http://jacksonville.com/news/2015-07-27/story/city-freezes-payment-friends-hemming-park-dispute-over-what-constitutes
So damn frustrating to read stuff like this. When I first moved downtown 2 years ago the park was in god awful shape. they really have transformed that place. Hope they get this all figured out asap.
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on July 28, 2015, 09:27:07 AM
It's things like this that really make it so hard for me to support the Jaguars. Projects like this-- that truly benefit, and can reach, the entirecity rather than small subset who can afford tickets/parking/concessions-- suffer, but we always have enough to throw at a billionaire who doesn't need it.
MMR, did we read the same article? The one I read made no mention of the perfidious Jaguars strong arming the council to choke off funding for Hemming.
1. It was reported Times U donated 800 thousand to Friends of Hemming
- that single donation is larger than than the reported 600k from all sponsors
2. Does the 94k in consession sales represent month to date or year to date amount?
This happened last month right? Why is this just now a big deal? I'm sure the new city council and Mayor won't be so harsh on FOH.
schellemberg is not my representative but I'm opposed to lack of transparency in finances of non profits funded with public money
Wherein the young people in charge couldn't get a job in the private sector.
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on July 28, 2015, 12:13:26 PM
Quote from: Crabernacle on July 28, 2015, 09:51:16 AM
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on July 28, 2015, 09:27:07 AM
It's things like this that really make it so hard for me to support the Jaguars. Projects like this-- that truly benefit, and can reach, the entirecity rather than small subset who can afford tickets/parking/concessions-- suffer, but we always have enough to throw at a billionaire who doesn't need it.
MMR, did we read the same article? The one I read made no mention of the perfidious Jaguars strong arming the council to choke off funding for Hemming.
I think the city is trying desperately to not lose the Jags so they have become Shad's bitch, no?
Are we sharing the same definition of reading-comprehension? One-tenth of what the city gives to the Jags could operate Hemming.
whatever they do, they do it for a paycheck
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on July 28, 2015, 12:13:26 PM
Quote from: Crabernacle on July 28, 2015, 09:51:16 AM
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on July 28, 2015, 09:27:07 AM
It's things like this that really make it so hard for me to support the Jaguars. Projects like this-- that truly benefit, and can reach, the entirecity rather than small subset who can afford tickets/parking/concessions-- suffer, but we always have enough to throw at a billionaire who doesn't need it.
MMR, did we read the same article? The one I read made no mention of the perfidious Jaguars strong arming the council to choke off funding for Hemming.
Are we sharing the same definition of reading-comprehension? One-tenth of what the city gives to the Jags could operate Hemming.
+1
Ah, the Shad Khan hate seems to be at an all time high these days. The Jaguars seem to come up in just about so many unrelated posts on here these days.
Quote from: stephendare on July 28, 2015, 01:46:44 PM
It may be time to ask for the Censure of Matt Schellenberg over his continuing bad faith actions in the Hemming Park contract. There is a requirement for good faith in these things and this type of behavior is literally the opposite of good faith.
At the very least, he should probably be disallowed from any further discussion or debate on the issue.
I don't know any of the particulars on either side of the story, but why do you think he's acting in bad faith? If the contract says that they have to raise $X and they don't raise it, it seems totally reasonable to not release the funds as the contract states.
Presumably a big part of the reason that park management was put out to bid to a private group was that they could do a better job of raising funds and so provide a better experience. This isn't just a technicality in the contract - if they aren't actually raising funds, why should it be privatized at all?
This year's budget is all about public safety, vehicles and fixing roads, bridges and failing infrastructure. This is a lollipop of a deal as it will have a hard time finding funds in the Mayor's budget. Better to come from a councilman, and its just a shame that the issue could not have been resolved in the last administration, but.........
that is why we have a new administration, to clean up issues from the prior one.
Were there other groups that offered to manage Hemming? If you win a RFP based on certain metrics - then fail to meet those metrics, then the solution isn't to change the metrics. Eventually, they will run out of reasons why they didn't meet the "quota".
Even though it seems semantical to argue whether "fundraising" includes concession sales or not, when initially presented in the winning bid it was a unique ability of this group. If the last quarter includes One Spark HQ and Art Walk HQ - as promoted by DVI - then every group would've got that concession revenue. Especially with $XXX,000 public funds to clean and manage with. Shouldn't this group be held accountable to their promises?
If you include concessions, then it becomes possible to purchase their own concessions - with previous city payments - to qualify for the next payment. Excluding concessions seems reasonable.
They failed to meet their own goals and thus failed to earn the next city payment.
Quote from: whyisjohngalt on July 29, 2015, 10:30:36 AM
Were there other groups that offered to manage Hemming? If you win a RFP based on certain metrics - then fail to meet those metrics, then the solution isn't to change the metrics. Eventually, they will run out of reasons why they didn't meet the "quota".
