Sunday, August 2, 2009

CLEANING THE DIGITAL CLOSET TURNS UP SOME INTERESTING THINGS

What does $970,000 in surplus or rather overtaxed funds have to do with a Senior Center?  Glad you asked!  I was cleaning the 'digital attic' sort to speak, when I came across this email exchange with the DECD in Hartford.  The issue was the liability the town faced with a proposed Senior Center.  The now "old Senior Center" was used as a Community Center whereby many groups had access and used the facility.  The use of course didn't stop with community groups such as Girl and Boy Scouts, rather extended to many other groups and organizations in New Fairfield.  It was convenient with ample parking, as is the "new" Senior Center.  But that is where the comparison ends!
The "new" Senior Center is a SENIOR CENTER (period), emphasis added.  The use restrictions are very clear and the "new" Senior Center CAN NOT be used for such activities, as in the past.  No spill over government meetings are allowed, no Girl and Boy Scout meetings are allowed.  No anything!  Just senior activities, which is fine.  However, Mr. Hodge 'stretches the bounds of definitions in the English language' in order to justify his understanding and his own uses of the language.  The word 'NO' simply to him means find a different way.  The concept of scour analysis ... sorry boys and girls, let me explain that concept.  That's when you restrict the natural flow of a stream with a man-made structure creating a potential erosion problem.  WELL, that's a deep subject and we don't want to go into at this moment.  Back to the bridge to 'no where' ... the State DEP required ... no that's not quite the term ... "demanded" that the bridge [that cost over $140,000 taxpayer dollars] be removed from the 100 year flood plane.  So, Mr. Hodge, with Mr. Oliveri watching had to remove that bridge and what about the $140,000 plus taxpayer dollars?  Sh..... let's not dwell on small things.  Mr. Hodge will make up the difference in his "Monetary Legal Recovery" activities.  What you ask?  WELL, there's that word again.  A Monetary Legal Recovery is a construct that Mr. Hodge, with Mr. Oliver watching 'spun into existence' to provide a diversion for the taxpayers.  MLR (monetary legal recovery) is when the town sues its residents to recovery an additional 5 cents on the dollar.  Mr. Hodge through his own admission spent $595,000 in legal funds [read taxpayer dollars] to recover $615,000.  Such a bargain.  Did I tell you about the bridge I have to sell you.  Oh, that's right, Mr. Hodge sold the bridge at an incredible lost of taxpayer dollars.  He's such a shrewed business man, with Mr. Oliveri watching.  Enough of history of Mr. Hodge's follies ... for there are many more.  Let's look into the future ... do you see that bright light at the end of the tunnel ... no that's not hope of a better time, with Ms. Chapman watching.  That's the tax increase train coming.  Yep ... along with maybe the return of the weevils.  But let's get back to the use restrictions and the 'new' Senior Center.  Mr. Hodge should just use the surplus [taxpayer dollars] and pay off the DECD the $650,000 and use the "new" Senior Center as a Community Center, with Ms. Chapman watching.  Then they can both sit at the Community Center and muse about the two old houses across the 100 year flood plane and wonder how the propane tanks are going to get filled.  And what about Mr. Oliveri, you say!  He will be sitting on his front porch in the Carolina's wondering as WELL.  Damn there's that word again ... its a deep subject for another time ... it just stop raining ... gotta go, ta, ta.




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sheridan, Bruce < Bruce.Sheridan@ct.gov>
Date: Aug 27, 2007 1:06 PM
Subject: RE: This month's meeting
To: rogercwise@gmail.com
Cc: "Hunter, Veronica A" < Veronica.Hunter@po.state.ct.us >, "Lusardi, Lawrence M" <Lawrence.Lusardi@po.state.ct.us>, jhodge@newfairfield.org


Mr. Wise, Veronica has asked me to respond to the issue you have raised, namely the "use restriction" for senior centers.  The issue you raised is somewhat complicated based on the various circumstances you described. Simply put, we would expect a building built with Small Cities funds to be used as it was intended, that is, as a Senior Center.  The building must be open during normal business hours and serve the seniors as defined by the federal government as 62 years old. We would expect the Town to maintain the building providing operational support with a director, heat, lights and insurance for the 'normal life of the building' (approx 25 years). We would want this "use restriction" placed on the land records to ensure its compliance with these requirements. The Town could not hold Town meetings in this facility.  Failure to comply with this would require us to demand the funds be returned to the State.
Now, you have asked us whether those restrictions apply also to the Town's funds and again the first answer is yes, provided that all that was constructed was a senior center.
If the Town is trying to build a mixed use building, then certain other conditions must be determined.  But first, it is important to know  what activities are not eligible for Small Cities funding: primarily, new housing construction and buildings used for the general conduct of government.  Principally, Small Cities funds are to be used in service to low and moderate-income persons of which seniors are considered automatically eligible.
So if the Town was to construct a building with 50% of the floor space used only for seniors and the other 50% of the building was to be used for other town business, then we could only provide 50% of the funding.  For example, a 10,000 square foot building, with 5,000 square feet dedicated to seniors, would need to be pro-rated out of the total building costs including roof, interior design, electrical, plumbing, architectural fees, etc.  Clearly, to ensure compliance, a separate portion of the building dedicated only to seniors with a separate entrance, or a totally separate senior center with no other activities  would keep the issue clear.  Sharing the same space is where we see conflicts arise and could call into question the eligibility of the entire building.  Again, the senior center cannot be used for the general conduct of government. 
You may call me at 860-270-8114.
From: Hunter, Veronica A
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 9:04 AM
To: Sheridan, Bruce
Subject: FW: This month's meeting
Bruce - see attached
Veronica Hunter
Community Development Specialist
DECD
505 Hudson St
Hartford, CT  06106

From: Roger C. Wise [mailto:rogercwise@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2007 10:09 PM
To: Hunter, Veronica A
Subject: Fwd: This month's meeting
Dear Ms. Hunter,

I had a meeting with you and your staff as well as the Executive Director two weeks ago regarding the DECD pending Grant for New Fairfield Senior Center.  I need some clarification regarding the 'use restrictions' associated with the grant.  Am I to understand from that meeting that the restrictions apply to the entire Senior Center or just a 'pro rata' or designated portion of the facility?  As I mentioned during our meeting the present Senior Center does not have any federal or state funds associated with it, therefore the town can and does use the facility as a spill over municipal resource for meeting, public hearings, other community activities not specifically for 62 years and older.  Would the grant allow these activities to continue or would the facility be restricted?  I'm also a member of the Board of Finance and would like the clarification as we have already had a Town referendum to qualify by obligating a sum of $900,000 dollars for a Senior Center.  Would the funds used to qualify for the funding from DECD and the $650,000 be 'use restricted'.  That is if the Town agreed to bond $900,000 to qualify would the DECD consider the qualifying funds linked to the $650,000?  What would the liability of the Town be should the facility violate the 'use restrictions'?

Looking forward to your reply.

Regards,
Roger C. Wise
Posted by at