Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br /> 4 <br /> Mtitibtee" » pass b <br /> ORDINANCE 0550 <br /> CONTINUED be ordered published and the public bearing <br /> be set for May 17, 1977, Seconded by Coun- <br /> cilmen Domenico. Notion carried. <br /> MINA= 4639 Attorney Joss stated that due to sore ooa <br /> MASSAtE PARLORS fusion that came up with the public hearing <br /> on Ordinance 0532, it was read on second <br /> reading and the public hearing held at <br /> the last council misting instead of the <br /> April S, 1977, matins as scheduled. <br /> Mr. Joss stated that if Council so chows <br /> the ordinance can be read on second reading <br /> again and s public bearing bold for <br /> the records only. <br /> Councilman DiLorenno saved that Ordinance <br /> 0532 be adopted. Seconded by Councilman <br /> Domenico. <br /> Councilman McDonald moved that the motion <br /> be amended striking the word "Apprentice" <br /> sad any other fore of the word within <br /> the ordinance. Seconded by Councilman <br /> DiCarlo. Motion carried. <br /> Roll call on motion to adopt the ordinance <br /> as amended. Domenico yes, Carsnci yes, <br /> DiCarlo no, DelPizro no, DiLorenao yes, <br /> McDonald yes. Motion carried. <br /> Percy Conarroe stated that be did not <br /> approve with the procedure of the Council <br /> on the ordinance. <br /> It was explained that the ordinance was <br /> calling for a public hearing on April 19, <br /> 1977, and they were abiding by the notice <br /> for the bearing. <br /> Attorney Joss stated that be felt thwt <br /> the Council was acting in good faith and <br /> that be could not see any problem*. <br /> Councilman DiLorenzo moved that the <br /> City Attorney's report be accepted and <br /> placed on fie. Seconded by Councilman <br /> DetPizzo. Motion carried. <br /> CITY' ADMINISTRATORS <br /> REPORT <br /> WATER TANK Mr. Hurl stated that he was requesting <br /> the tabling of any action, but informed <br /> Council that the completion date of the <br /> tank was to be April 15, 1977, and in <br /> review of the contract it appears that the <br /> constructors have 11 days for bad weather <br /> and in addition to that the City is neg- <br /> otiating an extension on the time contract <br /> so that there will be ample time to <br />