Agenda link (79 pages), includes items considered (first 3 pages).
Of interest to me, you may find the same or other items of interest to you.
Consent (pass through) Calendar
item 5, WWTP: consulting agreement with Redone Robotics/ICOMMM, Inc., collections and asset management software.
Public hearings
Item 6. Recology of the Coast rate increase.
Item 7. Capital Improvement program.
Item 8. Gas and Electric Utility Users' Tax (UUT)
Consideration (public comment)
Item 9. Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA), "Dog Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement", action item.
Redevelopment Agency
Item 2. Operating and capital budget for the redevelopment agency, 2011-2012.
Note: the dog picture may be a little unfair. Mostly the GGNRA is advocating for dogs on leash, but some of us know dogs need areas to run, socialize, roam and play. Its an advanced evolutionary attitude: mammal issues are at least as important as those of reptiles (endangered or not).
Posted by Kathy Meeh
35 comments:
Hey Meeh,
What ever happened to the dog park "sneaky" Pete promissed?
Hey Anon tracker of "sneaky" (406), promises are cheap, so is "no money" city; but, the city donated property use, preliminary studies and regulation fees (paid for through park assessment fees from those land owners who build). POOCH is the citizen organization that has been working to fund the dog park development. Their "Dog Daze" event is coming up soon. You might want to attend that, or just send POOCH a donation (google that).
Pretty sure it was the weekend before last. Google that, Kathy.
Pretty sure you're right! Here's the POOCH website. How was the Dog Daze event?
That mythical dog park promised/voted by other council years ago was to be Sharp Park Beach. How cool would that have been? Could have revitalized that entire area and brought new and repeat visitors and their money (gas, snacks, meals, grocery stops, apt/house shopping). But guess what, somebody on council (rumor has it as Pete) didn't want the dogs chasing the birds so the whole thing just got quietly lost in the bureacracy of city hall. Yeah, the arrogance is astounding. The stupidity borders on dereliction of duty. Another missed opportunity to fill a niche and generate revenue.
The Dog Park is going to be behind the Sanchez Art Center. Right now there seems to be some type of dispute with Stephen Johnson regarding parking spots in the back. This was brought up at oral communications at Monday night's City Council meeting.
Yes, the latest dog park location is next to the Sanchez Art Center but years ago Sharp Park Beach was also to be an off-leash area. It just sort of got lost in the shuffle after approval I think. On the Sanchez site, it's a city-owned property and a great location. Safe and easy to get to for seniors, walkers, everyone. Dealing with Johnson's endless complaints I hope council doesn't lose sight of the greater good for the public that will be served with an official and regulated dog park at this community facility. The place is already an unofficial and totally unregulated dog park and has been for years. Make it legal and get on with it!
Why does Stephen Johnson have a business for profit in the non profit art center??
Why hasn't anyone asked council that?
Maybe because the rent he is paying is 1/4th of the rent he paid in Rockaway.
There is or was another business that manufactures lamps at Sanchez Artist Center (expensive electrical utilities for that one). There may be other similar arrangements. But then the art center only pays the city 1/4th of the rent it collects.
This is another of Pacifica's dirty little secrets. The rents and leases and the collection thereof need to see the light of day instead of being handled in close session. And that's a very good question about a for-profit business located in a community facility especially if the rent is "special" and the tenant displays a real sense of entitlement. May have made improvements to the bldg but he still got/gets a deal on the rent. Is everybody in that bldg current on their rents? Are the rents market rate? These have been problems in the past. Pretty nervy for any for-profit business enjoying cheap digs to try and delay a public dog park at a public bldg. Who does he know?
Only 1/4 of the collected rent goes to the city?? Gee, can we afford such support of the arts in times like these? And, below market rents and rumored special treatment of the tenants? Where's that spotlight? Hope the place is sprinklered and insured if manufacturing of any type is going on. City liability?
1/4 of market rent. Is what they pay at Sanchez Art Center.
The council always talks about rental agreements in closed session.
The city also pays the PG&E bill and water and garbage.
It's not true that "the art center only pays the city 1/4th of the rent it collects." If you want to know the truth, contact the art center.
