Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council declines to authorize immediate City Hall lease purchase; downtown residents press for alternatives
Summary
Council debated negotiating a lease‑to‑purchase for 6436 Oakdale Road as a potential consolidated City Hall. Staff said the site offers 42,000 sq ft, parking and IT infrastructure but would cost roughly $35,700/month in year one and require $1.5–2M in tenant improvements. After extensive public comment opposing a downtown move, a motion to proceed with negotiations failed.
Riverbank staff briefed the council Feb. 27 on options to address growing staff and space needs, proposing continued negotiations for a potential consolidated City Hall at 6436 Oakdale Road.
Staff described the building as approximately 42,000 square feet with existing IT infrastructure and a backup generator, which could accommodate present and projected staffing needs. Proposed lease terms discussed included a 20‑year initial term with two 10‑year extension options, base rent starting near $35,700 per month for the first year and rising in later years, a triple‑net structure (tenant pays operating expenses), and a right of first refusal for the city to purchase. Staff estimated tenant improvements in the range of $1.5–2.0 million and said the city would seek to apply lease payments toward purchase if a buy option moves forward.
The proposal drew intense public reaction from downtown residents and business owners who warned that moving City Hall from downtown would harm the area’s economic vitality and accessibility, especially for seniors and residents without reliable transport. Bethlyn Talbert, a downtown resident, said residents were not adequately informed and questioned whether operating costs (property tax, insurance, utilities and other operating expenses) were fully disclosed. Several speakers urged the council to pause and explore alternatives, including renovating downtown facilities or constructing a new municipal building on city‑owned land.
Councilmembers debated the tradeoffs: some said space needs and rising construction costs make a purchase or lease option prudent now, while others stressed the need for more public outreach and tangible alternatives. A motion to authorize continued negotiations with an eye toward purchase (including modifying a proposed three‑year sublease to two years and applying lease payments to purchase price) was put forward but did not carry after roll call (split votes and an abstention). Council agreed to additional public engagement and to revisit the issue at future meetings.
What happens next: staff were authorized only to continue public outreach; the council did not authorize final negotiations or execution of a lease/purchase. Any future action would require further hearings, specific lease/purchase terms and budget analysis.
