Following is the City Council Agenda for 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).
http://www.cityofpacifica.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3631
Art Guild Lease looks like a continuation of the same
arrangement. http://www.artguildofpacifica.org/
,
http://www.sanchezartcenter.org/
From my view this is another "pet", cronies arrangement.
Main items:
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
sewer)
6. Fiscal impact: Gross revenue received by the city 2008-09 was
$16,696, current year $17,880.
History
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 gross lease.
Issues
Artists
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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
I would like to thank each and every one of my fellow Pacificans for subsidizing my etching exhibits at Sanchez. It's fabulous to have something exciting to do while I'm in between lawsuits against Pacifica. Please, keep digging deep into your pockets and support your local artists.
God bless,
HBB
Re: sanchez art enter lease.
Oppose lease extension. Hold for a public hearing in January.
I am unable to attend council tonight. Would appreciate you reading this statement into the record at tonight's meeting as you have done so in the past for other people.
This lease extension is a hurried affair in the middle of year end Christmas activity with no detail in the Tribune. None of the critical lease documents are posted on the City website. I can only assume the deal is a bad one for taxpayers.
Council has not learned their lesson in the complete drubbing of the ill-advised sales tax scheme of earlier this year. The city budget is in horrible shape but Council acts like its business as usual.
Re-negotiate this lease for:
1. not only full expense recovery, make the center a money maker. City must stop paying utilities.
2. last I checked a majority of studios were occupied by out-of-town artists. Pacifica taxpayers are subsidizing out-of-towners.
Make out-of-town artists pay 3x rents of Pacifica artists.
Phase out out-of-towners over 18 months in favor of Pacifica artists.
3. make the studio waiting list and interview process public. Only Pacifica residents are accepted. Even the most mundane City committees get a more public interview process than Sanchez.
4. make all management meetings at Sanchez public.
5. All internal Sanchez center financial records must be made public monthly.
6. assign a councilmember to attend and monitor all sanchez meetings.
Remember, in the recent past, the IRS instigated a major investigation into Sanchez management. None of this was publicized but the rumors were the IRS investigation dealt with insider self-dealing.
Finally, this unsubstantiated self-serving claim of $28 per visitor Pacifica benefit is rubbish. Unless every visitor shops on their visit day at Safeway or dines at Barolo, or fully gases up, they spend nothing.
The measures above by Council will protect the public interest in this city owned facility. If Council doesn't pay attention to details across all city programs now, these oversights will be fully discussed in next year's budget debate.
warmest regards/
This was sent to the city clerk and the trib and forwarded to me to post here.
Kathy,
Thanks for the summary.
What I would agree with is that document-transparency and more posting of leases, contracts, et al, is called for.
But Jim's conditions of approval would effectively kill the center, and maybe that's what some people want. To specify that Pacifica residents alone could occupy the place would, from the standpoint of a professional arts oragnization, make it a joke. I've been involved in the arts in Pacifica for a long time, and although there are good artists in Pacifica, you don't create something as important as SAC by limiting your tenants to such a small pool as one city of 40,000 people.
Also, considering the train wreck that is commercial real estate, (Don't believe me? -look around town) to risk losing this successful center for the arts, which is almost fully occupied, is really short-sighted.
As I understand the information I've received, the place is revenue-neutral. It is an attraction for out-of-towners to visit.
Pacifica desperately needs more, and not less of these kinds of places. I'll applaud the council's signing the new lease.
As I understand the information I've received, the place is revenue-neutral.
Just like the golf course loses money.
Lionel,
For someone who had such deep analysis of the Coastside/Recology issue for so many years, I find it baffling you let this clearly biased and bogus lease agreement pass your "sniff" test.
Jim, yes the IRS stepped in. Lionel, no one wants to kill the center, but the fees and the process should be more fair. The major start-up expenses were paid in full by 2001 through donations, labor, fees and grants. 9 years later, city 2011 contract should collect more than 25% of rental fees, and tenants should pay utilities. This is citizen money, subsidizing arts is one thing, granting special deals and favors to friends is another.
It's interesting (and wholly expected) to see how quickly people who defend a sweet city deal for garbage flip-flop and criticize the concept of a sweet city deal for the art center. And vice-versa.
Sweet city deals for friends = good.
Sweet city deals for opponents = bad.
I love the Art Center and gave them free garbage pickup for years even though they were not on the official City Services list so where does that put me on the sweet deal equation?
i want to make it clear that i posted for a friend. however, i do agree with the concepts as a base line for real negotiations between the art center and the city. i don't understand our city subsidizing out of town artists that are running a business. it is our art center, and as such, i understand supporting local artists. that said, why are we paying for the utilities? with no provision to track the increased cost of those utilities? and what about the sewer charges? we've seen those skyrocket for everyone. is the city covering those costs? what are they?
so many unanswered questions. i remember they tried to run this lease through on the consent calendar. instead, they schedule this for dec 14th, during the busiest time of the year for most, with virtually no information made available to review, DURING MONDAY NITE FOOTBALL WITH THE 49ers! come on. might as well been on consent.
Steve,
Your shtick is getting old. Try a new line. Coastside never got a "sweet deal", in fact they've been on the receiving end of a raw deal for a long time. Sanchez Art Center is a sweet deal for friends of council.
