Letter to the Editor:City Discontinue the Lease with the Chamber Immediately

This is a letter posted to the Dixon Patch opinions column. What are your thoughts on the subject?

"In response to the article in the Sept. 8th, Tribune which was written by the Administrator of the Chamber of Commerce regarding the transportation center where two inaccurate statements were cited and Mary Savage was “called on the carpet” for those statements.  The chamber administrator acknowledged that it still owns their building located at East Mayes Street.

Let’s take a look at the issues; first, leasing a taxpayer-financed station is not a personal issue with the chamber, but an issue of fairness and good business practices when the taxpayers paid and in return are not getting the value for their money. The (replica) transportation station was built with taxpayer “Government Money.” Our recollection is that the initial cost was in the neighborhood of $2,000,000 for the station and parking lot, and the city receives $1/month in rent. In other cities, we see quite different examples.  The city of Windsor rents its train station for $8,000.00 per year, and the city of Truckee receives $38,000 in rent each year. Then you have only to ask yourself, “why then has this incongruity been allowed here?”

Has the city been practical in the use of two million dollars of taxpayer funds? Has the city achieved a good return with the use of city “tax” funds?  Would you give the city $2,000,000 to invest for you?  The city should have been an astute business body and should have been collecting rent for all the necessary funds to maintain the property in full operational condition.

The city is responsible for all repairs over $250 and for landscaping and lighting for the 100+ parking spaces. In approximately 2026, the roof and heating/air conditioning system will need to be replaced and the building will need to be painted, (probably much sooner), and the parking lot will need to be repaved. Is the city prepared for the long term maintenance or maybe there is an expectation that the taxpayers will continue to pay the bill?

In the original grant proposal (2004-2005) for the transportation station, Dixon city officials said the "building will be used for transit administration/operations and commuter information in the short term." The documents further state that the building will be staffed by "transit dispatch staff". No mention was made in the proposal about leasing the building to anyone at any price. Despite the claims in the grant proposal, transit staff has never been housed in the so-called train station building, but the building has been continuously leased to the Chamber. The current lease runs through 2016. No RFP was ever issued.  It is curious that in the October 11, 2006 city council minutes, discussion was noted regarding leasing the transportation station to the chamber of commerce, well before the May 6, 2007 grand opening of the transportation station.

The federal guidelines provide that when the city changed away from the proposal to use city employees to staff the transit station as agreed upon, they were required to ask FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) for approval for a change in use. No record appeared showing the city officials submitted such a change request. Further, federal regulations require that if the city cannot use the building they must get fair market rent for the building. This appears to be a gift of public funds, a breach of contract and a sweetheart deal with our tax dollars.

The chamber of commerce can return to its former building, a building that it owns. A building where the chamber is collecting rent and demonstrating astute business sense. In this event the City Transit Department could readily be housed at the transportation station straight away and the facility could be utilized as an expansion place as city staff feels is appropriate. By housing the transit staff in the building and parking Readi –Ride buses outside the building, when not in use, new residents and visitors would immediately know where to go for transit information.

It is true that the chamber does not charge rent for the meeting room nor should it charge rent for a city owned building financed with federal funds paid for by the taxpayers. In proper business management the chamber should have been required to pay the market rate rental fee and to meet the lease agreement. In the lease agreement, the city council notified the public that the chamber would staff the facility Monday through Friday from (9:00am to 5:00pm).

The representative writing on behalf of the chamber has stated that “but we have at times even opened it after hours for special sign ups of different community groups.” This appears to violate the lease agreement and it is shocking that the organizers of a local group were unsuccessful in accessing the use of the building for holding meetings. Were all the community groups in the community notified that the chamber would allow after hours meetings? Under what circumstances would this occur? Was this practice widely advertised and was it also agreed to by the city? There is now an established “past practice.”

This is a federally funded building, which falls under federal civil rights laws. Local groups that were not notified or were turned down to use the building after hours are eligible to file a discrimination complaint with the Office of Civil Rights. We do not recall ever seeing any promotion from the city that the chamber meeting room is available free of charge, nor that exceptions can be made to the policy for use of the building in off hours. In checking the city and chamber websites, the Senior Multipurpose Center is listed as rentable, but the transportation center has no notice posted.

Mary Zuniga Savage

Shirley Humphrey