40 Year Lease –The new “Term” section (section 4) gives the Society unfettered renewal rights for up to 40 years. While there appears to be a pro-County termination clause in (section 4(d)), such termination clause pre-supposes that the County has no current need for these premises for a public purpose. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Farm was purchased for a public purpose, is currently used by the public, and will continue to serve a public purpose even under the lease. If this lease is signed, we are effectively saying by virtue of this clause that the Farm is not needed for public purposes. The putative termination clause make no provision for the County to re-enter the property short of the Society failing to use its “best efforts,” a nebulous standard at best.
Capital Improvements –Section 9 of the lease gives the Society the ability to construct any capital improvement with merely the approval of the County Executive. However under certain circumstances, the County taxpayer will have to reimburse the Society for any capital improvements made to the Farm, no matter what the cost. This essentially circumvents the County’s budget process. The taxpayers would be forced to pay a potentially large settlement based upon the agreement between a private individual and the CE. Not exactly open, responsive and transparent government in my opinion.
Trees and shrubbery — (section 12) prohibits the removal of trees and shrubbery (except for ordinary farming operations). I seem to recall someone stating that logging is considered a farming operation. Any thoughts?
Subleasing (section 14) While the County is given the opportunity to terminate any sublease, the County is not given the ability to approve subleases before their inception. Why not allow the County to approve subleases before they are signed?
In a related matter, I’m not sure that the Putnam Arts Council is being treated fairly. PAC and the Friends of Tilly Foster Farm took what was essentially a ghost-town of a farm and turned it into a destination that people have come to enjoy. It seems that for such efforts, the lease now thanks them by giving PAC a short-term commitment of the space they now occupy and then shrinks the square footage for PAC to the Cantina — maybe, unless the Society determines that it needs the Cantina, in which case PAC will have to take whatever the Society offers, and oh yes, it still would have to pay $1,000 no matter what the space (take it or leave it, I guess).
Fees. No mention is made anywhere with respect to fees which the Society may charge to the general public for use of the Farm or for horse riding lessons or boarding. If you recall, the one RFP the County sent out in the past with respect to the horse boarding operation (and only the boarding operation, mind you, not for the whole Farm) required a detailed and extensive schedule of fees to be charged to the general public for riding lessons and boarding. In the lease, the Society has been held to no such reporting requirement or caps…
RFP Process – - For me, perhaps the most aggravating aspect of this whole process has been the County’s lack of an open and wide-ranging RFP procedure for the entire Farm. If you will recall, the County got spanked by the State Comptroller in 2007 (rightly so) for not going to an RFP process for the Golf Course. The County did send out an RFP for the horse boarding operation only and, as noted above, such RFP was laden down with many restrictions and disclosures (many of them good) which have not been required of the Society. One has to wonder if the RFP was designed to fail??
Despite the County Executive’s assertions to the contrary (see the 01/29/09 Putnam Courier Op-Ed by Bondi) the County has NEVER issued an RFP for the management of the entire Farm and certainly has never offered any other party the sweetheart deal now being offered to the Society. Through this lease, the County is offering a no-bid concession to run the Farm free of charge and to allow the Society to charge the public for access to public property, and to charge whatever sublease rentals it wants to with respect to the horse boarding operation and for most other buildings on the Farm.
And this:
Now, on to the lease; please let me know if you have any answers to
my questions.
Rent 5. f-Will the quarterly reports require financial information?
7 Utilities-What are the current yearly costs for utilities on the
farm? When will meters be installed?
Currently does each building, that is heated, have it’s own oil
tank? What are the current conditions of all the oil tanks? I understand the large barn isn’t heated; if at some point, heat was added, who would pay for that capital improvement.
Utilities 7 e. Trash Removal-would this include removal of construction debris if buildings were renovated?
9 Capital Improvements
e. Would the Society be subject to review by any planning entity,
when planning a renovation or new construction?
I know government agencies (towns, counties and schools) exempt
themselves from review, but the Society isn’t a government agency.
11. Equipment Use-Who is responsible for maintaining the equipment?
12. Trees and Shrubbery-What does the WAC agreement say concerning
logging of trees or clear cutting of any land?
13. Will the Society be subject to the Town of Southeast Sign
Ordinance?
15. Insurance Requirements-What does the County currently pay for
Property, Casualty and Commercial Liability Insurance for Tilly?
Do you know what the operating expenses were for Tilly Foster for
2008 or 2007. Curious to see if we will be spending more and
getting less. Also, I have heard it alluded to that there is big
money behind the Society, but the actual source or name of the donor
seems to be a secret; is this a rumor? Has anyone on the county level looked at financial reports backing up the Society?
