village? Maybe the owners should pave it and put in their own parking meters.
While many elementary schools are closing or downsizing it’s Woodstock’s grand idea to speculate and buy adjoining properties for future expansion. Hmmmm. Maybe they should put a bid out on the east end Gerrish property. Makes about as much sense.
LikeLike
Posted by Donna on February 25, 2012 at 08:54
For years all we have heard is how the population of the school is shrinking. WES has had a population as high as 390 and now it is down to 178. People are leaving because they can’t afford to live here. Now, we are told that we should buy the A&B property should we have to expand the school to be able to accommodate more students, should the smaller schools in other towns close; We have room for over 200 new students,I really don’t think we have to panic.
LikeLike
Posted by Margaret (Peggy) Kannenstine on February 23, 2012 at 09:37
Would someone backtrack a bit with the Lambs, please. It seems to me they reported on pollution mediation to the site they’d undertaken.
That would make a difference to the conversation that is beginning here.
LikeLike
Posted by Julia Carlisle on February 23, 2012 at 09:48
Yes, Peggy, you are correct that we reported with a letter directly from the Lambs that pollution remediation was underway, although I do not think — based on their last report — that all “hoops” and “hurdles” had been completed. Perhaps this is a plan to help share the cost of whatever needs completing in terms of environmental work — OR,as you suggest, there might NOW be less burden to the Village (or Town) in taking on the property if the environmental remediation has been completed. So, yes, WEB readers certainly would appreciate an update from the Lambs on this.
It should also be noted that, in the past, Selectboard Member Bruce Gould has been a practicing realtor and it might important to get clarity on whether his mention of this potential new real estate plan is one in which he has simply provided advice to the Lambs or whether he is/would be a transaction in which he would be involved, in which case, of courses, he would recuse himself from further advocacy of the sale.
LikeLike
Posted by Donna on February 23, 2012 at 17:25
what part of “no” don’t the selectmen understand??
LikeLike
Posted by Pat Crocker on February 23, 2012 at 19:01
There are a number of ways to recycle a contaminated site, but the highest level of mitigation is usually required if the new use is residential. A favorable deal in my estimation would be one that did not leave the town on the hook for any future environmental mitigation, but the property might never be suitable for housing.
It would be very, very unlikely that the town would skp the due dilligence to determine any potetnial liability that might be transferred in a sale. And quite frankly, I would be shocked if Bruce Gould or any other town leader had any personal or business financial interest in the transaction.
The discussion should focus on the whether it is a prudent decision to purchase or not.
LikeLike
Posted by Laird Bradley on February 24, 2012 at 11:22
Just call me a gullible guppy…I don’t see anything fishy about this proposed purchase.
On the contrary; this is the type of forward-looking decision making we should expect from our elected leaders. Fact-based decisions, as opposed to those informed by cynical fiction, are the appropriate basis for developing prudent public policy. Due diligence on the site, not suspicions of conspiracy, should guide the process.
The former A&B Motors property and the school grounds were both tainted by fuel spills. Experts were engaged to assess the data and mitigation efforts were taken to remove tanks and contaminated soils. Monitoring wells continue to be used for periodic tests of the ground water on each property.
The Lambs voluntarily enrolled the property in Vermont’s Brownsfield program to address lingering concerns about pollution, which was the right thing to do. Unlike the former owner-operators of A&B Motors who created the mess and walked away from their responsiblity.
Vermont’s Brownsfield Reuse Initiatives were intended for just this type of situation.
A polluted parcel in a central and accessible location is cleaned up and made useful again, rather than engendering ‘suburban’ and ‘strip’ development by abandoning village and city centers and compromising ‘virgin’ open space in the surrounding area.
The acquisition of this property abutting the WES Playground provides our community with an irreplaceable and critical resouce, which may be used in a variety of potential applications.
This would include improvement and expansion of the scruffy play space at WES in anticipation of the increase in student enrollment that will happen due to the inevitable results of school consolidation.
