Rauscher proponents rally for farm purchase at Sept. 12 vote

With just days remaining before the town will decide whether or not to buy the farm, supporters of purchasing the 62-acre Rauscher Farm on Clamshell Road are pulling out all the stops to rally support.

Last Thursday, the Open Space Acquisition Committee, the group tasked with finding funding to purchase the former dairy farm, and the Friends of the Rauscher Farm, a group of citizens helping the committee with fundraising efforts and disseminating information, hosted an informational forum to try and answer any questions or address any concerns the public might have had about the project.

During the forum, which was held at the Town Hall and attracted a significant group of residents, Committee member Frannie Hodge gave a PowerPoint presentation that outlined plans for the property, why it is important to buy the land now and the benefits to the town.

“We have applied for more than 100 grants to help purchase this land,” Hodge told the crowd. “This land is very much worth the money. There are a number of benefits to saving the last significant piece of open space in Clinton. This will help us curb residential sprawl and density, it protects habitat and wildlife in the area, including endangered species such as the four-toed salamander and yellow and pink lady slippers, and will allow us to install walking trails on the property so everyone can enjoy it.”

Hodge also explained the committee is looking into setting up and endowment fund to help maintain the trails.

At last year’s Town Meeting, voters approved exercising the town’s right of first refusal and placed a $200,000 deposit on the land to prevent it from being developed into 85 single-family homes by Pulte, a national development firm. Pulte was offering Fred Rauscher, owner of the land, $2.65 million for his farm; however, at this year’s Town Meeting, voters overwhelmingly voted to move forward with buying the property.

Now residents will have to turn out at the polls on Sept. 12 to pass a Proposition 2 1/2 debt exclusion, which will temporarily increase taxes to cover the cost of buying the parcel. Committee members hope to secure various state and federal grants to help offset the cost.

“We don’t know the exact amount of the bond because we will reduce it by whatever funds we have raised prior to closing on the property, the interest rate on the bond and the number of years for the bond,” Hodge said. “For the average home in Clinton, valued at $250,000, it will cost about 10 cents a day for 20 years to buy that land.”

Hodge also said if Pulte were to develop the land into 85 single-family homes that sold for $200,000 each, that would bring in about $17 million dollars for the developer. The purchase-and-sale agreement, however, specifies that 180 market-rate units at the property could be built on the land, Hodge said.

“If those units sold at something closer to current market values of $300,000, that would be a development worth $54 million,” Hodge said. “A developer would have costs associated with the development, so those numbers are not profit, but they do demonstrate that this parcel is worth a significant amount of money to the developer.”

As part of a grant application that could net the town up to $500,000 towards the farm’s purchase, the committee was required to get two independent appraisals on the true cost of the farm. Both appraisals came back at close to the $2.65 million offer by Pulte; one valued the property at $2.6 million and the other was $2.3 million.

“These are both respected independent real estate appraisal firms and their appraisals are scrutinized by the [state] Department of Conservation and Recreation for the $500,000 self-help grant we applied for,” said Joseph Notaro Jr., chairman of the Open Space Acquisition Committee and member of the Board of Selectmen.

Town Assessor David Baird, who several months ago told the Times & Courier that the town would be overpaying for the land if it paid the $2.65 million price, said he was not afforded the opportunity to see the appraisals, but he did have some reservations about the findings of both.

“I’m hesitant to comment on the appraisals because I don’t want to insult professional appraisals,” Baird said.

When told the appraisals came back with different values for the area that would be protected under a conservation restriction, Baird expressed concern. The appraisal from The Foster Company listed the conservation land at $520,000, while The Acadia Group listed the same parcel at $975,000.

“It’s highly unusual to have a 100 percent difference on the same piece of property from two different appraisers,” Baird said. “They did use different methods to create the appraisal, but it does strike me as unusual because I would expect a 5, 10 or even 20 percent difference, but a 100 percent difference is suspect.”

Citing sales of similar pieces of properties in surrounding towns, Baird said he has to stand by his previous assessment that Clinton will be paying too much money for the land if it buys it for $2.65 million.

“I stand by my assessment of the property, which is that it is valued at $718,400,” Baird said. “That number comes from a state formula, this isn’t something that I just made up. A similar property was just sold in Leominster that was 62 acres. It was on the market for $995,000 and it sold for $600,000. Fifty-two acres in Charlton was on the market for $1.5 million and it sold for $750,000.”

Baird said a reason for the discrepancies could be that the appraisals were assessing the land if it were going to be developed, and not as if it were going to be left as open space.

“There’s misinformation being spread about the land value by certain individuals that want to deep-six this purchase,” Notaro said. “This land will do nothing but increase in value over the long term, as is the case with real estate. The price was dictated by following Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 61A, which requires matching the buyer’s purchase-and-sale agreement. The price is fair and is not overpriced; try buying a house lot in Clinton.”

Hodge and Notaro also agree that more important than the cost is the opportunity the town has to leave a lasting asset to future generations. Both said if the town passes this opportunity, it will never get another chance to buy the land and it will be gone forever.

“If it’s developed, it’s lost forever and it would be a shame to destroy the last pristine area in town,” Notaro said. “This land will only increase in value over the years, but that’s not even the point, having a beautiful place to use and enjoy is the reason it is worth it. In fact, it’s priceless.”