And then there’s this, the latest head to head between Ann Fanizzi and Ken Harper:
From Ann:
Ken- First – As I said, I do not have use of the computer and won’t for
at least another week. So my response will be brief. Yes, let’s get the
facts straight. What is your agenda Ken? For seven plus years, my sole
agenda has been that Tilly prosper for the residents of the county. It
took you a long time to even embrace the idea of preserving the Farm -
remember. The legislature has an additional mandate: that the Farm be
self sufficient. That is the goal and that goal should be realized
within the mission and vision of the Tilly Foster Farm. Much work has
already been done as to the appropriate uses of buildings and
activities. And if that work had been even incrementally been
implemented, we would not be having this discussion.
Second. PAC was to leave The Lodge but obtain entirely The Cantini for
the period of time that was needed for construction. You are incorrect
in your statement. But PAC did not wish to move from The Lodge to the
Cantini – the space was too small for the art classes. They engaged in
this campaign not only to hold onto the Cantini but to The Lodge.
As for the CO, it was obtained last week. As for the Article 78,
I responded that having checked on a regular basis, the suit had not
been filed. If it was, it would be against the ZBA To overturn a ZBA
ruling is difficult indeed and I am confident in Mr. Shilling’s ability
to protect the interests of PAC.
As for my support of the lease, it doesn’t matter what the term is – 4,
40, 44 – so long as there are safeguards. Therefore, my support was
predicated on certain qualificiations. For almost two months, I have
written in several e-mails to the legislature and on lohud forum
(responded to by Jeff Green) that there were options as to governance.
An Advisory Board is not the entity to do it. I would like to see
that this joint public/private partnership have some structure.. I
mentioned at least two, one of which was the Central Park Conservancy
which had a Board of Trustees. I would like to add that the City pays
the Conservancy to run Central Park. But here we want Whipple to pay
the County. There is a formula based on the expenditures and revenues.
Lastly, as for your concrn about the DEP, there is an area on the Farm
that is outside the WAC envelope and that is the area where the
principal buildings are located – Cantini, Lodge, barns, horse boarding
operation, Benedict house, etc. Within that envelope, restrictions have
been relaxed.-, public bathrooms have been installed; a parking lot has
been expanded and caretakers have their residences. The Cantini is not
the venue for the restaurant as you mistakenly wrote but The Lodge. The
industrial kitchen is there; had been there in operation at the time of
the MOA and after.
I do not know what lease you are referring to. It has had several
incarnations. The one that I referring had PAC remaining for two years
in The Lodge for $1.00 and then in the Cantini for 38 years for $1,000
a month. How you can justify this sum in the face of the Legislative
mandate to make certain that the Farm is self -sufficient is beyond
me.
Ann
And this from Ken in reply:
First, I have no idea what you are referring to when you state “it took
you a long time to even embrace the idea of preserving the Farm.” If
memory serves, I was among the first to walk the property, along with
my wife and newborn daughter, and you, in fact, were the ‘tour guide’
on that stroll back in the spring of 2001.
Second, as to the Legislature’s “self-sufficiency” mandate – the county is currently funding the farm to the tune of about $150,000 annually and projects no decrease in that level of funding. What this contract is really about is that the Legislature doesn’t want to be bothered with their duty to manage this public property. The intricacies of reviewing maintenance requirements, usage requests, scheduling and other management
responsibilities simply sounds too ‘labor-intensive’ to our decidedly
‘hands-off” representatives.
Third, as far as I am concerned, the Putnam Arts Council can have the entire property for whatever use they desire. Every blade of grass, every
field and every building. They are one of the few organizations up here
that manage to get things done year in and year out.
Fourth, “much work” may already have been done on Tilly Foster but the quality of that work is somewhat in dispute. I may need to take a trip over and post photographs with regard to this but I’ll leave that as a future possibility.
Fifth, there is no “CO” (Certificate of Occupancy) because there is no building to occupy at the former Levine Center site. Feel free to take a drive over to confirm this (all readers included). Please provide a copy of this imaginary “CO” as proof or we shall assume you are mistaken.
Sixth, – again – there is no “lease” arrangement between the Arts Council and the county regarding Tilly Foster, there is a verbal agreement that was apparently offered by Bob Bondi. Feel free to ask him what the terms are (they seem to change almost daily) the next time he drives down from his farm upstate to visit our lovely county.