LikeLike
Posted by Julia Carlisle on February 24, 2012 at 11:53
Laird,
Thanks for the very valuable information and feedback on the “A&B Motors” site. It does help everyone to understand the background to this property.
However, I would defend those with questions about what exactly is going on here. First, as one of our readers commented “What part of NO does the Selectboard not understand”. This was a widely vetted proposal offered a few years ago with plenty of adequate information and discussion provided for voters to make informed decisions. A majority of voters voted NO, that this was not a project they wished to pursue with their tax money.
Second, we were very “on board” with what appeared to be a very “forward-thinking” small housing project on the part of the Lambs who were completely open with Woodstock Early Bird about how they saw their project going forward.
It is entirely appropriate for thinking members of the community to now ask or wonder, “What is going on here?”
We’re sure there will be plenty of discussion forthcoming. We also appreciate those, such as yourself, who do provide some background facts to help steer the conversation intelligently.
WEB
LikeLike
Posted by Diana Brown on February 24, 2012 at 13:55
I would offer a point of order. The kind of pure democracy we enjoy in our Town Meetings here in Vermont relies on showing up! And to that point, formal votes on previously passed or defeated arguments follow very strict rules, and the facts and procedures for reconsideration are followed carefully. On the other hand, in the section of the meeting for those attending to address new business, the floor is theirs; many times there is free discussion and lots of questions touching on many subjects. Anyone out of order in a discussion is politely redirected to a resource on the subject.
Decisions for study of new information may be the outcome, but you can be sure that no vote, even if unanimous, could legally charge the selectboard to spend a large sum to acquire property.
Furthermore, I am sure the selectboard understands ‘no’ in ways that are even handed and longsuffering, polite and democratic.
Just come and see it all work out. I will- in order to learn, to trust in the process and to participate.
Just a footnote. Google women’s suffrage vote. A NYTimes article in today’s learning section notes that in 1915 Congress denied women the vote for the second time. It took a number of more votes and at nearly 6 years to assure that I and Meg and Peggy, and you too Julia, could vote in national elections. Hurray for the women of almost one hundred years ago who wouldn’t take no for an answer.
LikeLike
Posted by Margaret (Peggy) Kannenstine on February 24, 2012 at 11:59
I, too, want to thank Laird for clarifying the issues. It is interesting to me that some people were ready to scream “foul”, when, for example, brownfield mitigation procedures have been underway.
In my recollection, the “no” vote on the purchase by the town at Town Meeting some years back came about largely because the former owner spoke forcefully against it. In intervening time some of his assertions (about no pollution) have been shown to be faulty.
Personally, I appreciate the four-house model the Lambs first presented. And, await more information before deciding anything about this new idea.
LikeLike
Posted by Laird Bradley on February 24, 2012 at 14:12
Julia,
Thanks for your prompt and thoughtful response.
I believe that civility begins with an assumption of honorable intentions. Pejorative terms are not helpful in framing public discussions.
For the record;
The WEB article characterized the vote as being ‘soundly defeated’; It was 150 to 132. I’m not sure that an 18 vote margin meets that standard.
And yes; several elements have changed since the last vetting of the issue.
1. Importantly, many of those opposed the funding procedure, which was based on using a surplus reserve that could have been used to off-set municipal taxes. The funds designated in the current proposal have no connection to local taxes, but are FEMA compensation for the loss of an asset that can be used to purchase another ‘asset’, like this property.
2. Additionally, there was confusion about the status of the pollution problem and concern about municipal liability for a costly clean-up. These questions are being answered by the Brownsfield process.
3. The need to plan for school consolidation is imperative. Rural student populations continue to collapse and we are wasting precious education funds heating nearly empty classrooms, while we compensate by freezing teacher’s wages, reduce their benefits and eliminate vital educational programs.. Acquiring this land provides us with a resource for this vital future need.
LikeLike
Posted by Ann on February 24, 2012 at 22:38
Thank you Laird!!!!!
