My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-14-2014 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2014
>
05-14-2014 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 8:43:25 AM
Creation date
5/12/2014 8:37:25 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
136
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).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />APRIL 9, 2014 <br />held the assessment hearing for this improvement, and the level of <br />assessments to benefitting property owners will not increase as Little <br />Canada assessed at its cap rate. <br />Keis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -4 -66 — AWARDING THE LOW BID OF <br />PALDA & SONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,082,463.64 FOR THE <br />ARKWRIGHT - SUNRISE - MCMENEMY STREET PROJECT AS <br />RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY ENGINEER <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by McGraw. <br />Ayes (5). <br />Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br />RE- Boss reported that she has had a couple of residents express interest in <br />ESTABLISH participating in a re- established Community Pride Committee. She <br />COMMUNITY suggested, however, that this may not be the right time to re- establish <br />PRIDE that Committee given the work that the Veterans Memorial Committee <br />COMMITTEE is currently undertaking. <br />The City Administrator reported that the City attempted to re- establish the <br />Committee in 2006 and received only one response. He suggested that if <br />the Committee is to be re- established that the Council determine the <br />purpose and expectations for the Committee prior to advertising for <br />members. <br />Montour suggested that this discussion be part of a future Council <br />workshop meeting so that some time can be taken to explore the topic. <br />Council agreed. <br />TOBACCO The City Clerk reviewed her memo dated April 3rd relative to the potential <br />LICENSING availability of one tobacco license at new renewal. She noted that the <br />City's Tobacco Ordinance currently has a maximum of ten tobacco <br />licenses and there are eight Tobacco General Sales & Display Licenses <br />issued and two Tobacco Store Licenses issued. The ordinance does not tie <br />the maximum license number to the specific classes of licenses. The <br />Clerk also reported that she gets frequent inquiries about the availability of <br />licenses for tobacco stores, both with and without sampling. The Clerk <br />indicated that she wanted to raise this issue in the event that the Council <br />wanted to explore options relative to tobacco licensing. The Clerk pointed <br />out that a resident submitted a letter in which he expresses concern that the <br />3 <br />12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.