Finally, I have no idea what you and Jeff or anyone else have been “debating” for the past several months. I’ll assume all of these folks are
intelligent adults entirely capable of presenting their own points of
view as are you. Maybe I didn’t have as many ‘facts’ originally but I
have a lot more of them now and I am left wondering why you, who – as
you state – has been on this issue for many years seem to be making
your case based on your interpretation of those facts and outright
falsehoods. You are certainly entitled to your opinion but your rush to
characterize anyone with a different opinion as uninformed or working
against the best interests of Tilly Foster is preposterous and
shameful. I am reminded of the “you are either with us or with the
terrorists” statement made famous many years ago…..
There is an advisory committee and a separate not-for-profit (Friends of
Tilly Foster) already in existence. Why anyone sees the need to bring
in a third party (George Whipple) when these other groups have been on
the scene for most of the last 7 years is beyond me. (Oh, right – the
county has rarely, if ever, actually listened to the advisory
committee’s advice.) I am also stunned to see no reference to any Board of Directors for the Whipple organization and that no bids have been sought from or RFPs made to other groups. From my conversations with various state-level officials, it would seem that this ommission may invalidate any
contract the county signs at this point.
Frankly, Ann, I wasn’t paying that much attention to this whole thing until you started setting off alarm bells regarding Whipple, PAC, C of Os and various other inaccuracies. Having piqued my curiosity, the more I learn about this proposal the more I am convinced that something just doesn’t add up and I intend to do everything I can to derail it as a result.
My recommendation – assuming you actually are hoping to get this thing
passed – is to back off the character assassination and stick to the
relavent issues and facts. The opposition to this agreement is growing
with every one of your posts particularly those attacking the PAC.
Ken
And this from Ken posted this morning:
I’ve attached the current version of the lease between George Whipple
and Putnam County regarding the ongoing management of Tilly Foster
Farm. It’s way too open-ended, lacking in specific criteria and
benchmarks and seems overly vague. In the current environment featuring
Bernie Madoff wannabees, I am left to conclude that anything that seems
too good to be true probably is and that we all should be demanding
character references, non-refundable deposits and testimonials from
various saints prior to buying anything – particularly as it may relate
to our hard-earned tax dollars.
That’s the short answer. Read
the contract, draw your own conclusions and please communicate them to
the Legislature and the County Executive. There is a meeting scheduled
for this coming Thursday and this deal could conceivable be signed
unless enough folks speak up – and do so immediately.
Now the long answer.
Two
important concepts spring to mind – “quid pro quo” and “consideration.”
This contract has a great deal of “quid” (for Mr. Whipple) and very
little, if any, “quo” (for the taxpayers who own the property). No
specific criteria for evaluating performance, simply a “feel-good”
phrase “best of its abilities”, something that just might
be better spelled out at the beginning of this contract rather than
being debated endlessly for the next 40 years. “Consideration” refers
to one of the critical compnents of any contract, kind of “I’m giving
you this because you are giving me that”. It does not appear that Mr.
Whipple is giving the County anything while we are handing over Tilly
Foster. Approximately 199 acres of prime real estate to do with as one
pleases for free? How does that make sense to anybody?
1. “The Society for the Preservation of Putnam County
Antiquities and Greenways, Inc.” is described by the NYS Department of
State as a “private, not-for-profit corporation” with principle office
in Carmel while the contract has the office as George Whipple’s
employer, Credit Suisse in NYC. Not a major issue but odd nonetheless.
This may seem like a small detail but, assuming a lawsuit were filed,
the venue for such a lawsuit would be determined by the plaintiff’s
address. Big difference between NYC and Putnam County.
There is
no description of whether there is a Board of Directors (a requirement,
I believe) or who sits on the Board on the Society’s website. Is it
family? Business associates? Is there one? I’d like to know so as to be
able to explore potential or existing conflicts of interest, etc.
2.
“Self sustaining” – not really, The County (you and me, folks)
continues to pay for some electric usage (all electric usage until
individual meters are installed), trash removal, snow removal and
sanding, maintenace of the premises, parking lots and sidewalks,
repairs to the facility (for the first 5 years at least), all
“extraordinary repairs” (whatever that phrase means, the definition has
been left out), insurance premiums above $1000 per month (first year)
and a CPI-adjusted figure going forward, insurance premiums on
county-owned property, the costs of capital improvements made by “The
Society” should the County terminate the lease and the monthly rent
currently being paid to the County by Putnam Arts Council, a house used
by “Anthony DeNoia” and the community gardens.
3.
There are various references to “attached exhibits”, none of which are
actually attached. It is fairly difficult to evaluate the entire lease
without this information.
