Home  Calendar  Departments  Directory  Gallery  Documents  History

State of New York

County of Fulton

Town of Caroga

Minutes of a Caroga Town Board work session held Wednesday May 29, 2019 at the municipal building located at 1840 State Highway 10 at 7:00 pm with the following persons in attendance by roll call:

Supervisor James K. Selmser - Here

Council Member John Glenn - Here

Council Member Jeremy Manning - Here

Council Member James Long - Here

Council Member Kent Kirch - Here

There were approximately 75 members of the public in attendance. Town Attorney Greg Dunn arrived at 7:15 pm.

Supervisor Selmser opened the meeting to order at 7pm with the roll being called. The flag salute followed. Supervisor Selmser noted a couple of subjects would be covered in the meeting tonight. One subject is to continue the discussion on LED lighting. A representative of New York Power Authority (NYPA) is here tonight. She answered questions for the board. Back in April Supervisor Selmser asked for a proposal to buy the street lighting fixtures from National Grid. Additional money can be saved over the life of the proposal submitted to the town. Instead of NYPA buying it and financing it with additional financing costs. The actual cost of equipment is ½ to 1/3 of the project. Doing this separately can reduce the payback by 4-5 years.

Supervisor Selmser noted by doing this the potential savings after we incur the initial costs to purchase the new fixtures is $24,000.00 additionally after that five year period and ends up being $72,000.00 and change.

She noted the town does not have to take advantage of their financing. They do offer the ability to carry the cost of the project all the way through to the end of construction. The project cost times 3.5% interest is the financing. Some communities bond the project. Some communities get grants.

Supervisor Selmser noted the Town Attorney had some concerns regarding some liability clauses. Some of the clauses would not apply to this project. Adjustments can be made to the contract. It was noted there is a one year construction warranty after the project is completed. Another layer of protections is the contractor stay for a year to handle any deficiencies. They have had problems with the arms from the utility; they are bent, so these need to be adjusted. The lights can be set at various angles.

Supervisor Selmser noted the final contracts need to be amended. He wants to get this project scheduled and completed this year. It was noted that the only thing that would affect this is the buyback program from the utility.

RESOLUTION #2019-049 to purchase the National Grid inventory was offered by Council Member Long at a Caroga Town Board work Session held on Wednesday May 29, 2019 at Caroga Town Hall.

WHEREAS, a work session was scheduled to discuss LED Lighting in the Town of Caroga, and

WHEREAS, a representative of New York Power Authority was in attendance this evening, now therefore for it

RESOLVED, that the Caroga Town Board does hereby move to spend $31,535.00 pending agreement that the master plan and authorize Supervisor Selmser to make that payment and sign whatever necessary documents.

Seconded by Council Member Manning

Discussion: The initial proposal had a cost effect of $156,993.00 with the revised thought process to buying the lights directly from National Grid accelerating the saving; the cost would end up being $63,139.00 to the town. The cost savings over the same 8 year period is $93,854.00.

An Inventory and Options Analysis sheet was given to the board. The existing Energy & Facilities cost is $35,166.00 per year. The Post – Purchase and Conversion Energy & Facilities cost would be $11,138.82. The biggest savings is in maintenance. During the design process they will outline the various maintenance programs. There is a $12,000.00 buffer in the initial review and assessment part of the process. It was noted that the department of labor requires that we use prevailing wage.

NYPA has the buying power because several communities around us are doing this as well.

The total project saving is $24,000.00 per year after the 5 year period. Council Member Long noted the town is buying back the inventory outright with a cash purchase. Council Member Long asked when the master agreement was going to be resolved. The NYPA agent will contact the town attorney next week. Any contractual changes will have to go through the NYPA attorney also.

The next step is a design kickoff for all communities in Fulton County. An information gathering questionnaire will be given to the town to see if there are any specific issues in the town. The questions include identifying any lights which need to be moved, lighting concerns for a public park, parking lots and other outdoor lights connected to other accounts. They do unit pricing which could be a separate project. The lighting outside of this building could be included in the project.

