06/20/2000 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 6/20/2000 purchase the property. The second thing I asked for is what is the estimated cost to ,~,,~ develop the property into a recreational complex? I realize that this fugure could not 6e exact. However, someone within the city must have the expertise to be able to estimate the present cost to develop that land and for that purpose. I'm not referring to an independent engineering estimate that would cost us money, I'm asking for an in-house engineering estimate. Third thing, what are the intentions of this administration with regard to the purchase of the additional property necessary to contemplate a future sports complex? What is the proposed timeline and what is the estimated and projected cost for that purpose? I don't have an answer to those questions. It's my understanding that the residence on this one acre of land is valued at $70,000 and the 9 acres of excess land are valued at $250,000. Seems logical to me then that the city should not be paying more than $250,000 for the property if, in fact, the house and its land is a donation. That still is a question in my mind. I don't know how we get to $310,000--it doesn't add up. Some issues have come up later, after my request, and at a committee meeting where all of these things that I just read to you were presented--remained unanswered, by the way. The new additional issues are the future of the house and the need to be certain it is in compliance with the concerns of the Landmarks Commission that were expressed here this evening with regards to its age and its location. Another new issue that came up that I didn't know about was I have come to learn that the eventual displacement of our Leaf dump is a costly proposal and one that was not presented to this Council by the administration as part of the cost involved in this property purchase. Finally, and in that vein, and my biggest concern, when requesting information, this Council has received less than the thorough investigation of our questions and concerns and I fail to understand the resistance on the part of the administration to fully investigate intelligent, logical and legitimate questions presented by this Council as they relate to an administrative proposal to spend significant tax dollars and to potentially displace homeowners. Three hundred and ten thousand dollars, in my opinion, is just the beginning. And I want to see the end. I want the complete plan. I want the future plan. I want all the pieces of the puzzle put together before I express approval. This proposal has been portrayed as one of vision, please be reminded that vision by its very definition implies a look into the future. And yet several questions regarding critical future with regard to this purchase still, months later, remain unanswered. To liken this to Mr. Limpert's analogy of playing a game of cards, I won't play the game unless all the cards are up. My answer is no." The motion failed with four no's and three yes votes. Ordinance No. 2000-32 is not approved. Ordinance No. 2000-51 introduced by Mr. Gareau was given its third reading. An ordinance accepting a storm sewer easement located on property owned by the North Olmsted Board of Education and designated as Permanent Parcel No. 234-15-004 in Cuyahoga County Maps and Records, said easement shown on Exhibit "C" and declaring an emergency. Mr. Gareau moved for adoption; second by Mr. Nashar; motion passed unanimously. Ordinance No. 2000-51 adopted. ~.~. 25