Following is the http://www.cityofpacifica.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3631for their 12-14-09 meeting. Items 11 (State Beach Parking), and Item 12 (10 year renewal of the Art Guild Lease) are of interest, page 3-- late in the meeting of course. Tod should be happy the city is so broke they are continuing to look for money from citizens including those at the beach (his suggestion years ago I believe).
Art Guild Lease looks like a continuation of the same
From my view this is another "pet", cronies arrangement.
1. 10 year contract from 1-1-2011
2. 5 year option to renew, both parties may revisit the terms
3. waiver of all relocation benefits
4. Annual rent increase 2.5%
5. The city will continue to pay utilities (gas, electric, water and
6. Fiscal impact: Gross revenue received by the city 2008-09 was
$16,696, current year $17,880.
This lease seems to look much like the prior lease, and what follows in
the details appears to be city spin for "friends". Yes, the original
Art Guild of Pacifica provided oversight and accounting for the Artist
tenants as well as a "home" for their organization. At that time was
community contribution both from contribution, renovation, and
maintenance of the school property building. Additionally, there were
community and foundation grant monies received-- all helped to pay for
the initial renovations. The artist center pays the city about 25% of
gross rents toward is triple net .
1. The artists pay enough for their shared studios, although the
breakdown is not transparent. The Art Guild conduit pays the city
about 25% of these rent monies collected.
2. The artists also maintain and repair their sub-tenant rented
studios, as well as remove their acquired trash, and donate 40-70 hours
per year service to the cooperative (what constitutes the variation in hours is unknown).
3. The artists pay $40 and no $35 processing fee, that 53 % of the
lowest city license and processing cost.
4. From the website: Artist tenants have a 2 year lease, reviewed
subject to "committee approval" up to a 6 year limit. Very
interesting, and does that include tenants who have leased prior to these established rules, or are they forever
tenants who also are part of "committee approval"?
The controlling Art organization
1. Renovation costs. Stated in the City Agenda detail, from 1997 to
2001 renovation cost was $160,000, including a roof. These costs were
paid by the community through donations and labor, and by substantial grants through
community and private foundations (San Mateo Community Foundation and
Hewlett to name two.
2. In addition, the Art Guild of Pacifica volunteered their time.
There was one part-time paid job. By 2001 the Artist Center had managed
to create a "reserve" of about $100,000+, increased to about $150,000 in 2002-2003 prior to
lawsuits for financial and IRS irregularities which brought their bank
account down to about $0. Renovations from 2001 through 2008 (call it 6 years) has been
$33,000, or $5,500 per year or $458 per month.
3. The city "we the people" pay utilities. The Summary stated the
Fiscal Impact for 2009 as $17,800 = $1,490 per month. I am unclear
from the Summary whether that includes utilities, if it does the effect is almost break-even.
It it doesn't the net gain is insignificant.
4. Trash for the site is picked-up at no cost gratis Coastside,
utilities are "free", the city maintains the yard and blacktop (I
believe)-- thanks all Pacificans. Whether 5,500 people who visit the center per year bring-in $28.26 additional
revenue appears to be pure speculation, and aren't most of these also
Pacificans who shop and entertain themselves anyway.
Pacificans continue to make donations to Sanchez Art Center, while the
art center returns its 25% to the city less utilities and other
services, and rents trend upward at 2.5% and the arrangement continues for the next 10 years. Attachments
to the Summary???? There were no attachments, including 1) a
Lease, and other documents.
By the way most classes at the site are paid by citizens, and I think
the art instruction to schools also has payment. Getting paid is good,
but the Summary workings looks like that is not the case.
Posted by: Kathy Meeh