Even though it seems semantical to argue whether "fundraising" includes concession sales or not, when initially presented in the winning bid it was a unique ability of this group. If the last quarter includes One Spark HQ and Art Walk HQ - as promoted by DVI - then every group would've got that concession revenue. Especially with $XXX,000 public funds to clean and manage with. Shouldn't this group be held accountable to their promises?
If you include concessions, then it becomes possible to purchase their own concessions - with previous city payments - to qualify for the next payment. Excluding concessions seems reasonable.
They failed to meet their own goals and thus failed to earn the next city payment.
It all comes down to what is in the contract. Does the contract say that fundraising does NOT include concessions? if it doesn't, then they kept their part of the deal. Frankly, concessions would seem to be a natural expectation for a revenue source. If the city didn't want it included, it should have specified that.
If they spent city funds to buy concessions from itself, that would be a different story. Do you have an indication that happened?
The contract, the terms and the benchmarks are all a matter of public record.
Look it up and check the benchmarks. Look to see how revenue is defined. Until you understand the language used, any statement that FOHP didn't hit their benchmarks is uneducated.
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.
Quote from: whyisjohngalt on July 29, 2015, 11:18:20 AM
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:
Quote
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.
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 (http://cityclts.coj.net/coj/COJbillDetail.asp?F=2015-0556%5COriginal%20Text)
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.
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.
Quote from: stephendare on July 29, 2015, 12:29:52 PM
Quote from: jph on July 29, 2015, 12:19:46 PM
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 (http://cityclts.coj.net/coj/COJbillDetail.asp?F=2015-0556%5COriginal%20Text)
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.
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?
Please explain how private donations were defined and use language from the contract.
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.
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.
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?
The contract attached to the legislation says private donations and park revenues.
Quote from: ben america on July 29, 2015, 05:25:56 PM
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 (http://cityclts.coj.net/coj/COJbillDetail.asp?F=2015-0556%5COriginal%20Text)
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.
Quote from: jph on July 29, 2015, 05:40:26 PM
Quote from: ben america on July 29, 2015, 05:25:56 PM
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 (http://cityclts.coj.net/coj/COJbillDetail.asp?F=2015-0556%5COriginal%20Text)
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.
Quote from: stephendare on July 29, 2015, 06:45:33 PM
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?
Quote from: stephendare on July 29, 2015, 10:56:54 PM
Quote from: whyisjohngalt on July 29, 2015, 10:48:25 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 29, 2015, 06:45:33 PM
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.
I must first be honest and confess that it has been almost two decades since I was last in Jacksonville. At the time, I was living in Australia, and made specific travel plans to visit JAX in order to visit some of my childhood and young adult memories (both good and not so good). I'm now living in the UK and still think back to the sadness I had from the visit.
I think to say I was shocked and profoundly saddened by what I saw would most likely not come as a surprise to all of you who have dedicated your lives to this remarkable city.
The Hotel Robert Meyer is nothing more than a ghost now; no more sounds wafting from the Bali Ha'i lounge, the ticket counters of National Airlines and Delta long gone, and the standby phone for the Atlantic Coast Line ticket office and the Hertz and Avis car hire offices but a memory.
And the breakfasts I enjoyed in the Café Caribé, following a jolly good haircut, manicure and shoe shine, were relegated to only 'oldies' such as myself. I remembered back to my father becoming senselessly sloshed at the River Club and University Club - depending on who he wished to rub noses with at the time. And all the while, I'd either play in the rooftop pool, or visit the most unusual waitresses in Atkins Pharmacy, who had faces that looked like sour milk, bedecked in their waitress uniforms of the fifties, replete with their bright M-shaped painted lips, and huge corsage on their chests. I loved the sandwiches from there....but constantly suffered nightmares that one of those women might be asked to look after me if my father needed to be away for an extended period.
They too are nothing but ghosts now. However, as I walked around the streets, I could clearly hear an old man shouting 'Short Line on The Main Floor' outside the Morrison's cafeteria across from Hemming Park. And I could just make out music being played by a small ensemble beneath the park's gazebo. But alas, those too were ghosts.
And everywhere I walked, everywhere I looked, I could no longer see any pride. Furchgott's, Ivey's, both long gone. All I saw was rot - human rot, building rot, society rot. It was as if May-Cohens, as it closed its doors, had thrown virtually every bit of litter the store had, out its windows and onto the street below. There was a vortex of litter swirling about at one point in the park. The only person even remotely interested in it was a man who was clearly down on his luck. He kept yelling at no one in particular, something about it all coming to an end soon, as he remained focused on the mini tornado in front of his face.
