NORTH ADAMS, Mass. — The City Council on Tuesday approved an initial step toward the sale of some 218 acres in Vermont that was part of the Broad Brook watershed. 

 

But it rejected unanimously an offer for the city's salt yard. 

 

Mayor Richard Alcombright had tried four years before to put the Pownal, Vt., land on the market along with several other parcels. 

 

"We don't see any real use for it for the city," he told the council. "It is part of a watershed and in a sense, we don't protect anymore. It's abutting some sanctuary land and also some land preserved or owned by the state of Vermont. ... It just doesn't have the logging value that entire parcel had years ago. 

 

"We just think it's time to basically, cash it out and utilize those  cash assets to do other projects within the city." 

 

The 218 acres had been put forth with another 420 acres on West Shaft Road and in Stamford, Vt., back in 2013. But while the other lots were approved for sale, the Pownal land was held back by councilors who felt it would be worth more in the future.

 

But on Tuesday, the council was ready to sell the land, 7-1, and hold onto the industrially zoned salt yard based on the possibility it could be worth more than the $50,000 bid on it. 

 

The Pownal land is made up of several parcels, including one with a long-vacant caretaker's house, a pump station, dam and reservoir once used as part of the city's water supply. 

 

Councilor Robert R. Moulton Jr. felt that there was still potential for the land to worth more if the city held on to it, such as for logging. 

 

"It maybe more advantageous to get rid of the parcel with the house on it," he said. There also was the potential for logging on the land that could bring in revenue. "I think it's an asset," Moulton continued, suggesting the parcel with the house could go for six figures. 

 

But Councilor Wayne Wilkinson, a commercial real estate appraiser, thought the town's assessment of $378,300, which hasn't changed in four years, was "out of this world high." 

 

"Typically when we're appraising property up there, it's somewhere between $500 and $1,000 an acre," he said. 

 

The mayor said  he would consider $1,000 an acre good because that's about the price the city got when it sold off another 3,100 adjacent acres back in 2005. 

 

"It's raw land," he said, "unless the city wants to get in the business of improving parcels, which we don't want to do. It is what it is."

 

Councilor Keith Bona questioned holding on to land that is costing the city $7,200 a year in taxes but is not doing anything. If the city held onto it for another 10 years, he said, it would cost a minimum $72,000. But there was no guarantee the value of the land would improve over that time. 

 

"We could be paying half the value of the land in taxes," Bona said.

 

"I think money in the bank is a whole lot better than money on a hill," the mayor said. "To have those reserves there for things we need to do, we have a multitude of capital projects in front of use."

 

Councilor Lisa Blackmer reminded councilors that the funds would go into the separate land sales account, not in the general budget. The mayor concurred, noting it would require special legislation to move the money for certain uses because of how restrictive the reserve account was. 

 

Alcombright said he would be fine with the land being sold for conservation uses and that the city wasn't in a position to add value by putting roads, or other utilities.. Wilkinson said appraisers look for the "highest and best use" and that in this case it may not be the development of the property, believing that breaking it up would not be the use, nor would holding onto it for development. 

 

Moulton still thought it would behoove the city to get a better appraisal of the property, and to consider the timber on it. Maybe it should be reassessed, he said. 

 

Councilor Eric Buddington, however, thought that seeking a lower assessment would not be prudent while the city was looking to sell the land. 

 

"I would support putting it out there to see if people want it ... if it comes in at $70,000 then in 10 years, we won't be making anything on it," Bona said. "If it comes back at a lower figure, it tells us what that land is worth. ... In the meantime, we could find out what we could make for logging."

 

Alcombright said any purchase and sales agreement would have to come before the council so it could make a decision at that time. 

 

Councilors weren't as convinced that there was less value in the salt yard, one of five properties recently put up for sale. The yard on Ashland Street was appraised several years ago with a value of $125,000; the only bid was for $50,000 by John Duquette of Berkshire County Construction. 

 

Wilkinson said this was another case of "best and highest use" in that the largely unrestricted industrial zone parcel may carry future value. 

 

For one, he said, there was potential for a public safety building to be placed there. It was also one of the few open industrial  plots, and if the buyer sells it a few years later for $200,000, they would look like fools, he said. 

 

"I don't think it's in the city's best interest to sell this for $50,000 when we may have a huge need for this in the future," he said. "I think it's premature.

 

Moulton agreed that it may be worth more. If Duquette wanted the use of the space for storage, he said, "maybe we can lease him this space."

 

Alcombright said the parcel wouldn't be up to the standards required for a public safety building but did acknowledge the zoning for the lot could see its value increase — but didn't think it would happen. 

 

"I don't see it being developed in the future, I don't see a downside in selling it, other than we could do a little better on the price," he said. "The less property we can be managing and the more cash we can bring in, the better off we will be over time."

 

Buddington said he agreed with the mayor's philosophy of not holding onto property but in this case, didn't see the rush to get rid of this one. 

 

The vote was unanimous in rejecting the offer, with Bona abstaining from the discussion and vote because of a business relationship. 

 

In other business: 

 

• Resident Peter May, during open forum, read a fiery statement asking for a council resolution supporting the impeachment of Donald J. Trump. Lamb, however, asked at several points for him to end his statement, saying attacks on individuals were not allowed. Buddington, during councilor's concerns, said political criticism should not be confused with personal attacks. 

 

• The council gave final approval to an ordinance change requiring meeting minutes, at least in draft form, be available within two weeks of a government meeting. 

 

• The council affirmed 7-1 a borrowing order of $783,910, with Moulton voting against. He had also voted against it last meeting, saying because he wanted more discussion on the items and possible alternatives before such an amount.

 

• The council approved a transfer of $4,000 from the Tinker Fund to the cemetery expense account for use in the restoration of Hill Side Cemetery. 

 

• Passed to a second reading and publication an ordinance change removing the two metered parking spots on the west side of American Legion Drive near the hotel parking lot. A new process of eliminating the spots had been debated and rejected, leading to the regular action voted on Tuesday.