LikeLike
Posted by peter on February 25, 2012 at 03:20
Julia
Thank you for providing a forum to discuss the issues of Woodstock (Village or Town) but the purchase of the A&B property should have its’ own prime time slot. It has more comebacks then (insert your favorite Dallas character) and excuses for coming back (insert favorite Jersey Shore character) then this one blog could handle. Your site does provide prime time ability to discuss an issue that has been kicked around more…. Well you know.
Not mentioned yet, this has been voted down TWICE by the Town. The first time it was a vote (Australian ballot) for the Town to “bond”, when all said and done, for almost a million dollars total to purchase this property. At this time the Selectboard advocated for the purchase to make up for the upcoming lost spaces at the “Frost” lot and a perceived increase of needed parking for Vail Field. Not sure on the vote total on this but was it was not well received.
Soon after the Selectboard felt that the electorate was undereducated (or unable to see the future as they could) on this issue and started to pay rent on this property so the community could again have a chance to see the light and purchase this property. The new twist is that the Selectboard would have this be voted from the floor on Town Meeting. If you had to work or were out of town you would have no voice on the issue like you did the first time. It was at this time the Selectboard started to triumph the purchase of this property as a future expansion potential of Woodstock Elementary School as the need to vote for this proposal. The Selectboard and the School Directors never discussed this issue in a public meeting. At a well-attended Town Meeting again the purchase of A&B was voted down. A pure and “D”emocratic vote as a town meeting has ever seen!
As we are to discuss this again let us all decide what we need to decide on.
Has the Selectboard even discussed with the School Directors about needed expansion? We all know about the pollution, at both sites, how does that limit expansion? The whole concept of consolidation flies against expansion of existing infrastructure. There has been discussion about shrinking enrollment at the WSCU in the past and changes to school governance. None of the viable proposals to reduce per pupil expenditures included taking on more capitol debt. There are other models that use existing resources to accommodate consolidation. Most of those do not assume Woodstock is the center of the educational universe at the elementary level. In the discussion of school consolidation at the State level folks are yelling about school choice including non-public options outside of what our school district decides on.
I will let others decide if the sale price (which at face value seems the same value as before) is the going price for a piece of contaminated property. I will not doubt the Lamb’s intentions but it seems like they were moving on a course that would bring much needed housing to our town, why change now?
The new twist is that Woodstock has close to $600,000 of FEMA money to spend. Money we are to receive because Woodstock is “replacing” a likeminded asset (bridge) with future school property, fire fighter equipment and a salt shed. Next time you complain about the Federal Government over spending ask yourself if this $600,000 is really replacing a likeminded asset. Wonder what happens when FEMA goes into other communities and we need to replace their likeminded assets? Enough people are fighting for FEMA money. Could we not use this money to help offset costs that are really attributed to Irene? Could this money directly influence the quality of education our present day students need?
Also to all those parents and members of the community who help develop the playground, gardens and trails over the years I do not find the playground to be scruffy but wonderful asset to our community and thank you for your efforts.
LikeLike
Posted by Julia Carlisle on February 25, 2012 at 10:14
Peter,
First, thank you for your use of non-vitirolic humor. Woodstock Early Bird is chuckling in a particularly high-pitched way. Second, for making several important historical points. Third, for what I think is the most important point not yet revealed: Has ANY of this proposal been discussed with Woodstock Elementary School and its School Board? If it has not, then the proper forum is the school first, the voters second.
As to the use of FEMA funds….Woodstock Early Bird knows of some in our own community who are still struggling to pay back rent (and other costs) imposed on them by the Vermont Housing Authority at Riverside Park due to Irene flooding who may still need some assistance. Wouldn’t it make sense (as you seeem to suggest) that we make sure our Irene disaster costs — in particular in the form of our human capital and infrastructure — are paid first before moving on to the what our own Fire Chief might describe as a list of “What we want” as opposed to “What we need”?
WEB
LikeLike
Posted by Pat Crocker on February 25, 2012 at 12:04
Everyone shares the concerns about those hardest hit by the effects of Irene. But it is not likely that the FEMA funds can be redirected to the use suggested. The town should use the available funds to best advantage allowed by the guidelines. Laird’s points are very well made. Circumstances change and that’s why thoughtful folks should have an opportunity to base a decision on new information, not old news.
