2013-08-12 Regular City Council Session

Home Browse Search

him as a Council person was why was Council doing this? He stated maybe the Sutter-Meyer Society was $15,000 short, how that saved the City money, if the City takes over the whole-thing. It could cost the City more if the society billed the City for the work they completed which could be over $100,000. Mr. Kraft said the whereas he was most concerned about was whereas the City desires that Sutter- Meyer house and property be improved and maintained. He said that is what the society has done for the last five or six years. Mr. Kraft stated the precedence that the City will start taking over these volunteer organizations, it bad for the organization, bad for the community and bad for the UCity budget. Mr. Kraft stated that the City should support the Sutter-Meyer Society in whatever way they can and hope they can be as self-sustaining as possible and leave things alone. He did not think making it a park did anything for the Parks or for UCity. Ms. Carr said her colleague Mr. Kraft mentioned some organizations that are actually self-sustaining and have balanced budget and are not coming to the City asking for additional funding. She stated this was an effort to preserve the Sutter- Meyer House. She said she has repeatedly heard it needed to be painted, so the City should do it. It needed a driveway, so the City should fix it, which indicated to her there were some problems with funding, not only to preserve the Sutter-Meyer House and the property but also to make the funding sustainable. She felt that presently is was not sustainable; otherwise the board would not be coming to the City to ask for more money on top of the mowing which was not in the contract, although utilities were eventually put in the contract. Ms. Carr noted that the partnership was not with Community Development Department but in fact with Public Works and Parks Department because apparently they are doing quite a bit. Ms. Carr stated the City was paying for maintenance and the upkeep; they paved the driveway and was planning on paying $15,000 for the painting of the house all of which is in violation of lease agreement. She said from the street sweeping issue, it was a violation of State Law to use public funds for a private entity, as is the society not the house, unless it is a matter of public safety or health. Ms. Carr said the Sutter-Meyer House Society may continue as it always has to run the educational programs, to raise money, but more effort was needed in that direction. She noted there are seven people sitting on this dais, but she is not the one who has suggested we demolish or sell the City property as she is one of the defenders of the property in the Civic Plaza. Ms. Carr stated that she is not trying to dismantle Sutter-Meyer Society, but until the house is made a park, it can be disposed of at any time. An ordinance on the books states that no park in UCity can be sold unless approved by the vote of the people. She said the model for the Sutter-Meyer House would be the Hanley House in Clayton, which is owned by Clayton and run by their Parks Department. Ms. Carr said the City needed to look to the future, not to every year do another project for the Sutter- Meyer house. She said Ms. Jensen’s facts were not quite accurate in that Sutter- Meyer is not under the umbrella of the Community Development Department as Mr. Walker stated that everything the City has done at the Sutter-Meyer house was done by Public Works and Parks Department. Ms. Carr noted the Society is responsible for all the upkeep and maintenance. She said the questions she has are: what is the operating budget; what are the sources of income; how many volunteers do they have; what is the board’s vision; what is the board’s long term plan for the museum; and is the museum sustainable as things are. Ms. Carr 16