REGULAR MEETING
April 9, 1979
The Regular Meeting of Council was held on April 9, 1979 at 7:00 p.m. with Vice-Mayor Muir presiding. Members present were Messrs. McDonough, Weyandt, Carey, Witt, Carson and Bewick. Mr. Hardcastle was absent.
The invocation was given by the Reverend J.H. Williams, Council Chaplain.
ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS
Mr. Mogan requested to add the following agenda item:
a. City Manager’s absence from office for a period of time in the month of May
b. Appropriation to the General Fund
c. Information on general revenue sharing funds
MINUTES
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 26, 1979 were unanimously approved by motion of Mr. Witt, seconded by Mr. Carey and bore the written approval of Vice-Mayor Muir.
RESOLUTION - SPRING CLEAN UP
By motion of Mr. Wit, seconded by Mr. Carey, Council by a unanimous roll call vote, Mr. Hardcastle absent, adopted the following resolution.
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council desire to place special emphasis on a clean and beautiful City, and
WHEREAS, traditionally in May there is a period set aside to honor the past and heritage of the City, and
WHEREAS, the annual Old Dover Days will be celebrated May 4th and 5th, 1979.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOVER, IN COUNCIL MET:
1. The period of April 21st - 30th, 1979 be designated Spring Clean Up Week for the City.
2. All citizens are encouraged to clean up and beautify their premises and to place any trash or debris that they may have at the curb for pickup during said Special Clean Up Week.
3. During said Spring Clean Up Week, City of Dover crews will pick up any debris or trash removed by citizens and placed at curbside on a non-scheduled basis and as needed in the area.
4. The City Clerk of the City of Dover is hereby directed to make this resolution a part of the permanent records of the City of Dover.
ADOPTED APRIL 9, 1979
Mr. Carson referred to complaints concerning litter of cans and bottles on certain lots fronting Kirkwood Street and expressed an opinion that the City should strengthen their ability to enforce ordinances that would prevent occurrences of this nature.
Mr. Weyandt mentioned that the City Solicitor is in the process of drawing up an anti-litter ordinance that will deter littering in the City by means of fines to those responsible.
CONFIRMATION - POLICE PENSION MEMBER
A letter from Chief Klenoski advised Council that a Pension Board Election was held by the City of Dover Police Department and Lieutenant William H. Knotts was elected to fill a vacancy. He requested that Council confirm Lt. Knotts’ position on the Board.
Mr. Witt moved for confirmation of Lt. William Knotts, seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried.
REPORT - CIVILIAN PENSION BOARD ELECTION
City Clerk Willis reported a special election of the Civilian Pension Board to fill the unexpired term of Charles F. Carey who has retired. As a result of the election, mr. Stacy Starr will fill that position until June 30, 1979.
Mr. Witt moved for approval of the election report as submitted, seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried.
Mr. Witt emphasized the importance of Council’s serious thoughts towards properly funding the Pension Plan of the City. He suggested that the City Manager formulate a workshop meeting of Council members for informational purposes and to discuss methods of propre funding.
UTILITY COMMITTEE REPORT
The Utility Committee met on April 2, 1979 at 7:30 p.m. with Chairman Bewick presiding.
Electric Fuel Adjustment Charge
Mr. Mogan advised the committee that the present method of charging a fuel adjustment rate seriously effects the cash flow and suggested that these charges be revised on a two month basis.
It was the recommendation of the committee to authorize the City Manage to establish a policy charging a fuel adjustment rate.
Mr. Witt moved for the recommendation of the committee, seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously approved.
Delaware Municipal Electric Corporation
In discussions on the feasibility of the City of Dover joining the Delaware Municipal Electric Corporation, Mr. Mogan advised the committee not to become an active member due to its position as a generator and a pool member through Delmarva Power and Light. However, he did recommend signing a letter of intent to show the City’s interest in a portion of a unit when it becomes available.
The committee recommended that the City sign a letter of intent but advised against becoming a member of the corporation.
Mr. Witt moved for approval of the recommendation of the committee, seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried.
Power Generation Capacity Increase
The City Manager requested the support of the committee to initiate a study on the feasibility of increasing the City’s power generation capacity that would involve site evaluation, purchase of units and entitlements, consideration of incineration with generation and possible co-generation. If approved, his intention is to develop a scope with a dollar value attachment for a report to the committee at a future date.
The committee recommended that the City Manager be authorized to proceed with the necessary steps to develop a scope for a future recommendation to hire an engineer and consultant to study aspects of increasing the power generation capacity of the City.
