01/02/1995 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Special Council Meeting 1/2/95 Page Five the High School come from Highland Heights or Mayfield Heights or Gates Mills, there is a point beyond which I think you get into an almost absurd delineation between our monies and their monies. I don't know how you could, or would really want to, try to earmark it any more. Plus, the school needs to have enough flexibility in how it uses those dollars for that kind of program--they need to have discretionary spending ability within certain guidelines. Mr. Buckholtz said he has a two-part comment. He said the 10-year review has nothing to do with the finances of the Village or what is coming in from Progressive--it is strictly a review of how that money is being spent. Yet, part two is in the fourth paragraph-- this whole deal is contingent on an annual report from the school district specifying how such revenues... Mayor Rinker said he does not think it is a contingency. He thinks it is consistent with the theory that there will be an annual report. It is just imposing a criterion. That there be some type of report. Mr. Buckholtz said they have to give us an annual report on how the money is being spent anyway. He does not want to be the one to nit-pick, he just wants to say that it was written--he does not know if all this language was in the original proposal. Mayor Rinker said it was not. He, frankly, put it in there trying to make sure--we have tried to discuss this to so much of an extent--but in a way in the last several weeks we sort of got up to a different level, which ideally, Council does this on anything in depth. You get to a point where you really start to pull this apart--the principle of the thing and you try to be a little bit more thorough, more comprehensive. He suggested this language; he thinks Council needs to consider just what we are talking about. If there are modifications still to be made to it. In my mind, the thought was for those of you who are skeptical, we will write in a ten-year review. Frankly, he thinks the way it is intended to be worked and how it will be brought about--it'll almost be a"no-brainer" after a few years. In ten years, one hundred thousand dollars relatively speaking will be a lot less than it is this year. There should be a spirit, a sense of commitment, a sense of the function of this thing that people are really going to have to be hard-pressed to derail it, to revoke it. To those of you who are sitting here now who don't have a crystal ball who are worried about it, he put that in there. He thinks it is a procedural device. He thinks the substance of this legislation really does not change. It kind of keeps both ' sides of the fence sensitive to the issue to make sure that there is responsible spending. He does not see that it's a hang-up.