One generous offer deserves another. At least that’s the way it seemed during Monday’s Litchfield City Council meeting.

The City Council, on a 6-1 vote, approved a sale agreement for the Litchfield Opera House, turning over responsibility of the historic building to a newly formed Greater Litchfield Opera House Association for the cost of just $1.

The city’s sale offer was exactly $99,999 less than what the association — a nonprofit group led by a board of about eight people — offered during a meeting two weeks ago.

“The city’s offer exceeded our expectations and we felt very positive with the working relationship that’s developing,” association spokeswoman Darlene Kotelnicki said in a telephone interview Tuesday morning. “The terms as they are presented are agreeable for all.”

The three-page agreement spells out specifics of the sale, including the formal purchase price of $100,000, which is followed by an explanation that “the city will accept $1 with the balance being allocated to the building renovation project as an acknowledgement of the city’s participation and cooperation.”

Also included in the agreement are conditions,  which include: the association is responsible for all hazardous material abatement and removal; any roof warranty will be transferred to the association; the association agrees it will not demolish the building within 30 years from title transfer; the city will have right of first refusal to purchase the building back for $1 if the association decides to give up on the project.

Other details of the agreement were debated and changed during City Council discussion Monday.

Council member Gary Walz challenged two points in the agreement, both having to do with city responsibility for projects around the Opera House.

Walz disliked the agreement’s stipulation that the city was responsible for snow removal and sidewalk cleaning around the Opera House.

“I’m a little concerned we’re liable for cleaning sidewalks and that sort of thing,” Walz said. “If we’re selling the building, why? I don’t want to be liable for that.”

It was pointed out that the city does similar work for the library, G.A.R. Hall and downtown businesses as a matter of policy. Walz said he did not object to the city treating the Opera House in the same manner, but that he did not like it being specified in the sale agreement, because those policies could change.

Another point making the city responsible for paying the future special assessment for an infrastructure replacement project on Marshall Avenue also drew Walz’s scrutiny.

However, City Administrator Bruce Miller explained that the project already was on the city’s improvement calendar, and even if the Opera House did not exist, the city would be responsible for the work.

Council member Larry Dahl reminded other members that he had promised to survey every resident in Ward 4, which he represents, regarding their support for using taxpayer money to save the Opera House. As of last night, Dahl said, he had interviewed 100 people, 10 of whom said they would be willing to have public money spent on Opera House preservation. The agreement to give the Greater Litchfield Opera House Association ownership of the building seemed like an acceptable outcome, Dahl said.

“I hope we can come to agreement to get the Opera House off the table,” he said. “I wish the association well in their endeavor.”

Mayor Vern Madson asked whether Kotelnicki was prepared to name other members of the association’s board, and she did offer three names besides hers — Kathy Bren, Dave Lindberg and Mickey Scullard. Three other board members have not consented to having their names released, she said.

Once the City Council approved the Opera House sale agreement, Kotelnicki ceremonially presented Madson with a 1900 silver dollar, the year the building was constructed.

“I’m very happy with the cooperation we’ve had from all parties,” Kotelnicki said. “I think we’ll all be very surprised five years from now where we are with this.”