4. There has been no competitive
bidding which may violate state law. I’d at least like to have a few
benchmarks to use in evaluating this proposal. As stated previously,
there is already a not-for-profit called “Friends of Tilly Foster” that
was set up for just this purpose not forgetting dozens of other local
organizations with long track records that might have an interest in
this. Worth a look anyway.
5.
The contract refers to “The Society” yet is subject to immediate review
if George Whipple “discontinues his association with the Society.” This
leads to the question as to why the “Society” is even mentioned when it
seems Mr. Whipple is the key player. Again, it would be helpful to know
whether there is a Board of Directors (Mr. Whipple could find himself
voted out as President) and who these folks are in the event that they
end up running the organization.
6. Does the Society have any
experience running this type of facility? What, where and when? Like I
said – skepticism is the new rule, folks. “Show me the money.”
7. “No rodeos” – ever
(unless the Legislature approves). “Rodeos” are apparently the new “second-hand smoke”.
8.
Supervisory conflicts – some aspects of the contract give the
Legislature oversight while others give it to the County Executive. I’d
prefer to see them both watching over each other’s shoulders at all
times.
9. “The lease shall automatically terminate if the
Society ceases operation of the Tilly Foster Farm.” Wow, thank
goodness. You mean they don’t get to use if they’re not using it….
10.
The Society has 12 months from the expiration of the previous term to
notify the County that it does not wish to renew the lease. So, let me
get this straight…..12 months after the lease expires and there is no
lease while the Society continues to “operate” the Farm they can opt
not to renew? I’d like a similar arrangement with any landlord you care
to name. Essentially, they get 12 months of use without any oversight
or restricions – scott-free. Sweet.
11. The County can terminate the lease with 12 months
notice if the Legislature adopts a resolution that the County has a
need for the premises for a public purpose. This is why lawyers get
paid the big bucks. The Society is tasked with operating the Farm for
the public and yet there may be some superceding public purpose that
comes up in the future. That is about as loose a commitment to
operating Tilly Foster as stated as I can imagine. This is the clause
that should have Whipple up late into the evening.
12. “Separate
bank account” – no description as to the disposition of the monies
contained in said “separate” account, only annual financial statements
which, as we have read, didn’t do much for the various economic brains
watching Madoff or the investment banks or innumerable other places
money disappeared. Can’t say I have much faith in the Legislature’s
ability to monitor the fiscal goings-on within the Whipple organization.
13. “That the Society will, to the best of its
abilities, attempt” – it doesn’t much matter what follows because who
knows what “best of its abilities” means or what constitutes a
reasonable “attempt”. I can foresee another court battle over the
meaning of the word “is”. Essentially, the standard set by the lease is
“as long as the Society is trying to do its best everything is fine.”
14.
“The county shall be responsible for the payment of charges for all
utilities, including electricity, fuel, oil, natural gas, heat, water,
power and all other services” (phone? cable TV?). As stated previously,
some of the electric usage is covered by the Society but everything
else is on the taxpayers’ dime.
15. The Society has exclusive use of the hay harvested at the site meaning they can do whatever they like including sell it.
16.
Sub-leasing – The Society shall lease the top floor of Building 8, part
of the bottom floor and part of Building 6 to the Putnam Arts Council
for one year at a rate of $1000 per month. After that it “may” lease
only Building 6 to PAC for $1000 per month. “May” is a lot different
than “shall” and $1000 per month for parts of two buildings is a lot
different than paying the same for part of one building.
17.
“Shall” lease Building 1 to Anthony DeNoia at terms determined by the
Legislature which are not described. First, who is “Anthony DeNoia” and
why does he rate an entire house at the farm?
18. “The Putnam
County Legislature shall maintain the authority to direct the Society
to terminate any sub-lease entered into by it at any time during the
term of this agreement.”
This one basically means anyone who
leases space at the Farm could be summarilly evicted at any time at the
whim of the Legislature, meaning for cause, political expediency or
just because they don’t like you. Would anyone sign a lease under those
terms?
19. 12-month termination requirement. If the Society
doesn’t run the Farm properly it will take 12-months to get them out.
Not sure, but the Society could essentially burn the place to the
ground and the County might have to give them 12 months notice that
their little ‘deal’ just wasn’t working out.
20. Once you have reached 19 reasons not to do this deal, it simply feels like overkill to go on…..
February 2, 2009 – Tilly Foster Update
Folks,
The latest version of the proposed TF lease agreement has been posted to various boards and websites about and you can get your copy right here.
