01/07/1975 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of I-7-75 -5- Mrs. Gladys Zipp, 29658 Lorain Rd., addressed Council regarding people moving into allotments in City not inquiring how Lorain Rd. was coned at time of purchase of home; and why thep did not inquire and wait for 20 years to come and try to tell property owners +~ Lorain Rd. who have paid high taxes to help supgort and give:.. services in the a11Qtm~ts what Lorain Rd. property owners should do and their properties be changed in zoning. Mr. L. Seuffert, 4679 Porter Rd. addressed Couancil regarding proposed rezoning of Lorain Rd. Would like classificaties further defined; dose not feel dze plan hss been. studied ea~ough and rests Planning Commission give it further study sad then have Council act an it. Mr. John Fairfield, SOS9 Devon D=iv'e, addressed Council regarding mini buses and disposition thereof. Mr. 4~st adv3.setl of meeting on January 14, 1975, at 7:30 P.M. regarding same. Mr. R. Swietyr~iowski, 27284 Nantucket Drive, addressed Council urging support of Res. No. 74-129. LEGISLATION: Mr. Giessen moved to amend the Agenda to include Ord. No. 74-161, seconded by Mxs. Beringer. Affirs~ative vote: Giesaer, Goggin, Llmpert, Beringer, Sharpe, West, Wilamosky. Motion carried. Resolution Na. 74-I29 introduced by Mrs. Saringer was given its third reading. A Resolution opposing the increase in rates sought by the Ohio Bell Telephone Company and is~ploring the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio not to grant said contes~plated rate increase, and declaring an emergency, as amended. Mrs. Saringer moved for adoption, seconded by Mr. Wilmmoaky. Affirssti~ vote: Saringer, Sharpe, Wilamosky. Negative vats: Giesser, Goggin, Lampert, Wemt. 4 Nays - 3 Yeas -Motion defeated. Res. No. 74-1Z9 defeated. Mr. Lampert commented regarding legislation that he had previously stated that he was opposed to the wording structure of the ordinance. Ae wanted the legislation to be broader to request the P.U.C.0. to take a very close look before they granted any increase; does not feel he is an authority to ssy:they are wrong; did not feel information received frore greetings vassufficient. Mr. Goggin commented he had the same basic objection -the structure of this legislation; content was not proved froar the meetings. Is concerned about rising prices, but finds it discriminatory that we only picked one of the utilities to go on record as being opposed to some increase ttrey were :eking far. Also, Fast Ohio Gas and C.E.I. bills lately have a current cost of fuel rate eh can fluctuate on a monthly basis dpendng upon the current cost of the fuel and they can pass this right alo~rg to ua the conastafers• In addition, both of tie compmnies did have sizable rate increases during the year of 1974 and ~ did not make say objections to them at that tine. Under new business will be asking for legislation rec ng that we go on record with the P.U.C.O. to appose any rate increase which proves to be inflatio~ry in nature. and this ire ressan he objected to the legislation. Mx. Wilamosky referred tc Res. No. 74-169 - requesting County Mayors and Citq Managers Assn. to institute an on-gvi~ review committee to review the utf.lty ante increases as they are pzOsed to the P.U.C.0. and if Mr. Goggin has additimnal infox~wstion perhaps could eonsidex that in the legislation. Mr. Goggin discussed Res. No. 74-169. Feely it is important that