|
Council Minutes of 11/19/85
<br />-2-
<br />Mrs. Petrigac wanted clarification with respect to the Wright payment for
<br />`` the engineering house; this was sold two and a half years ago; what was the
<br />deadline. Finance Director advised that this was only settled by the court
<br />in August of 1985 and Mr. Wright was given 90 days to complete payment. The
<br />payment was received last Friday, actually a few days ahead of time, therefore
<br />no interest payment was necessary.
<br />Mrs. Petrigac also commented on the recently completed audit and asked if Council
<br />would be given copies of the findings. Finance Director stated that there will
<br />be copies for Council. He already has a copy in his office if anyone would like
<br />to see it; there are no recommendations or citations. It is the policy of the
<br />Auditor of State not to issue any recommendations, citations, etc., within 90
<br />days of an election, unless there was an illegal activity.
<br />Mr. O'Grady, Chairman Public Safety, Health and Welfare Committee reported:
<br />1) Moved Council have no objection to the transfer of a D1 liquor permit from
<br />Stanley S. Schall, dba Papa Stan's Pizza and Pastry, 26691 Brookpark Road Extension,
<br />North Olmsted, to Brian C. and Helen Green, dba Front Page Pizza and Deli, 26691
<br />Brookpark Road Extension, North Olmsted, second by Mr. Bierman, unanimously approved.
<br />2) Moved Council have no objection to the issuance of an F-2 liquor .permit for the
<br />Kiwanis Club of North Olmsted, 29271 Lorain Road, North Olmsted, for an .event to be
<br />held on Tuesday, December 31, 1985 and Wednesday,.. January 1, 1886, second by
<br />Mr. Wilamosky. Roll call on motion: Affirmative vote:.0'Grady, Petrigac, Rademaker,
<br />Saringer, Tallon, Wilamosky. Abstained: Bierman. 6 Aye - 1 Nay - Motion. carried.
<br />3) Moved Council have no objection to the issuance of a D5 liquor permit to John
<br />Michael Baratko, 31649 Lorain Road, North Olmsted; home residence 27337 Edgepark
<br />Drive, North Olmsted, second by Mrs, Saringer, unanimously approved.
<br />Mr. Wilamosky, Chairman Finance Committee as well as Streets and Drainage
<br />Committee reported: 1) Finance Committee met on November 18th with Finance
<br />Director, Service Director and Public Works Commissioner in attendance. Committee
<br />discussed the letter submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Drotter, 23593 Clifford, re-
<br />questing payment of $300 as a moral claim for carpet damage due to a flooded base-
<br />ment. Mr. Corrigan and Mr. Gorsuch advised that a sewer at Clague and Clifford
<br />was blocked; they indicated that no other complaints were received from other
<br />residents on Clifford. Committee feels that the city has traditionally and histor-
<br />ically done an outstanding job to provide adequate. transportation of storm as
<br />well as sanitary waste, however the city cannot have total and absolute control
<br />over the system at all times with respect to storm conditions and other conditions
<br />that might cause some problems within the system. Committee is also concerned
<br />with respect to establishing a precedent in this case and therefore recommends
<br />that this claim be rejected.
<br />2) Committee also discussed Ordinance No. 85-113, advertising for bids for 1,000
<br />tons of cinders and has no objection; will ask for suspension of rule requiring
<br />three readings and passage of the legislation this evening.
<br />3) Committee also discussed Ordinance No. 85-1I4, advertising for bids for 2,500
<br />tons of road salt and has no objection; will ask for. suspension of rule requiring
<br />three readings and passage of the legislation this evening.
<br />4) Also, discussed Ordinance No. 85-121, which would provide for a one year ex-
<br />tension of the existing contract with BFI for pickup and removal of refuse. The
<br />original, 1980 contract was approximately $90,000 less than the existing contract
<br />in the amount of $565,000. Committee has no objection to extend the contract,
<br />primarily because of the historic increases. Would like to continue with this
<br />contract since the terms of the contract would remain intact and there would be
<br />no change in the existing cost.
<br />
|