Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Council Minutes of 12/18/91 <br />3) Have received a complaint filed in Common Pleas Court on behalf of George and <br />Diann Fanta. There is an assumption in this lawsuit that the lateral connections <br />from the street to the homes were the subject matter of a special assessment and <br />paid for by the City. This is absolutely untrue. The lateral connections were <br />put in by private contractors hired by the individual h~owners. Also, contrary <br />to the assertion of the Fantas, the Service Director has talked to them. In <br />addition, the Law Dept. has issued a legal opinion with respect to this issue <br />and has also contacted their attorney. It is the intention of the Law Department <br />to file either a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment and to ask <br />for sanctions with respect to the filing of this litigation <br />Mr. Leonard said he felt that the Fantas were saying that the City is liable <br />because they had paid for an inspection permit, and the City had conducted an <br />inspection. <br />Mr. Gareau said that inspections were done for the good of the co~rsmnity not for <br />the benefit of individuals. The iruiividual cannot claim any right under an <br />inspection, and there is case law in that regard. Also, there is r~o way of <br />knowing that the problem is something that resulted fran a faulty inspection; <br />these sewers have been underground for thirty years. The Municipal Tort Reform <br />Act gives cities immin;ty for these kinds of cases. <br />Finance Director Burns reported: 1) A memo has been sent to Council regarding <br />two tax issues that came uP during the year. One of them dealt with a parcel <br />that was diagonally bisected by the City line, raising the question of which <br />commuiity should receive the income taxes. Legal counsel for RITA determined <br />that, under three separate Supreme Court cases, the city providing the services <br />should receive the taxes. Since the frontage of this parcel is in North Olmsted <br />and we provide the services, we are entitled to collect the income taxes. <br />2) The second case dealt with an individual who works in a city with a 1.SX tax <br />rate, but the employer withheld the tax at 1~. In such cases, it is the policy <br />of RITA to consider a portion of the tax as withheld at the correct employment <br />rate, and the balance not to have been taxed. That method is then used to <br />calculate the amount of tax that is owed to the resident city. In this case, <br />RITA calculated that approximately two thirds of the wages had been taxed and one <br />third had not been taxed; therefore, the individual owed North Olmsted 1% on <br />one third of the wages. <br />Law Director Gareau gave an additional report: 1) With regard to the ordinance <br />granting City tax exemption to college students, have conferred with John Larson <br />of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey. 1~e question to be cleared up was: would the <br />issue of what constitutes residency necessarily be indicative of treating <br />somebody differently or more favorably than another, thereby, raising problems <br />with equal protection? Mr. Carson's legal opinion will be forthcoming shortly. <br />Mrs. Saringer, Chairperson of the Building, Zoning and Development Co~m:i_ttee <br />reported: 1) The BZD Committee met on Monday, December 9. In attendance were <br />Committee members; Service Director Bohlmann; Personnel and Administrative <br />3 <br />