03/16/1999 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 3/16/99 particular group of residents at the expense of another particular group of residents. ~, Second, and more importantly, by spending time at administrative functions, Council will be leaving a void on the policy side. Supporting this legislation is the correct decision at this time, thereby allowing the administration to continue with their street lighting plan. Council is asked for consideration of these comments as they continue this process in the days ahead. Roll call continued: Limpert, yes; McKay, yes; Nashar, yes; Kasler, yes, with comment: She has expressed concern in the past with this particular ordinance as it relates to the street lighting borrowing basically because she sees it as not having the detail necessary to approve that expenditure-such as the cost of the lighting, the increased cost of utilities to the city and which particular streets will be accomplished with $100,000 in borrowing. In other words, without having a planned approach to street lighting within the city. Further, as her minority report revealed last meeting, it appears that we are proceeding without addressing the only area in the city that has been surveyed and promised lighting and yet has not received it. However, so as not to jeopardize the other vital projects that are funded by this borrowing, she will vote yes to the borrowing. However, she expects that Council will be provided with engineering estimates for proposed streets, that Council will see a real plan develop, that they will have an opportunity to examine any further spending in this area including the increased utility costs to the city and that Council will then revisit this issue in August or September, as was discussed, with respect to how they may wish to proceed or not proceed. Roll call continued: Miller, yes, with comment: In the interest of brevity, he remarked that he concurred with the comments made by Carolyn Kasler and the comments that will be made by Councilman Gareau. Roll call continued: Gareau, yes, with comment: He wants to express his concern with some things that have been brought to his attention throughout the course of the discussions on this particular piece of legislation. Specifically, he believes that the City of North Olmsted sometime ago surveyed and questioned residents living in a particular area. Their comments and concerns regarding safety in their neighborhood were solicited. There was an expectation on their part, and he believes perhaps a representation on the part of the city, that they would in fact receive street lighting in their neighborhood. One can easily assume that, when a city comes to you and asks you to choose what style of street lights you would like out in front of your home, that in fact you will be receiving street lights. Such is not the case in this instance. He does not feel that a government should mislead residents or give a perception that something is going to occur and then turn its back on that issue. He has a very real reservation about voting for something when he believes that is actually taking place. Nevertheless, in the interest of moving forward with development in this community, and because several projects are grouped together and he is not able to simply remove one aspect of this entire $1.1 million of borrowing and vote no on it, he is unfortunately in a position of having to vote yes because the other projects proposed are worthy and will benefit the residents of the city. He would also incorporate the comments of Mrs. Kasler and Mr. Miller as his own, as well as Mrs. Kasler's comments of the Council meeting of March 2 wherein she discussed this in much more detail. The motion passed unanimously. Resolution No. 99-22 adopted. 9