Item 12, pages 3, 37, 38
School building, 10 Year Contract from 2011:
City receives 25% only of studio rents paid. Artist Center receives 75% rents, show entry fees, dues, solicited and unsolicited donations, community and private foundation grants.
City pays utilities (gas, electric, water), ground upkeep and trash-up is included.
Financial gain to the City = $0
Loss of income to "the people of Pacifica":
Utilities: $1,400 monthly x 12 months = - $16,800 annual
Low cost rental income: $6,000 monthly x 12 months x $72,000 annual
Total projected annual loss from 1996-2200: $88,800 x 26 years (average) = $2,308,800 without interest rate or time value loss.
And, here's a few question from the "People of Pacifica":
Is the studio lease process fair? Tenants may hold their shared studios up to 6 years, review every 2 years. Do these provisions apply to "all tenants" or are some old-guard tenants "grandfathered" with "special provisions" and "special deals"?
What are the 2 year studio review provisions, and is the "committee" evenhanded and unbiased?
Why are there out-of-city tenants when Pacificans need studio space, and why is there not a waiting list
How is studio spaces availability advertised?
If practices at the Artist Center discriminatory why is this allowed at the city. What recourse do studio tenants and Art Guild of Pacifica participants have?
Since the Artist Center is overseen by Parks, Beaches and Recreation and considered "Recreation" why isn't PB&R reviewing "fair tenant contract provisions", hearing grievances, and collecting rents?
Why does city council "give-away" the Artist Center to "the organization", when the organization receives fees, dues, fees, donations and grants?
If the Artist Center contract is with the "Art Guild of Pacifica" (an organization only, not a non-profit corporation), does the Art Guild of Pacifica even write a rent check from their own bank account, or does this check come from a different entity bank account, if so isn't that an unusual business practice?
NO RESPONSE answers to the above questions deserve explanation and remediation "for the People of Pacifica" who heavily subsidize this Art Center.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
1 comment:
Other than city council idiocy in calling the heavily subsidized artist center an "economic plan"... what really fries me is the inequity in the tenant lease contracts: old guard "friends of council" are tenured to be at the center forever (probably with a sweet deal), whereas new tenants may stay up to 6 year, reviewed by a "committee" every two years. Why? Not cooperating, suddenly lose their talent-- what kind of criteria would need to be reviewed every 2 years, after all they do sign a contract which includes standard language artist center provisions.
As citizens who pay more than our fair share of the overhead in the artist center, does this kind of unfair, unequal discriminatory practice work well for you? It may be legal, it isn't ethical. Why can't PB&R collect these rents and all leases be equally fair in cost allocation and length of lease tenure?
Post a Comment