Flagpole developers air concern over moratorium proposal

Plans for a moratorium vote on large commercial building projects in Columbia Falls received a rebuke from organizers of the Flagpole of Freedom Park (FFP) at the November 28 select board meeting. "To potential investors, a moratorium could be devastating," said Tim Pease, attorney for Worcester Holdings, which has proposed the $1 billion project. The park has remained a top priority for the town since March 2022.
The moratorium proposal comes amidst a future vote by the town to annex 10,400 acres of Worcester-owned land from the unorganized territory into the coffers of Columbia Falls for the development of the park, which would include the tallest flagpole in the world, six history museums, a 9-mile memorial wall, hotel, shops and restaurants. The project would utilize over 2,500 acres and require significant infrastructure investment.
"This puts us in a hard spot should the town pursue the moratorium," said Rob Worcester at the select board meeting. "We are not going to get a lot of people to support the project under a moratorium." Selectman Jeff Greene asked Worcester what the organization's official position is on the moratorium. "We are clearly not in favor of it and yet recognize it is the prerogative of the town to decide," said Worcester. "We feel a moratorium is not necessary, because we will give the town plenty of time to do what it needs to do." Previously Worcester was quoted saying that should a moratorium be pursued organizers would move the project somewhere else.
Pease added, "This could damage the prospects of the project, and frankly it feels like a moratorium is premature. If the moratorium is being driven by what the project might look like, we don't know yet what the project will look like in terms of governance and so forth. We are worried this is going to do unnecessary damage and not really benefit the town in any way."
Aga Dixon, an attorney for the town, while appreciating the concern about investor reaction, believes it to be a solvable problem. "I suspect that a clear understanding about what a moratorium would do, and what it wouldn't do, will help alleviate investors' concerns," says Dixon. "Investors on projects such as these are smart, savvy, and I am confident that the Worcesters' legal and marketing teams can explain it to them."
Dixon points out that there are aspects of the project that could still be proposed by Worcester Holdings, whether there is annexation or not. She added that there is also development activity that can occur within the town regardless of the flagpole project and that is really the key reason for slowing things down.
"This town is not well positioned and is currently in total reactive mode," says Dixon. "Setting aside the flagpole project, this town could have a landowner or business propose some fairly large-scale development, and the town would have very little ability to consider its impact on the community. It's a risk that the town is taking on with every day that it doesn't have a robust regulatory framework in place."
Dixon again offered that a moratorium is not a mechanism to prohibit development and that it is a land use tool that temporarily defers permitting decisions on certain types of development. The intent is to give town officials time to prepare local regulations. Dixon says, "It allows the town to figure out what it wants for the community, because the scale and scope of the projects we are seeing were not contemplated during the town's comprehensive planning that occurred a few years ago."

Payment agreements still stalled
From the beginning, Worcester Holdings verbally committed to reimburse the town for costs associated with its due diligence for a future annexation vote. To date, $28,000 has been paid. In question now is a $15,000 invoice that remains unpaid. The original reimbursement plan proposed by the town had been rejected by Worcester Holdings because of the town's $150,000 escrow requirement.
"We stated back in August that we were requesting a hold on the town's annexation process," said Pease. "We paid what we thought were all of the costs to date. This $15,000 invoice surprised us, to say the least."
In August, Pease emailed then town attorney Roger Huber requesting the need for more time to determine the project's future. Worcester Holdings was seeking a four- to eight-week pause. The select board advised at the time that its due diligence related to annexation would move forward. "As I stated back in August and reiterate today our process on this matter will continue, because the ball is already rolling," said Greene at the November 28 meeting. The select board then acknowledged that this invoice clearly falls within the timeframe both parties were operating within. Two months after the August request Worcester and Pease advised the select board that the FFP project was receiving pushback from a number of national veterans organizations on the "for profit" status of the park. Pease also said that the primary issues remained to be fundraising and governance issues.
The FFP tax status is important to the town. Should the project operate as a nonprofit the town would reap no taxation benefits, one of the primary reasons the town would consider annexation of the land. "Their initial selling point for the project was that it would bring in significant tax dollars to the town," said Greene.
"This invoice has nothing to do with the moratorium process," said Dixon. "It has to do with us gearing up for a full comprehensive review of the annexation proposal. We did not know a pause was taking place nor how long that pause would be."
Regarding the outstanding payable, both Pease and Worcester acknowledged they were not saying "no" and that they needed time to discuss it and would have a formal response on the matter in a few days.
Moving forward, Dixon suggested that there be a temporary agreement where the cost over the next four to six months be equally shared by the town and Worcester Holdings. "The planning work was clearly triggered by the FFP project and would not only benefit their project but the town overall would benefit. It would allow the town to move forward in its planning efforts while giving the Worcesters the necessary time to firm up their project details."
It was acknowledged that, once this phase of planning is completed, the formal payment agreement would be revisited where Worcester would pay 100% of the costs associated with the town's due diligence work on annexation.
Worcester queried the board on what the cost would be and if they could get a summation of the work to be performed. Dixon thought the costs could be approximately $10,000 per month. Worcester agreed to take the 50/50 payment plan back to the organization before making a decision. "We're not crazy about putting any more money out because we may not end up going in the current direction," said Worcester. Both Pease and Worcester reiterated they would have a more definitive path forward for the project sometime in the first quarter of 2023. To date no application for the project has been submitted to the town.

Public workshops planned
Preparations are now under way for a series of public workshops that will address the development of the moratorium while allowing public engagement. The first workshop is set for Tuesday, December 13, beginning at 7 p.m.
"This first workshop will allow both the consulting and legal teams to hear from the town's officials about municipal expectations, needs and any important elements that the town would like to see in a local regulatory framework," says Dixon. "There certainly will be many other opportunities for the town to solicit public feedback, including at one or more public hearings to be scheduled in the future."
The Musson Group, a Southwest Harbor based planning consultancy specializing in land use and community planning, will be working with Dixon and attorney Amanda Methot to spearhead the workshops. Together the group will develop local rules aimed at addressing aspects of large-scale development projects and emerging uses that are not already covered by state and federal law. Specifically, they include those types of projects that have a substantial likelihood of altering the rural character of the community or impacting the town's public services and infrastructure, as well as its natural resources, absent local regulation.