6/11/07 (?) - Generator bids for County Office Building too high

June 11?? I need to type in the C-S article on this one, I looked back through the archives and couldn't find it on line.

I am sure I kept it, but basically the bids came back too high... go figure!

I have found out since that the County pulled originally pulled together a generic spec for a generator with all the bells and whistles, such as huge walk around enclosure, super sound attenuation (noise deadening), and made it TWICE as large as the building load.

The walk through consisted of handing out the County's standard contract agreement, the generic spec, and a point to the location of where the County wanted to see the generator go.

That's it. Really. But it's not on the EMINENT DOMAIN property, or so we're told by the County - See the STORY HERE from the Cortland Standard

No drawings, no engineering, just a spec and a point to the location. No liability on a professional, the contractor.

That is exactly why the pricing came in as high as it did. All the contractors were licking their chops on this one. No documents to hold them to scope. Then when the installation occurs, they will squeeze even more dollars out in 'change orders', as they weren't given all the details.

Who pays for this? Taxpayers!

By the way, check out my first email to the County Legislators on 12/31/07 where I flagged the $180,000 project as TOO LOW!!

The low bid on the generator project??? OVER $400,000!

Think Ahead - Ask questions!!!!!!!!

6/23/07 - Courthouse work nears completion

Main park entrance to reopen sometime shortly after July 4

(As published by Cortland Standard, Corey Preston reporting)

For years, entering the Cortland County Courthouse has meant coming in through a back entrance, making your way down a dimly lit, low-ceilinged hall in the basement, passing through security and hiking up a set of stairs before it’s finally apparent that you’re in one of the area’s most impressive buildings.

In a matter of weeks, that will all change.

Phase one of the extensive renovations to the Courthouse is nearly complete, county officials said Friday, with the most significant change the reopening of the historic front entrance of the building, which overlooks Courthouse Park.

While the exact opening date of the front entrance is still unsure — County Administrator Scott Schrader said that original plans to have it opened by July 4 may have to be pushed back until the following week — work on renovating the front entrance and preparing for the relocation of security is nearly complete.

When the entrance does open, visitors to the Courthouse will enter through the door furthest right atop the courthouse steps, pass through a small security room, and then find themselves in the first floor lobby, beneath the soaring, ornate domed roof, said Security Coordinator Maxine Ripley.

“It’s going to be really nice, definitely a lot different than it used to be,” Ripley said Friday, as she showed off much of the work that’s been done so far.

Schrader said that ultimately the opening of the main front entrance could allow for a separate employee entrance in the basement, and should allow for improved security.
“And frankly, it provides a more professional appearance,” he said.

Currently the only work remaining is a punch list of small issues for the contractors to iron out, Schrader said, details that may have been overlooked or not completed.

6/20/07 - County working on list of DMV sites

(As published by Cortland Standard, Corey Preston reporting)

A special legislative committee Tuesday reviewed criteria for a new motor vehicle office, hoping to narrow a long list of potential sites by its next meeting.

The committee is looking at ways to address the county’s numerous space needs and has opted to first focus on the motor vehicles office, which is now in the County Courthouse basement.
Committee Chairman Carol Tytler (D-3rd Ward) said that based on conversations with County Clerk Elizabeth Larkin and her staff a new office needs:
* at least 2 acres of space able to accommodate a 4,000-square-foot, single-story building;
* access to public water, sewer, and other utilities;
* location within the city or the town of Cortlandville;
* space for up to 50 parking spaces; and
* proximity to other county services and law enforcement agencies for security purposes.

Tytler asked county Maintenance Supervisor Brian Parker to look at the 11 possible sites he presented to the committee in executive session at its last meeting, and eliminate those that do not have adequate space or connection to public utilities.

Parker said he would give a shorter list to the committee before its July 3 meeting, and Tytler said she was hopeful a request for proposals from real estate agents would also yield results by then. “Ideally I’d like to narrow it down to two or three good options so that we can then bring it to the Legislature, bring it to the public, and decide what the best possible location is,” she said.
Althou

gh the committee agreed on the primary criteria in looking for a site, some variables were still on the table, such as security.

