Eureka agreement proves elusive

The state cannot pay for commercial upgrades to the historic Eureka Schoolhouse as it would be a violation of its mission, the state historic preservation officer told the Springfield Select Board on Monday.
http://rutlandherald.com/article/20140618/THISJUSTIN/706189965

Eureka agreement proves elusive By Susan Smallheer Staff Writer | June 18,2014 Email Article Print Article SPRINGFIELD — The state cannot pay for commercial upgrades to the historic Eureka Schoolhouse as it would be a violation of its mission, the state historic preservation officer told the Springfield Select Board on Monday. Laura Trieschmann said the requests outlined by Select Board member George McNaughton that the small schoolhouse be upgraded to include running water, electricity and wifi — were beyond the historic preservation office’s authority. The state has proposed giving the 1790 schoolhouse — believed to be the oldest one-room schoolhouse in the state — to the town, along with the neighboring Baltimore Covered Bridge. But the town has had a multitude of questions about the transfer, including the condition of the schoolhouse, which has served as a summer visitor’s center for the past 40 years or so. Trieschmann said Tuesday in a follow-up interview that the town’s concerns about maintenance and historic covenants to the building were reasonable to ask. She and Town Manager Robert Forguites said that the transfer was still under consideration, but far from an agreed exchange. Trieschmann said the state had to “explore” how best to serve the building, and how it would be best used. “It has not been given the attention it deserves in the past couple of years,” Trieschmann said. The schoolhouse is far from a pristine historic property. The schoolhouse has been moved three times, Trieschmann said, and was reconstructed in the mid 1960s. McNaughton said that the town had to protect its budget and bottom line ahead of preserving the Eureka Schoolhouse, and he asked whether there shouldn’t be an inspection before any transfer took place. McNaughton, who has advocated using the schoolhouse as a shop for local products, even a small coffeehouse, said the building would need to be wired, water brought into the building and Internet service and wireless service established. “If the state is not willing to help, why on Earth would we want to step in?” McNaughton said. While the two sides seemed far from an agreement Monday, they agreed to continue talking. Other Select Board members David Yesman and Peter MacGillivray questioned Trieschmann and Dale Azaria, staff counsel for the Agency of Commerce, about the historic covenants that would be attached to the building. “You wouldn’t buy a home that hadn’t been inspected and brought up to code,” said MacGillivray. Trieschmann said if the schoolhouse was eventually transferred to Springfield, maintaining the exterior look of the building would be the state’s priority. Afterward Trieschmann said the dialogue would continue. “We’re just opening up the option, ‘would this work for you?’ If it doesn’t, we’re going to explore how we should be marketing it as a site to visit. It’s not an effort to save money, it’s an effort to better help these historic resources and open them up to the public,” she said. The building would not be sold, she said. “That was never an option.”