S. Tahoe council miffed contract signed without their consent
By Kathryn Reed
South Lake Tahoe City Council members were less than thrilled with finding out a five-year contract for the use of a city building had been approved by a department head and not them.
Stan Sherer, Community Development director, defended his actions on July 17.
“We rent all kinds of facilities. Historically, we haven’t come to the council,” he said.
One of the problems as noted by City Attorney Patrick Enright is, “We don’t have a written policy as to how we lease properties.”
That is going to change per the council’s mandate.
It’s not that the recreation and other department heads won’t be able to rent city property, but they won’t be able to do so on a long-term basis.
The council was in a quandary with how to proceed because Unity at the Lake has been renting the property at 1195 Rufus Allen Blvd. for nearly a year. Rent is $1,700 a month.
Councilman Tom Davis asked what happens if the contract is not ratified by council.
Enright said, “I don’t know. They’ve been there 10 months and have made tenant improvements.”
A contract is signed between Sherer and Unity without its being dated. The lack of date infuriated the council as well.
Sherer said because Unity had been renting city space at the senior center and this group was the only one willing to make substantive improvements to the building, he picked them.
The council voted 3-1 to keep the contract in place. (It expires in October 2016.) Councilman Hal Cole abstained and Councilwoman Angela Swanson was absent.
The above mentioned property that the city owns has been in very poor condition for many years.
The new tenant Unity at the Lake has made a large investment in this property and in doing so has made significant improvements.
This improves that area for all of us and is money the city does not have to spend.
Lets fix the paperwork and move forward as this is a Win/Win situation for all involved
In addition I would encourage the city to find these types of opportunities whenever possible. Thus to improve our community without the use of our already short supply of tax dollars.
Why did Cole abstain?
And I agree with McDougall, if someone wants to rent run down city property and fix it up at their own expense, let them have at it!
South Lake Tahoe city council, and its incorrigible stepchild city, constantly reinventing the wheel.
Mr. McDougall:
“In addition I would encourage the city to find these types of opportunities whenever possible. Thus to improve our community without the use of our already short supply of tax dollars.”
I agree with your above comments and believe that’s exactly what the City had in mind regarding the Ice Skating Rink.
A tough minded city council. Wait a second. Aren’t these the same folks that don’t like to collect TOT from vacations rentals, especially individual vacation rental owners. Because vacation rental owners didn’t like the paperwork the city required. Pathetic and embarrassing.
A few days ago, a Tahoe Keys resident talked about the hypocrisy of the agencies in doing their supposed duty – this latest story goes a ways to include the City Council as well. . .’miffed’ in the form of airing “dirty laundry” about someone going around their authority meant they should have found out about the absence of a direct ban on what Mr. Sharer did, especially since it turns out to be customary. . .and following Mr. Zitts comment with the “piggy-bank” issue of TOT – at least the Unity Center is paying a reasonable rent (after spending a lot of sweat equity & money to “make it their own”) versus the much less lucrative deal for the City’s ice rink (@ less than .05/sq ft). . .the Unity Center is closer to 1.00/sq.ft, so Mr. Sharer did considerably better than the City Council & management did with the ice rink. . .hypocrisy, indeed !!
satori:
Will the Unity Center be paying a percentage of the income they take in to the City in addition to the monthly rent they pay like the Ice Rink operators contract stipulates or are they only paying a flat rent?
Rumor is Stan has been asked to clear out his desk? If not for this, then perhaps for letting a Lakeview Commons’ concession go to the lowest!, instead of the highest!, bidder. In what was a shameless conflict of interest that cost the taxpayer thousands of dollars!
Your spot on for Lakeview butI believe there is quite a laundry list of things that Stan gave away. His side-kick Lauren should be right behind him.
Parker- by the way- what conflict of interest are you aware of- I just found out that of the two people that actually were on the selection commitee for Lakeview Commons- Lauren and Stan- quess whose husband works at south tahoe standup? hmmm
That’s the conflict of interest II was referring to, burt! But what the heck, the City I guess figures it needs to look out for the personal interests of its staff rather than the taxpayer?!