11/21/2000 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 11/21/2000 only two ways to amend, and those come from Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution. With respect to Mr. Lambert's idea that Council should not have review or have input in these recommendations, that is contrary not only to the Charter but to the State Constitution. This is Council's obligation. The recommendations can only be put on the ballot if two-thirds of the members of Council vote to put it on the ballot. It is not automatic. In the 1970's, a case in the City of Westlake went to the Eight District Court of Appeals which ruled that the issue of mandatory referral to the electors because the charter review commission made the recommendations was inappropriate and that the Constitution of the State of Ohio had to be followed and there were only two methods to do so. One was by a vote of Council, and the other was by the initiative method. • Mr. Lambert said he agreed that there are only two ways to put the recommendations on the ballot. He is disagreeing on the "mechanics" of the method as he does not believe that Council should review and consent to the recommendations. • Law Director Gareau said that any time it takes two-thirds vote of the Council, that is by deliberation. You cannot override a veto, you cannot pass legislation by suspension of the rules without atwo-thirds vote. That is with deliberation. And that is what the Charter and the State Constitution provide. He does think it takes the input of Council. Jim Burns, 3968 Dover Center Road • Believes that Council should not pass Ordinance 99-113 and Ordinance 2000-118. If Council does so, he asked that the Mayor consider vetoing the ordinances. • Regarding Ordinance 99-113, he feels the ordinance should refer to the County Treasurer rather than the County Auditor for the certification of taxes paid. The City of North Olmsted had outstanding, at the end of 1999, about $458,000 in real and public utility taxes that were delinquent. Included in this number are residential properties, bankruptcies, businesses and individuals who are in bankrupt condition and aren't paying their taxes; those who have made installment agreements, which are still considered delinquent even though it's under an installment agreement; those taxes that have a complaint pending where they're asking for the assessed value to be changed before they pay the tax. All these are included in that number and all those items are not covered by this ordinance as those requiring the certification of taxes being paid. He questions whether or not there really is a necessity for this ordinance. A property owner is not going to put money into his property if he can't afford to pay the taxes on it. In addition, taxes become a lien on the property; and, if that property is ever sold, the taxes get paid first. Second, the county now has the ability to sell taxes to a collection agency and to give the city and the county and whoever, their money up front. The second ordinance is 2000-118 requiring underground sprinkling systems. This ordinance was rejected by the Planning Commission by a 5 to 2 vote. The city's property maintenance provisions allow the city to go in if need be and tell the property owner that they need to "spiffy up" their property and make it look good. A sprinkling system, per se, does not do that. It might be counter-productive because the property owner could go in and put in stone or concrete pavers. 9