The Oakley City Council will have a difficult decision tonight as the Oakley Seniors group is requesting some major changes in their lease agreement that may be deal breakers on the old fire station.
If you recall, HALO and the city ended their lease in favor of the seniors taking the place over. The council then worked with the two parties on an extension from March to June to assist both parties finalize issues on the move. Now, the seniors are asking for more after the city has already worked with them on a good faith effort.
With the rent proposal, nearly $13,000 in rent that should be collected drops down to $36. To make up for the reduced rent, the seniors would be “volunteering” at City Hall. The seniors have also requested delinquent rent and late charges be removed.
Going a step further with the lease, the city is ready to agree to waive a security deposit which raises some red flags. I cannot think of many leases that include this provision.
The seniors are also requesting that they not pay any taxes on the facility which is estimated at $650 according to the staff report.
Ultimately, the staff report highlights major red flags in the lease agreement. Most troubling is when staff is stating their concern as to whether or not the seniors even have the resources to pay for annual utility expenses while the fiscal impact of the changes to the lease are difficult to determine.
Here is a look at the proposed modifications to the lease.
- Section 3. Rent- The Seniors desire a $1 per month rent through June of 2015 and then re-negotiate the rent after that time. The proposed agreement meets this request, but suggests the $500 per month effective June 13, 2015. I did discuss an idea with the Seniors that one or two Councilmembers had suggested. It relates to the Seniors providing volunteer hours at City Hall to help compensate for the reduced rent. There is one volunteer that has stepped forward and has offered 5 hours per week and it is hoped/anticipated that other Seniors will step forward over time.
- Section 4. Security Deposit – The Seniors indicated that they do not have the financial resources to pay a deposit at this time. The proposed agreement has stricken this provision.
- Section 5. Delinquent Rent and Late Charges – The Seniors request that no late charges be included in the agreement. Maintaining the provision that the City may cancel the lease with 90 days notice should be adequate protection, particularly if nominal rent is charged. The proposed agreement has stricken this provision.
- Section 6. Use and Seniors Obligations – HALO had fenced the small park area off and maintained it as well as the small turf area in front of the building. This provision, at the Seniors’ request, has the fence come down and the little park and front turf areas be maintained by the City. There is no irrigation system on these turf areas. A possible compromise is to have the Seniors water the turf, but that it be mowed and otherwise be mowed and maintained by the City.
- Section 8. Alterations and Repairs -While the Seniors agree to make any “minor” repairs, they are requesting that the City be required to make any “major” repairs. A concern exists that the building is very old and there may be some unknown expenditures on the horizon that would not be worth making to such an old building. The obvious result of any significant repair would be to sit down and review what the best approach would be at the time, given what the cost of the repair is. The proposed agreement does not modify the language to require the City to make these repairs.
- Section 13. Property Taxes and Assessments- As a non-profit, we don’t believe there will be any property taxes charged for the Seniors’ possessory use; however, there is a small park assessment ($30/year +/-) and the annual sewer assessment ($620/year +/-) that the proposed agreement has the Seniors paying. The Seniors have requested that this provision be deleted.
Fiscal Impact
By comparison, the lease with HALO provided $500 per month in revenue, HALO paid for all utilities (approximately $25,000 per year), and the maintenance of the adjacent dog park.
This proposed lease with Oakley Senior Citizens, depending on the final terms approved by the City Council, is not likely to generate any lease revenue in the foreseeable future and there are the maintenance costs of the turf areas and the potential cost of any significant repairs. Concerns also exist as to whether the Seniors will have the resources to cover all the annual utility expenses. In short, an exact fiscal impact is difficult to determine.
Recommendation
Provide specific lease terms and approve a Resolution authorizing the City Manger to execute the Lease Agreement with Oakley Senior Citizens for the use of the old fire station on 2nd Street.
Source:
Agenda Item 5.1
11 comments
Everybody wants a hand out lately it seems.. The city of Oakley will go bankrupt if everyone gets a hand out! The City has a responsibility to all of it’s citizens to not go bankrupt, giving away services that could bring in revenue!
I wish the seniors well, but the council would be wise to reject these terms to the lease. This is a very bad business deal.
When did it become the responsibility of the local government to provide a teen center and/or a senior center? While I understand the desire to have a place to come together but seriously, does this city have the resources to fund something like this? Many of the roads need work, We are constantly reminded that city hall runs a “lean” organization due to money concerns. We do not have a good sale tax base, our city is funded primarily on property tax money. So why are we even considering giving away something that could be generating revenue? This is a very very bad idea and if approved another example of how irresponsible the council is.
This is another example of city staff failing to address a problem and their solution is to give something away to keep people happy and off their back. Council should make the difficult decision and just say no. I take that back, it’s not that difficult at all. Oakley needs the rent more than the seniors need a place to hang out.
Why can’t the City Managers turn back their pay raises to pay for it? I wonder how many Oakley Seniors through the years have paid taxes to the City that has been misappropriated. I’m sure it’s much more than the cost of maintaining a Senior Center.
Was this issue resolved last night? It appears that the seniors are not in a financially stable position to use/rent the fire station at this time. Maybe they should re-apply when they are willing and able to meet the financial obligations of renting a city owned building. I wonder if the city council wishes they would have made a different decision on who the next tenant should be. I believe H.A.L.O. would be happy to be out of the fire house, since they can go about their daily business working out of the Sanderson’s home with little or no overhead resulting in more money for the organization and their board members. Just my thoughts.
The town I grew up in didn’t have a city sponsored senior center, nor a city sponsored youth center. We had a community center, and it was for everyone. Here in Brentwood, we have a Senior Center, and a largely unused community center that is part of City taj-mah Hall. If we keep hyphenating ourselves into these little sub-groups, before long we’ll have centers for every race, religion, ethnicity,gender, age, political party, and fiscal status, all funded by our local municipal governments. I can see it now: the Sub-Youth Pre-Adult African-Latin Jewish-Reformist Lower Middle Class Democratic Libertarian Community Center. Coming to your town soon.
What’s wrong with just a Community Center????
Just curious Medium Rare … who funded the “Community Center” in the town you grew up in?!
Probably the State and the city of Napa.
You see, he hasn’t quite figured out that community centers don’t have padded walls and visiting hours like the one he was in growing up. He came out as one angry bird.
Based on his rants it’s easy to conclude that his “community center” was special like that.
Not sure how that is relevant to my point, but, as you already know… city taxpayers. My point is, why do we need separate facilities for all the sub-sects of society? It’s an honest question and relevant to the discussion of how we spend our money. I’d like to hear your point of view, and will respect your opinion on the subject. I’m always open to other peoples ideas.
Last Post was Re DLM, Charleen. We’ve met before, and I know you are reasonable, so let me know where I’m wrong.
Comments are closed.