The Tilly Foster Saga: Tomorrow (Friday) at 1:30PM the Physical Services Committee of the County Legislature will be meeting at Tilly Foster to discuss terms of the proposed contract with George Whipple to run the Farm for the next 40 years. Over the past few days I’ve received phone calls and emails telling me that the contract is a good deal and that some of the most difficult aspects have been worked out but I am not convinced. A recently circulated copy of the latest version of the contract is, in many ways as bad – or worse – than the original.
For some reason, the Putnam Arts Council has become central in this battle but it’s a straw-man argument. The issues at Tilly Foster have little to do with the Putnam Arts Council and everything to do with the viability of the proposed contract itself. Please, let’s stay focused on that.
The main story is this: In its current form, the Contract sucks for the taxpayers and yet, in its defense, the only thing that has risen to the surface is that it will generate sales tax revenues for the county. In this economy? Apparently that’s the new mantra rising from the depths of those desperate to unload responsibility for the Farm. The Farm, like the Golf Course in Mahopac, are both Bondi’s Follies and it’s no wonder he wants this deal so badly. But there are other options and better ways. It just takes vision and work and a Plan, three things lacking in the Executive offices.
In the latest incarnation of the contract we’re told that even though it lasts longer than the expected life of the main dude, there is an out: if Mr. Whipple dies or leaves the not-for-profit entity this contract is actually with, the county can reassess the deal 12 months later. In other words, the Farm remains leaderless for a year while the county diddles its thumbs, the ship rudderless, drifting in a sea of unmown hay.
The contract stipulates that the county will receive plans for major improvements 30 days before construction commences. Is that enough time to run it past planning? To re-evaluate SEQRA? The Legislature does not have veto power on these plans, they’re only “informed” that they’re happening. What recourse do we have if we don’t like the concept of a wave pool for the Bed and Breakfast?
(Note: there is no plan for a wave pool, but you get the idea.)
The Farm will be able to erect any kind of a sign it wants with only the foreknowledge of the County Executive. I’m guessing the Town of Southeast’s sign codes do not come in to play here.
In order to appease those who support the Putnam Arts Council (PAC) the newest version of the contract allows them to lease the top floor of Building #8 and share the lower floor with Mr. W’s NfP for $1 a year for two years. After that they’ll pay Mr. Whipple $500 a month for upwards of 38 years. Now, that’s a sweet deal for the Arts Council and I’m hoping other communities will take note when their arts groups come calling. But I have a feeling the State Comptroller’s office is not going to like this very much.
When it comes to subleasing, something which is going on at the Farm now apparently without a legal lease agreement, the county only has “we told you” access to anything new coming along and while the Legislature has the ability to terminate existing subleases, it does not enjoy that power over anything new.
Mr. Whipple can arbitrarily alter the hours the Farm is open to the public. All he needs to do is to “notify” the Legislature beforehand but there are no provisions for arguing the fact.
What will it cost for taxpayers to cover the utility bills, heating, cooling, electricity, etc., and to maintain the walks and roads in all weather conditions vs. the amount of monies generated from sales taxes? I just don’t believe anyone could raise those kinds of funds through sales taxes alone from the Farm. So why not have a profit sharing arrangement? But that’s not in the contract. While Ann Fanizzi, the contact’s most ardent supporter, dreams that Mr. Whipple will build a bed & breakfast and turn the main lodge into full service restaurant, the county will need to foot the entirety of the utility bills and the maintenance of the roads and walkways leading to and surrounding them. I wish I had such a deal with my landlord!
Should we go into the insurance issues again? Oy!
Who takes over if Mr. Whipple passes on before the 40 years are up? Why has Mr. Whipple set a December 31, 2008 deadline? Why the headlong rush into a contract so vague it is sure to launch an Article 78 complaint? Wasn’t there a trial period thing going on? There are so many valid and important questions to ask I just don’t know where to start.
However, we need to know what the business plan is for the Farm. We need to have a concrete project placed before us and properly vetted through a full SEQRA process. The county was allowed to purchase the Farm after going through SEQRA and the new plan may violate portions of that original vetting. If it does, we need to run SEQRA from scratch otherwise we may be in violation of the MOA and State law. A full service restaurant will use a good deal more water and sewage than is currently in use there as well as increase traffic loads on Route 312. A Bed and Breakfast would do the same and we don’t know what other dreams may come to fruition. These might alter the original environmental review enough to trigger SEQRA. We need to know and cannot take the County Executive’s, nor Mr. Whipple’s word. We need to do the studies. We need to have the facts.
(Why anyone would want to stay at a B&B on busy Route 312 with all those commercial trucks rumbling by is beyond me anyway.)
We need to set some conditions:
- We should charge rent for any commercial operations or, at the very least, share in the profits.
- Any permanent improvements to the buildings should meet, at the very least, LEED Silver standards to lessen the financial impact of paying for utilities.
- There should be an independent citizens oversight committee charged with making sure that the contract is adhered to and with the power to recommend to the Legislature a veto of any plans Mr. W may have and the Legislature should have enforceable veto powers.
- Use of any facility should be reserved for county residents and organizations first, before outside agencies, and at a lower fee.
- The Legislature should have veto powers just as any landlord would.
I can think of dozens of others and I’m sure you can too.
If the county is intent on finding someone to manage the place then let’s do it wisely with a well thought-out business plan that works and with one that turns a profit for the county. And no, we should not be paying the utility bills or insurance for a private enterprise. That’s patently ridiculous.
In the end, I’m willing to bet those in favor of this deal on the County Legislature will have lots of pretty words to say; Sales taxes! Tourism! Babies! Puppies! Balloons! Sweet Cuddly Animals! But in the end the real discussion is about fiscal and governmental accountability and a verifiable business plan that works. We should accept nothing less. And if Mr. Whipple cannot provide that under a contract that puts the taxpayers first, we should suck it up, deal with it, and find someone who can.
And, that’s the News That Matters.
Related posts:
Loading ...
[...] From December 18th, 2008 [...]