Citizen Commentary on Bridge over Ball Pond Brook

Douglas E. Thielen

9 Pheasant Drive, New Fairfield, CT 06812

[203] 746-4039

Note: If you wish to send a Fax, please call me

E-Mail: Doug1016@aol.com

FAX TRANSMITTAL

 To: JOHN HODGE

Number of pages excluding this cover sheet: 0

Date: April 24, 2009 

 Dear John,

Relative to the town’s obligation to install a bridge across Ball Pond Brook to allow access to the Museum District, I strongly suggest you put a dollar cap on the installed cost of any bridge that allows access to the other side of Ball Pond Brook. Otherwise you’ve committed the town to what could be a super expensive structure. You might be surprised when you see the estimated cost of a structure that spans 100 to 120 feet, since that seems to be the approximate length requirement for now.

I would suggest a cap of $100,000 be included for the installed cost of a bridge, if it is not too late to incorporate that in the lease.

Also, if the bridge does not allow for vehicular travel for things such as EMT vans/ambulances, I feel the town is open to a huge liability if a visitor has “the big one” in one of the buildings and winds up dead. The claim could well be made that having to hand carry supplies across a footbridge and then having to gurney the person back to the ambulance resulted in a fatal time delay.

I hope you seriously consider these two items before you finalize and execute the lease.

Regards,

Doug Thielen

WITHOUT A POLICY WE HAVE ANARCHY ... NOT FOLLOWING POLICY ... TYRANNY

WAS THE POLICY FOLLOWED?  YOU BE THE JUDGE ... IF NOT, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?

PA 07-218—sHB 5729

Planning and Development Committee

Appropriations Committee

AN ACT CONCERNING THE SALE, LEASE OR TRANSFER OF MUNICIPAL PROPERTY

SUMMARY: This act requires towns to hold a public hearing on the proposed sale, lease, or transfer of town land or buildings. A town must hold the hearing before giving final approval to any of these transactions. This requirement applies to property whose fair market value exceeds $10,000 or lease renewals that would change how a property is used. It also applies whenever the town proposes to sell parkland, open spaces, or playgrounds, regardless of the land's fair market value.

The town must publish at least two hearing notices in a newspaper serving the town. It must publish them at least two days apart, the first one between 10 and 15 days before the hearing and the second at least two days before the hearing. The town must also conspicuously post a sign on the subject property (presumably advertising the hearing's place and time).
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2007
OLR Tracking: JR: RC: CR: TS

$1 per year RENT with a 99 year lease ... with Taxpayers shouldering all the RISK!!!

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

New Fairfield lucky to have John Hodge

Newstimes

Updated: 04/16/2009 08:30:53 PM EDT

As the story goes, it was well known throughout town that the first time John Hodge ran for first selectman, I was not a fan. Upon returning to town and being curious as to how he had done, I checked and found John Hodge to be a street fighter who got things done. Less talk and more action.  NOTE: Mr. Blackwell works for the Town.  Mr. Murello works for the Town.  Mr. Sbordone works for the Town.  Mr. Iadarola works for the Town.  CAN YOU NAME THE OTHER LOYAL FOLLOWERS OF MR. HODGE THAT CONTRACT WITH OR ARE BENEIFICIARY OF THE TOWN AND FEAR THEIR JOBS OR WHO DIRECTLY WORK FOR THE TOWN?

I was totally in awe of how he could retain so much information in his head. When I'd ask him a question, he would give me an immediate answer without having to look it up somewhere. When I watched Channel 17, I saw that he did the same thing at the meetings; it appeared he had some sort of viewer that only he could see, that had all the answers.  DOES HE HAVE A SECRET TELEPROMPTER?

Having said that, I see there are some people who -- although they believe they are well-meaning -- do not clearly research or investigate their claims. I've heard that John Hodge spends a lot of money; you know what, he does.  But none of it is actual taxpayers' dollars. Most of it was and is grant money. NOTE: THERE MUST BE A GRANT MONEY TREE SOMEWHERE ... THE LAST TIME I CHECKED THE GOVERNMENT MERELY DISTRIBUTES TAXPAYER DOLLARS! 

He was criticized for the historical site and some criticized him for the senior center.  NOTE: AFTER PUBLICLY STATING "NO" TAXPAYER DOLLARS WOULD BE INVOLVED, 'WE' YOU AND I GOT HOSED FOR APPROXIMATELY $140,000 TO $150,000 DOLLARS!  AND THE TOWN [MR. HODGE] HAD TO REMOVED THE SECOND TEMPORARY/ PERMANENT  BRIDGE BECAUSE IT WAS ILLEGAL. AND TO ADD 'SALT TO THOSE WOUNDS ... SOLD THE BRIDGE BACK FOR PENNIES ON THE DOLLAR!!!  Both are an asset to the town.  NOT IN OUR LIFE TIMES!

I could attach a large list of accomplishments of the administration.  NOTE: PLEASE POST THEM ON THE TOWN HALL DOOR FOR EVERYONE TO READ!!! And after all is said and done, this town -- unlike some neighboring towns -- is more than $10 million in the black. This could not have been done by anyone other than this administration, led by John Hodge. 

He has fearlessly faced the criticism and was able to accomplish wonders. Can anyone seriously doubt he and this administration truly have New Fairfield's best interest at heart? NOTE: YES!  Look deeper than the innuendos and misleading statements and you'll find the true meaning of community.  NOTE: WE ARE STILL LOOKING AND FILING COMPLAINTS.

