My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06/16/1987 Meeting Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Minutes
>
1987
>
06/16/1987 Meeting Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/15/2014 4:03:08 PM
Creation date
1/8/2014 10:31:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
North Olmsted Legislation
Legislation Date
6/16/1987
Year
1987
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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 6/16/87 _3_ <br />Mr. Lackey asked if the Mayor had received a copy of the specifications used <br />in the Porter Road bidding process. Mayor advised that North Olmsted is not <br />a part of the bidding process; Cleveland Council authorizes the bidding, doubts <br />if North Olmsted .will receive a copy of the specs. Mr. Lackey stated that the <br />City of North Olmsted has a definite interest as to what Cleveland is asking for <br />bids on - type of road repair, etc. If at all possible, would like Mayor to <br />obtain a copy of the bid spec if ications and have City Engineer Schaller examine <br />them to see if North Olmsted will feel good with what Cleveland is asking for. <br />Law Director Gareau reported: 1) Is currently working on a motion for summary <br />judgment in the Faughender Case. The insurance company has taken primary re- <br />sponsiblity for defending the case because of some issues dealing with back pay <br />and things of that nature. At Mayor Petrigac's urging, has. decided to take an <br />affirmative defense on this issue and should have the motion for summary judgment <br />prepared within the next couple of weeks. <br />2) Pre-trial was held on a "fall" case at the Rec Center; depositions were taken; <br />case has been set for arbitration in August; is currently prepariing the brief. <br />3) As Mayor indicated in her report, will be attending meetings next week with <br />respect to the RTA audit. <br />4) This past week, attended negotiations 9:f the A~SCME contract which is proceeding <br />normally. <br />Finance Director Boyle reported: 1) Senate Bill 152 addresses the income tax <br />sections of the Ohio Revised Code and allows any Schedule "C" filer, which basic- <br />ally is a business, to pay taxes to municipalities on an average earnings. If a <br />business is located in two different cities and one makes a profit, the other <br />has a loss, a person will be able to average it and pay taxes on that if this <br />bill passes. North Olmsted, being one of the better prof it centers in retail in <br />this area probably stands to lose money with this bill. House Bill 201 also <br />addresses income tax and brings back the old issue of reciprocity which basically <br />means that you pay your income tax to the city where you are employed; that city <br />then distributes a portion of in to the city where you live. This bill makes the <br />equation for doing that the percentage of the city that you are addressing over <br />the combined personages. Right now, if a person works in Cleveland and lives in <br />North Olmsted he will pay 2-1/27 income tax with 1/27 going to North Olmsted. <br />Under House Bill 201, he will pay 27, he would receive a decrease and 1/3 of the <br />27 would go to North Olmsted. While we would actually gain money, we would have to <br />wait for Cleveland to disburse it. The suburbs went through that in the late <br />1970's and that's what gave birth to the Regional Income Tax Agency. Tax credits <br />were allowed in the early 70's; RITA went into collecting with tax credits, while <br />Central Collection Agency, which is Cleveland's taxing, stayed with reciprocity. <br />Believes it was 56 communities that left the Central Collection Agency and formed <br />RITA. Reciprocity is one of the hardest forms of taxation; it is an almost <br />impossible task. The last law suit against Cleveland, on the old reciprocity, <br />was finalized in 1978 and RITA came into form in 1971. <br />2) Would like to address the audit question which came up in caucus. Would like <br />the minutes to reflect that the Mayor did request that the Auditor of State's <br />office do the 1987 audit for North Olmsted. Would like the minutes to reflect <br />the Finance Director's objection; to reflect that he was not consulted on this <br />subject nor was any member of council. This was the Mayor's unilateral decision. <br />When North Olmsted went into bidding and entered into the contract several years <br />ago, it was advised by its financial advisors, by its bond counsel and by differ- <br />ent banking institutions that it would receive abetter credit rating with an <br />independent audit. City went out for bids; Arthur Young and Company was the <br />low bidder. The State of Ohio was a bidder and was higher. Has discussed this <br />matter with the State of Ohio;. they advised they have never received any complaints <br />about Arthur Young;. they do review all the work papers of anyone doing the audit <br />other than the state. They have no objection and have never had any problem with <br />Arthur Young. Finance Director would like to know why - is there any reason for <br />the Mayor's letter? <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.