CC Min 1997-05-19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

.. . -, Councilman Ruskin said he had served on the HHCC and said it distressed him to vote against the Committee's recommendations, but it was difficult not to add $5,000 to TEWCL Councilman Ruskin said he moved to allocate the remaining funds to Shelter - Network because No.1, it is a worthy organization he believed in, and No.2 he believed it was the City's obligation to augment its funding for operating expenses. Councilman Ruskin read from a copy of the agreernent between the City and Shelter Network from 1990 and stated that he interpreted it to mean that, "We in good faith have agreed as long as Shelter Network is acting in good faith to raise money, that we are probably committed to raising the difference, and that each year we are committed to having a meeting with them to decide the amount of commitment. I realize that is open to interpretation and others may disagree." Councilman Ruskin said his motion was the first step in seeing how "we can deal with this agreement." Councilwoman La Berge said she agreed with Councilman Ruskin's interpretation and said she had read the contract. Councilwoman La Berge said that, "When we asked Shelter Network to come to Redwood City, we did make a commitment, although the agreement is a little unclear. I think we do have an obligation to help them, because of the very difficult process they had to go through to make this happen in Redwood City and the great need they have for funding to keep it up and running and maintained at its current level." Councilwoman La Berge asked that a subcommittee be established to work with Shelter Network and agree on the exact terms of the agreement. Councilwoman La Berge said she believed the Council should give $20,000 to Shelter Network. , L MEMO 5/20/97 Councilman Claire said he supported Councilwoman La Berge's recommendation of $20,000. He said the subject agreement was open to interpretation, but it had always been his intention that the facility remain open. In response to Mayor Hartnett's questions regarding any continuing obligation on the part of the City to make up the funding difference, City Attorney Schricker said (after receiving a copy of the contract) that he had not had a chance to review the document and it had not been prepared by his office. He said, "It is a bilateral agreement that. .. provides for future funding.... It was a substantial commitment on the City's part initially to provide funding for the house itself. The question of maintenance and operation and continuing operation of the facility was really not within the ability of the parties to agree to at the time they entered into the agreement. That was reflected in the paragraph No.4 which refers to future funding. As noted in Paragraph 4, 'This agreement establishes the term for the first year of operation and funding of the house.' The reference to the parties jointly committing to working together to secure funding for each subsequent year is understandably within the historical context of the agreement (yet is ) somewhat vague; and that is perhaps what is giving you some problems and uncertainties. The parties when they entered into the agreement didn't know what the future held for them. However, there is an obligation of Shelter Network to initiate and pursue fund raising from sources '~ other than the City, and City related activities. Historically that reflects the City's REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 55 MAY 19, 1997 MINUTES Page No. 343 PAGE 15