Board of Directors Express Concerns Over Bennet Apartments

The Board of Directors hoped to get a better idea of on Main Street as part of its meeting Tuesday night, but when it was over board members said they were even more concerned with the situation at the non-profit elderly housing complex, particularly why the property was allowed to amass years of back rent it owes to the town, and why no one seems to follow through with renovations residents of the building have been saying were needed for years. 

Director of Finance Greg Simmons explained the situation to the board: the town entered into a complex lease agreement with the not-for-profit Bennet Housing Corporation in 1983 to convert the former Bennet Middle School at 1146 Main St. into a 45-unit elderly housing complex. But, no sooner had the building been converted to apartments, Simmons said, than the Bennet Housing Corporation spun off oversight of the property to the Vesta Housing Corporation, who in turn hired Suburban Greater Hartford Realty to manage the property, effectively limiting the town's say over how the property could be maintained. 

Simmons said the original agreement, negotiated in 1983, stipulated that the town owned the building but that the Bennet Housing Corporation had to pay rent for the property at $55,377 per year from 1984 through 2000, and then at the cost of $1 a year through the end of the 40-year lease, but that the corporation was having trouble making those payments and refinanced in 1993. A new agreement with the town was worked out that would allow it to pay the back rent once the project was refinanced or sold, Simmons said. At the time of the refinancing in 1993, the corporation owed about $282,000 to the town in back taxes. Simmons said an additional $137,000 in payments in lieu of taxes have been missed by the corporation since then, but that the town received a check last week covering $50,000 of that amount. 

To make matters even more confusing, Simmons said, the town has been unable to unwind the complex lease agreement, figure out its exact stake in the property, and who the 12 limited partners in the initial agreement are. 

"We found nothing in any of the paperwork that tells us who they are," Simmons said. 

Many of the directors expressed outright shock that the property had been allowed to continue for so many years with such limited oversight while owing $100,000s in back rent to the town. 

"This has been a long-term question, and I'm still amazed that we're unable to find out who the partners are," said John Topping, a Democratic member of the board. "What concerns me is the open-ended 'their ability to pay.'" 

Several residents also complained at the meeting that much needed maintenance and repairs to the building have faced numerous delays and excuses over the years, and that they did not know who to turn to with their complaints. 

General Manager Scott Shanley, who said he was not familiar with the particulars of the initial lease agreement, thought that the town might have wanted to make the property "very attractive" to private developers, but did not see some of the long-term consequences that such a deal might produce. 

"I believe the intent was to make it a very attractable investment property so that people would put money into it," he said. 

But Cheri Pelletier, a Republican member of the board, said it sounded to her as though the corporation has been taking advantage of the agreement over the years by paying as little as possible to the town while doing very little to maintain the building as well. 

"It clearly sounds like it was a sweetheart deal to me," she said. "It seems like the whole purpose of the incentivization is being abused." 

Almost all members of the board asked Simmons and the town to further explore the original lease agreement and what potential options it might give the town for exerting more control over the building or voiding the deal altogether.

 "We're very concerned and troubled about what's going on down there," said Mayor Leo V. Diana. "We'd like to know who these limited partners are."