Laserfiche WebLink
Council Minutes of 1/5/93 <br />months. Cablevision tells us the equipment is obsolete; however, they awn it and <br />refuse to up-date it. In addition, they have not made people available to train <br />our staff. We have contacted V Cable, Inc. to let them know that woe are unhappy <br />with the present service; they must begin to live up to their cacmatments to North <br />Olmsted. <br />Mrs . Saringer noted that .her canmuriity access charnel had not been working for a <br />couple of months,- and she had great difficulty in getting Cablevision out to do <br />repairs. <br />Law Director Gareau reported: 1) At the end of last year, we received a notice <br />from our cable TV franchise that they were filing an application to renew the <br />franchise--although it does not er~d until 1994. After review of the latest cable <br />act, he determined that once notice is given, the city has six nc~ths to commence <br />negotiations. The Cable Advisory Board must meet soon to put together a list of <br />problems to be presented to Cablevision. <br />2) A motion for summary j~xdgment will be filed in the personal. injury case dealing <br />with the youngster that fell on a delineator stake. The issue of governmental <br />imnnuiity will be presented. <br />3) With regard to the private detective case, the Supreme Court has reversed the <br />decision of the Court of Appeals. The city had wain in the Court of Appeals. The <br />Supreme Court has held that the State of Ohio controls the fees that municipalities <br />can charge. However, there was a strong dissent by Justices Wright and Holmes <br />which basically stated they felt the majority had caved in to lobbyists for the <br />private detective industry. As it stands, the City of North Olmsted can regulate <br />but cannot charge an administrative fee. <br />4) Two civil rights ccampla3nts have been received--both dealing with Civil Service <br />tests gives for the Building Department. One was the subject matter for a union <br />grievance. The other concerned a 63 year old black gentlemen who felt the city had <br />discriminated because of race and age. The cut-off point for the test was 15th, <br />and he had scored in the 16th position. However, it should be noted that it is not <br />possible to discriminate because the tests are graded by number and not by name. <br />Position papers on both eases will be filed. <br />5) Stipulations. have been submitted in the firefighter's case that was remanded <br />back to the Court of Appeals by the Supreme Court. We are still pursuing this case <br />because there are two employees who will be affected by the decision on National <br />Guard service. <br />6) We have prepared and are ready to file for quiet title action. in the Deerfield <br />recreation area case. This will be done as soon as the preliminary judicial report <br />is received from Chicago title. <br />70 We have met with the fact-finder who will help determine the issues in the <br />AFSCME clerical contract. When the report is issued, Council acid the union will <br />have the opportunity to either accept or reject the findings. <br />8) A reply brief has been filed in the Eliza Jennings case which is in the Court of <br />Appeals. <br />9) The Halleen case is in Common Pleas Court on appeal. Halleen wants to go <br />directly to the Board of Zoning Appeals to resolve this matter. However, it is Mr. <br />Gareau's feeling that this case will have to go back through Planning Commission, <br />Architectural Review Board, and finally the Board of Zoning Appeals. <br />l <br />2 <br />~~~~ <br />