Fuel tanks vexing county

Jefferson County soon will decide whether it will remove fuel storage tanks from the former Griff's gasoline station on Route 12F before it faces up to $41 million in pollution fines by the state.

But first, the county wants the cleanup cost to be absorbed by the site's former owner, who counters that the county has reneged on the property's three-year-old purchase contract, thus negating any obligation on his part.

The Board of Legislators voted last week to sue the previous owner, Onondaga Development LLC, over an unfulfilled contract that would have resulted in the realignment of Fisher Road with Salmon Run Mall Road at a traffic light on outer Coffeen Street.

"It is yet to be decided if the tanks will be removed," County Attorney David J. Paulsen said. "Our position is that we contracted with and paid Onondaga Development to do it."

A COMPLEX CONTRACT

But Philip J. Simao, managing member of Onondaga Development, has argued the June 29, 2007, contract was not followed by the county.

The contract stipulates that the county will pay a $200,000 deposit to demolish two buildings, Griff's and the former SMX Transport Inc., remove the three underground petroleum bulk storage tanks and remediate any soil contamination discovered. At closing, the county would pay the purchase price of $445,000 and transfer title to three other parcels to Onondaga Development.

The county did not transfer title to the properties, the portion of the Fisher Road right of way that will not be used, a piece owned by the county Industrial Development Agency and a third owned by Timeless Frames.

"At the time, both sides were not able to complete what we had hoped to complete by the target date," Mr. Paulsen said. "We thought we would be able to do it fairly shortly thereafter."

But the closing went ahead because the county faced a $3,500 penalty every month the closing was delayed after Oct. 31, 2007. The property transaction took place Oct. 30, even though the county didn't have the title paperwork ready and Onondaga Development didn't have the environmental remediation done. The contract did allow for the building demolition not to be complete until March 1, 2008.

"The county didn't deliver what it was supposed to by closing," Mr. Simao said. "Still, to this day, they haven't delivered the property."

He said Wednesday that he's been told those parcels will be "held hostage" until Griff's is demolished.

"I feel like I am being made the scapegoat for what the county administrator and the county attorney did and now they want to try to put all the blame on me for what did not happen, yet it was their actions that created this mess," he said.

"This should've been a really simple real estate transaction if all the parties involved were acting in good faith, and I believe by recent county actions that they are doing nothing but trying to cover up their own mistakes."

CONNECTOR ROAD SNAGS DEAL

Mr. Simao again connected the Griff's deal to giving the county land for County Route 202 and an east-west connector road from Salmon Run Mall to Sam's Club.

While he waited for the county to deliver the three parcels, negotiations on the connector road fell apart.

"County officials and legislators know what the intent was of the first negotiation and the commitments that were made, and the county and officials and elected officials should be stand-up and come back to the table like business people would and try to come to another understanding since they were not able to deliver on the first one," Mr. Simao said.

In 2007, he said he had no reason to believe the spoken agreement among the parties, including the county and the town, would disintegrate on the connector road.

He said he gave the county land for County Route 202, with no compensation.

"They are arguing that the deals were separate," he said. "They weren't before, so why are they now?"

The county could file a lawsuit against Onondaga Development, which Mr. Simao said he will defend vigorously. In the meantime, there won't be any discussions about contract changes. In a Nov. 15 letter, the county's attorney on the matter, Mitchell J. Katz of Menter, Rudin & Trivelpiece, asked that Mr. Simao not talk to county administrators or legislators about the contract or the property.

"It comes back to what Onondaga Development decides to do," Mr. Paulsen said. "If they and we can reach an agreement, all's the better. Unfortunately, we've been unable to do so with Onondaga Development."

GASOLINE TANKS TRIGGER SUIT

For the county's potential legal actions, the trigger was a state Department of Environmental Conservation action against Jefferson County on the tanks.

"The department served enforcement litigation on both Onondaga Development and the county on Nov. 1," Region 6 spokesman Steven W. Litwhiler said Nov. 10.

Once the two entities acknowledge the enforcement measures, they have 20 days to respond.

The department requires those who buy property containing bulk petroleum storage tanks to register the tanks within 30 days.

DEC officials said neither Mr. Simao nor the county registered the tanks.

"We've been trying for years for those tanks to be removed," Mr. Litwhiler said. "They need to be registered and removed. We don't really care who does — they just need to do it."

Assistant Regional Attorney Nels G. Magnuson said DEC staff inspected the property in March and sent a violation notice to Onondaga Development in April. After learning Jefferson County now owns the property, he began negotiating with the county.

"There is still product in the tanks, but we don't know the quality," Mr. Magnuson said. "The county has agreed to removed the product in the tanks, but neither party has agreed to close the facility, which is why the actions were started."

The tanks sit on property owned by Jefferson County, but pumps and piping still may be on property owned by Onondaga Development, which all needs to be removed, he said.

Letting the situation stand could have heavy penalties for both parties.

"The department could impose a fine of $5,000 to $37,500 per violation per day, which could stretch back to the change in ownership," Mr. Litwhiler said.

As current owner, the county is "the party most directly responsible for closing the facility on our regular scheme," Mr. Magnuson said.

The actions will go through a department administrative law judge in Albany. A decision is "months away," he said. But "the county appeared cooperative to us, so we may be able to resolve the issue with the county and take care of one of the actions."