Donald Blackwell, Chair of the Republican Town Committee

NEW FAIRFIELD

POSTSCRIPT:  

Mr. Iadarola is the Town Engineer

Mr. Sbordone is second in command or Finance Department

Mr. Merullo is the Director of Park and Rec.

Mr. Blackwell is a Town Dispatcher

Also each of these individuals serves in other capacities of boards, commissions and committees.  CAN YOU SAY 'NO VESTED INTEREST' ... NOW SAY THAT THREE TIMES FAST!

SCHOOL PROJECTS ... FREE MONEY ... OR IS IT REALLY FREE?

From: Wedge, David [mailto:David.Wedge@po.state.ct.us]
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 9:34 AM
To: A concerned citizen
Subject: RE: New Fairfield School District

Dear Concerned Citizen,

First, the term “Renovate as New” has been the commonly applied term for the statutory provision of a project classified as a “Renovation.”  The classification was created in the late ‘90s to closely equate the school construction grant of a “Renovation” to that of building a new school.  Let me explain.

Prior to this classification projects of this type were considered as alterations, refurbishments, or several similar characterizations.  However, whereas most costs in the construction of a new facility are eligible for grant assistance, in these other projects all costs characterized as repairs, replacements or maintenance were (and still are) ineligible for grant assistance.  Therefore, replacement of boilers/HVAC systems, lighting, carpeting, phone systems, etc., no matter what their age or condition, were (and still are) ineligible for grant assistance.  But in the late ‘90s we saw that rather than repairing old school facilities that were structurally sound, towns were abandoning old buildings and replacing them with new facilities.  The logic used by the towns was why fix up an old school when most of the costs will be ineligible when we can build a new school and most of the costs will be eligible for grant assistance.

The state then created the category of a “renovation.”  Basically, it states that if a town fixes up an old facility (at least 30 years old) that is structurally sound, making it into the functional equivalent of a new school, and there is a cost savings over building a new school, then the commissioner has the authority to make those otherwise ineligible costs eligible for grant assistance.  The provision makes a lot of sense.  If we would pay for a boiler in a new school, we will pay for a replacement boiler in the renovation, etc.   However, to qualify, the project must be for the full renovation of the entire facility, not just a portion.  This is not the every 10 year or so “paint-‘n-powder” facility update project.  The renovated facility must be fully compliant with all codes, current energy standards, technology standards, etc.  Whatever we would expect to see in a new facility is expected to be in the renovated facility, and for less cost.

Here is a link to one of our web pages.  From this page you can access specific pages to a great deal of information regarding school construction grants, including eligible and ineligible costs.

Feel free to call me at (860) 713-6467 if you have any questions.

David Wedge, Chief
Bureau of School Facilities
Connecticut State Department of Education



p.s.  Here are the statutory references to a “Renovation”.  10-282(18) is the formal definition and 10-286(8) outlines the potential benefit of such a classification.  I have also extracted from our web information the guidelines for qualifying a project as a renovation.


10-282(18) "Renovation" means a school building project to totally refurbish an existing building (A) which results in the renovated facility taking on a useful life comparable to that of a new facility and which will cost less than building a new facility as determined by the department, provided the school district may submit a feasibility study and cost analysis of the project prepared by an independent licensed architect to the department prior to final plan approval, (B) which was not renovated in accordance with this subdivision during the twenty-year period ending on the date of application, and (C) of which not less than seventy-five per cent of the facility to be renovated is at least thirty years old;
 
10-286(8) In the case of a renovation project for which an application is made on or after July 1, 1995, the eligible percentage as determined in subsection (b) of section 10-285a, multiplied by the eligible costs as determined by the commissioner, provided the project may be exempt from the standard space specifications, and otherwise ineligible repairs and replacements may be considered eligible for reimbursement as part of such a project, if information is provided acceptable to the commissioner documenting the need for such work and the cost savings to the state and the school district of such renovation project in comparison to alternative construction options;

GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY OF

SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS FOR STATUS AS

RENOVATIONS AS DEFINED IN C.G.S. 10-282

1.      The applicant must make written application for such status.

2.      The applicant must have gone through a formal process of evaluating the proposed project.   Professional estimates must be available to document that significant cost savings will result.

3.      The entire facility must be brought into 100 percent compliance with all applicable codes (including handicapped accessibility) when this renovation project is complete.  Partial renovations of an entire facility or complete renovations of a wing of a facility do not qualify.

4.      The renovation must incorporate education technology capability throughout the facility, as recommended in the Guidelines for Technology Infrastructure in Connecticut Schools.

5.      It must be determined by a structural engineer that the structural integrity of the original building has not been compromised and is adequate to provide for continued occupancy for a period of time comparable to that of a new facility.

6.      A detailed report on all existing building systems must be provided, including HVAC and electrical systems, water, roofing, lighting, plumbing, energy monitoring, communications and security systems.  Professional opinions must be provided that all systems will have a useful life of at least 20 years following the construction project.

7.      All new and replacement windows must be energy efficient.

8.      The site of the existing facility must be central to the area served and adequate to provide the educational programs offered.

9.      Any other analysis deemed necessary by the Department to properly evaluate the request must be provided.

Prior to pursuing requirements 3 through 9, districts are strongly advised to submit documentation in support of Item 2.  Failure to receive SDE approval for Item 2 will negate any need to pursue Items 3 through 9.