Queen Creek council approves short-term lease for staff space after debate over buying property

Queen Creek Town Council approved item 8C — a lease agreement providing temporary space for town staff — following debate about whether the town should instead pursue purchasing the property. The council voted 5-2 to approve the lease; opponents said acquisition should be prioritized where feasible.

The item was removed from the consent agenda for separate consideration after Councilmember Padilla said the proposed budget adjustment — $232,000 for year one and additional ongoing costs — made buying the property potentially more fiscally prudent if a favorable price could be negotiated. Padilla said, “If we need staffing needs that last for multiple years, I would propose that it saves the town money for us to consider acquiring a property instead of leasing it.”

Dave, the town’s capital improvement (CIP) director, told council staff first identified the space roughly a month earlier and that the property owner is a small business willing to consider a sale. Dave said the lease includes two clauses intended to protect the town’s ability to pursue purchase later: a clause allowing the town to propose purchase (but requiring an appraisal and public process if the owner does not agree) and a first right of refusal clause allowing the town to match offers the owner receives during the lease term. Dave explained an appraisal would take roughly 60–90 days and that the owner is within an advertising window for their business. “We can stay in under our lease as is, but it would require us to go out and get an appraisal and go through that process,” Dave said, adding the first right of refusal would let the town counter other offers and bring any purchase back to council.

Councilmember Benning asked whether delaying approval could leave the town short of needed space; Dave replied the lease could be executed faster than a purchase, and that staff recommended the lease to secure immediate capacity. Padilla pressed for pursuing purchase in parallel where possible, warning that locking into a multi-year lease could cost the town the value of eventual savings from owning the asset. Padilla said an extended lease could cost “a minimum of $700,000 to rent that we could otherwise save by putting it into an asset that we would need in the future.”

Councilmember Brown moved to approve item 8C as published. After discussion and public council remarks, the motion to approve the lease passed 5-2. The council did not record individual roll-call votes on the public audio for each member; the minutes record the final tally as 5 in favor, 2 opposed.

Staff and council members noted operational details connected to the lease: the lease term would start July 1; the owner indicated interest in a three-year arrangement; and the lease’s purchase-option language would allow the town to open purchase discussions immediately after lease execution. Dave said the owner would “start advertising” for the business if the town did not move quickly and that acquiring the property would require the town to obtain an appraisal and pursue the public process for acquisition.

No additional direction to staff was adopted beyond approving the lease as presented. Councilmembers who opposed the lease said they preferred a purchase-first approach or a longer council discussion before committing to continued forward-year lease payments.

The council moved on after the vote; staff will implement the lease per the approved terms and retain the purchase-option and first-right-of-refusal provisions for future council consideration.