Back in a time not too long ago, a deal sealed with a handshake between honest men was considered by them to be as binding as any court-notarized document.

Such was the case in 1994 when the Borough of North Irwin and North Irwin Municipal Authority agreed to construction and ownership of the facility named Town Hall, according to several parties involved in the original agreement.

The terms agreed to have worked for more than a decade, and although past council and authority minutes reflect discussion of putting something into writing, no one ever did.

And so it may have stayed until recently when several new council members have openly questioned ownership of the building at public meetings of both partners.

Nobody ever wondered about it, said Mayor Leonard Santimyer.

At the time it was built, the borough was just relieved and celebrated its Second Street building after nearly eight years of investigating the possibility of the structure, which would be the first in a 100-year history.

In 1988, a committee including Santimyer, then-president of council, began looking into building a municipal facility.

Until then, separate entities such as those dealing with borough business, tax collector, police and sewage authority personnel all did their work in private homes, according to the North Irwin centennial book.

Former Councilman Ken Kifer, who has since passed away, chaired the search committee that continued to run into obstacles.

In 1994, according to Robert Zentner, 30-year president of NIMA, the authority had accumulated excess money from residents' tap-in fees when the sewage system was installed in 1982.

Fees were over-estimated by the engineer and brought in approximately $250,000 too much. With the threat of several lawsuits, the authority withheld some of the money and refunded about half the excess to each resident who had paid for sewage installation.

Years later when all potential litigation cleared, the authority found it too difficult to find all past residents due a further refund.

Instead the authority told the borough it would go half on constructing a community building. The borough could not come up with its estimated $50,000 without raising taxes, Zentner said.

The municipal authority then came forward and agreed to foot the $100,000 construction bill "to make this building for the people of North Irwin," Zentner said.

By then Norwin School District had deeded the former North Irwin School property to the borough for municipal use.

Town Hall was built on that borough property by the municipal authority.

People involved at the time, including past council and authority board members, and former solicitors, all say while their recollections may be dulled by time, they are sure no rent was to be paid by the borough.

Instead, the borough would maintain the building, pay insurance and utilities. NIMA would maintain ownership of the building and would be permitted to operate its sewage bill collection and monthly meetings out of the facility at no charge.

Edwin "Bo" Anthony, current council president, has expressed concerns at past meetings about the uncertainty of ownership. However, no formal motions have been moved forward to look into resolution of the situation.

"I hope it can be agreed upon civilly," said Santimyer. "It's two different entities but we still get our money from the same people basically."

If the taxpayers do not speak up now about their concerns or lack thereof, future discussions could go behind closed doors, said several attorneys and veteran politicians familiar with the Sunshine Act, Pennsylvania's open meetings law.

Issues dealing with real estate transactions or possible litigation may be discussed in executive session, which is closed to the public.

James Duffy, a North Huntingdon attorney specializing in real estate, said an agreement could go either way. Duffy voiced surprise that the solicitors over the years did not handle the matter.

Former solicitor Don Snyder, who represented both parties in the '90s, would not comment specifically because it has been so many years; however, he did not recall any legal document.

Current solicitor John Campfield, who again represents both the borough and authority, said the issues raised exist.

There has been a practiced agreement, he said, although not in writing.

Duffy said the parties could get together to iron out a long-term lease agreement. If that does not happen, litigation could become costly.

The authority could possibly claim that it has enriched the empty parcel with its building. The land carries a tax assessment of $7,470.

The building has never been assessed. In fact until called by a reporter, the county assessor had no knowledge that a structure exists on the property. A county assessor will be out to rectify that although the municipality is still tax-exempt.

Council vice-president Kim Macalus favors bringing the notion forward at the borough's May 12 meeting (7 p.m.) to form a committee to negotiate a lease agreement.

"I would like to see an agreement set up and finished," Macalus said.