Scott Horton had a concern about light pollution. He was concerned about East Shore Road of West Caroga. He asked if intersections required lighting. It was asked if the lights can be shielded. The representative noted the various types of lights, different colors and voltages. LED lights are directional you can put the light where you want it using shields. There is an additional cost to do this.

Laura Nealon noted a similar project in Detroit recently where 1/3 of the lights were defective. Do we have a guarantee that this won’t happen here. NYPA has never used that vendor and have never used a manufacturer with a problem like that. It was asked if we were looking at Wi-Fi on the street lighting. Council Member Long stated we are looking at traditional photocell. The geography/topography of the town does not make it very viable the board feels. NYPA knows of several vendors who provide proposals to do Wi-Fi. They could investigate the cost and get unit pricing to present to the town. Council Member Glenn asked if a feasibility study could be done. She noted the vendors are willing to come out and do conductivity demonstrations. It is about $140.00 per fixture. It is an extra cost.

Supervisor Selmser asked if there was the potential for some broadband funding in the future. It was noted that the governor has a committee and that the Hamilton County Board of Supervisors Chairman Bill Farber is a member of the committee. Eventually it was thought there would be money for the expansion. She noted that the tech companies decide where they want to expand their capabilities.

Supervisor Selmser called for a vote on the motion to purchase the equipment.

Adopted by a vote of 5 Ayes; Selmser, Glenn, Manning, Long, Kirch

Information will be available to put on the website regarding the LED program.

At 7:44 pm John Lorence was given the floor to bring updated information to the board on his proposal for the Sherman’s Property. The board will then ask questions of him and after that the floor will be open for public questions.

Mr. Lorence thanked everyone for coming and he thanked the board for giving him an opportunity to speak.

A power point presentation entitled Sherman’s Town Center Economic Development Plan outlined the following information.

Agenda - Who, What, How

Introduction - his history & four others involved in project

Team Building Experience

Example Projects

What are we going to do?

Project Goals

Project Objectives

Economic Basis – Table of percentages of use

Proposed Redevelopment Plan for Sherman’s

How do we get it done?

The Process

Finalize – begin Construction

How does the Affect the Town

How does the Affect the CAC?

Sherman’s Redevelopment Financial Model

Architectural Examples

Contract Information

What brought him to Sherman’s was a need. Mr. Lorence stated he started this conversation to get something rolling with George prior to the donation agreement. He noted his story is the story of AND…. It is not either or it is going to take everything coming together to be successful. Mr. Lorence would like to get the midway on the historical registry. He noted Caroga is midway between Utica and Albany. His plan calls for year round housing and a small 10 – 15 room hotel facility.

Everything starts with a written commitment so you have site control. Site control means you either own it, or you have a lease, or you have a preferred developer agreement.

At 8:14pm the slide presentation was complete.

Supervisor Selmser state one of his concerns was the advice the board has received about legal contracts and extending them more than a period the board members are elected for. He thought that was an obstacle. The other obstacle is dealing with Mr. Abdella. Mr. Lorence was asked if he thought something could be worked out with Mr. Abdella. Mr. Lorence stated he would have to re-open the lines of communication. He noted that industrial development agencies or other vehicles that create business with quasi-governmental agencies and they lease facilities out. He wanted an initial two year contract to begin working through all these issues. He wanted to see if there were solutions to the legal issues and wanted to begin looking for grant money and thought investors would not be a problem.

Council Member Glenn asked if he had been in a long term lease agreement before. Mr. Lorence responded that he has not done that before. He knows of situations where it has been done. He can do more research on that.

Supervisor Selmser stated his proposal seems to be with the town continuing to maintain the property and incur some of the maintenance costs, insurance and some of the liabilities. There are still grant submittals which would be a marriage between the developer and the town. The town may have to provide matching funds. Mr. Lorence agreed grants can run into a couple of thousand dollars sometimes. He would have to match the fund - it is a partnership. He knows there are certain things that have to be done to receive Consolidated Funding Application (CFA) money.

