Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Council Minutes of 9/5/95 <br />b. Resolution 95-110, which a ' s the 1996 budget and submits it to the County <br />Auditor. A pubfic hearing an this was ~_, evening. Major points of the <br />budget are: assumed increase m pirc~~t+y tax of"~'', ~~~~imed increase m income tax of <br />9% over the 1995 estimate; $35 million bond issue resulting in $2.4 million in annual <br />interest expense. <br />c. Ordinance 95-111, which will be held in committee. <br />d. Roof repairs which are needed at the Police Station, City HaII, Senior Center and <br />Community Cabin. The legislation authorizing the bidding for this work is on this <br />evening's agenda. <br />Mr. Nashar, Chairperson of the pubfic Safety, Health and Welfare Committee, reported: <br />1) The committee met on August 21 to discuss Resolution 95-109. Present were <br />committee members Saringer, Limpert and Nashar; Council Members McKay, Musial and <br />Miller; Safety Director Kesler. Resolution 95-109 supports the efforts of the Ohio Fire <br />Chiefs Association, the Ohio Association of Professional Fire Fighters and the <br />Association of the North Olmsted Fire Fighters Local 1267 International As~ciation of <br />Fire Fighters to promote continued public sector emergency medical services. The <br />committee had no objections and recommended passage of the legislation. <br />2) The committee met this evening to discuss liquor permits for the proposed Lone Star <br />restaurant. In attendance were Council Members Limpert, Miller and Nashar and Safety <br />Director Kesler. The committee had no cbjections to the liquor perms and transfers. Mr. <br />Nashar moved to approve the new D3A permit and the transfer of D2, D2X, and D3 <br />permits from Michael Egri, Bridgeport, duo to Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon of Ohio <br />Inc.; second by Mr. Limpert; motion passed unanimously. <br />AUDIENCE PAitT~IPATIQN <br />Martin Mooney, 23980 Elm Road, asked Finance Director Burns to define the term <br />"qualified opinion" and explain why the State Auditor had recently issued such opinions <br />for the 1989 and 1990 audits. Mr. Burns said that this was not a recent decision but went <br />back a couple of years to when the city received a letter of unauulitability from the <br />Attorney General's office citing problems from 1988-1989. These issues have been <br />resolved. The State Auditor is currently wrapping up the 1991 and 1992 audits; and, <br />when those are issued, the unauditable letter will in essence be rescinded. Mr. Li[~ert <br />asked that "qualified" audit be explained in layman's terms. Mr. Burns commented that <br />this had previously been discussed, but he explained that one would look for an <br />unqualified opinion on an audit, which would mean that the financial statements are stated <br />fairly and they are in compliance with generally accepted accounting principles. ff for <br />some reason the auditor is not satisfied that both those criteria are met, then a qualified <br />opinion is issued. The qualification is stipulated in that opinion. In this case, it was issued <br />because of a problem with reconciling the cash balance on the financial statements and the <br />bank statements. The city had a problem with obtaining work papers from the auditor, <br />Arthur Young; and, when the State Auditor's office reque~ed some work papers from <br />Arthur Young, they were told that the documents had been destroyed. However, the <br />auditors are in the process of wrapping up the 1991 and 1992 audits. These audits will <br />3 <br />