I looked up to where I enjoyed dining with my father in the Embers, fascinated by the revolving restaurant. And I looked back the other direction, noticing that both Woolies and Penney's were now gone as well.
Even the scents I so vividly remembered were no longer there - the constant battle between the highly questionable stench of the paper mill, against the almost comforting scent of the Maxwell House plant.
I got into my hire car and began the last of the journey I had repeated so many times in my youth, after our night at the Robert Meyer; over the Bridge, glancing back at the ACL building and the FEC Strauss Trunnion Bascule Bridge, then out Beach Boulevard for an early lunch at an original Lou Bono's, then on to Jax Beach and down to the Ponte Vedra Club. ("never the Inn," my father would insist, always the laid back environment of the Inlet, but dining at the Beach club across from the Inn was de rigueur.
It all reminded me that you can never go home. And sadly, it would appear from this article, the local government doesn't seem to share the same determination to restore and rejuvenate Hemming Park the way this determined group is. Clearly they've worked jolly hard to make a difference. Why, in Heaven's name, won't the local government give them recognition for this and realise that without their efforts, the park would be in its dilapidated, pitiful, state that it was when I last saw it.
From my very distant eyes, it almost appears as if the local government wants them to fail so they can withhold the funds to use for a project that has more personal meaning to someone else.
Truly Truly Sad!
The sadness you hold in your heart is the yesterday you can no longer see; so put it behind you and always look forward.
Fr Bill+
www.bigworldsmallboat.blogspot.com (http://www.bigworldsmallboat.blogspot.com)
www.dogdogma.blogspot.com (http://www.dogdogma.blogspot.com)
This too shall pass.
Quote from: jph on July 29, 2015, 12:19:46 PM
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 (http://cityclts.coj.net/coj/COJbillDetail.asp?F=2015-0556%5COriginal%20Text)
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.
I guess there are many people who want the city to SUCK! This is the typical BS we have to deal with every day. Just close the park and be done with it. They raised the money so who cares how.... If I was younger I would move to a city that gives a crap about it's downtown. I feel that so many in Jacksonville really don't care. They we may as well close it down, except for the office towers and let everyone just stay in their suburban paradise.
QuoteI feel that so many in Jacksonville really don't care.
That is really the truth. People in Jacksonville, and surrounding areas are moving further and further away from the core of downtown Jacksonville. You see it in the discussions to raise the sales tax in Clay and St. Johns counties, to pay for services due to the increase in new residents. What is the draw to live downtown? A few restaurants, a new district, what is sexy and a must have on every block? I wish downtown were more alive, I really do, and I hope that either 1) The Landing or 2) The Shipyards can re-invigorate the downtown (Northbank). I don't see any real positive growth until either of these 2 projects are started.
Quotethat area is actually increasing.
Well the sky is blue and the sun could be orange, but beyond that, numbers work to prove a point....
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on July 28, 2015, 02:34:50 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 28, 2015, 01:30:59 PM
The Times Union is breaking the story that Bill Guilford is doing the decent thing and butting another plug in Schellenberg's leaky tire.
http://jacksonville.com/news/2015-07-28/story/councilman-introduces-plan-settle-fundraising-dispute-hemming-park-and-restore
QuoteAs the organization running Hemming Park awaits a crucial $150,000 from the city, a city councilman has introduced an emergency plan to settle the dispute over the group's fundraising requirements that has put their public funding in limbo.
The city says the group, Friends of Hemming Park, fell short of their June 1 $200,000 fundraising goal that was necessary to receive their latest payment from the city, part of the $1 million the city agreed to give the group this year to revitalize the park in exchange for the group raising $250,000 on its own.
The park says it surpassed its total requirements by including concession sales revenue, but the city says the fundraising was limited strictly to private donations.
Now, Councilman Bill Gulliford has introduced an amendment to the group's agreement that changes the fundraising from private donations to all revenues. That plan would put the park in compliance with the contract and allow it to receive the $150,000 payment that was due in June, as well as the remaining $250,000 it's set to receive later this year.
The plan is up for an emergency vote at tonight's city council meeting and will be enacted if it's approved.
I kind of feel like "all revenues" was what was meant, but the contract was poorly drafted.
+1
Quote from: Noone on August 03, 2015, 07:59:10 AM
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on July 28, 2015, 02:34:50 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 28, 2015, 01:30:59 PM
The Times Union is breaking the story that Bill Guilford is doing the decent thing and butting another plug in Schellenberg's leaky tire.
http://jacksonville.com/news/2015-07-28/story/councilman-introduces-plan-settle-fundraising-dispute-hemming-park-and-restore
QuoteAs the organization running Hemming Park awaits a crucial $150,000 from the city, a city councilman has introduced an emergency plan to settle the dispute over the group's fundraising requirements that has put their public funding in limbo.