If you're going to have a simplisitic hook, at least be semi-accurate.
Jeffy,
If you want me to stop my shtick, you're going to have to do a better job of convincing me why the transfer of Coastside's contract to Recology is good for the city.
I actually think a good case can be made to justify bypassing an RFP, but that would require someone, ideally the city, explaining why it's better for Pacifica to forego the RFP. How can people be so sure that other potential bidders couldn't have done a better job?
Arguments like "Coastside does little favors for the city," or "the people at Coastside work hard" just don't cut it. They exemplify the type of arbitrary and unprofessional reasoning we need to break out of when it comes to the city's financial matters.
I think I'm being consistent. Don't award no-bid contracts (Coastside) or sweet-deal leases (Sanchez) to friends of council unless it can be shown that it's the best deal for the city.
Just wondering - is Coastside not the least bit responsible for the problems it finds itself in? All businesses are affected by factors outside of their control, but reading what Coastside's supporters have to say, you'd think that Coastside had absolutely no control over its own situation, did nothing wrong, and were 100% the victim of City Council.
The Tale of the Unknown Sanchez Artist
I awoke to a yearn from my creative side
As she arrived with the morning tide
And off I go to the land of biodiesel
Armed with palette, smock and easel
But how does one wield one’s trusty crayola
Whilst being shaken down for payola
My life’s torn canvas so in need of mend
So quickly healed now that I’m Council's friend
With my loyalty pledged to the elected few
I enjoy my new studio with ocean view.
Stevie Wonder,
-->If you want me to stop my shtick, you're going to have to do a better job of convincing me why the transfer of Coastside's contract to Recology is good for the city.
I actually think a good case can be made to justify bypassing an RFP, but that would require someone, ideally the city, explaining why it's better for Pacifica to forego the RFP.
**I've always stated the 2 pluses to this deal are that the city doesn't have to spend money it doesn't have for an RFP, and it quickly recoups the delinquent payments from Coastside. I've also stated I think under more ideal circumstances, I would have fully pushed for an RFP. We're not dealing with ideal circumstances, we're dealing with a broke city.
-->How can people be so sure that other potential bidders couldn't have done a better job?
**We're not, but there are elements to Coastside's unique service to the community that can lead one to believe a new hauler (especially a giant corporate hauler) wouldn't be as responsive to these needs. I've talked with some people who have dealt with trash haulers across the county, and I think the Recology deal, while quick and easy, may also be our best bet.
-->Arguments like "Coastside does little favors for the city," or "the people at Coastside work hard" just don't cut it. They exemplify the type of arbitrary and unprofessional reasoning we need to break out of when it comes to the city's financial matters.
**I agree, but we do need to consider all that Coastside has done for the community by being a local business. Pacifica prides itself on supporting local businesses, and I do think it is important to acknowledge that when talking about any future trash hauler.
-->I think I'm being consistent. Don't award no-bid contracts (Coastside) or sweet-deal leases (Sanchez) to friends of council unless it can be shown that it's the best deal for the city.
**Keep in mind it is Recology that is receiving the no-bid contract. Coastside is no longer in business, they are being bought out. That actually makes me kind of sad. But Coastside has turned a tidy profit for the city over the years. Sanchez has not. Coastside also has one of the more lopsided arrangements with the city than I've seen with other trash haulers.
Part II
-->Just wondering - is Coastside not the least bit responsible for the problems it finds itself in? All businesses are affected by factors outside of their control, but reading what Coastside's supporters have to say, you'd think that Coastside had absolutely no control over its own situation, did nothing wrong, and were 100% the victim of City Council.
**Coastside is ultimately responsible. I totally agree with that. But it seems remiss not to look at the big picture and only focus on the current situation. Most of Coastside's current delinquency to the city is a result of delinquent customer payments. The city attorney inexplicably removed a tool (tax lien) that would help Coastside recoup these losses. Coastside is also legally obligated to continue service, even on delinquent accounts, and to absorb that cost.
Factor in the effect the economy has had on recycling revenue, the lack of a commercial revenue base for Coastside in Pacifica, and the rising costs of doing business . . . well to say Coastside is 100% blameless isn't quite right, but to say they should bear 100% of the blame is a little unfair to Coastside.
(And I do think its important to remember that all the hubbub about Coastside started when groups like P4P and PBRG were hammering City Council about their financial track record.)
We may disagree on a lot of things, but I think we both can see that the obstruction of development and the lack of support for businesses in this town helped contribute to Coastside's demise. The fact that the Chamber of Commerce is a complete joke *(I showed Don Eagleston's letter supporting Measure D to the local Chamber of Commerce here in Texas and they just laughed) and the city still thinks in nickels and dimes instead of dollars and sense, really makes it tough for any business to survive.
Good answers, Jeffy.
its Christmas. I'm trying to be a kinder gentler Jeffy
sounds like the gang was all there last night to support the Sanchez gravy train . . . good work if you can get it, I guess.
How interesting that we've turned to really big crime, that is, how garbage is picked up and billed at the highest rate in three (3) counties and why we should defend ourselves.
An RFP is essential to our getting the best deal, period. Spend a bit more to save a hell of a lot more later.
Peace Out,
An Artist
Lionel, this is Pacifica, calling the "Artist Center" subsidized by citizens an economic plan explains it all.
Post a Comment