Laserfiche WebLink
revenue is generated for the city. Negotiations and conversations will be had regarding revenue <br />once an operator is selected. <br />Councilmember Baker spoke about the balance of operation between a public entity and a private <br />company. He also mentioned that the City can potentially save approximately $50,000 per year <br />onthe current tax bill, which would allow revenue to go back into the facility. <br />Councilmember Baker asked about current models other cities use for their facilities. Assistant <br />Director Baas explained the different municipal models used in cities like Mentor, Rocky River, <br />and North Olmsted. He spoke about the uniqueness of the facility in Lakewood and explained <br />that the City is not in a position to quickly replicate another municipal model. The facility’s <br />purpose and priorities have been discussed with the potential operators, and a significant amount <br />of work has been put into the collaborating and marketing approach. A model has not been <br />included in the potential agreements with the operator, but the general expectations are listed. <br />Assistant Director Baas went through the three lines of effort that are being asked of the operator. <br />These include retain, support, and grow. He explained that within the grow category, the operator <br />will propose how they will leverage other departments like the city schools. The schools are on <br />the advisory board and have a central role within the programs. <br />Councilmember Kepple and Assistant Director Baas spoke about theproposed fee schedule. <br />Assistant Director Baas explained that the fee schedule will challenge operators to communicate <br />with the City the viewed competitive rates at different times throughout the year. The language in <br />the agreement allows for creativity and options for incentives. The management fee is negotiated <br />within the operating agreement. Councilmember Kepple mentioned the affordability for <br />Lakewood residents. <br />Councilmember Bullock spoke about the range of financial models that could be proposed. He <br />confirmed with Director Leininger that the current private income at Winterhurst will become <br />city revenue. The fee will be negotiated for employees based on the operator’s receipts and <br />invoices. <br />Councilmember Kepple asked about a potential plan in case the operator does not follow through <br />with the agreement. Law Director Vargo explained that protection and safeguards for the city will <br />be negotiated. Councilmember Kepple suggested the inclusion of a potential expansion within <br />the agreement. <br />Councilmember Baker asked if a draft agreement could be shared with Council. Law Director <br />Vargo explained that the agreement will not be meaningful until the official operator is identified. <br />He mentioned that a draft sent to Council might slow the process down. The current operator will <br />st <br />. <br />maintain operation until the end of June, so the new operation must be ready by July 1 <br />Councilmember Baker communicated that a phone call 24 hours in advance would suffice. <br />Councilmember Rader asked if the contract would be a 5-year arrangement. Director Leininger <br />explained that the length of the contract needs to be negotiated. <br />2 <br /> <br /> <br />