2005-08-01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

385 Mr. Tolbert noted that the Weed and Seed funds will come out of social programs. Ms. Hamilton noted that half of social money will go for Weed and Seed. Mr. Tolbert said there is the opportunity to make changes and reduce the amount of funding needed as Weed and Seed is going to piggyback with the Police Department. Council agreed to providing administrative funding for Weed and Seed. Council agreed to allocatel 5% maximum for social programs, minus funding for Weed and Seed. PUBLIC HEARING/RESOLUTION: RENEWING LEASE FOR 614 E. HIGH STREET Mr. Craig Brown, City Attorney, explained that when the City and Albemarle County acquired 614 E. High Street they assumed the existing lease which will expire in August 2006. The current occupant wants to make significant improvements, and has asked that the lease be renewed for a five-year period at $75,000 per year increased annually by 3% or based on the CIP, whichever greater. The occupant has asked for rent credit and they will assume maintenance requirements with some exceptions. Mr. Brown said that the lease must also be approved by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. Ms. Hamilton asked if details of the lease have been gone over with Albemarle County, and Mr. Brown said it has been reviewed by the County Attorney and he assumes he has shared that information. Ms. Hamilton asked if the credit would be up to the amount of improvements, and Mr. Brown said yes. The public hearing was opened, but as there were no speakers, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Schilling said that having reviewed the lease, he is a little concerned that we are not getting the best possible deal for the City. He said the lease does not expire for a year and we would be locking in a rate that is already discounted. He said he does not see a compelling reason to do this. Mr. Schilling said the research showed that one of the ramifications of not doing this is we would not have to put the lease out to the public for competitive bidding, but he thinks there would be a benefit for the City to do that rather than make a deal one year in advance. In addition, he said he is a little troubled by the City's liability for major expenses and thinks at the very least the occupant should have to pay a pro-rated amount. He said this tenant or successor has been in there for over 12 years, and he feels it is fair for them to help pay these expenses. Finally, he said there are a number of improvements the occupant is asking the City to pay for, but there is no information about the benefit to the City upon their departure. If the City is investing $55,000 to something that will have to be torn out in 5 to 10 years, it is not of benefit to do so. He said he does not see this as a good deal and see no compelling reason to do it right now. Mr. Caravati asked if there is a more extensive list of proposed improvements, and Mr. Brown said the only addition to the list in the packet is carpeting. Mr. Caravati said it seems the square footage rent proposed is at or above market rate. He said he does not think competitive bidding would do much for the City. He said he is troubled by the rent discount proposed for improvements as most items are not particularly fungible after five years. He said the exclusion on larger items is not unusual in commercial markets. Mr. Caravati said he will make a motion, unless Mr. Brown, Mr. O'Connell or Mr. Watts want to take further time, to approve the lease with a rent cap of under $25,000 unless the tenant can justify why they want to discount for those improvements.