Council Member Manning asked if he had partnered with a town as an LLC for a grant. Mr. Lorence has worked with some folks that have done that. Usually there is a third entity that is a not-for-profit business entity that is formed by the town or municipality and they enter into an agreement. Council Member Manning was concerned if something were to happen with these organizations what position would the town be left in. Mr. Lorence stated except for the grant monies there is no commitment for the town. The risk would be managed every step of the way. “You don’t pull the trigger to go until it is all there and we are all happy.”

Council Member Long stated three of the board members served on the Sherman’s Advisory Committee a few years ago. Mr. Lorene’s proposal was very similar back then. Council Member Long stated there were reasons why they had problems with the proposal. Council Member Long was concerned about East Caroga Lake and any increase in the phosphorus that would be introduced into the lakes through septic systems. There are many places Mr. Lorence could build that would not have this impact. Office space does not have to be on the shore front. Council Member Long stated the proposal absent a sewer district is putting these lakes at risk. Mr. Lorence asked what he based his statement on did he have data? Council Member Long replied yes. Mr. Lorence stated he would meet all the criteria by DEC and any regulatory agency. Council Member Long continued to argue his point. Mr. Lorence stated he lives on the lake and cares about it’s the quality. He will do what is right. Supervisor Selmser thought the challenge would be dealing with the APA. The other concern is that the county is working on developing other housing communities and industrial parks. Doing something in Caroga would be great but we are in competition with our neighbors and our county program. This may make the grant funding more difficult. Mr. Lorence countered that this could be another opportunity for Fulton County to say we the infrastructure.

Council Member Manning thought the plan would be changing the dynamic of what downtown Caroga is. He asked why housing was more of a priority than entertainment. Mr. Lorence has more control and knowledge of housing. He noted CAC has continued to develop and if they work in partnership the number could go up. Council Member Manning asked if housing alone could change the economics of the town. Mr. Lorence thought it would. This is a process where we all work together and try to get something moving.

Council Member Long took issue with that. We always want more affordable housing but we need sales tax revenue. Mr. Lorence noted the way sales tax is apportioned by the county the town would need to see an additional 2 -3 million dollars’ worth of sales tax brought in. Council Member Long stated making the town a destination will bring people in and thought that was our focus.

Council Member Manning asked if Sherman’s would qualify for historic funds. Mr. Lorence responded that he would have to do more work on that. The town would have to create a historic district. He noted Mr. Disney was at the Shine property.

Council Member Long questioned with all the work that has to be done why didn’t Mr. Lorence contact Mr. Abdella for his cooperation. Frankly Mr. Lorence stated he hasn’t been given any air time for two years.

A member of the public asked why was the board arguing with Mr. Lorence.

Council Member Long noted the attorney advised that the donation agreement is a real cloud over the parcel. If it goes to lease it is subject to permissive referendum. If it goes for sale we are in trouble with George. Mr. Lorence responded that he wanted to see where he stood with the board first. (Applause)

Mr. Russitano noted this plan has some good points.

Supervisor Selmser asked Mr. Russitano if the other presenter was here. He was not.

Attorney Dunn wanted to address your statement on behalf of the board. You are not seeing a pass for the CAC what you are seeing is the CAC has offered something concrete to the board.

The public interrupts the attorney and the gavel is used.

Attorney Dunn continued by saying one of the concerns the board has with Mr. Lorence and Council Member Long is expressing it is that there is uncertainty as to what Mr. Lorence is presenting. We don’t know if he is proposing a sale, or a lease. We don’t know what the development project will be. We have concerns weather any of his ideas will be acceptable to Mr. Abdella. Mr. Abdella has signed a release for CAC to purchase the property.

