Council tables decision on Chapter 61A sale after lengthy debate; asks law department for report

The Holyoke City Council on Tuesday tabled two related agenda items — a notification under M.G.L. Chapter 61A that a property owner intends to sell, and a subsequent request from Kestrel Land Trust that the city transfer its right of first refusal to the nonprofit — after extended debate about procedure and missing paperwork.

The measure to table items 39 and 40 passed on a roll-call vote, 11–2. Councilors John Givner and Meg McGrath Smith voted no; the other members present voted to table. The council then directed the Development & Government Relations Committee and the city law department to report back with clarification of outstanding legal and procedural questions.

Why this matters: The items involve a tract that was enrolled in Chapter 61A, the state statute that provides an agricultural tax classification and triggers a municipal notice-and-option period when the owner offers the land for sale. If the city exercises its option, under statute it must match the terms of the private purchase-and-sale agreement; alternatively the council can permit a qualified nonprofit to take the city’s place. Councilors and the solicitor said the city does not have the cash on hand to buy the property, and that a transfer to Kestrel would require clear written agreements spelling out the buildable and conserved acreage and the funding path.

What the council heard and debated - Attorney Abigail Bissonnette, the city solicitor, summarized the statutory framework for Chapter 61A notices, saying the notice had been properly filed and that the option period would expire at the end of the month unless the council took action. She told the council the city could either buy the land itself, transfer the city’s option to a conservation nonprofit, or allow the private sale to proceed. "That clock runs out the end of the week," she said.

- Multiple councilors pressed for more detail: Councilor Meg McGrath Smith told the meeting she prefers the council see draft transfer documents before approving any transfer of the city’s right. "We typically get the draft documents before we vote," she said, arguing for an operative agreement spelling out parcel boundaries and conditions before a council vote.

- Kestrel Land Trust’s letter of interest (item 40) prompted questions about timing, whether Kestrel had attempted to buy the property when it was offered on the open market, and what public benefit — such as permanently conserved acres — would result. Councilor Jenny Rivera and others noted Kestrel’s prior local conservation work and said a transfer could secure permanent protection for roughly seven acres while leaving a buildable lot, a compromise widely discussed during committee consideration.

- Some councilors voiced concern for the private buyer who holds a signed purchase-and-sale agreement and said the city should not interfere with private contracts when no public funds are at stake. Councilor Jose Bacon argued the buyer had followed the market process and that transferring the right to Kestrel would not provide an obvious benefit to the city.

Council action and next steps - Motion and outcome: The council voted to table items 39 and 40 together, which effectively preserves the status quo while the council requests legal and procedural follow-up. Roll call: Anderson Burgos (yes), Bartley (yes), Devine (yes), Givner (no), Graney (yes), Jourdain (yes), McGrath Smith (no), Murphy Ramboletti (yes), Ocasio (yes), I. Rivera (yes), Jay Rivera (yes), Sullivan (yes), Bacon (yes). Final tally: 11 yeas, 2 nays.

- Direction given: The council asked the city law department to prepare a report explaining any outstanding legal hurdles and to identify where the procedural or administrative hold-up exists. The Development & Government Relations Committee was directed to take the matter up for additional review and to report back to the full council.

Context and background - Chapter 61A: The statute gives municipalities a statutorily defined window to exercise a purchase option on land taxed as agricultural when the owner intends to sell. If the municipality declines or does not act, the private sale proceeds as contracted. The solicitor reminded the council that the option period is time-limited.

- Community stakes: Supporters of a conservation outcome said the parcel is contiguous or proximate to other conserved areas and could help create habitat corridors and passive-recreation space. Supporters of allowing the private sale emphasized enforceable private purchase-and-sale rights and the buyer’s existing contract.

What remains unresolved: The council did not adopt any substantive terms, nor did it exercise the city’s purchase option. Instead, it sought legal clarity and asked for a written agreement (if the council were to transfer the option) before taking final action. The Chapter 61A option will continue to run while the council and law department prepare the requested report.

Ending: The council’s action put a pause on a potential land-conservation outcome while it seeks clarity on how a transfer would be structured and whether the city can or should step into the purchase path. The DGR committee and the law department will return with a report for further council consideration.