Anonymous (755) if you want to know the truth about the Artist Center, contact the city. Not only does the Artist Center pay the city only 1/4th of rents collected, it does not pay utilities. Utilities are paid by the city, and the city also provides grounds upkeep.
Net profit to the city over two 10 year contracts, total 20 years: $0. Net $0, then, there is the loss of rental profit to the city for the school building space, fully subsidized by our citizens. Sweet deal.
The deal is "pet", just like the biodiesel loser, (and other worthless pursuits by 8+ year city council majority). Then again, this Artist Center was full of special deals for special folks. IRS non profit corporation oversight has been working on corrections there for years. As of last year there were still across-the-board fair duration studio tenant lease problems. Don't know if that has been fixed. And, no surprise, there may be other outstanding fairness issues, which the city reasonably should review as part of their lease arrangement with the Artist center.
Kathy Meeh is simply wrong. The Sanchez Art Center does NOT "pay the city only 1/4th of rents collected." And the issue with the IRS was resolved years ago. The IRS has not been "working on corrections there for years." And I have no idea what she means by "As of last year there were still across-the-board fair duration studio tenant lease problems." I'm not even sure that's a sentence in English.
Anon (10:06), what you have done is "duck and cover", you have not addressed issues. Since you claimed to have more knowledge than those who posted here, possibly you can explain what Sanchez Artist Center really pays the city. 25% sounds right to me and others-- funny how we all got it wrong.
The Artist Center deal with the city is smelly, that's why when the 1/2011 modified net lease draft was presented to city council sometime mid-year 2009 there was much objection from the audience. The city brought the contract conditions back in late 2009 or early 2010. Financial detail was in the Agenda Summary, but no actual lease contract. Yep, there was no actual contract presented, but there was a PB&R report calling Sanchez Artist Center "an economic plan for Pacifica". That report was at least as credible as the POP Pier destination report (not).
Since Sanchez Artist Center is subsidized by citizens of this city, it seems the city should review fair conditions there. Example, some tenant sub-leases are grandfathered, others are reviewed every 2 years by an artist center committee, and terminate in 6 years. Does that seem fair to you? Also, the square-footage cost/location/business status, etc.-- all should also be reviewed.
As for that American-English sentence you're bitching about, try adding a comma and dash. Still confused? Okay.
"possibly you can explain what Sanchez Artist Center really pays the city" It's a question of fact. Find out for yourself. "25% sounds right to me and others" You're basing your assertions on "what sounds right" to you? Good grief. "some tenant sub-leases are grandfathered." Yet another assertion that is not true. All tenant leases terminate.
Give Meeh a break she went to Terra Nova!
Anon (143), until you prove otherwise, I'll stand by my understanding that there was: 2 lease contracts, 10 years each (total 20 years), 25% of rents collected are paid to the city. Originally, implied in the modified net lease, most of the 75% of the rents collected were to be used to improve the building.
Anon (143), you are saying the old guard is no longer "grandfathered", can no longer remain in their studios after 6 years under any name? Good news.
Anon (203) Meeh and 3 others were involved in a legal action (about 2001-03) against Art Center corruption. There was a settlement (not on the main issue), but their attorneys paid ours. Also, 2 friends contacted the IRS. The rest is reorganization history.
Hello Anonymous. Kathy was involved in the original dispute with the Art Center so I do believe she knows what she is talking about. Oh and by the way, the City does not pay the Art Center's garbage bill.
"Until you prove otherwise, I'll stand by my understanding." You made the false assertions. It's not up to me to prove you wrong. That's like me saying that FixPacifica is funded by stealing children's allowances. You say that's false. I say until you prove otherwise, I'll stand by my understanding.
"Kathy was involved in the original dispute with the Art Center so I do believe she knows what she is talking about." By her own statement, she was involved in a legal action 2001-2003. I don't think that shows that she knows what she's talking about 8 years later. She's wrong about tenants being grandfathered in. She's wrong about other things.
Anon (427), no you are twisting. The 1/2011 contract information you say you seek is in the City Council Summary Agendas, late 2009, early 2010, as mentioned prior. If you had a name, we could make a bet, and I would win. But, congratulations, since you are too lazy to do the research, you have motivated me to do an article sometime after the Holiday. During this Holiday, you are just an intrusion.