To bring you up to date, here’s a partial list of posts on this subject: (Links will open in a new window)
From December 3rd, 2008
From December 18th, 2008
From December 22nd, 2008
From January 23, 2009And here are some edited versions of the latest questions concerning the “Final” agreement collected from various sources:
40 Year Lease –The new “Term” section (section 4) gives the Society unfettered renewal rights for up to 40 years. While there appears to be a pro-County termination clause in (section 4(d)), such termination clause pre-supposes that the County has no current need for these premises for a public purpose. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Farm was purchased for a public purpose, is currently used by the public, and will continue to serve a public purpose even under the lease. If this lease is signed, we are effectively saying by virtue of this clause that the Farm is not needed for public purposes. The putative termination clause make no provision for the County to re-enter the property short of the Society failing to use its “best efforts,” a nebulous standard at best.
Capital Improvements –Section 9 of the lease gives the Society the ability to construct any capital improvement with merely the approval of the County Executive. However under certain circumstances, the County taxpayer will have to reimburse the Society for any capital improvements made to the Farm, no matter what the cost. This essentially circumvents the County’s budget process. The taxpayers would be forced to pay a potentially large settlement based upon the agreement between a private individual and the CE. Not exactly open, responsive and transparent government in my opinion.
Trees and shrubbery — (section 12) prohibits the removal of trees and shrubbery (except for ordinary farming operations). I seem to recall someone stating that logging is considered a farming operation. Any thoughts?
Subleasing (section 14) While the County is given the opportunity to terminate any sublease, the County is not given the ability to approve subleases before their inception. Why not allow the County to approve subleases before they are signed?
In a related matter, I’m not sure that the Putnam Arts Council is being treated fairly. PAC and the Friends of Tilly Foster Farm took what was essentially a ghost-town of a farm and turned it into a destination that people have come to enjoy. It seems that for such efforts, the lease now thanks them by giving PAC a short-term commitment of the space they now occupy and then shrinks the square footage for PAC to the Cantina — maybe, unless the Society determines that it needs the Cantina, in which case PAC will have to take whatever the Society offers, and oh yes, it still would have to pay $1,000 no matter what the space (take it or leave it, I guess).
Fees. No mention is made anywhere with respect to fees which the Society may charge to the general public for use of the Farm or for horse riding lessons or boarding. If you recall, the one RFP the County sent out in the past with respect to the horse boarding operation (and only the boarding operation, mind you, not for the whole Farm) required a detailed and extensive schedule of fees to be charged to the general public for riding lessons and boarding. In the lease, the Society has been held to no such reporting requirement or caps…
RFP Process – - For me, perhaps the most aggravating aspect of this whole process has been the County’s lack of an open and wide-ranging RFP procedure for the entire Farm. If you will recall, the County got spanked by the State Comptroller in 2007 (rightly so) for not going to an RFP process for the Golf Course. The County did send out an RFP for the horse boarding operation only and, as noted above, such RFP was laden down with many restrictions and disclosures (many of them good) which have not been required of the Society. One has to wonder if the RFP was designed to fail??
Despite the County Executive’s assertions to the contrary (see the 01/29/09 Putnam Courier Op-Ed by Bondi) the County has NEVER issued an RFP for the management of the entire Farm and certainly has never offered any other party the sweetheart deal now being offered to the Society. Through this lease, the County is offering a no-bid concession to run the Farm free of charge and to allow the Society to charge the public for access to public property, and to charge whatever sublease rentals it wants to with respect to the horse boarding operation and for most other buildings on the Farm.
And this:
Now, on to the lease; please let me know if you have any answers to
my questions.
Rent 5. f-Will the quarterly reports require financial information?
7 Utilities-What are the current yearly costs for utilities on the
farm? When will meters be installed?
Currently does each building, that is heated, have it’s own oil
tank? What are the current conditions of all the oil tanks? I understand the large barn isn’t heated; if at some point, heat was added, who would pay for that capital improvement.
Utilities 7 e. Trash Removal-would this include removal of construction debris if buildings were renovated?
9 Capital Improvements
e. Would the Society be subject to review by any planning entity,
when planning a renovation or new construction?
I know government agencies (towns, counties and schools) exempt
themselves from review, but the Society isn’t a government agency.
11. Equipment Use-Who is responsible for maintaining the equipment?
12. Trees and Shrubbery-What does the WAC agreement say concerning
logging of trees or clear cutting of any land?
13. Will the Society be subject to the Town of Southeast Sign
Ordinance?
15. Insurance Requirements-What does the County currently pay for
Property, Casualty and Commercial Liability Insurance for Tilly?
