04/19/1977 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 4-19-77 -7- it passed, does not think this is the State or the Cotntq's fault and they spent their money in good faith to help us out: Would be greatly afraid that if we just overturned it on a technicalitq that it would be a long time before anymore money would get into this City based on what we said we mere going to do. Mr. Boehmer stated if we could put the same traffic light up that was taken down it would not be too bad, but we cannot -the State Code has changed - we have to go one traffic light per lane. This will run into quite a bit of money and it ~.s Mr. Boehmer's opinion that there is pr~ablq one needed there at certain times during the day but not at all times: there are problems getting out of Dewey and Decker Rds, and he sympathizes with the people but we do have to look at othex locations in the City where a traffic light is needed badly, and Mr. Boehmer stated his feeling is that to spend moneq at this ties which would run into thousands of dollaxs for three traffic lights that would be used mainly in the rush hour is not feasible for the City. Mr. Fairfield stated he gets a little disturbed sometimes at what happens in North Olmsted through the good offices of the County and maybe the State and he gets the opinion sometimes that maybe the people in North Olmsted are going to be eventually considered a suburb of Cuyahoga County and theq are going to decide what roads get to be repaired out here and how we manage our traffic: thinks the people of North Olmsted have to decide themselves what kind of traffic control they want out here: is certainlq for cooperation with the State but somotimes they look to their advantage and thinks we have to look a little to what is going to be good for the people in North Olmsted; and thinks sometimes we give too much away. ROLL CALL ON MOTION: Affirmative vote: Fairfield, Beringer, Wilamosky. Negative vote: Beaty, Boehmer, West. 3 Yeas - 3 Nays - I~atian defeated. Veto of Ord. No. 76-141 sustained. Under Old Business: Mr. West discussed with Service Dlreetor Caster the bids on the garbage trucks with respect to delivery date. Service Director Caster asked for delivery on the bids - have not evaluated the bids yet - would say they would probably run anywhere from 6 to 9 months. Mr. West asked Service Director Caster when it is decided which bid it is going to be to advise Mx. West of what their timing is so that the people can be advised. Mr. West discussed the complaints he has received with respect to delays in trash pickups because some of the old trucks are in the shop, etc. Mr. Beaty stated since last Council Meeting the Service Director sent out a list of streets that have been paved since 1971 and there are things that are interesting and should be brought out since we have had so much to do recently on what streets are being paved and what streets are being excluded and what area of town has been left out for so long: Since 1971 the breakdown has been: Ward 1 - 6 streets, Ward 2 - 19 streets; Ward 3 - 6 streets; Ward 4 - 9 streets: The total yardage used: Ward 1 - 9X; Ward 2 - 55~ Ward 3 - 9X, Ward 4 - 27X: even with the priority list we got this year-Ward 4 is still in the worst cgnditian and yet this is the Ward that we are leaving out because we are saying Ward 2 and Ward 3 have been neglected: Just wanted to make this point clear. We have added a couple of token streets in Ward 4 which when you add up the total cost comes to approximately 7X of our total expenditure on ~tzreets this year. Wauld still like Council to keep this in mind and possibly reconsider and be a little bit more fait and equitable in this priority of streets business. Mx. Wilamosky asked Mr. Beaty if he accepts that list as totally accurate. Mr. Beaty stated he presumes so. Mr. Wilamosky stated if Mr. Beaty does, he is being misled and his discussion of it is in a sense misleading to others. Mr. Wilamosky pointed out that in