The city says the group, Friends of Hemming Park, fell short of their June 1 $200,000 fundraising goal that was necessary to receive their latest payment from the city, part of the $1 million the city agreed to give the group this year to revitalize the park in exchange for the group raising $250,000 on its own.
The park says it surpassed its total requirements by including concession sales revenue, but the city says the fundraising was limited strictly to private donations.
Now, Councilman Bill Gulliford has introduced an amendment to the group's agreement that changes the fundraising from private donations to all revenues. That plan would put the park in compliance with the contract and allow it to receive the $150,000 payment that was due in June, as well as the remaining $250,000 it's set to receive later this year.
The plan is up for an emergency vote at tonight's city council meeting and will be enacted if it's approved.
I kind of feel like "all revenues" was what was meant, but the contract was poorly drafted.
+1
Wouldn't be terribly surprising.
Quote from: stephendare on August 03, 2015, 12:08:33 AM
people cannot be moving away from something while the population in that area is actually increasing. weird post.
Not technically true as written, but I get your point as it relates to gross population numbers. However, mtrain's comments seems to be referencing % of population. So, while Jax is growing, the outlying counties are (or may be) growing more quickly. While there may be increased interest in "urban" living, there are still plenty of people relocating to St. Johns, etc.
According to the 2010 US Census, downtown and San Marco are growing. Riverside, Springfield and most of what makes up the urban core were still "declining" in population.
Finance Committee passed 6-1 the Gulliford legislation to allow it for all revenues.
Quote from: edjax on August 03, 2015, 03:50:58 PM
Finance Committee passed 6-1 the Gulliford legislation to allow it for all revenues.
Great, hopefully this will solve the problem relatively quickly.
QuoteThe City Council's Finance Committee voted 6-1 Monday in favor of legislation that would make it easier for the Friends of Hemming Park to comply with terms of its city contract and receive a $150,000 payment that has been withheld by the city.
The Finance Committee approved legislation filed by Councilman Bill Gulliford that would count all revenues raised by the Friends toward its fund-raising commitments. That would enable the Friends to count net revenues from concessionaire fees, advertising fees and event licence fees.
As it stands now, Friends cannot count those activities toward the $200,000 in "private donations" it was supposed to raise so far. The city withheld a $150,000 payment for June that would have been due to the Friends.
David Bauerlein: (904) 359-4581
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2015-08-03/story/finance-committee-votes-6-1-favor-contract-change-keep-city-money (http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2015-08-03/story/finance-committee-votes-6-1-favor-contract-change-keep-city-money)
QuoteFriends of Hemming Park executive director had to loan nonprofit $7,000 to make payroll
By Max Marbut, Staff Writer
The Friends of Hemming Plaza's budget was stretched so thin last month that when the city withheld a June payment over a contract dispute, the nonprofit couldn't make payroll.
Instead, Friends Executive Director Vince Cavin loaned the group $7,000 on July 14 in a transaction shown as "Vince deposit to be reimbursed."
Six days later, a check written to Cavin was listed to "repay short term loan."
The revelation was shared Monday during a City Council Finance Committee meeting where members discussed amending the contract again for the fledgling nonprofit.
Finance Chair Bill Gulliford introduced a bill last week that would allow the Friends to include revenue from concessions and others forms of income to meet the group's fundraising requirements.
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=545897
$7,000 for bi monthly payroll?
Does that mean it's $168,000 a year for payroll to manage this block? What is the rest of the $1,000,000 of money going towards? How is that not being covered by the concession sales - which almost paid for the year's payroll in just one quarter.
Something doesn't add up.
The goal for this block is self sustainability. The sooner, the better.
Quote from: whyisjohngalt on August 12, 2015, 09:35:06 PM
$7,000 for bi monthly payroll?
Does that mean it's $168,000 a year for payroll to manage this block? What is the rest of the $1,000,000 of money going towards? How is that not being covered by the concession sales - which almost paid for the year's payroll in just one quarter.
Something doesn't add up.
The goal for this block is self sustainability. The sooner, the better.
$7000 was probably just the 'gap' in funding not the entire amount of the payroll.
$75,000 challenge gift from Pajcics put Friends of Hemming Plaza over fundraising target
http://jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=545950 (http://jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=545950)
QuoteLike bathing in champagne.
What do you use instead... caviar? My nutrionist advised against that. Apparently the fish oil isn't as good for your pores, just FYI.
In all seriousness, the Pajcics generosity is pretty incredible. They also underwrite (among many other things) the Summer Night Lights basketball program adminstered by the Parks Dept, which is a seriously cool program aimed at giving kids in areas that have a high risk of being recruited into gangs an outlet to do something positive during the summer months.
Awesome news!