11/16/1999 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,, Council Minutes of 11/16/1999 portions of these ordinances are first, establishing such along-term agreement for exclusivity; two, some of the revenue benefits from this agreement provide for donations to a proposed skateboard park within a city negotiated contract. The first issue of the 10- year agreement can be explained based on the extent of the benefit to the city as opposed to any similar agreement with other companies. She has requested a copy of similar agreements from other cities for a point of reference in comparison as she needs that information prior to agreeing to a ten-year term for North Olmsted. Of more immediate concern, is the inclusion of a contribution to the skateboard park that is included within a city negotiated contract. Those are the key words. Recently, Council was provided information regarding the fact that all monies donated to the skateboard park are deposited into Endowment Fund 810 to be used only for that purpose and to remain totally separate from General Fund money. In her opinion, that is a legal given and that was never her question. Her question, in fact, regarding the funding of the park has always been just the opposite. The proponents of this park have consistently made it clear to this Council and to the residents of this city that the park would be totally funded by donations and that the General Fund money designated for purposes other than the skateboard park or special projects would not be used at any time for this project. It is Council's obligation to monitor the expenditures from that General Fund and, specifically as it relates to the skateboard park, there is a history of a concern about this which needs to be presented. At a public hearing, concerned residents were promised that the park would be funded solely through contributions. Yet, that policy was violated when traveling expenses for a consultant for the skate park were paid out of Special Services, a General Fund line item. That has been corrected. Secondly, further concerns in this regard arrived when a contract to draw specifications for the skate park was signed by the Mayor on behalf of the city. She had a concern about that, which she addressed to the Law Department. The Law Department assured her that that is a manner in which that can take place. She will defer to their judgment, but her concerns remain with her personally that we are negotiating a contract on behalf of the city for a project that is not to be funded with city funds. Secondly, we are faced with a contract which provides Coke a 10-year exclusivity to do business with the city in return for a percentage of proceeds and lump sum payments to be donated to areas throughout the city. Included in this city contract with Coke is a donation to the skateboard park for $25,000. It is her belief, based on the stipulations and limitations established for funding of the park that: (1) a donation to the skateboard park should not be included in a city negotiated contract-not that there shouldn't be a donation as was portrayed earlier, but that donation should not be included in a negotiated contract for the city; (2) the issue of the skateboard park was at some time inappropriately made part of this negotiation, confirmed by the fact that it was an actual section put into the city contract. Therefore, it may have affected the entire exclusivity contract. Simply removing the skate park donation amount from the agreement does not remedy the problem or a flawed contract. Instead, it is the feeling of some Council members, and her strong feeling, that negotiations with Coke should continue to determine an agreeable figure for the city to receive for General Fund items for which this city is responsible and for which Council is obligated to locate and approve funding in exchange for this generous ten-year agreement of exclusivity. In short, it should be determined if whether that total figure of approximately $296,000 over ten years can benefit the entire city through the General 5