Mr. Lorence responded it seems like you didn’t listen to the presentation if you say none of that is concrete. CAC said last time that they are not going anywhere. I didn’t eliminate the CAC they can continue. “Why isn’t two better than one?”

Attorney Dunn noted there is an offer on the table. “We understand what they are going to do with the property.” “One of the things is they are going to leave the buildings as is.” “We don’t know whether George will accept apartment complexes, hotels, boutiques, office space.”

Mr. Lorence asked if George was in charge. Attorney Dunn responded he sure is. (Public again gaveled)

The town attorney quoted Town Law 64.8 gifts to the town. The town may take by gift, grant, bequest or devise and hold real and personal property absolutely or in trust for parks or gardens, or for the erection of statues, monuments, buildings or structures, or for any public use, upon such terms or conditions as may be prescribed by the grantor or donor and accepted by said town, and provide for the proper administration of the same. Mr. Lorence asked did I hear that you can lease it. Attorney Dunn responded yes, but it doesn’t say what you can lease it for. Attorney Dunn stated there is uncertainty in your project. Mr. Lorence noted there is uncertainty in everyone’s project. It is risk vs. gains. The risk here to the town is that the CAC continues to use it as they do today for another year or so while we iron out all these things. Is the possible gain worth the chance of doing this work and coming out with a positive outcome? Mr. Lawrence stated the risk is minimal. Attorney Dunn did not believe it was minimal. He did not see anything in the material presented that this is going to be a success. (Public talking over the attorney)

Supervisor Selmser stated we are taking action on a contract that was presented. If you submit a contract then we could consider it. Until we have that document we have a proposal there's no formal legal contract or document to take any action on so it's a different ball game.

Laura Nealon - the other proposal says they're going to get grants and have concerts and they're going to put porta potties up. There's no reason we can't have a septic system at Sherman's. The presenter is a structural engineer and he has a funding base that is going to follow him and you're going to turn them down because you think he's going to put phosphates into the lake from a septic system that you don't know about because you're the regulating body and know more than the APA does. That is insane. (Applause and gaveling)

Mr. Addeo thought the other proposal contained leasing commercial office space. Supervisor Selmser responded not from the town no. Attorney Dunn noted the property would no long be owned by the town. Mr. Addeo noted they would still be putting phosphates put into the lake. It is in the proposal. Attorney Dunn stated we don’t know if it will happen. (Crowd laughing and all talking at once) gavel

Supervisor Selmser stated there would be a review by the APA for a system revision. It cannot be used until the APA is satisfied that it will support whatever type of use it is going to be.

Mr. Addeo noted the similarities in both proposals. Council Member Kirch stated the assumption with the waste water situation was with the CAC proposal given how light the usage was with some office space that the current septic system was operable. Mr. Addeo noted the Shine Property will need a septic system. Supervisor Selmser responded that would be totally separate. Any additional housing up there, they would have to have an engineered system like anybody else in the town.

Mrs. Dutcher asked what is the big rush. We are not on a time limit. Supervisor Selmser noted this has been an ongoing discussion for up to 4 years.

Mr. Toskas stated it is pretty obvious the board wants this to go to the CAC. You think that is best for the town. He noted this is going to a referendum and from what he is hearing lately your desire to have this go to the CAC is not going to happen. What are you considering as an alternate? (Applause)

Supervisor Selmser stated the other choices are potential lawsuits which could mean the total loss of the property it would go back to Mr. Abdella.

Mr. Lorence asked what if the board passed a resolution to enter into an agreement with him to investigate these things and then we determine a final contract. Low risk – CAC continues he continues, sewer investigations continue. That does not put you in a lawsuit at all.

Supervisor Selmser stated any decision by the town’s prerequisite to Mr. Abdella’s...… Mr. Lorence noted all you are looking at is a preferred developer agreement. He did not see why Mr. Abdella would have anything to do with that. You are not transferring the property, you are not leasing the property, and you are not selling the property. Mr. Lorence is asking for site control.

