Laserfiche WebLink
Council Minutes of 2-1-77 -6- <br />Mr. Fairfield stated if it is in order he would like to move that this be <br />studied in Committee because we have one piece of legislation pending right <br />now and it is going to be an the ballot March 22nd; sad thinks that will <br />determine whether we will have to revert to this ordinance or whether we will <br />go to another one and thinks it doss deserve further study: thinks there is <br />a possibility of different combinations depending on how that election comes <br />out. President Limpert stated there is already a motion on the floor to adopt <br />and same has been seconded. Mr. West commented this has been in Committee for <br />a year. Mr. Wilamosky stated at the tiara, and he doubts this very much, the <br />residents of the City reject the Charter Amendment we are going to have to <br />review the whole thing and decide whether to go with a continued flat charge <br />even with a possible failure of the levy or revert back to a user fee type <br />structure: we know that in March the rate that was projected was 60X is going <br />to be totally insufficient and that in itself is going to have to be adjusted. <br />Mr. Fairfield asked Mr. Wilamsskq what is the standard procedure in assessing <br />for sewers. Mr. WilamDS.ky stated the rate structure that we are currently <br />using on the user fee type structure is indeed unusual per comments not only from <br />the Cuyahoga County Sanitary Engineer's Office but from our own Financial Consultant, <br />Mr. Wayne Kuhn, who indicated on capital expansion such as the expansion that took <br />place in 1971 that the method in which it is financed is unusual; most municipali- <br />ties do not go into such a large capital expansion based on the rate structure <br />the City is using. In Est cases they apply it to the real estate duplicate so <br />as to spread the debt throughout the whale community uniformly. Mr. Beaty referred <br />to Mr. Wilamosky's comment that 6OX would not be enough in the future and stated <br />if the 60X will not be enough - the millage-plus the flat rate will not be enough <br />so somehow we are going to have to come up with a set au~unt of money no matter <br />what it does and rather than have the people that are conservative and retfred <br />people having to compen$ate to cover what people with numerous children use - still <br />thinks this is the fairest way to deal. <br />Roll Call on Motion: Affirmative vote: Beaty, Boehmer, Sharpe, West. <br />Negative vote: Fairfield, Beringer, Wilamosky. 4 Yeas - 3 Nays - Motion carried. <br />Ord. No. 77-2 adopted without emergency measure. <br />Ordinance No. 77-10 introduced by Mrs. Sharpe was given its third reading. An <br />Ordinance amending Section 911.03 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of <br />Forth Olmsted entitled "Charges Generally" and .amending Section 911.OS entitled <br />"Method of Billing, Payment", both of Chapter 9~.1, entitled "Sanitary Sewerage <br />System Charges"; and repealing Sections 911.0$, 911.09 and 911.10 of the Codified <br />Ordinances of the City of North Olmsted and declaring an emergency, as amended. <br />Mr. Wilamogky stated inasmuch as Ord. No. 77-2 was adopted he does not feel it <br />is necessary for Council to take aay action on Ord. No. 77-10 and questioned <br />what the best procedure would be. Discussion ensued. Mayor stated Ord. No. <br />77-10 repeals Ord. No. 77-2. Mr. Wilamosky moved for adoption of Ord. No, 77-10. <br />Mrs. Beringer stated she cannot afford to pay the sewer rate and has talked to <br />people who were in favor of a flat charge. President Limpert called for order <br />and asked if there is a second. Mr. Fairfield seconded the motion. Mr. bleat <br />asked for discussion. Mr. West stated the sewer system needs more money and <br />the only question we had before us is what is the fairest way to do it; have <br />been discussing it and it has been in Co~amrittee and proposed by McDonald ~ Co. <br />about a year ago that we do something. Mr. West stated his reasons for beizsg <br />against Ord. No. 77-10 are as follows: the majority of residents average 8 to <br />10,000 cu. ft. per year if you exclude the real high ones that are included <br />in the average for 12,000 cu. ft. per year. This means the rate for the 10,040 cu. <br />ft. will go up 6Sx and the charge for the 8,000 cu, ft. is going up lOfaE. To the <br /> <br />