|
Council Minutes of 1-19-71
<br />Page -8-
<br />LEGISLATION:
<br />Oriiuance No. 70-190 wh:;.ch had been int-raduced bq Mr. West was given its
<br />third reading. An Ord#.ixance authoriziug the Maqor to accept real ?,y:.pexi:y
<br />on Ncrth Park Drive for street purpoees. Mr. taest moved for adoptiG« af
<br />Ordinance, secaaded by Mr. Boehmtr. .Affirmat3ve vote Boehmex, Grady,
<br />h:;dgins, Limpert, Proka$g, Speed].ing, West. Mation carried.
<br />Ordinance No. 71-4 was intraduced bp Mr. Wsst and given its first re&di?g.
<br />An Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 69-2I6. enacted December 17, 1969, a:..ie±ding
<br />Ordinance No. 67-245, eaaacted Octaber 17, 1967, amending Ordinance No. 67•-
<br />144, enacted June 20, 1967, aowding Ordinance rita. 63-158, ec?acted 3ulq 15,
<br />1963, as amended bp Ordinance No. 65-212, enacted September 7, 1965, entitled
<br />"An Ordinance fixing the rates of fate for tramsgortation service on the
<br />North Olmsted Muaicipal Bus Liae aa and after March 1, 1971.
<br />Ordinance No. 71-7 was introdueed by Mr. Lia"rt. Aa Ordinance ameuding
<br />Sectiaa 3 and Section 5 of Ordinance Nfl, 69-56, enscCed Apri1 1, 1969,
<br />and eatitled "An Ordinance establishing ratea to be charg+ed far the
<br />services of the Municfpal Sanitary Swerage Systsm Ueility of the City of
<br />North Olmsted", and declsrin$ an emerpmcq. Mr. Linpert moved for suspension
<br />of rule requiring three separatee readiige. Mvtion was secoaded by Mr. Prokasy.
<br />Affirmative vote: Hodgins, Liapert, Prnkasq, Sgeedling, West. Negative vote:
<br />Boehmer, Grady.
<br />Camuaents were made relative ta the Ordinmce by Couacllmen Prokasy, Grady,
<br />Boehmer, West, before casting vote. Syxtopeis as follows:
<br />Mr. Prokasy: has studied much of this over a long period of time - liatened
<br />to many comments last aight aad thie evening. Appears that evexycne is ia
<br />agreement that the p2ant as of today is operating over cagsc3ty as:d must be
<br />expanded. Question is wi].1 it be expsnded to 3 mi.llion gaZlon additlanal
<br />or 6 million additional. Cast of addiag sdditianal federal staat3ards and
<br />a 3 million gallon additional is $4,350,000., by far the ma3ar portiaa of
<br />proposal involved. To go frcxa Chis point to the additional 3 miliion that
<br />would be required sametime prior to 1980 - done today would cost $1,254,000.
<br />Argument reslly centere over this figure aad not the original. We have
<br />seen what has happened to ccnstructicn cests. If we have happen3ng to us
<br />these coming 10 years what hss hagpened i.n tihe last, obviouely vhen we
<br />proceed to add Che second 3 m.tllion galion additional later, it is not
<br />goi.ng to be done far ':.,254,Qflt). In the first place, we have to start wiCh
<br />the four million figure for additioreal c.onstruction. Consider the eoart
<br />index, construction ccasts aad increased rate, you will be talking sasething
<br />closer to a seven n3.llicra dollsr investment, samewhere near rsquired to
<br />the date of 1980 - an additi.on that could be done for $1,254,000. ncw.
<br />You will be making a coanitont to ths psople in the future thst they
<br />will spend close to 7 milLton dollars rather than spending $2,254,040. naw.
<br />A rate based on thie facility, such as the water rate, seeme to be the
<br />fairest method. If there is eeatiamt in the comunitq for a vcted bond
<br />or levq isaue fcr financing of thia improvoment, I would be hapFy to gupport
<br />such a move thaC would guarazttrae the rate would reduce in rstio Ca the
<br />money or fuads raised by avch an issue. As far as other meEhods of ffinanciA-g
<br />I do not believe theq offer much lsope. If state taxes are restructur,sd in
<br />some manner and more money ccmes to North Qlmsted, it will uot only come to
<br />North Olmsted but it will come to aIl of the cities in the State. Wtrere
|