News That Matters

The Proposed Tilly Foster Contract

Wow. Talk about a sweetheart deal! Over the past few months, Kent resident George Whipple has been in discussion with County Executive Bondi over an idea Mr. W had regarding the management of the Tilly Foster Farm. Those discussions led to a draft contract, dated November of this year which would allow Mr. W to run the farm for 40 years. Sounds good, no? Here are some of the details of this sweetheart of sweetheart deals:

Disclaimer: No matter how much my mother wanted me to be one, I am not a lawyer nor have I ever played one on television, radio or stage. In fact, I probably know nothing about the law whatsoever and when it comes to legal things I’m probably just talking out my butt. Keep that in mind while we wend through the legal language of this contract. Any misunderstandings or mistakes are the sole responsibility of the reader and not the writer of this article. That, according to Section 6, subsection A, paragraph 4-E, I’m off the hook for anything that might become a legal issue at any point during the next 40 years whether it has anything to do with me or not. The following is strictly opinion and not meant to be surmised as learned, educated or factually known to the writer. In fact, just consider that this is all an hallucination and that you’re really reading Yachting Magazine.

1. The county would lease the entirety of Tilly Foster, all the buildings and all the lands to Mr. W until December 21, 2048.
2. Mr. W gets to do all the hiring for any position he feels is required to meet his goals. He promises to keep the farm an open public amenity and says that he will meet the county’s vision for the farm to the best of his ability.
3. Once a year Mr. W will send the Tilly Foster Advisory Board an update on how things are going. There is no other mention of the Board in the contract so I’m guessing they’re out of the picture.
4. Article III states: The LESSEE [Mr. W] shall not be required to provide the LESSOR [the County] with a monthly monetary amount in exchange for the use of the premises. Rather, LESSEE agrees to the following: (A) To use its best efforts to achieve self-sufficiency at the Tilly Foster Farm operations as an open public farm and museum by December 2011…”
5. All the equipment at the farm, tractors, watering tanks, sheds, etc., will be there for the sole use of Mr. W and his new enterprise.
6. While Mr. W says that the public will be allowed on the property from 10AM to 4PM every day, save holidays (which are not listed or defined), the contract also states that he has the right to decide what type of access and when. [Article 8]
7. The contract states that if a fire should occur Mr. W will take care of the damages but if the damages are too great, and his business enterprise cannot continue, he can cancel the contract with 5 days notice and the county ends up with the mess minus the insurance payout. [Article 9-A]
8. Article 9-E talks about insurance. In effect, if insurance costs more than $1000 a month the county can, if it wants, shell out for the difference. If not, they can cancel the contract within 20 days.
9. Article 10 states that the county is “responsible for the payment of utilities, including electricity, fuel, oil, gas and water. In other words, the taxpayers foot the utility bills for whatever goes on there.
10. Article 11 says, “The LESSOR (which is the County) shall maintain said premises, parking areas and sidewalks in good repair and in tenantable condition, during the continuance of this Lease, except in case of damage arising from the willful misconduct or gross negligence of the LESSEE (which is Mr. W), or as otherwise provided herein.” Then, “LESSOR, shall also be responsible for the removal of snow and/or ice and sanding of the parking areas, driveways, exterior stairways and sidewalks appurtenant to the demised premises“. In other words, we’re footing the bill for that, too.
11. Article 12 is missing.
12. Article 13 says that the county must undertake normal maintenance of the buildings and grounds.
13. Article 14 says that Mr. W will not take out any trees or shrubs unless it’s part of “ordinary farming operations” consistent with the Watershed Agricultural Council. For the record, logging is a consistent use.
14. Mr. W can ‘sublet any portion of the premises which [he] deems necessary to [his] ongoing operations…”
15. The Putnam Arts Council will be moved to Building 6 and pay rent – to Mr. W.
16. Article 17 says, [The County] agrees that {Mr. W} shall hereafter be entitled to all revenues realized from agreements with the County entered into with the Putnam Arts Council and Community Gardens, provided that such revenue is handled in accordance with “Article III” herein.
17. Article 19 is the termination clause and it works like this: The LESSOR, upon twelve (12) months notice to LESSEE, may terminate this Agreement in whole or in part when the LESSEE has violated any of the material terms hereof…” And if the county does, we have to reimburse Mr. W for whatever capitol improvements ‘cannot be removed’ from the premises.

Bearing in mind the disclaimer above, I shall make no further comments and I’ll leave that up to the Legal Beagles among us. Still, it’s a sweetheart deal for Mr. W if there ever was one. As for the taxpayers, it ain’t so good. There are some supporters of this deal, people who are usually vocal about things but have been pretty quiet on this one. I wish they would write in and tell us just why they believe that ‘selling the farm’ to the lowest bidder is good for the county.

.

Popularity: 2% [?]