Do you know what the operating expenses were for Tilly Foster for
2008 or 2007. Curious to see if we will be spending more and
getting less. Also, I have heard it alluded to that there is big
money behind the Society, but the actual source or name of the donor
seems to be a secret; is this a rumor? Has anyone on the county level looked at financial reports backing up the Society?
And then there’s this, the latest head to head between Ann Fanizzi and Ken Harper:
From Ann:
Ken- First – As I said, I do not have use of the computer and won’t for
at least another week. So my response will be brief. Yes, let’s get the
facts straight. What is your agenda Ken? For seven plus years, my sole
agenda has been that Tilly prosper for the residents of the county. It
took you a long time to even embrace the idea of preserving the Farm -
remember. The legislature has an additional mandate: that the Farm be
self sufficient. That is the goal and that goal should be realized
within the mission and vision of the Tilly Foster Farm. Much work has
already been done as to the appropriate uses of buildings and
activities. And if that work had been even incrementally been
implemented, we would not be having this discussion.
Second. PAC was to leave The Lodge but obtain entirely The Cantini for
the period of time that was needed for construction. You are incorrect
in your statement. But PAC did not wish to move from The Lodge to the
Cantini – the space was too small for the art classes. They engaged in
this campaign not only to hold onto the Cantini but to The Lodge.
As for the CO, it was obtained last week. As for the Article 78,
I responded that having checked on a regular basis, the suit had not
been filed. If it was, it would be against the ZBA To overturn a ZBA
ruling is difficult indeed and I am confident in Mr. Shilling’s ability
to protect the interests of PAC.
As for my support of the lease, it doesn’t matter what the term is – 4,
40, 44 – so long as there are safeguards. Therefore, my support was
predicated on certain qualificiations. For almost two months, I have
written in several e-mails to the legislature and on lohud forum
(responded to by Jeff Green) that there were options as to governance.
An Advisory Board is not the entity to do it. I would like to see
that this joint public/private partnership have some structure.. I
mentioned at least two, one of which was the Central Park Conservancy
which had a Board of Trustees. I would like to add that the City pays
the Conservancy to run Central Park. But here we want Whipple to pay
the County. There is a formula based on the expenditures and revenues.
Lastly, as for your concrn about the DEP, there is an area on the Farm
that is outside the WAC envelope and that is the area where the
principal buildings are located – Cantini, Lodge, barns, horse boarding
operation, Benedict house, etc. Within that envelope, restrictions have
been relaxed.-, public bathrooms have been installed; a parking lot has
been expanded and caretakers have their residences. The Cantini is not
the venue for the restaurant as you mistakenly wrote but The Lodge. The
industrial kitchen is there; had been there in operation at the time of
the MOA and after.
I do not know what lease you are referring to. It has had several
incarnations. The one that I referring had PAC remaining for two years
in The Lodge for $1.00 and then in the Cantini for 38 years for $1,000
a month. How you can justify this sum in the face of the Legislative
mandate to make certain that the Farm is self -sufficient is beyond
me.
Ann
And this from Ken in reply:
First, I have no idea what you are referring to when you state “it took
you a long time to even embrace the idea of preserving the Farm.” If
memory serves, I was among the first to walk the property, along with
my wife and newborn daughter, and you, in fact, were the ‘tour guide’
on that stroll back in the spring of 2001.
Second, as to the Legislature’s “self-sufficiency” mandate – the county is currently funding the farm to the tune of about $150,000 annually and projects no decrease in that level of funding. What this contract is really about is that the Legislature doesn’t want to be bothered with their duty to manage this public property. The intricacies of reviewing maintenance requirements, usage requests, scheduling and other management
responsibilities simply sounds too ‘labor-intensive’ to our decidedly
‘hands-off” representatives.
Third, as far as I am concerned, the Putnam Arts Council can have the entire property for whatever use they desire. Every blade of grass, every
field and every building. They are one of the few organizations up here
that manage to get things done year in and year out.
Fourth, “much work” may already have been done on Tilly Foster but the quality of that work is somewhat in dispute. I may need to take a trip over and post photographs with regard to this but I’ll leave that as a future possibility.
Fifth, there is no “CO” (Certificate of Occupancy) because there is no building to occupy at the former Levine Center site. Feel free to take a drive over to confirm this (all readers included). Please provide a copy of this imaginary “CO” as proof or we shall assume you are mistaken.
Sixth, – again – there is no “lease” arrangement between the Arts Council and the county regarding Tilly Foster, there is a verbal agreement that was apparently offered by Bob Bondi. Feel free to ask him what the terms are (they seem to change almost daily) the next time he drives down from his farm upstate to visit our lovely county.
