I spoke about Sims’ idea with Stu Kallgren, president of an organization representing leaseholders in the State of Maine, because they have been dealing with landowner rights versus leaseholders for 15 years. Although the investors in his case owned the land (instead of just the lease rights), the circumstances would be similar. The biggest problem leaseholders encountered was being priced out of their homes as investors and management companies tried to make as much money as possible off the land (without regard to the lessee’s investment). Also, their attempts to negotiate and be heard fell on deaf ears, as investors paid big bucks to lobby state representatives on their behalf. Mr. Kallgren’s recommendation was to not only walk away from Sims’ idea but to run as far and fast as possible.

I urge you to read information about the Maine Leaseholders Association available on the Home Page of this web site and also visit their site at http://www.maine-leaseholders.com. This is a real eye-opener.

Although Commissioner Sims did not mention the city selling or relinquishing its leasehold rights to leased lots at this time, his idea could open the door for that down the road. In this case, it’s best to leave Pandora’s box closed.

Many of you may recall that while former Mayor Chuck Mills was in office, the city proposed not allowing building on leased lots and just before leaving office, he suggested that the city “get out of the leasing business” entirely and directed the city attorney to look into this possibility. Could that have been leading up to Sims’ latest idea? I know for a fact that while Mills was in office, he corresponded via e-mail with Frank Sims about leasehold issues. Why did the former Mayor find it necessary to keep Sims informed on leasehold issues when Sims was neither in office nor a candidate at the time.

One other consideration that can’t be ignored is the environmental impact leasing more lots would have on the lake. The CLO already plans to lease as many as possible of the 24 (platted but un-leased) lots on state land. Add another 30-35 city-owned lots to that and possibly 20-25 more that could be platted and what you have is the makings of an environmental nightmare … one that could have a negative impact on all of us.

If you care about the future of your leasehold, call or write the City Commission and let them know how you feel about this idea. Their contact information is available from our "Links" menu.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
Who's in Control ... and Why?
(Submitted by Linda Agee)

One has to ask, who’s running the show here – the City Commission or Commissioner Frank Sims?

Sims started out on January 19 naming seven positions he wanted on the Shawnee Lake Advisory Committee whose scope is to advise the commission on lake ordinances, zoning, lease terms, and recreational fees and services. After commissioners disagreed with his proposed makeup of the committee, he finally gave in to Commissioner Pam Stephens’ insistence that two people unaffiliated with the lake serve to represent the city’s 25,000 water users.

The commission ultimately agreed to the following committee structure: Commissioners Sims and James Harrod, one each from the Shawnee Twin Lakes Association, Shawnee Lake Leaseholders Alliance, Commissioners of the Land Office (CLO) lessees, Homebuilder’s Association, Sustainable Shawnee (or water advocate), and two residents unaffiliated with the lake.

However, at the February 1 commission meeting, Sims tried to “change the rules in the middle of the game” (as expressed by Commissioner Stephens) by adding three positions to the committee, two which had previously been denied. City Attorney John Canavan advised that because of the city’s prior decision, this would have to be deferred to a future meeting. So Sims agreed to go ahead and approve the smaller committee but promised to pursue the additional positions at the February 16 meeting.

Why would Sims continue to persist on changing the committee after all the other commissioners were satisfied with it? And why would he insist on the appointment of two CLO lessees who represent only 28 leaseholders compared to the city’s 155? This committee’s recommendations on city lease rates and terms will have no bearing on CLO lessees and if the state repeals its resolution to abide by city ordinances, they might not even be bound by the ordinances they help craft and recommend.

And although Commissioners Sims and Harrod are co-chairing this committee, Sims announced the date of the first meeting without conferring with Harrod or other members. When Harrod said he was not available on that date, Sims replied they would proceed without him.

Maybe as a city commissioner, STLA member, and lessee of two city-owned lake lots, Sims has too many conflicting interests to be an unbiased leader on this committee. One thing for sure, when things don’t add up, it’s usually because something is missing (or hidden?) and there is definitely something missing here.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Long-Term Lease?
(Submitted by Linda Agee)

Title 64 of Oklahoma State Statutes (pertaining to state-owned land) says: “The granting of any commercial lease in excess of three (3) years shall be by public bidding at not less than fair market value.” What this means is that the Commissioners of the Land Office (CLO) cannot offer lessees in the North and South School Tracts a lease longer than 3 years without holding a public bid.

However, these restrictions do not pertain to city-owned lots. When I asked City Attorney John Canavan what process the city would have to follow before offering a long-term lease to the city’s lake lot lessees, his answer was:  “It would probably require a statutory amendment, but I would also need to see if it conflicted with any constitutional restrictions. However, we are a home rule city and that gives us a little more freedom in dealing with certain issues”.  Being a “home rule” city means the city has the authority to determine many policy issues on its own (e.g., practice self-government in local matters).

Even if it is determined legally permissible for the city to offer lake lot lessees a long term lease, this would still have to be approved by the City Commission. However, Commissioner James Harrod spoke out in favor of this during their November 16 meeting and said it could be on their December 7 agenda for discussion. The length of the term is still open, but 30 years was mentioned because of the ease in obtaining financing

If the city decides to pursue this, lessees should request to be part of the process and remember that "the devil is in the details".  Although a long-term lease is appealing and could offer attractive benefits, we need to ensure we do not sacrifice any of the protections in our current Cabin Site Lease Agreement.