BERNE — The sale of Switzkill Farm from Berne to Albany County is being held up by the town, which claims that the previously reported agreement is illegal, even though the county insists that it’s not. 

Albany County spokeswoman Mary Rozak told The Enterprise this week that the county has “no idea where this is coming from,” and that the town hasn’t been responding to the county as it’s been trying to finalize the deal. 

According to draft minutes of the Berne Town Board’s Dec. 19 meeting, Deputy Supervisor Anita Clayton referenced a Times Union article about the $150,000 sale agreement as a “big surprise” to the town, and alleged that the town “legally cannot sell the property undervalued and the $150,000 that was originally offered by the County was going to establish a partnership.”

The state’s General Municipal Law has no such stipulation about valuation of property sold by a town.

On Nov. 21, The Enterprise had reported on the sale, after the county legislature’s finance committee approved the purchase of the property, later to be approved by the full legislature. The $150,000 price was meant to reimburse the town for its portion of the land acquisition in 2014 and the work it had done on the property since then, County Executive Daniel McCoy said at the time.

The full-market value of the property, according to the town assessment roll, is $475,000, equivalent to the price it was sold for in 2014. However, Berne paid only $142,700, including fees, with the rest of the money coming from Albany County and the Open Space Institute.

“Deputy Supervisor Clayton urges residents to please voice their opinions on what to do with this property as there is no easy solution,” say the Dec. 19 draft minutes.

Although Clayton had previously characterized talks as being about a partnership, Rozak said it was clear from the beginning that it would be a sale and not a partnership. This is backed up by the memorandum of understanding that had been drafted in March 2022. 

Rozak said that the purchase agreement had been reviewed and would have been “a simple transfer.”

“We have not had a discussion or anything to lead us to this, because we have repeatedly reached out and we have not had a returned email at this point,” she said.

Supervisor Dennis Palow did not respond to Enterprise inquiry.

In response to general questions about intermunicipal land sales, Office of the State Comptroller Press Secretary Mark E. Johnson, who said the OSC takes “no position on the applicability of these sections to the hypothetical question you posed,” referred The Enterprise to section 72-h of General Municipal Law, which says that town boards “may sell, transfer or lease to or exchange with any municipal corporation … either without consideration or for such consideration and upon such terms and conditions as shall be approved by such officer or body, any real property owned by such county, town, village, fire district or city; and any municipal corporation or fire district may acquire or lease such real property as provided in this section.”

The Enterprise has previously reported that a private sale of the 350-acre Switzkill park would be difficult due to laws around parkland alienation, which are designed to prevent the loss or potential loss of recreational land and so require state legislative approval. 

However, a state guide on alienation explains that a reverter agreement — which essentially voids a sale if the new owner stops using the property as parkland — would exempt a park owner from the need for legislative approval.

The memorandum of understanding from 2022 refers to a right of reverter held by the Mohawk Hudson Land Conservancy, which manages a conservation easement that had been placed on the Switzkill property when the town bought it. 

The sale of Switzkill Farm to Albany County was widely seen as a win for all involved. The GOP-backed town board has characterized the property, bought under a Democratic administration, as a burden on taxpayers, while supporters of the property feel the town had let it fall into disrepair while the board explored various methods of getting rid of it. 

McCoy had told The Enterprise in November that the county would still be in partnership with Berne as the county works to stabilize the property and bring it to its full potential. 

“I’m going to say it very plainly,” Rozak told The Enterprise this week. “It would seem like there was a deal on the table, and we were all moving forward, and then suddenly the town of Berne seems to want to back out.”