03/06/2001 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes 3/6/2001 Finance Director Copfer: 1) Ordinances 2001-34 through 2001-39 deal with the advanced refunding of the callable portion of the 1992 various purpose bond issue. An advanced refunding can only be done once during the duration of the original bonds and can be likened to refinancing a home mortgage to obtain a lower interest rate. Therefore, you pay less interest over the remaining life of the loan. The 1992 bonds are at 6.25% interest. The market, which is at one of the lowest points in the last 20 years, is paying rates of about 3.25% to 4.6%, depending on where we fall and what our risk factors are. This calculation will change every time the interest rates change; but, as of February 21, 2001, our present value of savings, of doing this refunding, net of all associated costs, is $426,951. This is spread over the remaining time, twelve years of the bonds outstanding. The actual cash flow savings are $556,551 over its remaining life. 2) She would like to request of Council that, during the appropriations meetings, she be given time before discussion of each fund to talk about the revenue assumptions that she uses. 3) It should be noted that she has not included the advanced refunding in the budget yet. She did include the annual capital improvements that Council has akeady passed, the Springvale improvement program and the library notes being rolled into bonds. Councilwoman Kasler, chairperson of the Intra-Governmental Relations and Legislation; Long-Range Planning Committee: 1) The committee met on February 2. Present were committee members Miller, Nashar and Kesler; Councilmen Limpert, Dailey and O'Grady; President of Council Saringer; Safety Director, Service Director, Mayor and guests. Agenda items were as follows: Ordinance 2000-25, which was held in committee after some discussion and pending further input from the North Olmsted School System Another committee meeting will be held prior to it being placed back on the agenda. Committee members remained and discussed with the Mayor his decision not to reappoint Joe Lang to the Landmarks Commission. Upon receiving the memo from the Mayor requesting the committee's approval to replace Mr. Lang, the committee unanimously requested fiuther information regarding the Mayor's decision not to reappoint. Mr. Lang has been a member of Landmarks for approximately 10 years and chairman of that commission for b to 7 years. His knowledge and commitment to preserving the history of the city is evident and well established and it appears that he is one of the members most knowledgeable in this area. It is the committee's understanding that reappointments are generally made, particularly when a vohrnteer has performed diligently and expressed a desire to remain, both of which apply to Mr. Lang. In light of his background and prior to interviewing a replacement for Mr. Lang, the committee requested an explanation regarding the decision not to reappoint. The Mayor said that he had "made a unilateral decision" and that `people who are appointed represent the image of the administration." It is the position of the committee that both reappointments and appointments are recommended to them for a diligent review as opposed to any rubber stamp. Since she has been the chairperson of the committee serving with Mr. Nashar and Mr. Miller, they have approved every one of the Mayor's recommendations following an interview process and resume review. The situation with Mr. Lang is the exception with which the committee has 4