More budget woes for Hemming

[whyisjohngalt]

Can you post a link to that?

I'd like to see how fundraising is defined, instead of revenue.

If everything is implicitly defined, and concessions aren't explicitly included in fundraising, then they should use this exposure as an opportunity to fundraise.  And meet the goal.

[jph]

Can you post a link to that?

I'd like to see how fundraising is defined, instead of revenue.

If everything is implicitly defined, and concessions aren't explicitly included in fundraising, then they should use this exposure as an opportunity to fundraise.  And meet the goal.

I looked around on the city website for the contract and couldn't find it, though that may be an indictment of my searching skills more than anything. What I did see is that the April bill (2015-156) mentions specifically that the $25,000 required by December 1, 2014 was supposed to be raised from private donations:

WHEREAS, the Contract requires, in part, that FOHP raise a minimum of $25,000.00 in private donations to be applied toward the costs of services to be performed under the contract by no later than three months from the effective date of the Contract, or December 1, 2014; and

I can't say whether this is an adequate interpretation of the contract language, but city council thought as of a few months ago that the first milestone was supposed to be from private donations.

[jph]

I think I found it. Here's the amended contract currently before some committees (Ordinance 2015-0556):
http://cityclts.coj.net/coj/COJbillDetail.asp?F=2015-0556\Original Text

It's very clear in the original contract that the management company should have raised the $100,000 in private donations. Now someone wants to actually hold these guys to their (quite clear) contract and is described as acting in bad faith, while the councilmembers trying to amend the contract after the milestone wasn't reached are just doing the right thing.

[jaxlore]

Friends of Hemming Park has done a great job so far and I hate to see city council screw this up or worse yet give it some lowest bidder who will do absolute minimum to contribute to downtown's vibrancy.

[CityLife]

I think I found it. Here's the amended contract currently before some committees (Ordinance 2015-0556):
http://cityclts.coj.net/coj/COJbillDetail.asp?F=2015-0556\Original Text

It's very clear in the original contract that the management company should have raised the $100,000 in private donations. Now someone wants to actually hold these guys to their (quite clear) contract and is described as acting in bad faith, while the councilmembers trying to amend the contract after the milestone wasn't reached are just doing the right thing.

The intention of the park was to become self sustaining, as every councilperson in the room knew.  And there was no detailed discussion about being precious about the revenue sources.  From the beginning, the ability to rent, lease, sell concessions and host ticketed events was not only clearly stated, but was in fact the very goal which was being sought after.  It would not only be disingenuous in the extreme to claim other wise it would also be a deliberate deception.  The council was concerned that the park would be unsuccessful in raising the money to be self sustaining (as in fact, I myself have pointed out many times) and simply required benchmarks to show that they could maintain adequate revenue to prevent a million dollar a year budget request.  Denise Lee was in a hurry to get the damn thing passed, and Matt Schellenberg, being an anti tax zealot was against the public project from the beginning.

Agreed. How else would the park become self-sustaining without revenue streams such as concessions, events, etc? Did the council originally expect that FOHP would survive solely on grants and private donations? Doubtful.

[whyisjohngalt]

It appears private donations was clearly defined and they didn't secure that benchmark.

If their goal is to be self sustaining then they need to adjust their budget - and exclude the city's payment.  $94,000 seems reasonable to manage a one block park for 3 months.

How many other parks in Duval county are ran by private non profits? 

[ben america]

Please explain how private donations were defined and use language from the contract.

[whyisjohngalt]

The word "donations" has a meaning.  Donations are given without consideration.

"Private donations" was the term used in the contract.

If concessions were purchased, then it wasn't a donation.

You can donate to them now instead of arguing semantics to convince the city to donate for you.

[hiddentrack]

I think the emphasis on "private donations" is private, so that FOHP wouldn't be able to take money from the city in one hand and use it to meet their fundraising goals. That's the only way you could get me to side with Schellenberg here, if they were using money provided by the city to inflate their fundraising totals. I'm not seeing any evidence of that.

If the goal of this deal was "you bring $x to the table and we'll give you $y", then they've met their obligation. We shouldn't care whether they met fundraising goals by selling snacks, asking people to check for change between their couch cushions, or finding a way to cut their expenses.