LikeLike
Posted by Laird Bradley on February 25, 2012 at 17:48
Clearly there are ‘teeter-totters’ other than on playgrounds…metaphorically speaking. They are always more fun when someone sits on each side aren’t they?
Here are a few more random comments on the subject for consideration.
Most of us believed that the WES School Board, Supervisory District and Staff are and were previously aware of the opportunity for the town to acquire the parcel. This should be confirmed, rather than assumed.
Yes..Woodstock Elementary is certainly not the ‘center of the education universe’,…as commented in a slightly jaundiced, non-vitriolic manner.
However, it is centrally located at the junction of rivers, valleys and roads, which is why Woodstock Village was sited here. It remains a center of population ‘gravity’ for transportation efficiency today.
Yes. We have traveled this road before and arrived at the same ‘D’emocratic end.
There have been other ‘D’emocratically decided matters that ended up being reconsidered and approved…the 19th Amendment; Civil Rights Laws & others of less well-known merit.
Yes. We do need affordable housing in Woodstock. The Grange Hill project, on a site dedicated to this use in the 1986 Woodstock Town Plan, would provide housing for many of those displaced by Irene’s floods. (The now five year long appeal process is an example of why no ‘for profit’ developer has created this type of housing).
There was certainly no disrespect intended to all those dedicated parents and community members who spent time and effort volunteering in the school yard, when I refered to the school grounds as ‘scruffy’…with roughly 50% of the usable area covered in asphalt, let’s call it ‘scuffy’.
Yes. Folks at the State are discussing all kinds of approachs to controlling school costs and providing the best education our money can buy.
However, I’ve heard no ‘yelling’ when I’ve testified on the impact of property tax based funding for education in committee…Just the sound of people working hard to find solutions to a complicated and emotionally charged issue.
A few statistics that may interest readers:
1. The past decade saw nearly 6% of primary homeowners in the Town of Woodstock move out of our area. Windsor County had a transition in primary to second home occupancy of almost 7% over the same time period.
2.More than 70% of Vermont’s Homestead property owners will require a sensitvity ‘subsidy’ to pay their real estate taxes this year. This is why local control fails to control costs. There is no meaningful consequence for a town that overspends, when property taxes are fixed to income. The additional costs are shifted on to the 30% of homestead owners who are not eligible for tax subsidies and second homeowners who can’t vote. Regardless of the ‘fairness’ consideration and recognizing that a school closing is painful; Vermont cannot sustain the present system no matter how we divide the tax burden.
3. 80% of Vermont property taxes are used to fund education. No other state using the same tax source uses more than 50%.
4. Vermont spends a per student sum that is third in the US, behind New Jersey and New York and has household incomes more than 30% lower.
5. 50 schools in Vermont have fewer than 60 students enrolled.
6. The teacher to student ratio in Vermont is 10/1 statewide. Lowest in the US…And, rural schools average 5/1.
7. All school employees combined constitute a student rated ratio of 4/1.
This is nearly 50% higher than the national average.
8. There are 243 School Districts in Vermont at an average enrollment of less than 100. Far lowest in the nation. Supervisory oversight of the meetings required in the exercise this much ‘local control’ requires an estimated additional 75% more paid hours of work & travel expense than would be needed in the re-districting plan proposed.
A&B Motors Land value:
Location-location-location….as the real estate saying goes…
The A&B Motors property value derives from proximity to important resources and by the sites of those ‘entities’ that would benefit most from using the land.
Once the site is dedicated to residential use it is gone for the useful life of those structures and the community will have no ‘second (or in this case maybe third) bite’ at the apple.
School Consolidation:
It is cheaper to run a full school bus than a half empty school.
WES has a current enrollment far below design capacity and those levels of student population enrolled in the 1970’s & 80’s. WES can accomodate the current enrollments two or three nearby schools, none of which could do likewise. The additonal playground space would be an important factor in making this happen.
