Town's Deal with Joppa Hill Farm Falls Through

Jessie Levine said she was saddened by the most recent developments.

Bedford's Town Manager, at Wednesday night's Town Council meeting, informed the board, those in attendance at the BCTV Bedford Town Meeting Room, and those watching from home, that the board at the Educational Farm at Joppa Hill (EFJH) had decided not to accept a recent agreement between the two sides that would have saved the farm's aging barn.

"I am disappointed and, honestly, quite deflated about where we are today," Levine said in a statement prepared for the Council. " As you now know, I learned Monday and it was confirmed in a letter received last night that the EFJH board had unanimously voted against signing the agreement that we thought we had reached when we met for two hours with three of their board members and their attorney last Monday."

Bedford Patch, last week, detailed a chronology of events that led up to the most recent agreement that had resulted following years of back-and-forth negotiations and multiple inspections by engineering firms and the town's insurance company that revealed significant concerns about the structural integrity of the farm's barn.

The barn was closed to the public, per town mandate, last October.

EFJH Chairman Michael Scanlon said both sides share blame, and noted the timeline and recent deadlines were, in his mind, arbitrary, and set by the town, not agreed upon.

"All we want is to do what the current lease tells us we can do," he said. "Unfortunately, until the town steps up and removes those panels, which is the town's responsibility, we don't even know what kind of work needs to be done."

Scanlon said, for environmental reasons, the town must pay for the removal of esbestose, according to the current lease, whether the barn is renovated or town down. With that in mind, he said he doesn't understand the hold up.

The rejection letter from the farm's attorney, obtained by Bedford Patch, alludes to those issues. It reads, in part:

The Town is asking thc Educational Farm to commit to accepting responsibility to pay for all repairs to bring the barn into compliance with all applicable building codes. But the Town, itself, does not know what building codes are applicable. This is compounded by the demand that the non-profit organization have all of the funds necessary to pay for this repair in a bank account “prior to beginning” construction. How does the Town expect the Educational. Farm to obtain these funds if it does not even know the full nature of the the Town is asking the Educational Farm to perform?

More importantly, the Agreement punishes the Educational Farm if, for some reason, it signs the Agreement and for any reason failed to complete the Agreement. The Town has in an economic punishment for not completing the work that the town, itself, is unable to fully” detail. Ironically, the Town builds into the agreement time flexibility if the Town is unable to fulfill the obligations that it must perform under the Agreement. But if the Educational Farm does not
complete its’ obligations in the dramatically short time limits dictated in the Agreement, the Town has the right, without further due process, to go in and destroy the barn despite the amount of money or work the Educational Farm has actually completed.

Levine explained that town has a similar agreement in place with the Bedford Historical Society regarding the Stevens-Buswell School House/Community Center, which protects taxpayers from money being spent on a project and the other side not following through. 

Scanlon, however, said the circumstances are drastically than those Levine outlined regarding the Stevens-Buswell School in that the Bedford Historical Society agreed to a new lease when another tenant left the property, as opposed to the current situation at the Educational Farm at Joppa Hill, which involves an existing lease.

Still, Levine told the council that the two sides appear at an impasse.

"EFJH appears to be intractable," said Levine. "They even refer to the major safety issues that have been spelled out by numerous structural reports as nothing more than 'leaks in the roof and the need to replace boards that have decayed.' The EFJH board clearly does not see this as the safety issue that the town’s experts and even the farm’s experts have identified, and that causes me great concern about whether town property is truly in the hands of good stewards.

"Isn’t the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result? Twice in the last eight months, the town has drafted an agreement based on meetings and verbal understandings reached with their board representatives, and twice we have been jilted at the altar," she added. "I just don’t get it."

To a man, each of the five members of the Bedford Town Council expressed similar frustration.

"We've been through two town managers and an acting town manager during this discussion," said Council Chairman Bill Dermody, who said that none of the three representatives who attended last week's meeting gave any indication of being dissatisfied with the reported deal.

"I can't say how disappointed I am," said Councilor Ken Peterson, who acknowledged he's donated to the farm in the past. "This negotiation, a week ago Monday, between the council, the town manager and lawyers from each side ... for two hours we shared a very cordial exchange of ideas."

Peterson said all parties, prior to getting up from the table, were asked if any other needs or concerns should be addressed and no one spoke up.

"We can't proceed until we have a meeting of the minds and a cooperative effort to go forward," he added.

"This is no longer a matter of the heart this is now a matter of the head and we can't realistically go forward at this point," said Councilor Jim Scanlon.

Dermody and fellow councilors agreed with Levine's recommendation that she draft a letter to EFJH representatives informing them of a breach of lease and a notice to quit the property, which she explained will "start the clock."

"I think this is an exceedingly painful position for the Council to be put in when this property was envisioned to be put to good use and good public benefit. I know how hard this is for the Council and the community and how much we all would like to see these problems solved," said Levine. "This is a beautiful property that is significant to us, and the mission of preserving the agricultural heritage for the community is thoughtful and important. However, this is a public property that should operate for the public benefit and the land and properties need to be better managed. My chest literally hurts in saying this, but I don’t see that we’ve been given any other choice where the town believes that there is a significant safety issue and the tenant is in denial."

"I don't see any alternative," added Dermody. "It's just kicking the can down the road, and with safety being the paramount issue here, I unfortunately no longer see any other choice."

Follow us on our Facebook page, Twitter feed, and be the first to know when news breaks by signing up for our FREE daily newsletter and breaking news alerts.