Ballston Spa trustees approve $75,000 payment tied to Woods Hollow logging contract amid public objections

Ballston Spa trustees voted to authorize a $75,000 payment to Lumac (also referred to in public comments as Lumek/Lumeck) related to a logging contract tied to the sale of Woods Hollow, approving the motion on a 3–2 vote.

The payment, listed on the agenda as item 7d, drew sustained public comment. Marilyn Stevenson, a member of the zoning advisory committee, told trustees the minutes of a previous meeting misstated committee business and called into question a statement by the zoning advisory committee chair that “the consultant confirmed that the zoning advisory committee has fulfilled its obligation.” Stevenson said that was “false, misleading, self serving” and that the consultant had not told the committee their work was finished.

Resident Keith Lewis urged trustees to examine the contract closely and follow Department of State guidance on contract nonperformance, saying elected officials “have a responsibility to ensure that public funds are spent appropriately and that contracts with vendors are fulfilled as agreed.” He recommended reviewing terms, investigating nonperformance, documenting communications and enforcing contractual terms.

Several speakers and trustees described factual contract details and timeline changes that they said affected negotiation leverage. Public comments and trustee remarks referenced an original contract with a termination/determination date of Dec. 31, 2024 and an allegedly altered signed date of Aug. 30, 2023. Trustees and public speakers said that alteration, which they described as not explicitly approved by the full board, shortened the time available to negotiate and may have influenced the settlement figure.

Bob Bryce, vice president of Saratoga Life Management Corp., said the town of Milton supplied the $75,000 and that the village was acting as a conduit: “the village of Ballston Spa isn't paying a dime to settle our contract,” he said, describing how he had negotiated with contractors and explaining why his crew had held dates and expected payment.

Trustees who spoke at the meeting expressed differing views. One trustee said the village had separated the Lumac contract from the Woods Hollow sale “very purposefully” so the sale could proceed, but also said they had never been comfortable paying the full $75,000 given the limited work performed. Another trustee described concern that the village had not negotiated a better outcome and that the lack of a termination clause in the Lumac contract left the village exposed to a larger payment than it might otherwise owe.

At roll call, the board recorded Trustee Baskin voting no; Trustee Price voting yes; Mayor Frank Rossi voting yes; the final tally announced was 3 in favor, 2 opposed, and the motion carried. The board did not read an itemized breakdown of who else voted yes or no during the roll call recorded on the audio.

Trustees and public commenters called for records review and said they would seek more documentation about how the contract date was changed and who authorized it. Several speakers urged the board to strengthen contract language going forward — especially termination provisions — to avoid similar disputes.

The board’s approval authorizes the payment as presented on the agenda; the motion’s text as read at the meeting referenced authorizing payment of $75,000 to Lumac pursuant to the agreement connected to the Woods Hollow matter. The board did not adopt additional conditions to the payment on the record during the vote.

The discussion continued in public comment after the vote with residents expressing frustration about negotiation outcomes and about whether the village realized full fair-market value for the property given the separate contract settlements.

The payment and related records — including the signed contract(s), any documents that changed the contract dates, and correspondence with Milton and Lumac — were discussed repeatedly in public testimony; trustees and members of the public requested that those documents be assembled and made available for review in light of the legal and financial questions raised.

The board did not announce an immediate follow-up directive to staff on legal review during the motion’s passage. Several residents said they intended to pursue legal review and further public disclosure.

Ending: Trustees approved the $75,000 payment despite public objections and calls for further documentation; residents and some trustees said they will press for records and stronger contract safeguards in future agreements.