Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Recreation Sponsorships topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Coca‑Cola offers to fund new scoreboards for Talladega parks; city attorney flags procurement, exclusivity concerns
Summary
A Coca‑Cola representative proposed a sponsorship agreement to fund scoreboards and equipment for Talladega Parks & Recreation. The company offered upfront scoreboard funding and maintenance in exchange for a multi‑year exclusivity arrangement; city staff said the city must follow bidding rules and staff will prepare procurement specifications.
Kathy Conkle, a Coca‑Cola representative, told the Talladega City Council she is proposing a sponsorship agreement to fund new scoreboards and other equipment for the city’s parks and recreation program.
Conkle said the package under discussion included $36,500 in upfront scoreboard capital for multiple boards (four baseball scoreboards plus LED football and basketball boards), a warranty period, and a maintenance payment she described in the meeting. She described a five‑year partnership that would include an annual exclusivity payment and fundraising support for teams. “With the 5 year, you would get the exclusivity funding of 5,000, The scoreboard funding, $36.05. And then the scoreboard maintenance for 2,500, with the total package of 44,000,” Conkle told the council; earlier in her remarks she also described a $1,000-per-year exclusivity payment option and a $500 maintenance payment (all figures given by Conkle in the meeting).
The nut graf: The proposal would supply capital to replace aging scoreboards at city facilities but raised procurement and legal questions. City staff and the city attorney told the council the contract length and any exclusivity clause affect whether the city must put the work out to competitive bid.
Council discussion focused on the mechanics of procurement and the limits of a city contract. The city attorney reviewed the proposed paperwork and “had some concerns,” the clerk said; staff advised that, “legally, if you did not do a bid, you would have to do a 3 year,” language used by Conkle to explain why she had offered a three‑year option. Council members said they had not all received the contract paperwork and asked staff to circulate it. Council members likewise emphasized the need to develop bid specifications so competing vendors can respond.
Conkle described technical details and delivery: she identified ScoreTime (Avery Hendricks) as the installer she would use, said the boards would carry a five‑year warranty, and said the city would purchase and own the boards after receiving the upfront funds. She also described complimentary signage, a Coca‑Cola fundraiser program for teams, and onsite printing/graphics services that the company would provide.
City staff and council members directed that the next step be procurement. A staff member said the documents and bid specs will be prepared and routed through Miss Phillips’ office for proper procurement review; another council member said the council should identify needs and ensure the bid specifications conform to requirements. Several council members said they wanted to bid the work to ensure the city receives competitive offers and to avoid procurement irregularities.
Ending: No formal contract was voted on during the meeting. Council members instructed staff to circulate the paperwork Conkle had provided and to prepare bid specifications so the city can solicit competitive proposals or otherwise proceed in compliance with procurement rules.
