Unions get proposal for FM lease with county

DISSENT

It’s not a good deal for the Lee County taxpayers and shows favoritism to the tenant. So I can’t support this motion as it doesn’t meet with county attorney’s expectations”

Chuck Holmes, Lee County Supervisor

LEE COUNTY – Fort Madison union officials will finally get a lease to consider for the upper story space they currently occupy in downtown Fort Madison.
The Lee County Board of Supervisors approved sending a lease proposal to the unions regarding the space above the Newberry Center on Avenue G in Fort Madison Monday morning.
After failing to pass a lease proposal three previous times, Supervisors Ron Fedler and Matt Pflug changed their position on offering the unions a new lease agreement. The two had previously voted no three times on the agreement because they were against the increase in rent.
But because Supervisor Chuck Holmes was also voting against the proposal, which he did again on Monday, the new lease proposal failed on all three previous efforts by identical  3-2 votes. With the failed votes, the county couldn’t present a new lease to the unions and, therefore, were going to have to notify the tenants to vacate the space.
But Monday, Fedler made a motion to have the latest previous vote rescinded and then Pflug offered up a motion to approve a new lease proposal with a $750 monthly lease. Fedler seconded the motion and it passed 4-1 to with little conversation.
Now the lease can be presented to labor union officials to consider. Supervisors gave the unions until Nov. 1 to make a decision.
The move seems to have ended a bizarre exchange between supervisors prompting Supervisor Chairman Garry Seyb to check with the Iowa League of Cities to see if another lease proposal could even be put in front of the board.
The motion to rescind the previous vote had to be made by someone in the majority on the previous vote. That amounted to someone who previously voted against the lease agreement requesting that vote be set aside and another vote to take place.
That move was essentially done several weeks ago, but when the same majority asked for the vote to be set aside, they voted against the agreement again leaving the county with no agreement to present to the unions.
Seyb said he checked with the league and the majority is allowed to motion to have the previous vote set aside.
“If approved, then it’s as if that  vote never happened,” Seyb said.
After approving the motion to set the vote aside 4-1, with Holmes again voting against the action, the discussion turned to why now Fedler and Pflug were willing to consider the lease agreement for $750, which is what was proposed previously.
Fedler said  the county will be making an extra $3,200 which benefits property taxpayers.
“After considering it, I thought the property taxpayers pay what it cost to own and maintain that building and if we don’t rent out the upstairs at all, then the whole cost will be on the taxpayers,” Fedler said.
Fedler said the proposal is for one year and that’s to the county’s advantage.
Pflug said the vote allows the current renters to take the agreement to their membership. With the last several votes, and the majority of the supervisors voting against the proposal, the county couldn’t submit a lease agreement to the tenants because no agreement could be reached with supervisors.
“I’m not looking at this as a union non-union thing, but as a renter that will benefit the taxpayer no matter who rents it out,” he said.
Holmes said when supervisors discussed it last time, he showed that the county expenses came to $775 per month to the county.
“This motion does not meet with the request of the county attorney who said the county has to show a profit and not a loss,”  Holmes said.
“It’s not a good deal for the Lee County taxpayers and shows favoritism to the tenant. So I can’t support this motion as it doesn’t meet with the county attorney’s expectations.”
Seyb said Lee County Attorney Ross Braden has agreed with the lease proposal as is, but Holmes said Braden doesn’t have the right information.
“The expenses come to $775 dollars,” he said. "A $750 lease doesn't cover our costs."
Supervisor Schulz said the expenses Holmes is considering are highly subjective and include some expenses the county would have whether there was a tenant in the space or not.
“Quite frankly, if we don’t have tenant on the second floor, there’s gonna be additional costs because some of what they are paying does offset county expenses as well as adding to a small profit. I certainly support moving ahead with this,” Schulz said.