Mrs. Fake appreciates all the work that has gone into this. He has a skilled team behind him. She thought it would have been good to have a conversation with George ahead of this meeting to iron some details out. There could be a win, win here. She wanted him to reach out to George.

Mr. Sturgess injected that he just found out about this meeting two weeks ago. CAC has been working with Mr. Abdella for a couple of years. Mr. Lorence stated he has requested a meeting with the board and been denied. How much effort and money did he want to put in?

Council Member Glenn asked what is the length of time it is going to take to pull all the details together. Mr. Lorence responded about 2 year. He noted the CFA cycle determines the timing. Council Member Manning asked why he needed site control. Mr. Lorence responded that is the second question they ask. Otherwise you are a person with an idea. Supervisor Selmser stated you don’t qualify for CFA unless you have site control. That is why it would be better to have a solid contract for the purchase … Mr. Lorence stated or lease. He did not mean to be argumentative, but has been talking to closed ears.

Mr. Gilmour asked if you have to own the property to get funding. Mr. Lorence responded, no that you have to have site control. The town can own the property and there would be an agreement that says if we get this funding it becomes a long term lease or ownership. He is willing to take the steps necessary to get the answers to all the questions.

Council Member Manning asked Mr. Lorence if he would have his legal team draw up an actual site control agreement for the board to review. It would go back and forth. That would be the next step for you. Supervisor Selmser asked for the attorney’s thoughts on this.

Attorney Dunn wanted to know how Mr. Lorence was going to pay for the costs that might be incurred by the town as this process develops. There are hearing and legal costs. The town is looking to avoid allowing the property to deteriorate over time and not be a good manager. Mr. Lorence thought the CAC would still be interested in using the property. The town gets revenue from that. He wants to work together and is not opposed to open forums like this to go through design reviews. Some may say that is crazy but this is where you lock arms and work together or else it will go nowhere.

Mr. Horton first apologized to Mr. Lorence for the way he has been treated. (Applause) He wanted to talk about the AND. He noted this proposal is not too dissimilar to the proposal the town has. He noted when looking at the deed it has one name on it The Town of Caroga. He didn’t like the posturing of standing behind the donation agreement that no one knows is about. Let’s go forward with the idea that the people that own this property are the people that own it. Mr. Horton is uncomfortable depending on grant money. He wondered if he had a group of investors…. with 2 – 4 million dollars and the project could be phased in. First design work could be presented to the planning board and then make sure the septic system meets all the requirements. Mr. Horton thought we need to be a lot more positive. There are a lot of options. He was concerned about the financing. Mr. Horton thought we should revisit this thing as if this town board was here for the people and look at the options and tell the public what it is going to cost under different scenarios.

Supervisor Selmser introduced Ron Peters is President of the Fulton County Center for Regional Growth. He also participated in the initial committee that reviewed the proposals. Mr. Peters stated Mr. Lorence is right about the importance of site control. He has not seen the CAC proposal. He was asked if a long term lease would qualify for funding. You would need site control a letter of intent. He noted CFA is a gateway for funding sources. He was asked by Mr. Horton if his organization would be interested in working and providing funds for the development of Sherman’s. Mr. Peters responded Yes, providing that is what the town wants to do. Council Member Glenn asked for Mr. Peter’s help.

Mr. Centi asked if there was a problem with a long-term lease due to boards changing every two years. It didn’t matter was the response.

Council Member Long listed the members of the Sherman’s Advisory committee and stated they were very welcoming to John Lorence and tried hard to help him perfect his proposal. The committee voted unanimously to select the CAC.

Mrs. Lee stated she also lives on West Caroga Lake and she is very concerned about the quality of the lake being maintained. She asked if Mr. Lorence had done any research that he can reasonably reassure her that the quality of the lake will not be affected by this construction.