Its also interesting how you did not choose to attack the 3 other anonymous posters who also commented on the 25% Artist Center rent paid to the city. Also, I have no intent to deceive anyone, facts are scary enough. Based upon your commentary, however, I think you do have intent to deceive.
Chris (359) said the CITY does not pay the Artist Center garbage bill. But, next question: does the Artist Center pay a garbage bill? If so, when did the Artist Center start paying that bill? Or, has this been another "free" service provided by Recology, previously Coastside, expensed, and ultimately a trickle-down cost to our citizens.
The grandfathering I learned of from a studio tenant (Artist Center advisement to tenants). And, I believe that tenant, not you. Some paperwork from the lawsuit remains, and some things I remember forever. Your comments are apparently self-serving and disappointing.
Is the studio tenant who told you about the grandfathering still a tenant? If so, ask him/her about it now. If not still a tenant, the info is out of date. You attack my comments as "self-serving and disappointing." Your comments are factually incorrect and ignorant of the current state of affairs.
Anon (625) generally what we do here is try to share information, rather than try to kill each other, even when we disagree. If you have recent updated information (and no one is contesting that you may have), you did not disclose what that is. Ordinarily most people would make that clarification. You did not. Where or what is that update?
And, did you offer alternative "factual" information, the best you understand it? You did not. You are hostile, particularly to me. You are anonymous, we don't know who you are, and I can't trust what you say. This conversation is going nowhere. However, maybe later with further verification we can pick-it-up this conversation again.
Anonymous, maybe you can explain why anyone should believe you when you won't even put your name behind your statements? You obviously don't know what proportion of rent goes to the city, so why are you arguing with Kathy?
A public facility using public funds and shrouded in secrecy and misinformation. Damn, Pacifica's being "transparent" again.
SAC is and always has been a "friendly" little private club with "friendly" terms for "friendly" people. Transparency is just a word in Pacifica, nothing more.
All I want is for Man's/Woman's Best Friend to have a safe, accessible place to play and socialize off-leash. It's fair, right, and long overdue. Dog owners are part of the public, too. Let's share this public space and be good neighbors!
at anon(6:25)
Do you have facts or is this your opinion?
Kathy Meeh has at least given a logical reasoning.
I have not seen anything from you.
Time to put up or shutup.
The City talking about rents for the Art Center, in closed sesseion tells you it is a side deal and a gift sweet deal to the buddies of the council.
The city talking about Art Center lease is required by law to be in closed session because it's a real estate negotiation.
let's get the facts on sanchez art ctr.
After reading all this back and forth, here's a suggestion to all you speculators and guessers!
Email the city clerk at o'connellk@ci.pacifica.ca.us, ask for the documents and have the Fix webmaster post them!
Ask for the lease, how about minutes of all Sanchez art ctr board of director meetings? Who is on Sanchez Art ctr bd BTW? How about monthly or even annual financials for Sanchez? None of this material is posted on either the City or Sanchez website.
Rather than talk, let's see what you all can do! Just a thought.
Anon@9:16AM, why do you keep insisting others do your work? Nobody's stopping you from gathering documents. I'll post them.
reply to Steve Sinai said May 30, 2011 9:42 AM.
The various anons are arguing back and forth about what the facts are regarding use and lease of Sanchez art ctr. This challenge to secure the actual docs is a challenge to the anons. It is also an indirect challenge to this blog and others--bickering about "facts" no one has the actual documentation about is a waste of time. Casual speculation diminishes the value of this blog and the others and lack of facts allows the kid-glove treatment of Sanchez to continue.
I decline to spend any time chasing the docs. My mind is made up: I believe the use of Sanchez is a very favorable deal for the tenants.
What the other anons want to actually verify is their responsibility if they expect to change the situation regarding Sanchez.
No worries, the points I made in analysis are substantially correct, as expected. I'm putting together an article from city council meetings 3/9/09 and 12/14/09, where the lease information exists. You should see the article in a day or two.
At anon (12:23 PM).
I see. So it is your opinion. No problem on that. That's ok. Its just that you don't have the facts together on this and if you go ahead and start making accusations that someone is wrong, you should provide such data.
Post a Comment