response 106 of 220:

Feb 6 21:46 UTC 1999

The insurance would add up after a while.  The higher rent we would have to
pay somewhere else would add up after a while.

I have no idea how much that sort of insurance would be for a non-profit
corporation that doesn't have much property and doesn't have very many people
visiting its "office."  For my home, the renters insurance I have that covers
both liability and my property, is around $100 per year.

response 108 of 220:

Feb 7 01:07 UTC 1999

Insurance companies base their premiums on two things: the past claim
records for different hazards, and *x times their best estimates for
hazards with which they are unfamiliar*, where x is a big number. This is
why one wants a broker familiar with the hazards in a given
industry/activity. For example, one broken might worry about liability if
someone broke into the pumpkin and was electrocuted; one familiar with the
industry may not even consider that as a likelihood. Since there are so
many internet service providers around, you can probably get some ideas
from them on what companies to approach, or if their is a consortium
pooling risks. 

response 110 of 220:

Feb 7 04:30 UTC 1999

The liability insurance we're talking about here may be different than
what people are thinking.  This sounds like insurance related to damage
someone might suffer while on the premises - like falling through the
stairs, a slip & fall accident on the front steps, etc.  What some
people here may be thinking of is insurance related to grex's business,
ie, some guy in tennessee sues us because someone on grex sends him an
e-mail containing a naughty word.

Personally, to me, this sounds like just another way to hike the rent up
just a tad more.

response 112 of 220:

Feb 7 06:57 UTC 1999

marcus has a good point in #110.  They are requiring insurance to protect
them, not us.  Since we do not have any customer traffic through our place
of business, the probability that our tenancy will propagate a lawsuit on
the landlord is about nil.  When we find an agent that understands that,
we'll get quite reasonable coverage.  They'll probably want to write us an
O&D policy too, and include the landlord's coverage as a rider...

response 114 of 220:

Feb 7 12:18 UTC 1999

Does M-Net need to carry similar coverage?  They might be
a source for another policy estimate.

response 116 of 220:

Feb 7 16:51 UTC 1999

gosh, we could jerry-rig a CO2 gas fire suppression system....

response 118 of 220:

Feb 7 20:24 UTC 1999

Insurance agents and the like generally don't like things that are
jerry-rigged.

Off-site backups are always an annoying issue.  (Which reminds me, next time
I have a chance I should gather a set up tapes with a full dump of the gnu.org
machines...)

response 122 of 220:

Feb 8 04:46 UTC 1999

It would be silly to install special fire suppression equipment.  Grex's
total budget, for the life of its complete existance, coulnd't possibly
even *begin* to buy such a fire suppression system, and the total value
of the equipment we'd be protecting isn't anywhere near that expensive.
Basically, if something sets the sprinklers off, we write the equipment
off as a dead loss (but we might be able to salvage the chair & desk).
We buy new equipment.  We find a new home.  We might beg some temporary
space if the new home will take time to get ready (ie, installing isdn).
We start up again.  Sure, it would hurt, and there's a chance we might
not survive, but that's true of any disaster.  The off-site backup is
cheap insurance.  Anything more is wasted money.

So far as a fire goes, I actually worry more about the other tenants in
the building than I do us.  Quite a few of them smoke.

response 124 of 220:

Feb 8 20:48 UTC 1999

Not if we want to use it for development, which we're currently doing.  
It's a great place to set up a new OS, for example, to get around our 
65K user limit.  If we want to do that, then we want it on the same 
ethernet as Grex, so we can transfer stuff, and get back and forth.  
Besides, putting the backup sun offsite would create all kinds of access 
problems, if we actually want to use it for anything.  If, however, we 
decide not to use it for anything but a backup, then taking it offsite 
is merely annoy.  We'd have to move it. :)

response 126 of 220:

Feb 8 22:55 UTC 1999

I'd like to update folks as to today.