One of the primary criticisms of the current DMV office is that residents have to pass through courthouse security and a metal detector for business as simple as dropping off old license plates.

Still, the added security at the courthouse is helpful at times, said Anthony Camilli, director of the motor vehicle office. “There are certainly times when people get riled and of course it’s good to have security right there,” Camilli said.

The committee held off on deciding whether a drive-through window, which could handle certain types of DMV business, would be necessary at the new location.

Tytler asked Camilli to work with Larkin to develop an analysis of how much business a drive-through window would be able to handle, and whether it would be worth the cost.

Tytler also said she was awaiting an analysis from Larkin regarding where the DMV’s business comes from, and whether a site closer to Tompkins, Cayuga or Onondaga counties could draw the most outside business for Cortland County.

The committee agreed, however, the motor vehicle office should be in a high-traffic volume, high-visibility area.

6/19/07 - County faces third suit over land deal

(As published by Cortland Standard, Corey Preston reporting)

A third property owner involved in the aborted Cortland County land deal on south Main Street has initiated legal action against the county.

While the requested damages — Annamaria Maniaci, who sold her property after the county backed out of the deal, is asking for $4,002 — are significantly less than the potential damages in the other two ongoing cases, county officials were concerned that more lawsuits would follow.
Maniaci’s notice of claim, sent to County Administrator Scott Schrader, points out that while Maniaci was ultimately able to sell her house at 8 Randall St. for more than the county had originally agreed to pay, she still incurred a number of costs after the county backed out of the deal.

The county had originally agreed to purchase Maniaci’s property for $96,000 in December 2006.

After the county Legislature voted to overturn that original decision in January, Maniaci sold the property in March for $104,900.

Although she wound up selling the property for $8,900 more than the county had agreed to pay, Maniaci’s notice of claim identifies $12,902 in expenditures that would not have been incurred had the county gone through with the deal, resulting in the request for $4,002 in damages.
The expenses include a $5,294 real estate commission, which the county would have paid, and in fact did pay to Cinquanti Real Estate, despite the annulment of the sale, under its agreement with Maniaci.

Maniaci also claims about $5,300 in city and school taxes paid, a total of about $1,000 for a survey done as part of the agreement and the installation of new circuit breakers after a home inspection, and about $300 in gas, electric and water and sewer costs.

Finally, the claim also cites $948.75 in attorney fees for the law offices of Riehlman, Shafer and Shafer, where County Attorney Ric Van Donsel is employed, for work done that was caused by the annulled contract.

6/13/07 - Legislator Kay Breed will not seek re-election

(As published by Cortland Standard, Corey Preston reporting)

One of the most outspoken Republican members of the Cortland County Legislature has decided not to seek re-election, and candidates from both parties are lining up to replace her.

Kay Breed, a representative of Cortlandville, said Tuesday that she would not seek re-election, citing frustration with “the lack of direction” by the Legislature during the last two-year term.

Meanwhile, Gene Waldbauer, a member of the Cortlandville Planning Board, has announced his intent to run for Breed’s seat as a Republican, while Mary Claire Pennello, a longtime educator and the mother of Matt Pennello, who lost to Breed by six votes in the 2005 election, is seeking the seat as a Democrat.

Breed, who served two, two-year terms as a legislator, said she was tired of “beating my head against the wall.”
“My biggest concern of all is that people who sit on the Legislature are just not asking questions,” Breed said. “Meanwhile every time I ask a question, people act like it’s unimportant … People say things like, ‘Oh, you’re just trying to block things,’ but I’m not, I’m trying to get answers before we decide.”

Breed was critical of the current leadership in the Legislature, and of County Administrator Scott Schrader. “I think Mr. Schrader is trying to usurp some of the legislative powers — I ask for a follow up on figures and facts, and I never get it,” she said. “I think we just have very weak leadership right now, there doesn’t seem to be any direction on where we’re going.”

