04/04/2000 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 4/4/2000 Council was told they would receive more information, and that was not done. Mrs. Kasler said one of her concerns was that this issue was discussed a year ago and was set ., aside based on the fact that information was lacking and there were several things that Council wanted to see. More information was promised, but it has not been provided. She has not received answers to her questions such as will there be other property necessary to complete the project and, if so, which property, how will it be acquired, what is the cost of additional land and what is the cost of developing the property? She does not know what the long-range plan for the land is. She has not seen an appraisal of the property and does not know what the property is worth and what the city will pay. She objects to the fact that it came in the form of an ordinance prior to having a discussion because, in the past, the policy with this particular purchase has been to discuss it and to bring information to Council. Mr. Limpert said he did not find the idea of an ordinance that unusual. He questioned whether anyone had received advance discussion or information regarding the other ordinances that were on first reading. Mr. McKay said Council has committee meetings to discuss these issues. The committee meeting will take place at 6 p.m. on Wednesday, April I2. Mrs. Szabo said she would be there. Mr. O'Grady that some very good points had been raised by Councilman Gareau and Councilwoman Kasler. These points are fine as far as they go. They are one side of an argument perhaps. And more properly, they should be raised in a committee meeting, which is what we always do. We have an ordinance introduced on first reading, it goes into committee and that is where the substantive debate on the issue takes place. He is at a loss to see the emotion and the discord when really this is what we do with every piece of legislation we get. It should go to committee, and in committee we should be going through these various questions that have been brought up. Mrs. Kasler noted that the distinction between this ordinance being introduced and the other ordinances referred to by Mr. Limpert is that the other ordinances do not involve an expenditure of $300,000 that was rejected over a year ago because of a lack of planning. It is offensive to her to see the ordinance appear again prior to being given information that had been promised. Tina Hadsell, 30840 Bradley Road, lives next door to the parcel of property being discussed and expressed concern because she and her neighbors were not notified that the legislation was going to be on the agenda. She received an anonymous phone call about it. Mrs. Hadsell said that the Mayor had talked to her at length in January about this and had promised that, if anything was ever discussed about the property, he would let her know. She feels it is being sneaked through and is concerned about the lack of communication. Mr. Nashar, representative of that area, said he had received the legislation in his packet over the weekend. This issue will be discussed at the Finance Committee meeting on Wednesday, and Mrs. Hadsell is certainly invited to attend the meeting and express her concerns. Mrs. Hadsell said she felt Mr. Nashar should have called her. Mr. Nashar assured her this was only a first reading and there was no intention to push it through. It is open for discussion. Mr. McKay agreed with Mr. Nashar's comments. Mrs. Hadsell was insistent in her feelings that Mayor Musial and Mr. Nashar should have notified her as they had promised to notify her whenever something came up about this issue. Mayor Musial commented that his vision is to preserve as much green space in the City of North Olmsted as possible. In his mind, ;,,~. there isn't anything different between some private entity owning the land and the city 6