Finally, I have no idea what you and Jeff or anyone else have been “debating” for the past several months. I’ll assume all of these folks are
intelligent adults entirely capable of presenting their own points of
view as are you. Maybe I didn’t have as many ‘facts’ originally but I
have a lot more of them now and I am left wondering why you, who – as
you state – has been on this issue for many years seem to be making
your case based on your interpretation of those facts and outright
falsehoods. You are certainly entitled to your opinion but your rush to
characterize anyone with a different opinion as uninformed or working
against the best interests of Tilly Foster is preposterous and
shameful. I am reminded of the “you are either with us or with the
terrorists” statement made famous many years ago…..
There is an advisory committee and a separate not-for-profit (Friends of
Tilly Foster) already in existence. Why anyone sees the need to bring
in a third party (George Whipple) when these other groups have been on
the scene for most of the last 7 years is beyond me. (Oh, right – the
county has rarely, if ever, actually listened to the advisory
committee’s advice.) I am also stunned to see no reference to any Board of Directors for the Whipple organization and that no bids have been sought from or RFPs made to other groups. From my conversations with various state-level officials, it would seem that this ommission may invalidate any
contract the county signs at this point.
Frankly, Ann, I wasn’t paying that much attention to this whole thing until you started setting off alarm bells regarding Whipple, PAC, C of Os and various other inaccuracies. Having piqued my curiosity, the more I learn about this proposal the more I am convinced that something just doesn’t add up and I intend to do everything I can to derail it as a result.
My recommendation – assuming you actually are hoping to get this thing
passed – is to back off the character assassination and stick to the
relavent issues and facts. The opposition to this agreement is growing
with every one of your posts particularly those attacking the PAC.
Ken
And this from Ken posted this morning:
I’ve attached the current version of the lease between George Whipple
and Putnam County regarding the ongoing management of Tilly Foster
Farm. It’s way too open-ended, lacking in specific criteria and
benchmarks and seems overly vague. In the current environment featuring
Bernie Madoff wannabees, I am left to conclude that anything that seems
too good to be true probably is and that we all should be demanding
character references, non-refundable deposits and testimonials from
various saints prior to buying anything – particularly as it may relate
to our hard-earned tax dollars.
That’s the short answer. Read
the contract, draw your own conclusions and please communicate them to
the Legislature and the County Executive. There is a meeting scheduled
for this coming Thursday and this deal could conceivable be signed
unless enough folks speak up – and do so immediately.
Now the long answer.
Two
important concepts spring to mind – “quid pro quo” and “consideration.”
This contract has a great deal of “quid” (for Mr. Whipple) and very
little, if any, “quo” (for the taxpayers who own the property). No
specific criteria for evaluating performance, simply a “feel-good”
phrase “best of its abilities”, something that just might
be better spelled out at the beginning of this contract rather than
being debated endlessly for the next 40 years. “Consideration” refers
to one of the critical compnents of any contract, kind of “I’m giving
you this because you are giving me that”. It does not appear that Mr.
Whipple is giving the County anything while we are handing over Tilly
Foster. Approximately 199 acres of prime real estate to do with as one
pleases for free? How does that make sense to anybody?
1. “The Society for the Preservation of Putnam County
Antiquities and Greenways, Inc.” is described by the NYS Department of
State as a “private, not-for-profit corporation” with principle office
in Carmel while the contract has the office as George Whipple’s
employer, Credit Suisse in NYC. Not a major issue but odd nonetheless.
This may seem like a small detail but, assuming a lawsuit were filed,
the venue for such a lawsuit would be determined by the plaintiff’s
address. Big difference between NYC and Putnam County.
There is
no description of whether there is a Board of Directors (a requirement,
I believe) or who sits on the Board on the Society’s website. Is it
family? Business associates? Is there one? I’d like to know so as to be
able to explore potential or existing conflicts of interest, etc.
2.
“Self sustaining” – not really, The County (you and me, folks)
continues to pay for some electric usage (all electric usage until
individual meters are installed), trash removal, snow removal and
sanding, maintenace of the premises, parking lots and sidewalks,
repairs to the facility (for the first 5 years at least), all
“extraordinary repairs” (whatever that phrase means, the definition has
been left out), insurance premiums above $1000 per month (first year)
and a CPI-adjusted figure going forward, insurance premiums on
county-owned property, the costs of capital improvements made by “The
Society” should the County terminate the lease and the monthly rent
currently being paid to the County by Putnam Arts Council, a house used
by “Anthony DeNoia” and the community gardens.
