Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Mrs. Beal a~ed about confidentiality of State income tax reports, and Mr. Hendershott <br /> replied that that is covered by State statute, but it does not make City records con- <br /> fidential or restricted. Mr. Teague reported that attorneys he had spoken with objected <br /> to disclosure of income information and suggested basing the tax on an acceptable average. <br /> After further discussion, and explanation by Vince Farina, co-chairman of the Develop- '. <br /> ment Board of various methods explored in an effort to arrive at the most equitable <br /> method for paying for the program, it was generally agreed more information'was neces- <br /> sary. It was understood unanimous vote would not be given to second reading of the <br /> council bill in order to hold it for report from the City Attorney with regard to con- <br /> flict between City ordinance and State law on confidentiality of reports, th~ question <br /> of the number of Feeeral or State agencies which preempt City authority in this instance, <br /> and availability of income information from State Tax Commission by classification or <br /> type of business. <br /> , , <br /> Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the council bill be read the second <br /> time by 'council bill number only, with unanimous .consent of the Council,..~d <br /> that enactment be considered at this time. .,All councilmen present voting aye, <br /> except Mr. Williams voting no, the bill was held for second reading and report <br /> from City Attorney.. , , <br />B. Vacation of alley between Pearl and High Streets north from 11th Avenue (Benjamin I <br /> Franklin <br /> , Council Bill No. 51 - Vacating alley between Pearl and High from 11th Avenue north, <br /> submitted and read the first time on August 14,1972, held for second reading 'on . <br /> September 25, 1972,ndw brought back and read the second time by 'council bill number <br /> only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in fulL <br /> Mr. Mohr moved seconded by, Mrs ! Beal that the bill be approved and given <br /> final passage. Rollcall vote" Motion defeated, Mr., Mohr and Mrs. Campbell I <br /> voting aye; Councilmen Beal, Teague, Williams, and Hershner voting no. <br />C. Annexation of area between Goodpasture Island Road 'and tir Acres Drive east of <br /> Russet Drive (Pione~r Investment) <br /> Resolution No. 2112 - Transmittin~ to Boundary Commission request to annex area <br /> between Goo pasture Island Road and Fir Acres Drive east <br /> of Russet Drive was submitted. <br /> In answer to Mrs. Beal, Manager said the area is one of about 6.7 acres lying south <br /> of Goodpasture Island Road near the Delta Highway. Sewers can be provided for the <br /> area which is within the urban service boundary designated in the 1990 Plan and is <br /> completely, surrounded by the City. <br /> Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to adopt. the resolution. Motion carried <br /> unanimously. . <br />D. Bid Opening - Public Works I <br /> L Sewer, McD's Plat 0- Held from September 25,1972 (see tabulation of bids Septem- <br /> ber 25, 1972 counc~l minutes). Council looked at the properties involved and <br /> discussed on tour. <br /> Manager explained that Mrs. Burgoyne, who objected to being assessed for 'the cost <br /> of this sewer construction, owns four building sites fronting on 23rd'west of Grant <br /> including a corner lot already assessed for sewer on Grant. The most westerly of <br /> the fourt sites could not be'served by this construction and would not be included <br /> in the proposed assessment. One could be served but it also could be served by sewer <br /> over easements which m~ght be acquired from the northeast. If it is decided to ex- <br /> clude that lot; it would reduce Mrs. Burgoyne's assessment t~$1200, increasing the <br /> assessment on McD's Plat by $300. <br /> Public Works Director in answer to Councilman Williams said the design of the con- <br /> struction would be identical to that bid if the two westerly lots were excluded from <br /> the assessment. In answer to Mr. Hershner's question about the situation if the two <br /> lots were excluded and Mrs. Burgoyne later decided she wanted sewer connections for . <br /> those lots, Public Works Director said that under present policy' connection can be <br /> made at any time to an available sewer line, but assessment cannot be made unless <br /> there is an outstanding lien from that project. He said there is the risk of a con- <br /> nection's being made without payment. There are two possible directions, he continued, <br /> from which service to the two lots can be provided but both would be more expensive <br /> than the construction under consideration. <br /> ~ 9/f 10/9/72 - 2 <br /> - .-. <br />