My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/07/1986 Meeting Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Minutes
>
1986
>
10/07/1986 Meeting Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/15/2014 4:02:57 PM
Creation date
1/8/2014 10:15:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
North Olmsted Legislation
Legislation Date
10/7/1986
Year
1986
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
Council Minutes of 10/7/86 _3_ <br />Referring back to the Mayor's report, Mr. Wilamosky asked if his understanding <br />was correct: that Superintendent Pe inert indicated that the school system would <br />be willing to pay $31,155 to provide school crossing guards for the safety of <br />the children attending public schools but not for parochial school children. <br />Mayor Petrigac stated that Superintendent Pe inert does not make the decision <br />with respect to any funding; the school board does. The administration will write <br />to the school board and it can be considered. at the school board meeting on <br />Monday. Mr. Wilamosky asked if the school board currently provides transportation <br />for parochial elementary students; Mayor stated "yes", by state law, they are <br />required to make transportation available to parochial schools, however, one of <br />the parochial schools, by choice, does not avail itself of this service. Mr. <br />Wilamosky asked if the administration intended to propose to Mr. Pe inert that <br />they cover the $31,155 to provide safe access, via crossing guards, for public <br />schools and not provide for parochial schools.. Mayor responded "no", she merely <br />pointed out the percentage that goes to public schools; does not know what the <br />school board will determine however, the feeling was that they probably would not <br />pay for the school guards at the parochial schools; it is the administration's <br />intent to present the school board with the $31,155 part of the budget. <br />Mr. Lackey asked if four hours per day was needed; are they needed longer than <br />that; has any study been .done recently to determine this. Mayor stated that she <br />did not know if a recent study had been made, however she feels they are not <br />needed for a longer length of time. She also feels that for the amount of money <br />they are paid, they probably would not even take the job for just an hour or so. <br />Mr. Rademaker then asked if the school board does pick up the cost for the public <br />school guards, is the Mayor proposing that the city would pick up the cost for <br />the parochial school guards. Mayor Petrigac said she could ask that the school <br />board pick up the total package but she would like to have an alternate plan. <br />She could ask the parochial schools to pick up their part but would like a re- <br />sponse from council as to what direction the administration should go. <br />Mr. Wilamosky stated that the school board does provide busing for both public <br />and parochial school and he feels they. should also provide school crossing guards <br />for both public and parochial school children; this should not be a segregated <br />issue . <br />Finance Director Boyle reported: 1) The Ohio Senate will be meeting after <br />Election Day for approximately two weeks. One of the bills they will be discussing <br />is House Bill 706 which is presently in a subcommittee of the senate. This bill <br />relates to the Public Employees Retirement System. The House version would make an <br />early retirement policy mandatory and. the city would have to provide for and fund <br />it. Being mandatory, it would be extremely expensive, not just to North Olmsted <br />but to any city. The Senate version would make it optional.. This issue will be <br />debated around November 4th and will probably be voted on November 13th. It could <br />be quite costly. City has quite a few employees within five years of retirement <br />and that's basically who it affects. The bill would give them the ability to buy <br />five additional years and city would end up with part of that cost. <br />2) The federal senate has introduced a bill that would make it mandatory .for the <br />city to withhold and match Medicare payments as of May 1st, 1987. That would be <br />approximately 1.437 - the percentage for new employees right now. This would be <br />for any employee of the city and could be quite costly. The bill has gone to the <br />House; the House version is not quite as strict but there is only about a 50/50 <br />chance of the House version succeeding. <br />3) Director Cunningham and Direc-tor $oyle wi~.l be meeting with the Budget Commission <br />on October 23rd at ten .o'clock to review .the budget passed by council in July. <br />~~3~ , _._,.. . <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.