Legislature Chairman Marilyn Brown (D-8th Ward), when told about Breed’s comments, said she felt the Legislature has made progress, especially financially. “We’ve been able to keep taxes under control, we’ve gotten the finances under control, and we’ve improved our Constitutional Tax Limit, so I think this Legislature has certainly moved forward,” Brown said. “If Mrs. Breed has made suggestions that haven’t been accepted by the Legislature, that’s because one legislator doesn’t make all the decisions, and in those cases the other members didn’t agree with her.”

Waldbauer, who has been a member of the Cortlandville Planning Board for three years, said that he’s looking forward to talking with constituents in the area, learning about the issues.
“I’ve got to educate myself, learn what the people are most concerned about, so I can truly represent them,” Waldbauer said. “This is the first I’ve really talked about it with anybody, but I’m excited, I think I can do a lot.”

An account manager for commercial air conditioning company Trane, Waldbauer was born and raised in Cortland before moving for 10 years to the West Coast with his wife, Rhonda. The Waldbauers and their two children moved back to the area five years ago, he said.

If elected, Waldbauer said he hoped to bring an open mind to the Legislature. "I always have an open mind, an ability to look at both sides of an issue, and I think that’s important,” he said.

From the Democratic Party, Pennello jokingly called running “a family tradition,” after her son Matt’s narrow loss to Breed in 2005. “I have three sons, and I want to be able to help develop the strongest possible county so that they have a future here and they don’t feel like they have to leave,” Pennello said.

A former teacher and administrator, Pennello said she wanted to focus on helping Cortlandville develop infrastructure for its ongoing economic development, and on making sure businesses that come to the town are responsible. “There’s an awful lot of potential out here in Cortlandville that I believe has not been tapped, but we need to make sure the businesses that do come here fulfill their responsibility,” she said. “I don’t want it to become like a dumping ground.”

The Cortland County Democratic Committee will formally nominate candidates for positions Thursday night.

Yesterday was the first day potential candidates for all elected offices in the county could seek signatures on designating petitions, which are to be filed between July 16 and July 19.

6/8/07 - County panel looks at DMV

(As published by Cortland Standard, Corey Preston reporting)

A special legislative space-needs committee met for the first time Thursday morning, focusing primarily on relocating the county’s motor vehicle office, which the committee agreed would be the easiest of its needs to address.

The committee reviewed, in executive session, 11 potential sites for the DMV from county Buildings and Grounds Supervisor Brian Parker, who said the sites were “a conglomeration of all the ideas I’ve heard” over the past few years.

Committee Chairman Carol Tytler (D-3rd Ward) said after the meeting that the 11 properties are a mix of sites suggested by legislators in the past, sites identified by Parker and sites suggested by real estate agents.

The sites are not all necessarily on the active market, Tytler said, and there are sites both in the city and outside the city.

The committee also decided to send out a request for proposals to local real estate agents soliciting more potential sites.

“I think this was a chance for us to look at everything that’s been considered before, but the next step is to sit back and discuss what the needs actually are,” Tytler said.

County Clerk Betsy Larkin will be invited to the committee’s next meeting, scheduled for June 19, to discuss issues such as the ideal location for the DMV based on who uses the office, space needs and other departmental issues. Larkin oversees the operation of the local DMV office.
County Administrator Scott Schrader will also be asked at that meeting about the pros and cons of leasing a property versus purchasing one, Tytler said.

The special committee was formed to look at three critical county space needs: new space for the department of Mental Health, new or increased space for the county jail and new space for the DMV office.

“DMV just seems like the easiest project to get going right now,” said Legislator John Daniels (D-Cortlandville). “I think we should get it out of the Courthouse, clear a little space and then go from there.”

The committee discussed the possibility — brought up a few months ago in a County, City, Towns, Villages and Schools Committee meeting — of setting up temporary satellite DMV offices in outlying locations such as Marathon, but CCTVS Co-chair Larry Cornell (R-Marathon and Lapeer) said a request for $33,000 to fund satellite offices had been pulled from the state budget.

