01/18/2000 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes 1/18/2000 Fishman were charged there temporarily for timing purposes. The timing of Mr. Fishman's visit was necessitated by his schedule of being in Chicago. Money was saved as we only had to fly him from Chicago rather than his home in California. Hence the immediacy. The intention was to reclassify this expenditure to the skatepark fund when the amended appropriation Ordinance 99-87 passed increasing appropriation to $15,200 for the skateboard park. Ralph Bohlmann who was delegated responsibility for capital improvements and engineering charged these expenditures to a line item that was totally appropriate even if the intent was not to reclassify the expenditure to the skatepark fund. He was obtaining advice from an expert in the field for a project that he would be responsible for. Perfectly legitimate expenditure for that line item and fund. Additionally, in no way am I saying there was only $200 available for skatepark fund expenditures. In government accounting, the available resources can be far different from what is appropriated to expend. Ordinance 99-35, for some reason (probably because we did not anticipate the project to start in 1999 when the original appropriation ordinance was passed), only had $200 of the funds appropriated for expenditure. As discussed above in Ordinance 99-87, an additional $15,000 was appropriated to expend in the next available appropriation amendment.' The minutes further indicate further concerns in this area (of) regard arrived when a contract to draw specifications for the skatepark was signed by the Mayor on behalf of the city. Concerns remain that we are negotiating a contract on behalf of the city for a project that is not funded with city funds. Question: Can the skatepark be construed as a city project? In my opinion, I think it can be. I'm not sure when the skatepark project changed from a vision of one individual into a city project. When did the metamorphosis take place? Was it when a presentation was made to the Planning Commission in March of 1998? Or was it when there was a public hearing in June of 1999? Or was it when the Recreation Commission gave the go-ahead in, I believe, July of 1999? Or was it when Mr. Deichmann sent a letter to Alan Fishman in June of 1999 requesting a modified proposal for design services on the proposed skatepark in North Olmsted. Or was it when Council passed Ordinance 99-85, entitled `An ordinance authorizing the Mayor of North Olmsted to enter into an agreement with Alan Fishman to provide engineering services for the design of North Olmsted skatepark at the Recreation Center and declaring an emergency' in September of 1999? Regardless of when the metamorphosis took place, in my opinion at the present time, the skatepark can be construed as a city project. The skatepark is being built on city property. The city has an obligation to take the skatepark project out to public bid. The city has an obligation to perform engineering review on the skatepark project. The city must be the entity to enter into the contract with the builder. There is only one difference between the skatepark project and most other city projects in that the city will not have to borrow money to build the skatepark." The following committee meetings were scheduled: President Saringer scheduled aCouncil-as-a-Whole on January 26 immediately following the other committee meetings. Mr. Gareau scheduled a Streets & Drainage Committee at 7 p.m. on January 26 for legislative review. The Service Director is asked to attend. ,~, ~~Y. 12 . ~ .~