Members of the City Council met Tuesday to discuss the fact that there is still no elevator installed in the former Verizon Building on Sixth Avenue, the future home of City Hall, as was required under the city's lease agreement with Judge Development Corporation.

During the Law Committee meeting, the councilmen reviewed information from JDC on some of the delays regarding the elevator's installation, including the fact that an elevator had not yet been purchased and that it could likely take approximately 12 weeks to acquire one.

"So we're talking about sometime around Labor Day before we see an elevator in Verizon," said Councilman Bill Dunne, D-District 4, who factored an additional two weeks into his estimate for the elevator's installation.

Dunne also stated that he believed the council should pass legislation at their June meeting to cease payments on the city's lease for the property because Judge had violated the lease contract, which stated that an elevator should have been installed by March 1.

Corporation Counsel Charlie Sarris, who declined to discuss whether such legislation, or even the possibility of litigation, were options for the city in this matter while a reporter for The Record was present.

"From my perspective, as the attorney for the city, I would take every hardball position I could in moving forward with this," said Sarris.

Sarris also noted that he planned to meet with Sam Judge Thursday to further discuss the matter.

Besides the elevator, city workers have nearly completed interior rennovations to the building and the offices of various departments could be moved to their new home within the next two weeks.

City Council President Clement Campana apparently wasn't satisfied with the response of Corporation Counsel Charlie Sarris to his questions about a lawsuit filed against a city employee last year to remove a reverter clause from the former Verizon Building on Sixth Avenue.

In his reponse to Campana's questions about why the City Council had never been notified of the issue, considering that its members also make up the Troy Urban Renewal Agency - which had control over the reverter which was enacted in 1973, Sarris had said that the city had not disposed of any property and that Sondra Little was named as the defendant in her capacity as Commissioner of Planning and Community Development.

"Your comments are erroneous and extremely misleading to the general public," wrote Campana in a letter Thursday. "The caption of the verified complaint states in plain English that Ms. Little was being sued in her capacity as Executive Director and Secretary of the Troy Urban Renewal Agency."

Supreme Court Judge Michael Lynch ruled on Sept. 18 in the LLC’s favor after receiving no opposition to the motion from the city.

The matter is not believed to have any impact on the city's current lease on the Verizon Building or its plan to use the structure as a temporary City Hall.

UPDATE:
Initial responses and comments from Conroy and Democratic council members can be found here, with additional responses posted below.

A recent e-mail from Jim Conroy has at least one Republican councilman concerned about who's controlling council Democrats.

Councilman Mark McGrath, R-District 2, sent out a media release Tuesday regarding an e-mail he had received from Conroy on Feb. 22. McGrath believed that, based on Conroy's message, that he was attempting to lay out a plan for the council to vote against approving city funding to retrofit the former Verizon Building on Sixth Avenue into a temporary location for City Hall.

In his e-mail, Conroy had written:
"I once again want to express my opposition to the Verizon deal and to the prospect of demolishing City Hall. I hope you all take the opportunity to vote against the funding for renovations at the Verizon Building. Then cancel the contract because of insufficient funds to proceed. There isn't a contract for governmental services which doesn't include cancellation if funds are not available. If you haven't seen the lease and had time to review it you can't vote to approve such a poor proposal."

McGrath said that if the measure is not passed, the city's citizens will need to take a hard look at who is ordering around the Democrats.

Conroy has also stated his opposition to the move of City Hall on his "People before Politics" blog.

UPDATE -
Additional response from Councilman Gary Galuski, D-District 6:

"My first response would be, why is Mark McGrath so worried about our party? Does he want to switch parties again? Now to my real answer, I would believe there would be more of a issue if Mr Conroy sent the e-mail just to the majority, but he sent it to all council members. Doesn't Mr Conroy have a right to express his thoughts or does that not work for Mr McGrath and his party? There is a motive behind everything Mr McGrath does and this is no different. I have no comment on my vote, but will say this is a major issue that will have a lasting impact on the City of Troy for a very long time."

Councilman Bill Dunne, D-District 4:

"For the record, Mark, the council majority has not meet with either Jim Conroy or Tom Wade on the matter of city hall. Mr. Conroy sent a letter expressing his opinions regarding the matter, which, I reviewed with the same interest I would a letter from any resident of the city. The fantasy you and your cohorts seem to want to create is one in which Wade and Conroy are somehow puppet masters. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Despite your feigned outrage toward Bob Mirch over the incident with Jack Cox, everyone in the city knows who the real puppet master of Troy politics is and who his puppets are. Mr. Conroy's past and current involvement in government and politics in no way disqualifies him from expressing an opinion regarding the future of city hall. He is a citizen, a taxpayer and a voter - all of which entitles him to that opinion. While he is knowledgeable, Jim's input carries no more or less weight t han that of anyone else.

You should have put this kind of thought and effort into keeping the Lansingburgh branch of the library open."

A total of six bids were received by the city Thursday for the retrofitting of the Verizon building on Sixth Avenue as the temporary new City Hall.

Bids were submitted from the following companies:


Finelli Construction, Inc.

HCP Architects

BCI Construction Inc.

Bast Hatfield Inc.

Al Mugrace

VMJR Companies

Details on the bids were not yet available, but keep watching Troy Talk and The Record for further information.