08/19/1997 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 8/19/97 _,. they circulate the petition and get at least 10% of those who voted in the last regular ~._ municipal election, then they present the completed petition parts to the Clerk of Council who then certifies that the form is proper and the number that is required is sufficient. The petitions were presented on August 1. The City Charter then allows City Counci140 days within which to review--and included in that time period is the time to certify the petitions as having sufficient signatures--and to act on the initiated ordinance. City Council can take one of three actions: 1. They can pass the ordinance. If there were an overwhelming number of signatures, it may be sufficient enough for the Council to say they were wrong and that it should have been adopted when it was proposed by whatever goup in the first place. 2. They can refuse to adopt it. 3. They can adopt it in a form different than that which was proposed. If it is adopted, that ends the problem. If it is not adopted and it is defeated, then the people who comprise the committee have the right to, between the Council meeting when it is rejected and the next Council meeting, to notify the City Council that they wish to have that matter placed on the ballot. At the next Council meeting--assuming this legislation is defeated tonight, it would be the first meeting in September--that issue then will be considered by the Council. The Council will either by motion or by formal ordinance direct that the matter be put on the ballot and that would be directed to the Board of Elections. That is the process. Ordinance 97-76, which contains the initiated ordinance, will be read tonight. A vote of "yes" means rezone. A vote of "no" means we wish not to rezone. A defeat of the ordinance will trip the whole process of asking to be placed on the ballot. 5) During the past two weeks, there was another controversy regarding Parcel E and the lawsuit of the City of North Olmsted vs. Biskind et al. The city had identified in a consent to a preliminary injunction an area that was considered to be wetlands that was to be stripped and reclaimed by digging out the wetlands and putting in new soil. The City Engineer, Service Director and representatives of the landowner identified the area and it was also identified in the consent decree. After being informed by the Service Director of a violation of the terms and agreement, the Law Director prepared a motion to show cause why the landowner should not be held in contempt of court. When the law clerk was sent to the clerk's office in downtown Cleveland to get a copy of the signed consent decree, he found that the judge had not signed the consent decree even though it had been delivered to his assignment commissioner and also to people in his courtroom. This has been brought to the judge's attention. It now becomes problematic because you cannot be found in contempt of something that was not journalized. Because we were unable to bring contempt proceedings, we are asking that the judge sign that order nunc pro tunc, which makes it go back to the date that it was originally submitted for the judge's signature. At the same time, we are proceeding to prepare a complaint for a violation of our urban forest ordinance dealing with the removal of trees without permission. This action will be filed in the Rocky River Municipal Court. Finance Director Burns: 1) He has provided Council with an update on the estimated versus collected revenues for income tax and sewer fees. Year to date through July, we are $40,000 ahead on income taxes, which is right on target. Through August on sewer fees, we are $167,000 behind, but that is also on target for what is expected for the entire year. Therefore, on both these particular revenue sources, we are on target for this year. 3