“I think if we can get the DMV in a good central location where we can have it open once or twice a month on weekends or evenings, it’s going to be a real benefit to the people, we might not even need a satellite office,” Cornell said.

6/2/07 - Moose Lodge suit against county in court

(As published by Cortland Standard, Corey Preston reporting)

If the apparent skepticism of the presiding judge is any indication, the county may soon again be looking at purchasing property along south Main Street, this time by court order.

Supreme Court Judge Phillip R. Rumsey heard arguments in the Moose Lodge’s lawsuit against Cortland County on Friday at the County Courthouse.

Rumsey did not immediately make a decision in the case — his office was unsure when one would come — but he appeared unconvinced by County Attorney Ric Van Donsel’s argument that the Legislature had the right to overturn its original vote to purchase the Moose Lodge for $250,000.

Rumsey seemed concerned with the rights of the Moose Lodge as the other half of the purchase agreement, pointing out a number of times to Van Donsel that, in spite of a number of different arguments, “there still was a contract.”

Van Donsel argued that, despite a vote to purchase the Moose Lodge property on Dec. 21, the Legislature’s rules of order allowed it to reconsider the purchase at its Jan. 25 meeting.
The vote to reconsider led to a “re-vote” on the original resolution to purchase, and that subsequent re-vote failed.

The ability to reconsider is available to legislators to change “hasty actions,” allowing the Legislature to “protect the taxpayers,” Van Donsel said.

The motion to reconsider must come within a month after the original vote, Van Donsel said, and the Moose Lodge should have been aware of this option and not assumed that the contract was formally accepted until that time period had passed.

By this logic however, Rumsey pointed out, the Legislature’s rules trump the power of the contract.

One of those rules, its ability to “rescind” — another way the Legislature can revoke a vote that, unlike a “reconsideration,” carries no time restrictions — could put the other party in a perpetually uncertain position, he said. “So your argument is that, right up until the date of closing, (the county) can rescind?” Rumsey asked.

Van Donsel suggested that hypothetically, once the sale reached a certain point, with a “significant effort” by the sellers to submit paperwork and move forward with closing, a rescission would no longer be a possibility.

Rumsey remained skeptical. “The sellers have to question at what point have they made enough of a significant effort that they don’t have to worry about rescission,” Rumsey said.
The lawsuit asks that the court either order the county to go through with the purchase or simply pay the Moose Lodge the full price of $250,000.

To date, only one of the other five property owners involved in the total $894,000 south Main Street land deal have filed suit against the county.

The suit, from the owners of Robbins Tobacco, also claims that the county had broken a binding contract, and requests that a judge either order the county to purchase the property for the agreed-upon $300,000, or pay $120,000 in damages.

5/25/07 - County begins process to seize house for office building parking

(As published by Cortland Standard, Corey Preston reporting)

The Cortland County Legislature voted Thursday to begin the process of seeking to acquire a property next to the County Office Building, a move that could ultimately yield between 25 and 30 additional parking spaces and could cost about $187,000.

Questions lingered about how much the county will ultimately have to pay for the property, whether the impact will be worth the cost and potential legal complexities with the acquisition, but legislators were assured that, as those questions are answered, they would again have the chance to consider the acquisitions.

Thursday’s 16-2 vote authorized County Attorney Ric Van Donsel to move forward with seeking to acquire the property at 13-15 Elm St., which comprises two houses and a garage on an 80-foot-by-156-foot lot owned by Pierre Beaudry, through eminent domain.

“That house is a mess and someone’s got to clean that property up,” said Legislator Ron Van Dee (D-5th Ward). “This gives the county attorney a chance to go forward and negotiate.”

The property, which has been condemned by the county Health Department and has accrued $33,777 in back taxes owed to the city, would be used to expand the County Office Building parking lot, County Administrator Scott Schrader said.

The property would provide between 25 and 30 additional spaces in the lot, Schrader guessed, although he said an engineering design would need to be done to maximize the parking on the parcel.

Initial acquisition discussions included discussion of placing a new emergency generator on the parcel, but Schrader said that the generator would be placed closer to the building and that the parcel in question would only be used for parking.