Mr. Bewick moved for the recommendation of the committee, seconded by Mr. Witt and unanimously carried.
Electric Rate Evaluation
Referring to the fact that the City should improve revenues in the Electric Department to set up some type of reserve fund or stabilization fund to provide seed money for eventual expansion of the City’s generation capacity, Mr. Mogan requested authorization to engage Middle West to perform an electric rate evaluation study and a partial cost of service study.
The committee recommended approval of the aforementioned. Mr. Bewick moved to approve the recommendation of the committee, seconded by Mr. Witt and unanimously carried.
Sewer and Water Rates and Method of Collection
It was noted that the City Manager’s office intends to conduct a study on the sewer and water rates of the City.
Mr. Weyandt referred to a letter that is mailed by the City administrative offices requesting that landlords note that all water and sewer accounts will be opened in the name of the landlords only. The letter also states that in cases of rental property, arrangements can be made for mailing the bill of the rental property address if so desired by the landlord.
Mr. Weyandt suggested that the Utility Committee review the ordinances regulating the collection of sewer and water, especially where rental properties are involved. He requested special emphasis on a study to determine the feasibility of charging a deposit on this service such as the deposit to electric service customers.
Mr. Witt moved to approve the report of the Utility Committee, seconded by Mr. Weyandt and unanimously carried.
APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES - SPECIAL ELECTION - ROBBINS HOSE COMPANY - FIRE CAPTAIN
The City Clerk informed Council that it will be necessary to hold a special election for the Robbins Hose Company to fill a vacancy of Fire Captain, Phil Abernathy, who is moving out of the area, to comply with the by-laws of Robbins Hose Company and the ordinances of the City of Dover. The election will be set for May 21, 1979 between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m.
Vice-Mayor Muir appointed Councilmen Witt and McDonough and City Clerk Willis to act as judges in the special election.
Council unanimously approved the special election date of May 21, 1979 and confirmed the appointment of judges as submitted by Vice-Mayor Muir.
ACCEPTANCE OF MADISON COURT, JEFFERSON COURT AND WASHINGTON DRIVE - PRESIDENTIAL COURTS
The City Manager informed the Council that deeds have been received for Madison Court, Jefferson Court and Washington Drive, the Presidential Courts, with the proper attachment of a maintenance bond. The City Engineering Department last inspected the streets for approval on April 6, 1979. It was recommended that the streets be accepted.
Mr. Bewick moved for the recommendation of the City Manager, seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - TAX APPEALS COMMITTEE REPORT
A public hearing was duly advertised for this time and place to consider the tax appeals for the year 1979. Vice-Mayor Muir declared the hearing open.
Appeal - Pauline K and Anna B. Melhunek - 102 Lotus Street
City Assessor Hayes reported an appeal by the above mentioned property owners, explaining that the property is owned in joint ownership by the mother who lives at the residence and the daughter who resides out of state. The appeal concerned a $5,000 senior citizen exemption which cannot be granted due to the stipulations of the code. It would be necessary that each property owner reside at the address to qualify for the exemption. In addition, the daughter who resides out of state is not of the proper age and the application was filed beyond the specified date.
There was no one present to speak for or against the appeal and no correspondence.
Vice-Mayor Muir declared the appeal for 120 Lotus Street closed.
It was the recommendation of the City Assessor and the Appeals Committee that the appeal be denied.
Mr. Witt moved for the recommendation of the Appeals Committee, seconded by Mr. Bewick and unanimously carried.
Appeal - First Baptist Church - Property Located on Walker Road
The First Baptist Church of Division and Bradford Streets, appealed taxation of property located on Walker Road. Mr. Hayes reported that the church appeal for exemption was received beyond the allowable date for taxes levied last year, which were paid.
It was the recommendation of the committee that the appeal for tax exemption be approved. There was no one present to speak for or against the appeal. Vice-Mayor Muir declared the hearing closed.
Mr. Weyandt moved for approval of the tax exemption as recommended by the committee, seconded by Mr. Witt and unanimously carried.
Appeal - Christian Life Center - 614 S. DuPont Highway
Mr. Hayes reported a tax exemption appeal from the Christian Life Center, a religious organization, located at 614 S. DuPont Highway. He added that the appeal was denied last year due to the church failure to submit same at the proper date.
It was the recommendation of the committee that the appeal for tax exemption be approved.
There was no one present to speak for or against the appeal. Vice-Mayor Muir declared the appeals hearing closed.
Mr. McDonough moved for approval of the recommendation of the committee, seconded by Mr. Bewick and unanimously carried.
