06/07/1988 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 6/7/88 _2- Law Director Gareau reported: 1) Is very disappointed in the Sixth Circuit decision in the Cooper Case; does not believe that the City of North Olmsted ever discriminated or retaliated against anybody. Found it very discouraging to have the Sixth Circuit issue a one page, typewritten opinion on such an important issue. Will discuss this matter further in executive session to de- termine what council wants to do relative to this matter. 2) A court hearing was held on June 3rd with respect to the Nightfall Case; the judge has sent down some guidelines with respect to what Nightfall must do, such as putting up barricades to prohibit parking on the non-asphalt surface and immediately proceeding to getting a permit to develop and hard-surface the parking area. 3) Has met with the attorneys and concerned parties with respect to the Romp Case and are looking at some proposals as an alternative to a rezoning - proposals that presumably will satisfy council. Perhaps before the next council meeting, will have plans for council's consideration; one plan is to rezone to the appropriate use that the court has ordered and the other plan is to reach a settlement agreement and have it entered into the court records as to what will be done. Is .satisfied that the city can work it out and protect the property owners. Finance Director Boyle reported: 1) The audit the Mayor referred to earlier was the 1986 audit; 1987. audit will be coming out in a couple of months. The 1986 audit has been approved by the Auditor of State and copies are available for examination. Council will be receiving copies of both the audit and the manage- ment advisory section and the Finance Department is reproducing the figures for banks, underwriters, band counsel, rating agencies, etc. The opinion expressed by Arthur Young and Company was qualified: with the lack of an ending inventory for 1985, there was a lack of a beginning inventory for 1986. That is the only qualif ication and it has been corrected. The Bus Company inventory has been computerized and is on line and up to date. The Service Department inventory, which could have been a problem with the promotion of Mr. Tom Demaline toward the end of the year, turned out well since Mr. Demaline had no problem with tracing everything down and proving the cost to Arthur Young. This qualif ication will not appear on the 1987 audit. There were also remarks within the management side referring to the old payroll system. handled through Regional Income Tax. There was a comment on "timely reconciliations". This has been taken care of with the new payroll system implemented in Finance this year. There was also another remark about purchasing - the two. signatures - that that practise was illegal, The passage of Ordinance No. 87-51, demanding dual signatures has resolved that situation. Other than these three instances, it was a clean report and it does say that the financial statements present fairly the financial condition of the city on December 31, 1986. 2) The County Auditor has advised that residential property values will be in- creased on the average of 18.02' while commercial and industrial parcels will be increased by 4~. The reason for the discrepancy is that commercial and industrial parcels are monitored annually, residentials are done every four years. City should be receiving in excess of $800,000. 3) Regional Income Tax Agency Board of Directors will be meeting tomorrow morning to review entering into the Columbus area for income tax. Columbus currently collects for itself and quite a few suburbs and they have a restriction, They will collect taxes as long as their cap and their credit is followed. They impose the credit limits; they will not bill everybody the way RITA does. They will allow a city to set a rate. The only thing that can be done is that a city government has to change the rates;. it can't touch credit and caps. If these cities join RITA, the cost to member communities should drop; it would be a savings of about $16,700 per year. a,