|
Council Minutes of 2/16/99
<br />,~;..
<br />;,,, Olmsted Hot Stove? The answer is unquestionably yes. We provide facilities and we
<br />provide the maintenance for those facilities. Then the question becomes shouldn't Hot
<br />Stove be adding something back to the city? His statement before the Recreation
<br />Commission was that they already do. Organizations like the North Olmsted Soccer
<br />Organization and Hot Stove and our hockey teams add value to our city just by being the
<br />large well-run organizations that they are. These organizations encourage people to come
<br />in and purchase our homes and make their homes in the City of North Olmsted. So they
<br />already add value back to the city. Is it proper for the city to be going to them year after
<br />year and using them perhaps as a way of balancing the Recreation budget or at least
<br />stretching it a little bit further? Probably not. And that is the question that was before the
<br />Recreation Commission, and that is the question they will tackle.
<br />2) The Finance Committee met on February 9. Present were committee members
<br />O'Grady, Limpert and Kasler; Council members Saringer, McKay, Nashar, Gareau and
<br />Miller; Mayor Musial; directors of Service, Finance and Safety. The committee
<br />discussed Ordinance 99-18, which was intended to clarify the city's requirement for five
<br />continuous days of vacation off per year. Two positive aspects of having five continuous
<br />uninterrupted days of vacation are: First, it provides some protection from fraud so as to
<br />ensure that, if there was an instance where someone might be manipulating funds in a
<br />dishonest way, the absence of that person for five days would be very clearly noticed.
<br />Secondly, it ensures the availability of other people who are trained in the duties of the
<br />person who is absent. The question of fraud was reviewed by those present, and it really
<br />seemed to be inappropriate for an organization like the City of North Olmsted. If we
<br />were an operation where we were continuously handling money day after day, then
<br />perhaps it would be something that would be useful in that regard. However, it was the
<br />consensus of Council that it was not appropriate and not really applicable to our situation.
<br />It was further stated that when the stipulation for five continuous day was created, it was
<br />never meant as being a way of checking on or checking up on employees of North
<br />Olmsted. That was not one of the intentions and, in fact, was not really of value to the
<br />city with that regard. Therefore, it was the consensus of Council, and the unanimous
<br />recommendation of the committee, that the requirement for an employee to take off five
<br />days of vacation would continue. However, it no longer will be a requirement that these
<br />days be taken continuously.
<br />Mr. Limpert, Chairperson of the Intra-Governmental Relations and Legislation; Long-
<br />Range Planning Committee: 1) The committee met on February 9, immediately
<br />following the Finance Committee, to discuss Resolution 99-I7, a resolution opposing HB
<br />'702 regarding changes in the amounts of fines, penalties and forfeited bail moneys
<br />distributed by various courts to the county law library associations. Present were all of
<br />Council, directors of Safety, Finance, Service and Law. The basic gist of this issue is an
<br />attempt once again by state government is to take monies that at one point went to local
<br />municipalities and redistribute them in other directions. It was the unanimous consensus
<br />of the committee to support passage of Resolution 99-17.
<br />2) This evening at 7 p.m. the last of a series of public hearings was held with regard to
<br />the Community Development Block Grants, Ordinances 99-4 and 99-5. Present were
<br />Council members Saringer, Miller, O'Grady, McKay, Nashar, Gareau and Limpert;
<br />,~..,
<br />4
<br />;~ ,p . .. ~ . ~~ . . v„.p.~.R. ~..,,.,~,~,...,.
<br />
|