THIS IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT FROM THE 5/9/07 CORTLAND STANDARD ARTICLE (SEE BELOW)

PURCHASED THE GENERATOR LAST FALL? I DON'T THINK SO!

Responding to questions about the ultimate cost of the property, Schrader and County Attorney Ric Van Donsel said a judge would determine fair market value for the property, likely based on appraisals offered by the county and by the property owner.

Schrader suggested after the meeting that the property’s current assessed value of $187,500 was as good a guess at a starting point as any in terms of the final ruling, but added that several mitigating factors, including that the property has been condemned, could influence the final valuation.

“The first step is to obtain the value so we know where we’re headed,” Van Donsel said. “Once we get an appraisal, we can come back and talk about the numbers.”

Should the potential cost of the property outweigh the positive impact, the county doesn’t have to move forward, Van Donsel said.

5/25/07 - Handling of land deal criticized in lawsuit response

(As published by Cortland Standard, Corey Preston reporting)

The county has filed its own motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit filed against it by the Moose Lodge, echoing the plaintiff’s request that a judge make a speedy ruling based solely on the facts involved.

County Attorney Ric Van Donsel asserts in his motion that the county had the right to reconsider the purchase of the Moose Lodge property for an agreed price of $250,000, along with the purchases of a number of other parcels along south Main, William and Randall streets.

Using affidavits from three legislators outlining the misgivings they had about the deal and the way it was handled, Van Donsel also argues that the Legislature had “the duty to employ its rules in furtherance of its role as stewards of the public’s money.”

Finally, Van Donsel states that the Moose Lodge “acted at its own peril by failing to timely deliver its title documents and understanding (the Legislature’s) process,” in requesting that the judge rule in favor of the county.

Arguments in the case are scheduled to be heard by Supreme Court Justice Philip Rumsey at 3 p.m. June 1 in the Cortland County Courthouse.

Russ Ruthig, attorney for the Moose Lodge, essentially charges that the county’s initial vote in December to purchase the property represented a binding contract, and a subsequent vote to reconsider in January had no authority to break that contract.

Van Donsel, on the other hand, argues that the vote to reconsider was an appropriate action, and effectively nullified the contract.

Much of the argument in Van Donsel’s motion has been expressed before in public discussion and in previous motions in the suit, but the inclusion of affidavits from legislators and the focus on why the motion to reconsider was brought forward was new.

“I just think it’s interesting because the way Mr. Van Donsel is presenting the county’s case pretty much supports what I’ve been saying all along,” said Newell Willcox (R-Homer). Willcox was referring to complaints from him and other legislators that the land deal, which was intended to lead to the building of a new public health facility on south Main Street, was done without sufficient communication, both within the Legislature and between the county and the community.

Van Donsel said Thursday that the affidavits were an attempt to “give some meat to bones for the judge to evaluate.” “There’s no requirement that there be a reason for the reconsideration, but it was done in the public’s interest and it’s certainly not going to hurt to show that,” Van Donsel said.

The affidavits from Legislators Willcox, Sandy Price (D-Harford and Virgil) and Ron Van Dee (D-5th Ward) all focus on their issues with the way the project was conceived, implemented and announced, and in the case of Price and Van Dee — Willcox voted against the project from the start — discuss why they ultimately moved to reconsider the purchase

5/22/07 - Few changes as state takes over courthouse security

(As published by Cortland Standard, Anthony Sylor reporting)

Bob Ellis/staff photographer
New York State Courts Officer Bill Bracken inspects objects at the metal detector in the basement of the Cortland County Courthouse Friday, with fellow officer Carl Lanpher in background. Bracken and Lanpher are former Cortland County Sheriff’s Department officers who now work for the state, which has taken over security duties in courthouses.

