My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02/07/2006 Meeting Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Minutes
>
2006
>
02/07/2006 Meeting Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/16/2014 8:50:05 AM
Creation date
1/6/2014 9:49:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
North Olmsted Legislation
Legislation Date
2/7/2006
Year
2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Council Minutes of 2/7/2006 <br />• Michael Plute v. the City of North Olmsted, a case involving a former employee <br />of Springvale who filed once and dismissed. He filed a second time, and it has <br />been settled within the city's deductible. <br />• Jay Staskus v. Devries was settled on January 9 by insurance company counsel. <br />There were no city dollars involved. <br />10) Prosecutor's report for January: total of 266 cases handled; 136 pleas, 1 trial and 1 <br />conviction; 79 cases pending; 38 dismissals. Out of the 266 cases, 67 were General <br />Offenses, the balance were traffic matters. <br />Finance Director Copfer: 1) Is continuing to work on the preliminary balances. <br />Information on the General Fund and the detailed revenue and expenditure reports have <br />been e-mailed to Council. The General Fund's ending balance is $1,748,000. It is up <br />from the prior year. Approximately a million dollars of it is from revenue and about six <br />hundred thousand is from unexpended appropriations. Four hundred twenty-nine <br />thousand was from municipal income tax over the plan. We received $120,000 for <br />housing grants that was not in the estimated resources. Local government funds were <br />$84,000 over plan; estate taxes were $45,000; interest income was $77,000 over plan, <br />which is the result of getting something over 1% on the monies we are investing. Rocky <br />River Court fines are $49,000 over plan; EMS is $32,000 over plan. In unexpended <br />appropriations, $30,000 was not transferred to the Recreation Fund. The Police Dept. did <br />not expend $64,000; Fire Dept., $67,000; Finance Dept., $256,000, of which $188,000 <br />was the tax abatement for Moen. There had been a question of the date on the 2004 <br />application. It was kept as an encumbrance to the schools-what we would owe if Moen <br />was a year later than expected. The county proved that Moen was getting taxed, and the <br />schools were getting their share. Building Dept. did not expend $22,000; Service Dept., <br />$32,000; Fleet, $54,000, which was mostly fuel and parts that were not expended. <br />2) An amendment of the temporary appropriations is on the agenda. <br />3) The auditors, Ciuni & Panichi began their field work yesterday. <br />4) The bond legislation, Ordinances 2046-18 through 2006-43 fall into three groups: <br />2006-18 through 2006-32 are refunding a portion of the old bonds for the new ones <br />where possible and if it saves money over the remaining life of the debt; 2006-33 through <br />2006-38 take the bond anticipation notes done over the last few years to fund capital <br />improvements and convert them into bonds; 2006-39 through 2006-43 is legislation for <br />the new capital money for 2006, and these are being taken immediately to bonds because <br />it is more efficient and makes more financial sense to go right to bonds. <br />5) She expects the budget to be done by February 15`h as required. <br />Councilman Miller, chairperson of the Environmental Control Committee: 1) Committee <br />met on January 24. Agenda items were as follows: <br />• Ordinance 2006-2, a resolution authorizing the Director of Public Service to <br />advertise for bids for a one year contract (with an additional automatic one year <br />extension) for laboratory analytical services for the WWTP. It was explained this <br />is a returning/revolving contract. The testing is required by the EPA. The <br />chemicals involved in the testing process, the training for the people conducting <br />® the test and the equipment involved precludes the city from being able to afford <br />to do this testing. A duly authorized and trained certified lab is required to <br />4 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.