The almost new schools in Pomfret and Barnard each have sufficient capacity for students attending the aging Stockbridge and Bridgewater facilities, for example.
Reading has per student costs for 33 children in excess of $25,000. with their current $800,000. budget. The State average cost per student is about $16,400.
While Vermont has a crashing student population our elderly component is growing at the highest rate in the US….
Could a vacant classroom become a studio apartment for an elderly member of the Reading community? I wonder.
LikeLike
Posted by Peter Saman on February 27, 2012 at 07:50
I’m impressed with Laird’s encompassing perspective on this issue. This approach holds within it the possibilities for discussion, moving beyond political posturing, to in-depth problem solving.
LikeLike
Posted by Russell Pejouhy on February 29, 2012 at 19:38
I find the whole situation with the Select Board, A&B property and unspent FEMA money like a kid who finds money and can’t wait to spend it. As someone who used the Holt Bridge every day for the past 36 years, I mourn its loss, yet I agree with the decision not to replace it. There are flood related projects which this community needs to focus on more than a (perhaps contaminated) parcel of land and a building that needs too many repairs. The Little Theater should be a priority project undertaken by the town. The Woodstock area will suffer from the loss of affordable daycare and other community activities if that building remains closed. The town should use FEMA money for flood related projects or return it and help reduce the deficit.
LikeLike
Posted by bill & Jenny Lamb on March 2, 2012 at 17:09
To the Town of Woodstock Voters
From the Lambs
Re: A&B Motors Property – 25 South Street
To clarify.
We acquired 25 South Street (A&B Motors) in September 2006, more than five years ago. Clean-up and ongoing testing have been underway ever since. All of our remediation actions have been undertaken with the full knowledge and support of Vermont’s Department of Conservation (VDEC).
We owned the property during the period when acquisition was considered at two successive town meetings. We chose to refrain from giving any input or even attending the meetings, as we believed some might see our input as biased and inappropriate. Back then, we had mixed feelings about selling the property to the town. We still do.
Last year we placed an announcement in the VT Standard inviting town residents to give input on the future use of the property. A copy of the announcement was also sent home with students from the Woodstock Elementary School. Based on the input we received, we concluded that a small development of four small houses would be a welcome and marketable use.
Last Spring, we voluntarily entered the property into Vermont’s Brownfields program so that final cleanup could be targeted for that use. The cleanup efforts and monitoring required under the Brownfields program are designed to insure the safety of the greater Woodstock community, and the future residents (including us), who will live on the site.
Our preliminary redevelopment plans were shared with town officials earlier this year. We have further refined the plans to conform with suggestions made by them. The concept plans “25 South Street Redevelopment – Converting a Brownfield Site to meet a community need” are available on the Web.
We were again recently approached to see if we might consider selling to the town. After considerable deliberation, we responded that we are not willing to give up our opportunity to live on the property. It is an ideal location, which will allow us to build an energy-efficient small house and attached garage, with easy access to all the village offers.
As a result, we are somewhat reluctantly willing to sell a portion of the site to the town. We have no personal preference whether the town buys part of the property, in which case we would build 2 residences, or whether we continue forward with our plans to build the four residences.
Regardless of the Town’s final decision, we intend to live at 25 South Street and look forward to being back in the Village after having been away for approximately 10 years. Our house and property in Norwich is now listed for sale. If you know someone who is interested in moving to Norwich, we hope you will tell them.
Based on the most recent tests and assessments by the Brownfields program, it looks likely that we will be able to begin construction of our home at 25 South Street (aka A & B), early this coming summer and be living there by this time next year.
Sincerely,
Bill and Jenny Lamb
LikeLike
Posted by Russell Pejouhy on March 3, 2012 at 10:07
It sounds like Bill and Jenny Lamb intend to develop the 25 South Street property soon.
So, why is the Woodstock Selectman Board still trying to acquire this property after the vote to purchase it already failed? The development would increase the tax base for the town and village rather than deplete it. No still means NO!
LikeLike