First off, I have contacted four insurance agencies regarding
liability insurance.  I'm still waiting for one, Benz, to return
my call.  Dobson McComber came back with a premium I can't even
bring myself to type in.  It was that high.  Both Aprill Agency
and State Farm (Dan Gilec) seemed to understand the uniqueness
of our operation and budget constraints, both are checking into
policies, but they seem to think if the underwriter will consider
us under the right category we would be looking at around $250 
per year.  This is for liability insurance which will simply meet
the terms of the lease, no bells and whistles.  Yuck.  Again,
this figure is not firm, but it's a best guess until they get 
back with a specific quote.

Second, I was able to get over to Flying Dutchman this morning
to pick up the (signable) lease.  As I was sitting in the 
reception area there was a women standing at the counter, speaking
with the secretary.  She was talking in concerned tones about
rental rates, understanding that rent shouldn't be too high, but
the way the electric was being figured needed to be discussed.
And couldn't Susan do something about that?.  

Yep.  

I apologized for interrupting but introduced myself as being
from Cyberspace Inc., and asked if I could help out, maybe address
any concerns she was having.  I again explained about our power use,
the way we measure and re-measure with equipment changes, and the
honesty of our volunteer staff.  Ms. Van Fossen seemed to understand
but the concern was still there, enough that when I suggested we'd 
be happy to have an independent measurement taken her response was,
"Well, then I'd need to find someone."  I asked what we could do to
make her feel more comfortable about the way we pay our electric and
she offered, "Maybe check the consumption quarterly."  She concluded
by saying she tended to trust people until proven otherwise.  So
we left it that the way we've been paying electric could continue.
But I do know she has concerns.

I now have the lease and it states the following regarding our rent:
 
     Months 6/01/1999 - 5/31/2000  $66.15 per month
     
     Option 6/01/2000 - 5/31/2001  $69.46 per month
            6/01/2001 - 5/31/2002  $72.93 per month
            6/01/2002 - 5/31/2003  $76.58 per month
            6/01/2003 - 5/31/2004  $80.41 per month
            6/01/2004 - 5/31/2005  $84.43 per month

The option clause reads:

OPTION: Providing Tenant has not been in default of this lease, Tenant
shall have the option of five 1 year Lease extensions at a 5% 
increase in rent per year.  Said option may be cancelled with a written
ninety (90) day notice at the discretion of either Landlord or Tenant.

Ms. Watrous and I agreed on a 4 month, or 120 day notice period, but
this isn't what made it onto the finished version.  I expect this was
an oversight.  I've left a message for her to call back and I'll 
clarify this point.

There is nothing in the lease about our electric payments.

So that's where things are to this point.

Oh, one last thing.  I was really hoping that if the quoted insurance
premium was simply above and beyond what we could afford that we
could appeal to the Landlord to release us from liability.  When
Ms. Watrous handed me the lease (in front of Ms. Van Fossen) I 
mentioned I was having a heck of a time finding affordable insurance
for our shoestring budget organization.  Ms. Watrous said she really
didn't have any suggestions on agencies to try.  But after Ms. Watrous
left Ms. Van Fossen told me to try Aprill.  So I did.  But I think
that kind of answered my question about any release.

response 128 of 220:

Feb 8 23:43 UTC 1999

But is it a good idea to agree to rent increases per year that are higher
than the current rate of inflation?  At the end of this lease, grex will
be paying 30% more in rent than it does now, yet has no guarantee it will
have any more members than it does now?  The realty company can offer this
deal to its corporate tenants because if the economy grows, those
companies should all be doing better business in six years.  Given
that Grex not able
to make that assumption, is it better off to have a fixed rent?  

Grex's average rent over the next six years (if you add all the increases
up) will be $75 a month.  Maybe grex could ask for a flat rate-- agree to
pay say $70 now as long as that price is guaranteed to be fixed for the
next five years.  Grex would be paying more money than it has to for the
first half of the lease and less than it has to for the last half, but the
realty company would be getting more *now* and can always terminate the
lease down the road.