06/20/2000 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 6/20/2000 be fiscally responsible in doing so. It's just a difference of opinion. This is the way ~w~ the Auditor of State recommended it be done. Mr. Burns said he wanted to emphasize the second point he made was that she does have the capability of creating a fund for the purpose of funding the future liabilities. Mrs. Copfer agreed, but that would be only for those future liabilities. There are stated things for which you can and can't reserve. LEGISLATION Ordinance No. 99-166 introduced by Mayor Musial was given its third reading. An ordinance authorizing and directing the Mayor to enter into an agreement for the sale of surplus real property owned by the City of North Olmsted, consisting of ail of one parcel (Permanent Parcel No. 234-26-008) and the westernmost 213 feet of another parcel (Permanent Parcel No. 234-26-O11), both of which parcels are located near the intersection of Windsor Drive and McKenzie Road, North Olmsted, Ohio, and declaring an emergency. Mr. McKay moved for adoption; second by Mr. Nashar; motion passed unanimously. Ordinance No, 99-166 adopted. Ordinance No. 2000-32 introduced by Mayor Musial was given its third reading. An ordinance authorizing the Mayor to enter into a contract for the purchase of real property on the north side of Bradley Road to be used for municipal purposes, as amended. Mr. McKay moved for adoption; second by Mr. O'Grady. Roll call: McKay, yes; O'Grady, yes; Gareau, no, with comment. "By way of background I want to explain once again and reiterate that this is simply not a new issue before this City Council. As you all know, it dates to the former administration. The proposal was revived by the current administration in 1998, and it was given to this City Council for consideration. At that time, the City Council declined to move forward on the opportunity to purchase the property on Bradley Road. On May 19, 1998, sitting in this chair I stated publicly that we should develop our recreational facilities to the highest extent possible and in accordance with an overall development scheme. I simply could not support the purchase of land in 1998 unless I had a better idea of what it would cost and how it would impact our other recreational needs. I thought the matter was through at that time. I learned in January of this year that the city was still appraising property on Bradley Road for acquisition despite Council's previous rejection of the proposal. Reiterating my concerns from 1 1/2 years earlier and specifically that they are to present a use for the property and the actual cost to achieve this use, I spoke out in opposition. I was cautioned against tunnel vision, and I was told again by Mayor Musial that I should reserve final judgment until the total picture was presented. The meeting ended, and once again I thought that it was finished. Without receiving the total picture or any additional information, no plan, no cost estimates, no projected use despite having two years to put them together, on to my desk roared 2000-32 to purchase the property. I was disappointed, to say the least, that at least I was not given some advance ........... information that I had requested almost two years earlier. That brings me to my no vote tonight. I think it was most adequately stated tonight by a resident here in this chamber that I'm not fighting the issue of green space. My problem is the principle of informing City Council of what it is that you intend to do. That was the most appropriate comment I heard tonight. That's the 22