County leaders: We contacted city mayor, manager over deed flap, but to no avail

Strafford County's administrator said last week that he contacted Rochester's mayor multiple times in an effort to avoid a legal battle over the county's denial of five easement deeds presented by the City of Rochester in December.
The deeds were rejected by Strfford County Registrar of Deeds Catherine Berube due to a technicality, in that they listed the Barrington properties as beginning "at a point in the town of Barrington," but did not specifically list the town or towns in which the properties lie.
After a six-month legal battle in Strafford Superior Court Judge Daniel E. Will last month found for the county, which spent more than $14,000 in legal fees.
"I talked to the mayor repeatedly," Strafford County Administrator Ray Bower said. "I sent him emails as the case unfolded. I hoped cooler heads would prevail and we could get this resolved."
He said Rochester Mayor Paul Callaghan never responded back.
Strafford County Commission Chair George Maglaras said he contacted Rochester City Manager Katie Ambrose, but that was also to no avail.
The Rochester Voice reached out to Maglaras on Thursday to learn the specifics of his interaction with Ambrose. He replied today that he would have "no further comment at this time."

Berube said the City of Rochester may have had some initial confusion over the issue as an earlier deed that used the same language was mistakenly filed, but "that was a clerical error," she said.
Berube added that just because an employee makes a mistake, that doesn't mean you change the process to conform with the mistake.
Meanwhile, Rochester officials refiled the deeds last month as Berube directed them, and they were duly filed.
The waste of taxpayer money and the zealousness with which City Attorney Terence O'Rourke pursued what seems to be a frivolous case has angered many Rochester residents including frequent critics including former mayoral candidate Susan Rice and state rep Tom Kaczynski, R-Rochester, who called out the City Council directly at a July 16 workshop.
"The citizens of Rochester will be absorbing the costs for this," Kaczynski said. He then looked up at the council.
"I'd like to ask the council 'What do you guys think of that?'" he said. "The plan now is that the city might go to the Supreme Court and appeal it. Is this a good use of taxpayer money?"
As is the custom at City Council meetings the mayor and members of the City Council never interact with speakers during public comment.
Callaghan and Ambrose have both refused to comments on their rationale for pursuing the case and whether they are mulling appealing Will's ruling to the state's High Court.
"Why didn't they just change the wording," Rice said at the July 16 workshop. "That's the million dollar question."
Berube told The Rochester Voice that the county had spent some $14,500 in legal fees thus far, but a Rochester resident named Human, who changed his legal name about 10 years ago, noted during the workshop that we may never know what the city spent, because O'Rourke is a full-time employee.
In the past Rochester residents have sought to find out how much the city spent on a particular case, only to be told there are no such documents available.
"When you're contracting out legal work you have bills to specific issues, legal expenses are documented, but when you have a whole city legal department, that becomes a barrier to transparency," Human said.
In 2023 O'Rourke was paid a salary of almost $121,000 plus benefits of almost $49,000. The legal department's paralegal received a salary of $102,00 with benefits of $33,000.
It's still not clear whether Rochester will appeal the ruling. Meanwhile, while Judge Will denied the reimbursement of legal fees to the county, Bower thinks if the City of Rochester appeals to the High Court and loses, the county may be able to recover its costs, not only from the High Court, but perhaps also from the Superior Court, he said on Thursday.