Erving residents show support for $3.7M mill demo override 

By JULIAN MENDOZA

Staff Writer

Published: 04-25-2023 7:04 PM

ERVING — Residents voiced overwhelming support for a one-time capital exclusion override to fund demolition of the former International Paper Mill when polled during a public discussion at Erving Elementary School on Monday night.

The $3.7 million override, paired with a $600,000 Site Readiness grant from MassDevelopment, would fund a near-full demolition of the vacant complex, save for a pump house. Should the town move forward with the proposed override, residents would see an increase of $2.45 per $1,000 valuation in their tax rate for one year, while the commercial tax rate would increase by $4.03 per $1,000 valuation. This funding option, one of six outlined, would minimize the payment window and avoid drawing from Erving’s capital stabilization fund.

The property at 8 Papermill Road, valued at nearly $1.49 million, has sat vacant for two decades. After a century that saw eight buildings built from 1902 to 2000, International Paper “suddenly shuttered the mill” before selling it to a private developer who left the complex vacant and delinquent on property taxes, Town Planner Mariah Kurtz said previously. The town, which took control of the property in 2014 and has since failed to procure a developer, has cited safety concerns, insurance difficulties and development potential among the reasons for making the complex’s demolition a key priority in recent years.

“We’ve narrowed it down to saying if we’re going to do it, we don’t have the capacity in our levy limit to do it, so we would have to do some version of an override,” Selectboard member Scott Bastarache said before introducing the six funding options on Monday.

Option A, the most popular scenario, received around 20 votes from the group of about 30 people, whereas options B through F each received no more than three votes. Option A would fund the entire $3.7 million that is not accounted for by a grant through taxation, while only affecting one year of taxes and forgoing the need for a loan.

Given the $2.45 residential tax rate bump, Option A means a $245 tax impact for residential properties valued at $100,000, or about $585 for the average residential property valued at $238,352.

Furthermore, given the $4.03 commercial tax rate increase, this scenario entails a $402.53 tax impact on commercial and industrial properties for every $100,000. This equates to a $1,610 tax impact on the average commercial value of $400,000.

Options B and C would also avoid drawing from Erving’s capital stabilization fund, but would stretch out the spending window with a loan period of either three years or five years, respectively.

Article continues after...

Yesterday's Most Read Articles

Charlemont planners approve special permit for Hinata Mountainside Resort
$338K fraud drains town coffers in Orange
Greenfield residents allege sound and odor issues from candle, cannabis businesses
Fire at Rainbow Motel in Whately leaves 17 without a home
Hotfire Bar and Grill to open Memorial Day weekend in Shelburne Falls
Mohawk Trail’s Chay Mojallali sets school record in high jump as Franklin County contingent racks up titles at Western Mass. Division 2 Track & Field Championships (PHOTOS)

“The top three are, if we were to utilize the $600,000 grant, that would leave $3.7 million left that we would have to spend to tear down everything,” Bastarache explained. “If we took out no money from stabilization and we just utilized our own funding sources to do an override or an exclusion, those are the figures you would see.”

Meanwhile, options D through F propose spending scenarios over one, three or five years in exchange for lower tax increases, with capital stabilization money funding half the cost.

“The general opinion about taking things from stabilization is that we have a lot of things coming soon,” Selectboard Chair Jacob Smith explained, reasoning that pulling from the capital stabilization fund could impede the progress of forthcoming capital projects.

All figures presented at Monday’s forum were estimates aimed to fall within 5% to 10% accuracy, Assessor Jacquelyn Boyden said.

The Selectboard, Finance Committee and Capital Planning Committee opted not to vote on a funding option following the public discussion. They reasoned that waiting until after annual Town Meeting on May 10 to take a vote would not only allow them time to “digest” what was discussed, but would also allow a clearer sense of what the overall town budget looks like following Town Meeting decisions. Following a vote, the chosen funding option would be brought to a future Town Meeting for appropriation.

Reach Julian Mendoza at
413-930-4231 or jmendoza@recorder.com.

]]>