Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'" . . <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Arden Hi lIs Council 4 May 26, 1992 . <br /> <br />Public Works Superintendent Winkel reported that different <br />methods have been used three or four times to unplug the <br />existing 6" - 8" pipe, but have been unsuccessful. <br /> <br />Councilmember Malone co~~ented that information and options <br />have become available since the October, 1991 public hearing, <br />therefore it would be appropriate to hold another public <br />hearing to help Council choose the least expensive, most <br />appropriate solution. <br /> <br />Councilmember Mahowald asked how many homes in the area <br />contribute to the existing drainage problem. Graham said <br />there are eight homes involved. <br /> <br />The question of cost for easement acquisition was raised. <br />Attorney Filla advised that the City may have easement rights <br />or may be able to negotiate for easement, and the cost of <br />doing so may range from quite small to very significant. He <br />added that if condemnation procedures were required, the cost <br />of such procedures would exceed the difference in cost between <br />Option 1 and Option 2. Counci lmember Hicks commented that <br />easement acquisition estimates are essential in comparing the <br />two options. <br /> <br />Dale Noyed, 3505 Ridgewood Road reported that he attended a . <br />meeting at Johanna Beach club regarding a solution to this <br />problem and there was no overwhelming support or opposition <br />for any particular method to solve the problem. <br /> <br />MOTION: Malone moved, seconded by Mahowald, to order a public <br />hearing on the issue of Arden Place drainage to be held <br />at 7:30 p.m., June 29, 1992; and direct the Engineer to <br />prepare comparisons of Options 1 and 2 for consideration. <br />Motion carried unanimously (5-0). <br /> <br />CHARlrABLE GAMBLING REGU~ATIONS <br /> <br />Temporary City Accountant, Terry Post, reported that the City <br />is tracking very well against budget in the area of charitab16 <br />gambling operations. However, in reviewing the method of <br />licensing, Post, noticed that most charitable gambling <br />organizations are not complying with ordinance as it defines <br />"gross profi ts" and this has created a dispari ty betYrJeen what <br />the city expects to be paid and what it is actually being paid <br />by licensees. <br /> <br />Fost and Attorney Filla advised that the ordinance is <br />consistent with State law and clearly defines the formula by <br />;..rhich charitable gambling licensees are to calculate their . <br />obligation to the City. That formula is "Total gambling <br />receipts, less prizes and awards, less allowable expenses, <br />multiplied by 10% payable quarterly to the City." <br />