3/13/07 Special committee wraps up fact finding

(As published by Cortland Standard, Corey Preston reporting)

The special legislative committee aimed at looking into the county’s aborted land deal on south Main Street completed the fact-finding portion of its work Monday, after hearing from County Attorney Ric Van Donsel on potential legal fallout surrounding the deal.
The committee will meet again at 7 p.m. Tuesday in the County Office Building, to go through all of the information it has gathered and to get a sense of what, if any, sort of recommendation the committee will make to the full Legislature.
At Monday’s meeting, Van Donsel rehashed the legal challenge to the county’s decision to reconsider its initial vote to purchase $894,000 worth of property along south Main Street, and said he still felt the Legislature’s action was appropriate.
He also offered estimated damages — ranging from between $6,000 and $180,000 in monetary damages, to an order to simply purchase the properties at the agreed $894,000 price — that the county could be obligated to pay should a judge rule against it.
Property owners involved in the deal claim that the Legislature’s original decision to purchase the properties represented a binding agreement, and are asking the county to go through with the purchases, or expect a lawsuit.
Because its rules allow the Legislature to reconsider resolutions any time up until its next business session, the move to reconsider the acquisitions was appropriate, Van Donsel said, as any agreement with the county isn’t formally sealed until after that opportunity to reconsider has passed.
“That’s the uniqueness of dealing with a municipality,” Van Donsel said.
Legislature Chairman Marilyn Brown (D-8th Ward) pointed out during the meeting that legislative rules say that a contract can’t be reconsidered if the parties involved have been officially notified of an agreement.
Brown asked whether letters sent by Van Donsel to property owners after the initial decision should be considered notification, prohibiting reconsideration.
Van Donsel said no, primarily because he had not yet received an abstract, a deed or any of the other documentation necessary for completing the deal.
Hypothetically, if there was a serious problem with the deed for one of the properties for instance, the county would still have the right to reconsider in light of that problem, Van Donsel said.
“The rule is there to provide security for taxpayers,” he said.
Should the county opt not to go through with purchasing the properties, should the promised lawsuit proceed, Van Donsel said he could only speculate regarding the damages the county might face.
Van Donsel calculated the assessed value of all of the properties involved in the deal at $695,800, and subtracted that number from the purchase price to arrive at a figure of $173,200 that he said might represent the high end of damages awarded, assuming the county is not ordered to simply purchase the properties.
Van Donsel also noted that market value for the properties is likely higher than assessed value, and added that additional damages related to various fees for each property owner could total about $6,600.