|
Council Minutes of 2/7/84 -2-
<br />Finance Director Boyle reported: 1) House Bill 291, passed June 30, 1983, granted
<br />a $10,000 exemption on tangible personal property taxes. 80y of this loss to
<br />municipalities will be reimbursed by the State of Ohio but not until December.
<br />This will cause a cash shortage, to some extent, during the first eight months of
<br />1984. It will not be until the third Monday in August that the State will actually
<br />know what the shortfall is, and be able to reimburse it during December.
<br />2) On January 30th, City received $13,068 from [nest Shore Cable TV; should be re-
<br />ceiving their audit report soon.
<br />3) City billed the City of Fairview for $85,307.55, their share of the Wastewater
<br />Treatment Plant, built at a cost of $1,315,000.
<br />4) Had planned to introduce legislation tonight on the reissuance of a note, passed
<br />in March of 1983, for the purchase of vehicle equipment. After talking with Squire,
<br />Sanders and Dempsey as well as McDonald and Company, debated whether to sell the
<br />reissuance to the general public or buy it for the City's fund, Part of the debate
<br />was that the City will go to bonds later this year. Due to this debate, will not in-
<br />troduce legislation tonight; will introduce at the next Council Meeting and probably
<br />go to a public negotiated sale on a six month note. Note will mature approximately
<br />September 2?_nd of 1984 and can be tied in with other City notes; City will be better
<br />set up for a bond sale this year.
<br />5) Were informed by the Federal government that any City receiving over $100,000
<br />during a period, October through September, must have an independent audit of all
<br />funds for that year, a compliance audit of revenue sharing and a study of internal
<br />control. This will have to be budgeted out of. revenue sharing for next year;
<br />can possibly be budgeted this year.
<br />6) With respect to workmens' compensation, had notified Council of a few detected
<br />discrepancies in claims from 1981 and 1982 which were reported to the Ohio Bureau
<br />of Workmens' Compensation. In January, were notified that one claimant, from
<br />July of 1981, was not an employee of North Olmsted and had been taken off the
<br />City`s records. It wilt have an affect on the compensation rate during 1984.
<br />Law Director Gareau reported: 1) With respect to Luwana Cooper, the bus driver
<br />claiming discrimination with regard to her discharge during a probationary period,
<br />Law Director had previously indicated that there was some indication in Judge Ann
<br />Aldridge's order, denying the summary ,judgment, that the City could very well have
<br />an appropriate summary judgment on different issues. Judge has. given the City until
<br />March 1st to prepare the motion f.or summary judgment on the issues that exist right
<br />now: that being, during the probationary period there were some fifteen violations
<br />of policy. Tf the motion for summary judgment is not granted, trial is scheduled
<br />to start on March 22nd.
<br />2) Since last Council !Meeting, received a ruling on a motion for summary judgment in
<br />the DiNunzio Case, again dealing with the Bus Line, and dealing with a civil rights
<br />action in 1983. Judge Sam Bell ruled against the City with respect to the summary
<br />judgment. Trial is scheduled for March in this case.
<br />3) Since the last Council Meeting, has had a rulingf_rom an arbitrator, in favor of
<br />the City, with respect to a recall from the overtime list. Had a number of arbitration
<br />cases over the years and City has basically been successful. This is a good decision
<br />for the City because it spells out what is needed in order to establish management
<br />policy with respect to what is commonly referred to as "past practises".
<br />4) Relative to the Margolius Case, Council met last Thursday in an attempt to resolve
<br />some differences with the property owners in the immediate neighborhood. If a settle-
<br />ment could be reached, the issue would not have to go to the ballot and the City could
<br />save as much as $10,000. Law Director had the impression that there was really no
<br />desire to have a settlement; Mr. Margolius is more concerned about having his day in
<br />court and Law Director feels this is probably the way it ought to go; Mr. ?ylargolius
<br />should have his day in court. 'T'he issue is: does the rezoning have to go to a vote of
<br />the people. It is out of the City's hand; the Judge will make the decision, after
<br />which the City can determine whether to pursue this in the Court of Appeals.
<br />_. .es~*.er=~rm~w~~e~ne,."~ -r.wayeier~n~wanwwq+w~.+~r,+a~ll~lilf,~~vral~M1%S.~TA~Fa~~, w as~,,y,w~~ +«~ - _ ,,. a.-n..
<br />
|