Subj: letter to the editor
Preserve New Fairfield’s web site originally stated that the financial responsibility of the historical houses and their costs would be the responsibility of PNF after they were moved. That statement was soon removed from their website and their current mission statement no longer includes this claim for financial responsibility and many of the costs related to the properties have been absorbed by the town because they are “town owned properties”. Thousands of dollars of Public Works department site work, and thousands for a bridge installation its DEP ordered removal were billed to the town and paid for by the taxpayer.
The efforts of Preserve New Fairfield are probably honorable, but this project was vastly underestimated from the beginning in scope and cost nor was it well thought out, or planned for, in its haste to get it done.
We are now being asked to agree to a long term lease that requires the taxpayer to foot the bill for a new bridge, a parking lot, and insurance. A failure to install a bridge will void the lease with PNF. The “rent” paid to the Town by PNF is $1/year with a 99 year lease. PNF is also responsible for the maintenance, some insurance and upkeep. Their failure / inability to fund these expenses will result in the reversal of that responsibility back to the town and the taxpayers. Since they remain town owned buildings the town is also required to carry insurance and liability coverage.
I have major concerns that I believe need to be answered before approval of this lease. If they are not answered to our complete satisfaction, the lease should NOT be approved at this time.
1. A responsible landlord would require proof of the tenant’s ability to pay. Unfortunately, it does not appear that PNF has the funds to comply with their projected expenses. Preserve New Fairfield had presented to the Board of finance a cost analysis of a projected annual income of $40,000 to show their ability to cover the high costs of maintaining and operating these buildings. However, their last IRS filing shows an income of a little over $15,000 after more than 2 years of being incorporated as a non-profit and fundraising. They do not appear to have the financial ability at this time to guarantee this.
2. I believe that the amount of liability coverage being required is far too low. It is insufficient to protect the town in the event of n accident or emergency. Because PNF has no assets, any lawsuit would then become the burden of the Town as these are Town owned buildings.
3. The bridge issue: What is the legal and necessary process that needs to be followed? What state regulations govern the installation of the bridge? What permits need to be obtained? Can we even get the permits or are there restrictions on the placement and size of the bridge that would make it impossible or not cost-effective to do so? What restrictions might there be on the bridge usage?
4. The insurance issues: Coverage is too low given the number of people who could be allowed on the premises at one time and given PNF’s lack of assets the “hold harmless” issue is worthless.
5. There is a “Preservation Covenants” included in the lease. What are the particulars of such covenants? Regarding “private functions” are thee specific limits as to the number of people and the type of activity that can be carried out at such a function?
Preserve New Fairfield has already been gifted with a $350,000 head start when the STEAP grant for the downtown sidewalks was “redirected” to cover the expenses of moving the houses. The town meeting held to approve that transfer was poorly advertised and subsequently poorly attended with the vast majority (48 to 4) attendees being Preserve New Fairfield supporters.
As yet, this lease is not a good thing for the town based on the fragility of PNF to continue as a viable, financially stable, adequately funded, self-sustaining nonprofit in today’s economic climate. I believe that the town of New Fairfield is at great risk and could be left with the full financial responsibility for the costs of owning, maintaining a, insuring and operating these buildings.
The lease is posted on the Towns website, under “special town meeting” and I urge all voters to read it carefully before making their decision. Let’s not make the same mistake twice. Please turn out to VOTE on Thursday’s meeting at 6::30.
Jody Gemmell
746-5891