Although the personnel and procedures will remain the same, security responsibilities in the Cortland County Courthouse are now under state control.
Since 1978 the state has contracted out the responsibilities to the Cortland County Sheriff’s Department, but starting last week the state Unified Court System took over the management of courthouse security, creating a new state operated police force to carry out the duties.
The change, which occurred locally Thursday, comes as part of a statewide initiative that will eventually create a unified state security personnel force in every county courthouse in the state.
“It was in the best interest of the state and the courts,” said Russ Oechsle, the district executive of the Sixth Judicial District in Binghamton.
The Unified Court System hired six sheriff’s officers — who have been contractually working as court security — to become full-time state employees. Oechsle said that the Unified Court System hired the officers because they are already familiar with the Courthouse, the procedures and regular court personnel.
“We are very pleased with the officers that we got,” he said. “We think this will be very successful.”
The only new officer in the building will be a sergeant who will be in charge of the officers on duty. Sgt. Dave Castner of Broome County has been undertaking the responsibilities since the change, but that responsibility may rotate to other sergeants from nearby counties depending on availability of personnel, said Security Coordinator Maxine Ripley.
Ripley said many of the former county officers received pay raises as a result of moving into the state system, and that all of their time toward retirement with the county will be accredited to the state.
“They are grandfathered in,” she said. “They are coming to us as if they are state employees.”
Ripley said each of the officers, who now wear blue state uniforms, will be paid $43,807 per year. Their usual duties include running the magnetometer, or metal detector, at the entrance of the courthouse, manning various security posts throughout the building and maintaining bailiff duties during court proceedings.
Officer Bill Bracken spent nearly 27 years with the Sheriff’s Department and was thinking of retiring before the transfer opportunity became available.
Bracken said as a veteran of the Sheriff’s Department, he was receiving the highest pay he could under the county system. Now as a state employee he will start at around the same pay as he was making with the county, but is able to look forward to a pay increase of around $2,300 each year.
“They told me I should consider looking into it,” he said of a few friends who already work for the Unified Court System. “It’s great. It has regular work hours which is unusual in law enforcement.”
Oechsle said Cortland County is one of several that have undergone the transfer over the past five years. Others counties that have the state personnel include, Erie, Albany, Onondaga and Broome counties as well as some counties in the Adirondack region, he said.
Oechsle said Tompkins, Schuyler and Chenango counties also expect to transfer the duties in the near future. The state also plans to take over security for the City Court but because none of the city police officers are willing to transfer into the state system that change will take a bit longer, he said.
The state will have to bring in new officers to fill the positions when it is ready to make the transfer, Oechsle said. Those duties include two officers at the magnetometer and one officer in the courtroom during court proceedings. Oechsle was unsure when that transfer will occur.
City Police Chief James Nicholas said the state fully funds the positions that the city officers currently hold. He said when the state replaces those officers with state officers he will petition the city Common Council to expand the police force in order to accommodate the transfer.
Ripley said that some time over the summer, the County Courthouse also will change the building’s security entrance, moving the metal detector to the north side entrance. That entrance is under construction.

5/22/07 - County forms space needs panel

(As published by Cortland Standard, Corey Preston reporting)

A special county committee will have essentially the same makeup as the ad hoc committee that was charged with re-evaluating the county’s aborted south Main Street land deal, Legislature Chairman Marilyn Brown (D-8th Ward) said Monday.

The committee will be charged with evaluating the county’s current space needs, discussing available real estate options and providing recommendations to the Legislature for proposed property arrangements.
Legislator Carol Tytler (D-3rd Ward) will chair the committee, Brown said. Tytler will be joined by former ad hoc committee members John Daniels (D-Cortlandville), Dan Tagliente (D-7th Ward), John Steger (R-Preble and Scott), Mike McKee (R-Cincinnatus, Freetown, Taylor and Willet) and Larry Cornell (R-Marathon and Lapeer).
“I think they really did a thorough job gathering information when there were a lot of questions about the acquisition of land on south Main,” Brown said of the basically reformed ad hoc committee.
The only change from the ad hoc committee will be Legislator Tom Williams (R-Homer), who had been added to the ad hoc committee midway through the committee’s work to fill a void left by absent members. He will not be a part of the new committee.
“I think it will help to have one committee look at all of the information and bring specific proposals forward to be looked at by the rest of the Legislature,” Brown said.
Brown said she has received a number of proposals from real estate agents interested in either selling or leasing property to the county and that she would give all of that information to Tytler.
Brown’s expectation was that the committee would focus on the needs for new space for the county jail and for the county motor vehicles office.
The needs of the Mental Health Department, for which the properties on south Main Street had been intended, could be delayed until after a lawsuit regarding the county’s decision to opt out of the deal is resolved.
Tytler said she had not yet scheduled an initial meeting with the new committee, and was not sure what direction the committee would take.