Mr. Lorence is on the same lake and is absolutely not interested in having anything happen to the lake. He has not done a whole lot of additional research because he could not get his foot in the door. He has his foot in the door now and would not move forward unless all the boxes were checked appropriately. It is that simple. We are not going to do something we shouldn’t do, or that doesn’t make money, or it doesn’t help the town. If we are not doing this together it’s going nowhere.

Mr. Dutcher asked the attendees (polled) as to how may live on the (a) lake. The majority of hands were raised including board members. A comparison to businesses around the Sacandaga Lake and restaurants along ocean front property was made. Council Member Long stated her logic was misplaced. He noted the flush rate on the Sacandaga is phenomenal. It is not comparable to the flush rate on East, West and Canada Lake.

Supervisor Selmser stated the CFA will be submitted in this round of funding. Council Member Glenn is on a committee for a sewer summit from 2 years ago. We have requested a design study. It is time for as a community to do something about this.

Council Member Manning again stated the first step for Mr. Lorence is to have a legal document for site control.

Mr. Potocar asked if it would be possible to have both groups get together have a joint venture – form a second corporation a 50/50… decide what you want to do and revamp the proposal and bring it back to the board. If we don’t do something about Sherman’s we may not be around. The governor wants smaller government and is doing everything under his control to shut it down.

Council Member Kirch thought that was a great question. It is not the first time it has been asked. At a previous meeting he noted Council Member Glenn suggested the two work together. He didn’t think anyone was opposed to this. It is a matter of making this happen. The two groups have to decide they want to work together. Mr. Lorence put together a letter of intent and it was tabled. He is open to this idea.

Council Member Kirch thought any arrangement like this to avoid the legal issues…. There is no doubt in his mind the town will have a lawsuit if they sell to anyone other than the CAC. He has had two conversations with George about this. Council Member Kirch stated CAC would have to have the lead ownership roll. Mr. Lorence stated it was not a matter of ego it is a matter if investment and returns and how it can all work. He noted the number of questions and the need to get started down the road. Council Member Kirch thought everyone was supportive of the two groups working together and coming up with an arrangement that works.

Supervisor Selmser stated everybody wants to have a similar outcome. Making it happen individually may be more difficult. Making it happen together maybe can help each other. You have more experience much more so that Arts and culture. He noted it is a competitive atmosphere for any and all types of funding. The people who can bring results get the money.

Mr. Toskas noted the previous board was 2 to 2 to see if Mr. Abdella could actually sue the town. Just about all of the conversations that go on come back to we can’t do this or that because Mr. Abdella will sue us. It was nice of him to give the town the property. The question still comes up why can he hold this over us? Maybe we need to renew this conversation and then maybe we would have more options.

Attorney Dunn spoke on the legalities. He stated we have a contract with George. It doesn’t appear that the contract was entered into with any fraud, duress, mistake or undue influence. According to town law it is not illegal for the town to accept a gift from someone upon the terms and conditions that the donor proposes. He proposes you can’t sell the property. We can go forward and sell the property but we will be hit with an injunction to stop the sale and a lawsuit. So it will start costing the town to defend that lawsuit. The town would ask the judge to make a declaratory judgment. Typically if you enter into a contract and the conditions are not enforceable a judge can rescind the contract and put the parties back in the position they were originally in. There is a possibility it could go back to George and he can do with the property what he wants to do. So the town loses control. Another thing the town can do is enter into some other type of agreement – some lease agreement. But we have not had a concrete proposal. Tonight he did not know if the proposal was for a sale or a lease for management services or what was being proposed. That is the uncertainty. The attorney was asked is this a violation of the donation agreement? Not according to the terms that he sees. But it is possible that George would feel it was and file a lawsuit. The board does not want to spend your money unnecessarily on litigation.

Mr. Toskas suggested going to court and presenting our case and get a judgment. Then we know yes he can sue us if we sell it or B we can sell it.

