My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/06/2009 Meeting Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Minutes
>
2009
>
01/06/2009 Meeting Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/16/2014 8:51:00 AM
Creation date
1/7/2014 3:31:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
North Olmsted Legislation
Legislation Date
1/6/2009
Year
2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
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 1/6/2009 <br />legislation. He asked the Law Director what action could be taken. Law Director <br />Dubelko answered that City Council can always consider motions to any legislation on <br />the floor. It's within the discretion of the members of Council. President Kennedy <br />expressed the opinion that would not be an issue for such an important item that just fell <br />into Council's laps this evening. Dennis Lambert, 25057 Carey Lane, said he had <br />previously commented he was not endorsing or going against the tax increase. He asked <br />that it be given due consideration and determined by the people as to what the end result <br />would be and what choices they want to make for their community. He would hate to see <br />something just thrown out without some alternate explored. Apparently, Mr. Gareau <br />indicates that it's going to be explored further. That's the issue for him; it's not <br />endorsing it or going against it. But it's determining where our priorities lie at this time, <br />under this circumstance. Councilman Gareau said he agreed with Mr. Lambert. It will be <br />given its due consideration. This is not something that Council turns a blind eye to and <br />then walks away and throws it in somebody else's lap. They expect to work with the <br />administration and go through and find alternative solutions. Mayor O'Grady said he <br />welcomed the offer to work with the administration. If it is the preference of Council that <br />this be introduced separately and place the amended version on first reading as a new <br />piece, he is agreeable to that. It must be passed at the next meeting, so asked that the <br />issue be taken into committee. I would ask further that Council speak with the Service <br />Director, Safety Director, Police Chief and Fire Chief and understand the impact. <br />Because after January we cannot go back and look for this revenue. It won't be there. <br />With any bump along the road, we will be seeing further layoffs in Police and Fire and <br />Service. This is the last thing we can afford at this point. Councilman Gareau moved for <br />adoption, and the motion was seconded by Councilman Barker. Roll call: Gareau, no; <br />Barker, no, with comment. "This Council has been waiting for a plan from the Mayor <br />since mid-summer regarding the deficit that has been disclosed to us since the first of the <br />year. Figures mentioned most of the year has been between 1.1 to 1.5 million dollars. The <br />Mayor since mid-year has been telling us that the plan will be presented as well as the <br />balanced budget, which by the way has to be balanced by law. Well about six weeks <br />before the end of the year, we finally got the plan. Now the deficit is 2 million dollars, so <br />layoffs and a tax increase 5 simple words that took six months to develop. I mentioned <br />possible layoffs in my comments in October when we refused to give raises to secretaries <br />per the Mayor's request; the Mayor disputed that saying $16,000.00 would not cause <br />layoffs. Well, it looks as if more than a raise Council didn't give has caused layoffs and <br />we are talking major layoffs. I think we showed leadership in that vote. I submitted <br />legislation with four co-sponsors some weeks ago to reduce some elected officials pay in <br />the next term by 10% and freeze others. Again, I was scolded for being out of line and it <br />wouldn't save the City. In fact we were reminded on the day that layoff announcements <br />were made that the Mayor is worth more not less. Well, now all elected officials who are <br />up for election next year will receive 5% less pay and no raises for 4 years to try to help <br />in these difficult times. I feel we showed leadership with this legislation also. It is <br />always easy to raise taxes and lay off people when crunch time is here. Well, I don't <br />agree I think everyone should stop playing games and get down to business. To the <br />Mayor, you said that you take full responsibility for this. I am sure you do up until now. <br />Because, however this vote goes you will point your finger at Council and say it is our <br />fault because we voted for it or against it. Shame on you. To the bargaining units, you <br />23 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.