Chestertown Mayor Margo Bailey threw a Hail-Mary pass in last night’s council meeting to bring Washington College back into negotiations to buy the SFC John H. Newnam Armory from the town. After a public quarrel, Bailey convinced the council to take the matter into executive session, which yielded a new offer to WC in the midnight hour.
Bailey’s push for a new agreement came days after WC President Mitchell Reiss formally withdrew WC’s interest in buying the Armory. Reiss said escalating financial demands from the council became too expensive for the college to make the purchase. He also apologized for his role in the public controversy that plagued the negotiations.
“First, let me thank you for the time and effort that the Mayor, Members of the Council, and Town Manager have invested alongside the College in trying to find a way for the College to purchase the Armory, and for the proposal submitted to the College on October 21,” Reiss wrote. “Unfortunately, this issue has become controversial, and I apologize for whatever role I have played in that controversy. The process appears to have served neither of us very well.”
Bailey implored the council go back to the July 18 meeting and use the vision statement submitted by WC as the basis for a new offer. She was emphatic about removing any conditions placed on the agreement by Councilmen Marty Stetson, Gibson Anthony, and Jim Gatto regarding community access to the Armory, as well as financial participation from WC in the Rails-Trails project. Bailey’s proposal also disregarded the council’s unanimous offer made to WC in late October, which asked for three, four-year scholarships for local residents. Bailey referred to the unanimous offer as a “mistake.”
“I’d like to go back to where we were on July 18 when we approved this motion,” Bailey said in the public meeting. “I don’t want to lose the college on this. I think this is a perfect fit for our river front, and I’d like to put some of the past behind us and move forward with this project.”
Gatto said he was not interested in going back to the July 18 vision statement because WC had turned down the most recent offer that was made unanimously by the council in October. He said WC didn’t need the Armory and that jobs created from WC’s plans for the Alger Oil property would not increase with the addition of the Armory.
“They want it, but they don’t need it, and we don’t get any new jobs,” Gatto said. “WC said there were nine jobs they were going to create, but they can create them on their existing parcel.”
“Let’s not go back over anymore the ‘who-struck-johns.’ Let’s move forward.” Bailey responded. She asked again that the council consider the July 18 vision statement from WC as a new MOU.
Councilman Marty Stetson appeared irked at Bailey and said the motion on July 18 did not constitute an agreement.
“That motion was for negotiation with the college,” Stetson said. “We negotiated with the college and they refused to negotiate.”
Bailey reiterated that the July 18 vision statement should be considered in executive session without conditions of access, scholarships, or funding for Rails-Trails.
“I’m asking you again if we can go back and make this just about the Armory and not about trails or scholarships,” Bailey said. “Just a simple transfer where the college buys the Armory from the State of Maryland, and we attach an MOU with some of the details worked out.”
Several audience members expressed pessimism about alternatives for the Armory in the depressed economy.
Stetson responded that the Armory was worth $2.5 million, well above WC’s offer of $320,000, and Gatto said that alternatives for the Armory were never completely vetted because the property was never listed for sale. He said that it was the last 4.5 acre property on the upper Chester River with water and sewer, and that WC’s purchase would keep the property from ever being on the tax rolls.
Anthony closed the public meeting with a more optimistic view of the Armory’s future and questioned the need to rush a decision.
“In our impatience, are we forgetting the fact that this is something that will affect the future of Chestertown?” Anthony asked. “I refuse to be so pessimistic that Chestertown’s last waterfront commercial property will never be attractive to anyone.” He said the economy would eventually come back and alternatives for the Armory could work out very well for the town.
Gibson also reiterated WC’s assertion that it didn’t need the Armory to complete its environmental center on the Chester River.
Stetson, Gatto, and Anthony agreed to take the issue back into executive session. Gibson said he would only negotiate from the unanimous offered made by the Council in October. Stetson and Gatto said they would not change their positions at all.
Based on these comments, the Spy believes the vote was 3-2 to send a new offer to WC, with Anthony being the swing vote.
Although Anthony could not give the details of the offer to WC, he said that he had compromised on the unanimous offer made to WC on October, and not the July 18 motion.
Related Stories
Nov 16
Concerns over WC VP Holt Conflict of Interest
Nov 10
WC’s Reiss Issues Another Ultimatum on Armory; Ignores Council’s Unanimous Proposal
Nov 10
Open Letter to Town
Oct 18
Armory Breakthrough: WC Makes New Overture; Town Suddenly Finds Extra 100K for Rails-Trails
October 14
Town Gown Armory Deal Could Derail
September 20
Three Council Members Seek Greater Commitment from WC in Armory Deal
August 31
Chestertown Futures: WC Shares Concept Drawings and Vision Statement with Town
July 19
Town Approves Sale of Armory to Washington College
Rachel Goss says
TY Margo – Looking forward to the next report…
Charlie Dixon says
Dave, Thanks very much for the timeline.
And, Margo, thank you for your efforts.
We can only hope it works with your sage guidance this time.
Gibson, just bring another party to the table, and we will shut up.
Marty, just because you think a property is worth over 2 million doesn’t mean anyone will pay that price.
And Jim, we’ve heard enough from you.
Get it done. It’s best for everyone
Janet Brandon says
Get ‘er done….Let the leaders lead….Right on, Margo!!
Bill Ghio says
I’m not sure what the majority wants here, since there was no vote. But then, would the majority even go to the polls on this? And what polls? Is this a Chestertown issue or a Kent County issue? My own take sees the “majority” as wanting this to go to the college, despite Mr. Reiss’ bad behavior.
Reading your comments above, especially the last two, methinks you are as much a part of the problem as anyone.
Chris Cerino says
Let’s think about this for a minute – if the Armory is truly worth 2.5 million dollars, and it’s being sold by the State of Maryland for $320,000, why on earth isn’t there a long line of potential buyers interested in this property????? The fact of the matter is that the College is the only institution willing and able to take on this project considering the major restorations that need to be done to the property and the building itself, likely to the tune of several million dollars. This cost is prohibitive to any entity that would be looking to purchase the property and turn a profit. By God, let’s use some common sense here and get this deal with WAC done!!!! Kudos to the Mayor.
John Seidel says
The $2.5 million “value” bears no relationship to reality. The property is only assessed at $1.5 million, and appraisals these days are routinely coming in under the tax assessments. As an example, a one “million $” waterfront property in town recently had a contract signed for about half the assessment, and this is by no means unusual. Crank in the renovation costs and easement restrictions on the Armory, and the market value goes down even farther. You know the old saying – “it’s only worth what someone will pay for it.” In this case, that seems to be just over $300k.
Given this context, I don’t understand how Reiss or the College’s behavior can be construed as “bad” or “vitriolic.”. He has been up front about what the College can and cannot do, he clearly established this in the beginning – without an artificial, beginning negotiating position – and has simply reiterated this whenever a new and unrealistic “offer” has come from the Council. If you want to sell me your used car for $10,000 and all I can afford is $5,000 – and if that’s all I think it’s worth – it’s hardly vitriolic for me to tell you that and stick to what’s feasible for me.
eliott fuhrman says
please explain why town council is even involved, shoud just go to planning board. Town is not in title ,lost their option best they could have is match an offer.This building is a do-over become leed gold building.