Laserfiche WebLink
Council Minutes of 12/2/86 -5- <br />Finance Director Boyle reported; 1) North Olmsted has paid all bonds. City <br />has made 1.7 million dollars of cash payments yesterday for principal and in- <br />terest. Has retired three bonds; based on the 1986 payments, this frees up <br />approximately $106,000 for next year and will be used to retire bonds and interest. <br />2) Resolution No. 86-121, approving the tax rates, is on the agenda tonight; it <br />exceeds the budget by approximately $5,000. Resolution No. 86-122, directing <br />the County Auditor to pay North Olmsted all tax money due and owing the city, <br />is also on the agenda. Based on the county's projections of assessed valuation, <br />city will have for next year, a capacity of 3.6 million dollars in unvoted bonds; <br />21 million dollars in voted bonds. Will be receiving tax monies via wire transfer; <br />this should increase investment capabilities by about 30 days - will have 30 extra <br />days of investments. <br />3) Would like RTA to be challenged with respect to the brake lathe; RTA has <br />continually disallowed capital improvements and the brake lathe is a capital <br />improvement. Without capital equipment, city is foreced into higher maintenance <br />costs; these costs are compared to RTA's and they always say that it costs North <br />Olmsted more to operate. Of course it costs more to operate when all work has <br />to be sent out - it can't be done in-house. <br />Mayor Petrigac responded that the administration has already challenged the <br />brake lathe decision, in fact, has challenged the appeal mechanism. Were first <br />told to appeal to the RTA treasurer; treasurer said to appeal to the board; <br />city went to the board and that is the reason for Mr. Busch's visit -because of <br />constant phone calls that were made because the administration could not deter- <br />mine what the proper appeal mechanism was. Will continue the appeal at the <br />Monday meeting with RTA. Will also appeal the cost for moving the fire hydrant. <br />The landscaping put in by North Olmsted Lumber Company now prohibits the use <br />of their yard; RTA maintains the city should continue to go across other people's <br />property and the moving of the hydrant was the city's problem and not theirs. <br />The hydrant was moved to keep the buses from hitting it. Law Director commented <br />that RTA is not paying the City a single cent for the Bus Garage - city is paying <br />every penny of debt service on the garage and yet RTA is pickle and diming us <br />to death on the moving of afire hydrant, which is totally and completely in- <br />excuseable. It just shows a total lack of good faith. <br />Mr. Wilamosky, Chairman Finance Committee reported: 1) Finance Committee met on <br />December 1st. Mayor Petrigac,. President Saringer, Directors Boyle, Cunningham <br />and Becker were also in attendance. Committee discussed Ordinance No. 86-108, <br />which transfers funds to recodification line item and has no objection. <br />2) Discussed Ordinance No. 96-110, creating a new fund known as the Payroll <br />Liability Fund as recommended by Director Boyle. It is a required fund for the <br />conclusion of this year for all financial statements dated before December 15th, <br />1986. In keeping with Mr. Boyle's recommendation, as well as recommendation of <br />the auditor, committee has no objection. <br />3) Discussed Ordinance No. 86-111 and 86-116, transfers within the Bus Line, and <br />committee has no objection to either. <br />4) Committee also discussed Ordinance No. 86-121, establishing the rate of taxation <br />for fiscal 1987; millage to be included within this legislation is 14.1. The <br />County Auditor has issued a report with respect to the real estate and a personal <br />tangible property tax, valued for North Olmsted, at $352,988,000. <br />5) Discussed Ordinance No. 86-122, requesting the County Auditor to pay all monies <br />due and owing the city from all collection sources; committee has no objection; <br />will be asking for suspension of rule requiring three readings on Ordinance Nos. <br />86-121 and 86-122. <br /> <br />