Charles Town Main Street group urges city–county cooperation on downtown redevelopment study; city attorney outlines legal paths

Charles Town Now, the city’s Main Street nonprofit, told the Charles Town City Council on June 16 it has a consultant ready to study redevelopment of the 100 block of East Washington Street and asked only for cooperation from the city and county so fundraising and contracting can proceed.

“My primary purpose here this evening is to help members of the community understand how and why Charles Town Now is involved in the discussion of the redevelopment of the 100 block of East Washington Street,” said Anne Vanessa, president of Charles Town Now. She described a proposed market assessment and per‑building pro‑formas, a developer-ready marketing prospectus, and a timeline that Place in Maine would follow beginning in late September or October 2025 with deliverables due in February 2026.

Vanessa warned that uncertainty about county cooperation has paused the nonprofit’s fundraising and risks losing the consultant. “All we’re asking for is cooperation to move forward with [the] study, which will help us formulate a real plan moving forward,” she said, adding that Charles Town Now is not requesting county funding or city staff resources.

City Attorney Stephanie Grove told council members the city and county have several legal paths if they decide to move the buildings off county hands. She said the county could sell at public auction or transfer property to another governmental entity, but that counties are generally restricted from leasing property to private parties. Transferring properties to an entity with broader authority — such as a building commission, a jointly created Urban Renewal Authority (URA), or a Land Reuse Agency (LRA) — would expand marketing and redevelopment options, she said.

Grove described differences between the two joint‑agency models: a URA typically requires a redevelopment plan and can operate in defined slum or blighted areas, while an LRA can operate with greater flexibility and does not require a redevelopment plan, making it a potentially easier vehicle for the city and county to use for these buildings. She also noted that both LRA and URA boards are appointed under statute and that the agencies can be structured by ordinance or agreement to define how proceeds are distributed.

The presentation included background on prior council actions: Vanessa said city staff drafted an MOU with Charles Town Now after an April 21 executive session and that the council unanimously approved the MOU on May 5 to partner on the study and reduce the city’s cost by allowing the nonprofit to pursue grant sources unavailable to government entities. Vanessa said the nonprofit paused at least one planned grant application in early June because of uncertainty about county cooperation.

Council members asked how an LRA or URA would differ from a building commission and whether the city could proceed without county participation. Grove said the county could create a similar entity on its own but that a joint agency allows both the city and county to appoint members and share responsibilities. She emphasized that agencies such as an LRA or URA are generally eligible for grants and have broader economic‑development authorities than a standard building commission.

The council recessed before the public‑comment period; the chair said members of the public may sign up to comment during the next meeting. A county‑hosted town hall on the topic was scheduled for July 17, but Charles Town Now said waiting for that event would risk losing the consultant and delay the study’s start.

What happens next: Charles Town Now and city staff have an approved MOU; the nonprofit said it is prepared to proceed with consultant contracting if the county cooperates. The city attorney said legal pathways exist for transfer or joint governance, and council members continued to ask questions about the best vehicle for marketing and selling the properties.