5/18/07 - County moves flooding study forward

(As published by Cortland Standard, Corey Preston reporting)

The Cortland County Legislature’s Budget and Finance Committee Thursday backed a resolution committing the county to a joint project with the city to study flooding problems along Dry and Otter creeks.
The city remains tentative about the project — Mayor Tom Gallagher has said he wants to look at the impact of other flood mitigation measures first — but the majority of the committee agreed the county should move forward.
The study, which would cost up to $20,000 and be split between the county and the city, would look at the feasibility and the potential impact of placing a detention pond along Route 281.
Legislator Carol Tytler (D-3rd Ward) who has been pushing the study, which came out of the planning subcommittee she chairs, said she was discouraged that the project had not been discussed formally by the city.
However she was comfortable moving forward since ultimately the county’s contribution is contingent upon the city signing on.
“I think it’s important to keep moving forward and showing that we’re committed, and if the city agrees that it’s something we should look at, we’re ready to go,” Tytler said.
Moving forward with the study is slightly time-sensitive as the state Department of Transportation has agreed to include work on the detention pond in its construction bids for its work on the Route 281 expansion project.
This could allow for savings on construction and contracting costs; the DOT has requested an answer by November.
“I think we need to have a good engineering study to see what needs to be done down there,” Legislator Danny Ross (R-Cortlandville) said.
Committee Chairman Ron Van Dee (D-5th Ward) strongly supported the study, adding that flooding has been a significant problem in the city, especially in the last two years.
“The county has to continue on this and the city should be looking at every option, too,” Van Dee said. “I think if they stop at this point and don’t look any further, they’re just not looking at all their options.”

5/17/07 - County faces second lawsuit over land deal

(As published by Cortland Standard, Corey Preston reporting)

A second lawsuit related to Cortland County’s ill-fated south Main Street land deal was filed Wednesday in state Supreme Court, coming as county attorneys prepare arguments for the first such suit.

Syracuse attorney Dirk Oudemool, representing the owners of Robbins Vending — who had agreed to sell property at 159 Main St. and 7 Williams St. to the county for $300,000 before the county backed out of the deal — filed a complaint asking that the county either be compelled to move forward with the purchase as agreed, or pay $120,000 in damages.

“That’s the estimate my clients came up with, based on the loss of the benefit of the deal,” Oudemool said of the requested damages. “We’ve hired an appraiser and we’ll have a formal appraisal in hand (when the case goes to court), but that’s what we’re looking at right now.”

The Legislature voted to purchase the Robbins Vending property, owned by Charles and Michael Wood, along with properties from four other landowners for a total of $894,000 in December.

In January the Legislature revoked that decision, prompting a lengthy debate and the threat of legal challenges.

To date, the Moose Lodge and Robbins Vending are the only landowners to file suit, both saying that the county’s original vote in December represented a binding contract.

“When the county reconsidered, that was nothing more than changing one’s mind, and you can’t change your mind with a contract unless the other party agrees,” Oudemool said. “Quite simply, they breached, they unilaterally decided to officiate this contract.”

Oudemool said his argument will likely not differ much from the argument being offered by Russell Ruthig, attorney for the Moose Lodge, but he did include in the suit Cinquanti Real Estate broker Susan Briggs, who brokered the deal.

“The realtor was responsible for putting all of this together, as an agent for the county, so we believe they’re equally responsible,” Oudemool said. “It’s unbelievable, they paid the Realtor for negotiating these deals, but then didn’t close with us.”