My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/19/1982 Meeting Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Minutes
>
1982
>
01/19/1982 Meeting Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/15/2014 4:00:01 PM
Creation date
1/3/2014 10:44:17 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
North Olmsted Legislation
Legislation Date
1/19/1982
Year
1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
1 <br />C:,uncil Minvtes of 1/319/$2 '2' <br />f. Lorain Roado RqPt*.rfacing will have to be add??,.Ysed i.u the very <br />near future as well as add#tioual ;zi:reet lightisgg for Lorain Rnaa and Brockpsr1c <br />RQad. It woult'. also be wise €or Cotuxc3l to start thitkking about the narth Forti.on <br />of relocated Raute 252. Alcrng witl°, Westlske, the StBte slso asoms to be reruptive <br />to an impZCV+asent pro$ram. T".?ia wiYl provide a four lame rosd from Interstate 1480 <br />thxough Interstate 90. <br />Service Director Corrigan reported: 1) W'ith respiect to the snaar removal ef€orts, <br />the Service Department petsonsol wncter Taa Auner and tbo tieschan3r.s under A1 Cepec <br />have cEane an excellent job. Belleves tho llceey t4 the outce$sful sum rgscrval effort <br />hes bsen havin$ adequate equfpsent. Thsre wwsa a: l.ot crf bveskAvoW but the City <br />had the reserve equipmeat to put aut while+ the disabl.od e+quipmsnt was ropeired. <br />Service Departmeat has spent over $50,000 for salt fvr ice control; this will have <br />to be considered in future budget meetings. <br />Law Director Gareau repotted: 1) The Oh3o Sugtvft Cc>urt has grmted his :aotion to <br />dism3.ss the Rush Case. This queatioa ie flnally Verwlved. <br />2) With respect to the RTA Case, the Federael Diatrfct Carurt diamisead the action <br />that the City brought with respect to the anti-trust c"e. Bas3e Qf disstasal was. <br />that the courC reviewed Chqpt+mr 306, particul*rl.y 306.30 to 306.48, and ccneluded <br />that RTA d3d havs the pcwer and authority, grented by the State af Oliio, to <br />monopolize. Wauld like to sEZe" th+et onee a"in 306.36 w" nawt addressed. It has <br />not been addreeeed on three eeparate ather occasicns. Low Director 3.s deter¦d:uad <br />that some place, somewhsre alaft the way, :oma caurt is go#.ng to at3dress it"lf <br />to thiat nital iasue. No Regional Txax?sit AuChority hgs any right t+a apgropriatrt <br />any right, right of way, or frmchiae that is crwaed bq a Mxmicipsl C4rparratfon. <br />The cae"titftn wiCb tax :u#asidy, is nat competitisn, it is apprroppriaticn. Monopoly <br />is not petwftt*d. W#,11 €ile an apptol to the Federal Dietrict Court ia Ciacinaati; <br />if the City c3oes nat rec3wne faiic treatraat there, there is one mQ!re step to tarke <br />and ehat is to ga to the Uafted $tote's 5ugrsme Court. Ropefully It can be reso3.ved <br />and placeel back inta the locel opowt trera - the Federa1 Diatrict Ccrurt. In the <br />meantfine, ff the C3.ty xeach?ear so agreomcaL with R'TA, sil the tnetter. Newspaper <br />articles indicated that the Gitp 1at3 1"t ite ftnal steg. It is nuart arA we did <br />not. The, an}.y thing the State Court dlad nas give RTA the right to run paratliel aAd <br />competing liaes. Until tfitey hgvs the muey, crntil they h$ve the bumm, vatil thsy <br />hawe the persoimeI, theq are not gving ta be abie to do that. '1'hes Stats Court slsCi <br />mandated RTA to pravicle seavf.ce here. If they ean't do it bq paratle}. *&4, oo"eting <br />lines, theq have to do it bq the xay they are do3:ng it right now; thia s",tor ccruld <br />exi.st fsoe am until the yaar 2000. Lsu Mrectc?r feels he would b+e r4also if the <br />City did not take it as far as it could Eake it; f.t is not castittg the City amything <br />extra except for a filing fee. <br />Finance Director Boyle repprtad: 1) Had plannad on presenting ta Cauucil a 19$1 re- <br />port, hawever, the Regia?na2 Income Tiut computer had its second bresaitdOWU and <br />hopefully this report wi11 be avai].able next week. <br />2) Would aak Cotincil to joln in writing a letter to state repressntativea and state <br />seaators to defeat Aouse Bill No. 644. 3'here is a twa mil tax on deposiCs at bauket <br />in the State of Ohio; it haa bean repealed. It will take two ysara tc? br#ng it down <br />to zero: During this year, it will probably cost the State a loss of abeut $600,000. <br />It will be picked up through franchise taxes, en€rugh for the sma].1 bnstmosa. 'What <br />it does is reduce the City's locytl goveramnt fund. Local govervmnt fuwW for 1981 <br />are approx3.nately $449,000 and if it is piekatd etg, Citq will staq aL the same level. <br />? Seriousiq doubts that the franchise tax will even keep the CiCq aC the point it is <br />right now. 1he state ia go3n$ to lose a couple of m111ian dollare ovetr thia and <br />over the period of twv pears. This wl.11 have a direct affect on Worth Orlmoted and <br />neighboring communitit,es.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.