If you still want to quibble over the definition of a "donation", fine. Go pray to your dictionary. But in my book of common sense, if these concessions were offered as a way for people to contribute to the maintenance/upkeep/programming of the park, that sounds like a clear donation to me.

But again, all of that is pointless. If they're meeting their financial contribution and it's not being done an illegal or legitimately questionable way, they've earned the money they were offered. Trying to shortchange a group that's doing good work for the city is a bad look.

[BennyKrik]

Listen..Where are the financials? They've taken in hundreds of thousands in 'donations'.

How much have they made in concessions? How long before full sustainability?

[ben america]

The contract attached to the legislation says private donations and park revenues.

[jph]

The contract attached to the legislation says private donations and park revenues.

Can you link the contract? The only one I was able to find is the proposed amended contract attached to the bill currently in committee:
http://cityclts.coj.net/coj/COJbillDetail.asp?F=2015-0556\Original Text

I read the amendment, with "private donations" struck through and "revenues, ..." underlined as meaning that the contract currently only says private donations, and that council wants to add the underlined part.

Regarding the specific definition of "private donations" per the original contract, I can't say much since I can't find it. What does seem clear is that if the original definition included other revenues, council probably wouldn't be trying to pass the amendment.

[strider]

The contract attached to the legislation says private donations and park revenues.

Can you link the contract? The only one I was able to find is the proposed amended contract attached to the bill currently in committee:
http://cityclts.coj.net/coj/COJbillDetail.asp?F=2015-0556\Original Text

I read the amendment, with "private donations" struck through and "revenues, ..." underlined as meaning that the contract currently only says private donations, and that council wants to add the underlined part.

Regarding the specific definition of "private donations" per the original contract, I can't say much since I can't find it. What does seem clear is that if the original definition included other revenues, council probably wouldn't be trying to pass the amendment.

You are correct, jph, in how you are interpreting the current proposed bill. The truth of this is indeed that the original contract obviously spelled out "private donation". It is now how some are trying to define "private donations" that is at issue.  Simply inputting those words into the search engine of choice will show that private donations will normally mean that the funds had to be gifted by sources outside of the city. Pretty basic really. Those saying that the Friends of Hemming Park are simply being held to the standard of funding mechanism they agreed to when they signed the contract are very much correct. 

All that said, it was not very thoughtful on the part of the organization's attorney to allow that contract to stand.  It doesn't make sense business wise and perhaps it should never have had that criteria in it. Maybe they thought at the time that they could get those gifted funds, but obviously they were wrong.

I think we all believe from the various meetings, ETC. that the entire idea was to make the park self-sustaining and the purpose of the funding criteria was to accomplish that over a period of time rather than throwing the park and it's management to those proverbial wolves without any city funding.  Adding up the "private donations" and earned revenues from the various events/ services is certainly how any and all other non-profits prove they are viable; without one or the other, they often would not be able to exist. This non-profit certainly is no different and should not be held to some arbitrary higher standard.

So good for the council for trying to correct the mistake and change the contract to how it perhaps should have been to start with.

[whyisjohngalt]

you mean good for councilman gulliford.

at present, rather than simply solving the matter of definitions, which could have been done in a series of low impact meetings like gentlemen, they simply with held operating funds and tried to weasel out of the contract, per Schellenberg's continued bad faith on this matter.

'Weasel out of the contract'?

Isn't he the only one abiding by the contract?  What does the contract state should happen if the private donation benchmark isn't met?

[strider]

you mean good for councilman gulliford.

at present, rather than simply solving the matter of definitions, which could have been done in a series of low impact meetings like gentlemen, they simply with held operating funds and tried to weasel out of the contract, per Schellenberg's continued bad faith on this matter.

'Weasel out of the contract'?

Isn't he the only one abiding by the contract?  What does the contract state should happen if the private donation benchmark isn't met?

yawn.

I don't think anyone is trying to "weasel out of the contract".  However, common sense and a simple reading of the contract with average reading comprehension skills says Schellenberg's reading of the contract is right and they did not meet the letter of the contract.  Saying otherwise is nothing but wishful thinking.  Having meetings about how to "get around" the bad contract is perhaps a worse idea than enforcing it to the letter. Guilford hopefully, with the rest of the council, will change the language and make the contract meet the spirit of the earlier meetings and discussions. And by doing so, enable the Friends of Hemming Park to continue to do their good work.