3.
There are various references to “attached exhibits”, none of which are
actually attached. It is fairly difficult to evaluate the entire lease
without this information.
4. There has been no competitive
bidding which may violate state law. I’d at least like to have a few
benchmarks to use in evaluating this proposal. As stated previously,
there is already a not-for-profit called “Friends of Tilly Foster” that
was set up for just this purpose not forgetting dozens of other local
organizations with long track records that might have an interest in
this. Worth a look anyway.
5.
The contract refers to “The Society” yet is subject to immediate review
if George Whipple “discontinues his association with the Society.” This
leads to the question as to why the “Society” is even mentioned when it
seems Mr. Whipple is the key player. Again, it would be helpful to know
whether there is a Board of Directors (Mr. Whipple could find himself
voted out as President) and who these folks are in the event that they
end up running the organization.
6. Does the Society have any
experience running this type of facility? What, where and when? Like I
said – skepticism is the new rule, folks. “Show me the money.”
7. “No rodeos” – ever
(unless the Legislature approves). “Rodeos” are apparently the new “second-hand smoke”.
8.
Supervisory conflicts – some aspects of the contract give the
Legislature oversight while others give it to the County Executive. I’d
prefer to see them both watching over each other’s shoulders at all
times.
9. “The lease shall automatically terminate if the
Society ceases operation of the Tilly Foster Farm.” Wow, thank
goodness. You mean they don’t get to use if they’re not using it….
10.
The Society has 12 months from the expiration of the previous term to
notify the County that it does not wish to renew the lease. So, let me
get this straight…..12 months after the lease expires and there is no
lease while the Society continues to “operate” the Farm they can opt
not to renew? I’d like a similar arrangement with any landlord you care
to name. Essentially, they get 12 months of use without any oversight
or restricions – scott-free. Sweet.
11. The County can terminate the lease with 12 months
notice if the Legislature adopts a resolution that the County has a
need for the premises for a public purpose. This is why lawyers get
paid the big bucks. The Society is tasked with operating the Farm for
the public and yet there may be some superceding public purpose that
comes up in the future. That is about as loose a commitment to
operating Tilly Foster as stated as I can imagine. This is the clause
that should have Whipple up late into the evening.
12. “Separate
bank account” – no description as to the disposition of the monies
contained in said “separate” account, only annual financial statements
which, as we have read, didn’t do much for the various economic brains
watching Madoff or the investment banks or innumerable other places
money disappeared. Can’t say I have much faith in the Legislature’s
ability to monitor the fiscal goings-on within the Whipple organization.
13. “That the Society will, to the best of its
abilities, attempt” – it doesn’t much matter what follows because who
knows what “best of its abilities” means or what constitutes a
reasonable “attempt”. I can foresee another court battle over the
meaning of the word “is”. Essentially, the standard set by the lease is
“as long as the Society is trying to do its best everything is fine.”
14.
“The county shall be responsible for the payment of charges for all
utilities, including electricity, fuel, oil, natural gas, heat, water,
power and all other services” (phone? cable TV?). As stated previously,
some of the electric usage is covered by the Society but everything
else is on the taxpayers’ dime.
15. The Society has exclusive use of the hay harvested at the site meaning they can do whatever they like including sell it.
16.
Sub-leasing – The Society shall lease the top floor of Building 8, part
of the bottom floor and part of Building 6 to the Putnam Arts Council
for one year at a rate of $1000 per month. After that it “may” lease
only Building 6 to PAC for $1000 per month. “May” is a lot different
than “shall” and $1000 per month for parts of two buildings is a lot
different than paying the same for part of one building.
17.
“Shall” lease Building 1 to Anthony DeNoia at terms determined by the
Legislature which are not described. First, who is “Anthony DeNoia” and
why does he rate an entire house at the farm?
18. “The Putnam
County Legislature shall maintain the authority to direct the Society
to terminate any sub-lease entered into by it at any time during the
term of this agreement.”
This one basically means anyone who
leases space at the Farm could be summarilly evicted at any time at the
whim of the Legislature, meaning for cause, political expediency or
just because they don’t like you. Would anyone sign a lease under those
terms?
19. 12-month termination requirement. If the Society
doesn’t run the Farm properly it will take 12-months to get them out.
Not sure, but the Society could essentially burn the place to the
ground and the County might have to give them 12 months notice that
their little ‘deal’ just wasn’t working out.
20. Once you have reached 19 reasons not to do this deal, it simply feels like overkill to go on…..
Popularity: 1% [?]