Attorney Dunn stated you can get a judge to give you that decision or you can have your attorney give you that decision without spending any money. The attorney felt it likely a judge would say it is an enforceable contract.

Mr. Horton asked what if the majority of the board wanted a declaratory judgment. What grounds would you choose to defend the town? He had not done the research so he doesn’t have a good argument. He didn’t think the court would just set aside one provision. It was asked if the property went back to George would he owe the back taxes. Council Member Long responded NO. Attorney Dunn responded it is unlikely a judge would do that because the town has had the benefit of the ownership over that time period. However judges do have a lot of discretion.

Mr. Horton noted initially there was one attorney that represented both parties for the donation agreement. It was signed without board approval by a previous town supervisor. That is illegal. The board reconvened and accepted it and then rescinded it. Mr. Horton thought there have been several errors made. Another thing he has a concern about is the donation agreement. He noted sometime you have to spend the money. He has been told it is cheaper to defend than it is to be the litigant.

Attorney Dunn asked what is the result if is it’s proven that the agreement should not have been entered into the first place because the attorney had a conflict of interest. Mr. Horton stated then it goes back to George – who cares. (Applause) So the town would lose the compensation they received for carrying it the last few years and there is a likelihood it goes to the CAC, and we’ve likely spent money on litigation to do it. So from a financial standpoint it doesn’t seem beneficial for the town.

Chris from S. Shore East Caroga asked if the building have been tended to over the past five years or are they falling in disrepair? If it is sold to CAC will they tend to the buildings or will they fall into disrepair.

Council Member Kirch stated the building conditions have not had a lot of care and attention by the town. There have been minor repairs. The reports we have from inspections say that several of the buildings are structurally unsound and probably not salvageable. In response to the second question whoever owns that property will decide whatever they are going to do there. Chris asked if there will be a codicil attached to the sale. No, was the response.

Attorney Dunn stated they have spent a long time with CAC and we presented specific things like that to them. There are reasons they are not willing to agree to some conditions. We have not received everything we have asked for in negotiating the property.

Mr. Centi asked if the donation agreement came after the deed was filed correct. Council Member Manning replied the agreement was signed, the deed was filed, and then later on the board ratified the donation agreement.

Attorney Dunn stated filing the donation agreement or putting a reference to it in the deed puts the public on notice that the property is subject to that contract. However that doesn’t mean between the people who formed the contract that they don’t have the right to bind each other to that contract. If someone else came in to purchase the property and they buy it and here is the description in the deed and no mention of the contract and they knew nothing about it they could buy it without having any obligation.

Mr. Centi asked when it comes after the fact doesn’t there have to be some reference that, that was attached. Attorney Dunn replied no. That is one of the problems with title searches. Many times things are outside of the record. It varies the liabilities and obligations between the parties but it doesn’t nullify the agreement per se.

Mr. Centi stated he sees firsthand the problems sewage causes on the lake. He also sees we have no control with people fertilizing their lawns. That is a bigger issue than Sherman’s right now. We have a laundry mat that won’t reopen because they were dumping affluent into the creek. Sherman’s is a small issue when you look at the overall picture.

Mr. Russitano asked if you do lease the property do you have to go back to Mr. Abdella. Supervisor Selmser stated that is a question we may not have an answer tonight for. Attorney Dunn stated the donation agreement says the town may lease the property in accordance with applicable laws. So there is the potential to lease the property. “We don’t think that a lease per se is necessarily a violation of the agreement.”

Mrs. Lee does not remember what type of deed George used to convey the property to the town. Was it a warranty deed? It was a warranty, so he had clear title when he gave it to us.

Mr. Lorence wanted to cap off the meeting with the whole AND thing again. Let’s hold our hands together, let’s work as a group to get a lot of answers to a lot of questions and see if we can move it all forward. (Applause)

Council Member Long made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Council Member Kirch. All board members were in favor of the motion.

Submitted,

Linda M. Gilbert, RMC, CMC

Town Clerk