The Paddock Lake Village Board has voted to increase the rent for The Sharing Center by $940 per month for the village-owned building the center occupies on 236th Avenue.
The action came after a closed session discussion of the lease at the tail end of Wednesday’s regular Village Board meeting.
But one village official said she has a plan to try to get some of the increase paid by other municipalities.
Village officials have for the last couple of years sought to increase the rent for the relief agency to something closer to what they see as market value for commercial rental property. They make the case that by charging less than market rate, village taxpayers have been subsidizing the center to a disproportionate extent compared to other municipalities, some of which have a greater number of clients served by the center.
Last year the village increased the center’s rent 10 percent. This year’s increase is 78 percent.
Village President Marlene Goodson said the increase was difficult, but necessary in a time when the village has seen decreased revenue, especially from state revenue sharing. The village needed to find ways to help make-up an anticipated short fall in the 2012 budget.
While sympathetic to the work done by the center, the board felt a responsibility to village taxpayers, Goodson said.
“It’s tugging at our hearts because it’s taxpayers dollars,” Goodson said.
The Sharing Center Board of Directors President Kim Swanson released the following statement via email:
I am surprised to find out the Village did not accept our lease counter-offer of $1,800/mo. We have been working with the Village since June regarding lease negotiations and in August the Building and Grounds Committee unveiled the rent proposal of $2,150/mo for 2012. The SC had offered a 3 year staggered rent increase increment so as not to absorb such a big jump in one year. Obviously, the Village did not want to pursue that option. Since I have not been officially notified by the Village in regards to their vote Wed night, I am unable to comment on the details of their plan … The Sharing Center has over 400 new clients this year. We are very lucky to have the support we do to carry out our mission.”
Goodson said she will attempt to persuade the other municipalities in Western Kenosha County to make up the difference between the $1,800 the center had offered to pay per month and the new $2,150 per month rent. She is planning to contact the municipal leaders by letter inviting them to a public meeting to see what can be done.
“Let’s try to get some other municipalities to help,” Goodson said.
Note: westofthei.com co-publisher Karen Hillock is a member of The Sharing Center Board of Directors. — DH
Last year, I believe that TOS gave $5,000 to the SC for operations – which means FOR RENT, etc…… If the VofPL is in the rental business, they should be renting at the market value. The VOPL should not be actiong as if a Director of Sharing Center SC has their own directors. The SC should not have to chase what VoPL is deciding as rent fees based on VoPL’s budget at the moment. Like I said, ifVoPL is going to be in the rental business, they need to be charging market rate, but not getting into their renter’s business.
I would offer that BRISTOL’s industrial park has vacant buildings – on RT 45, centrally located and there could then also be a RESALE center in close proximity. (Or SIlver Lake’s Industrial Park at 50 and B) ,
I have it on very good information that LOVE,INC brings in 75% of their cash via their resale shops.
I have heard repeated over and over that Sharing Center cannot charge their clients. Well, Love Inc has a nice plan established so that their clients can shop amongst off the street buyers (and others who will conribute to that Cash flow) by using vouchers. Seems pretty simple! That cash can then be used to pay rents, wages and buy the very SPECIFIC supplies (and monthly payments that are needed at a specific time by their clients.
Also, WOTI people who donate to those organizations located distantly in Kenosha or Burlington would then have a location to donate their items locally. Donations are an ongoing, renewing effort by locals. It eliminates the BURNOUT that comes with special programs that become the only cash producers but which also depend on the same contributors/participants. It becomes a win-win situation.
There is a very good reason that St Vincents is now in Slades Corners and that Love Inc is in Burlington operating a resale store…. the stores make money and serves all levels of people…
It is time to leave VoPL. The facility is too small for what is needed- – – -Never was big enough and it is never a good idea to have a governmental body as a landlord.
I have read the news stories about this matter with much sadness and empathy for all parties concerned.
Especially for our fellow citizens whose suffering makes the need for such facilities increasingly important.
While establishment pundits continue to say that the “recession is over” and that we are in a so-called “recovery”, I continue to believe that we are in the early stages of an evolving economic winter. Polls show that most Americans agree with that consensus. That is, that for most of us on “Main Street” things are getting worse. That is why so many people find the “Occupy Wall Street” phenomenon of interest.
Expect that as economic conditions continue to erode for what’s left of the once great “Middle Class” that such protests will become more violent such as the ones afflicting Greece currently.
I’m sure that a more realistic assessment of the REAL ECONOMY and the likely continued challenges facing us all might prompt a more-equitable outcome to this matter. For example, does the Village of Paddock Lake have a potential commercial tenant to replace the beleaguered Sharing Center if they were to follow Ms. Valentine’s counsel and leave the village? If not, how long would this building sit empty returning the village’s also increasingly-beleaguered taxpayers zero income?
Food for thought.
Thank you.
Dr. Brad Smith
WHY IS
VofPL in the business of being a landlord? The elected officials put the village into the landloard business. I would ask them “WHY?”
As I said, ” it is never a good idea to have a governmental body as a landlord”. Partly because board members of one regime are STUCK with situations that are not traditionally Village Services orientated and partly because changes in original plans are more pronounced when the PLAYERS change from one regime to another……
This scenario illustrates it all!
The VoPL is not in the rental business. The board members are supposed to support the community and do what is BEST for the community members. I would bet a pretty penny that if the SC moved out of the building, the VoPL would have a VERY hard time renting out the building after they left. ESPECIALLY for $2150. That building isn’t even that nice nor is it new.
Yes, they need more staff and a bigger place to house their services to the community. However, how do you expect them to do that when the VoPL won’t even negotiate terms of rent? The VoPL decided to take away $10K of their budget for next year. They increased the rent by an astounding 78% which is absolutely outrageous. How are they to move forward and grow when they are being hit so hard?
This article disgusts me. It’s very clear that the Village of Paddock Lake’s board members are not doing what is best for the community and the citizens. I will promise that I will do my best to vote all of them out of their seats when their next election time comes. Pitiful.
Instead of being singular in your effort,
do a few things,
1. join the Sharing Center Board
and
2. Run of VoPL office.
To that end, post your name and contact info so others of like mind can reach you openly.
Put yourself out there and you will see – you can make a difference and others will join you!