Appeal - New Jerusalem Baptist Church - Lot #21 Slaughter Street - 236 N. Queen Street
Mr. Hayes informed Council that an appeal was received from the New Jerusalem Baptist Church located at 236 N. Queen Street, for a lot located at 21 Slaughter and a lot and house located at 236 N. Queen Street.
There was no one present to speak for or against the appeal.
The committee recommended that the appeal for tax exemption for the religious organization be approved.
Vice-Mayor Muir declared the appeals hearing closed.
Mr. Bewick moved for approval of the recommendation of the committee, seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried.
Mr. McDonough suggested that the Legislative and Finance Committee explore the problems that might arise where religious organizations are granted tax exemption for properties purchased off-site from the church that are not utilized for any particular religious purpose.
Appeal - Trustees of the African Methodist Episcopal Church - 107 N. Queen Street
Mr. Hayes informed Council that the African Methodist Episcopal Church, located at 107 N. Queen Street, purchased an adjacent property for parking purposes and requested tax exemption for the lot.
There was no one present to speak for or against the appeal.
The committee recommended that the appeal for tax exemption be approved.
Vice-Mayor Muir declared the appeal hearing closed.
Mr. Witt moved for approval of the recommendation of the committee, seconded by Mr. Bewick and unanimously carried.
APPEAL - ERNEST & IDA BERNICE CONNER - SOUTH FOX HALL ROAD - LOT WITH CHURCH
Mr. Hayes informed Council that Ernest and Ida Bernice Conner own a lot with a church on the north side of South Fox Hall Road (Walker Road). The church has not received corporation papers, therefore, is considered a privately owned organization. On this basis, the committee recommended that the appeal for tax exemption be denied.
There was no one present to speak for or against the appeal.
Vice-Mayor Muir declared the appeals hearing closed.
Mr. McDonough moved for the recommendation of the committee, seconded by Mr. Witt and unanimously carried.
APPEAL - DOVER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP COMPANY - 561 N. DUPONT HIGHWAY
Mr. Hayes reported that the original assessment figure of $1,289,900 that was used during the appeals hearing before the committee, has been found to be in error by his office. After corrective calculations, it was found that the assessment amount for Dover Limited Partnership Company, located at 561 N. DuPont Highway, is $1,026,700. He noted that the appeal for a lower assessment was denied by the committee.
Mr. Bewick moved that the corrected figure of $1,026,700 be accepted and the appeal for a lower assessment be denied as recommended by the committee. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carey.
Mr. Brandon Jones, attorney representing Dover Limited Partnership Company, was present to address Council concerning the appeal denial recommendation by the committee. Mr. Jones introduced a court reporter to record the actions and testimonies of the proceedings.
Mr. Jones stated the City of Dover’s assessed value of the property as being $1,711,200. He compared this with the county’s assessed value of $1,095,000 in relation to the actual purchase price by the owner of $900,000. As a matter of information, Mr. Jones stated that there are basic means of arriving at the value of a property, those being replacement cost, capitalization based on income and comparables or what other properties of similar nature have been sold for. It was his opinion that since the property was purchased for $900,000, the true value of the property should be based on that figure.
Mr. Jones submitted two documents, one being a copy of the agreement of sale and referred to paragraph 11 (a) which stipulated that his client, as the purchaser, has been authorized by the seller to represent both purchaser and seller on the tax appeal.
The second document submitted was a capitalization based on income arriving at a value of the property prepared by Harry Brown Associates of Atlantic City. The latter document indicated that the value based on last year’s income would be $1,117,500.
Mr. Witt asked Mr. Jones how many properties he would build him of similar construction for $900,000.
Qualifying himself as no expert, Mr. Jones stated that he probably would not build the same structure for that figure. However, it was his opinion that when the property was sold at a sheriff’s sale for $900,000, it was in a sense torn down and rebuilt for that figure.
Questioned by Mr. Weyandt and Mr. McDonough, Mr. Jones stated that the county’s appraisal was $1,095,000 and assessed value was $657,000, based on 1966 county figures versus city figures of 1972.
Mr. Witt asked if in Mr. Jones’ opinion he would consider the sale of the property as a distress sale.
Mr. Witt said that this statement was contradictory to the statements made in the Appeals Committee hearing.
Mr. Jones introduced Mr. Locke Emmert, of Livingston and Emmert Real Estate, who was sworn as a witness for Dover Limited Partnership Company. Mr. Emmert used a comparison for arriving at a sale price for a property by comparing a service station on Route #13 and the same structure by the railroad tracks, stating that without argument the property on U.S. Route #13 would be more valuable although identical in construction. It was his opinion that the income factor on the Dover Limited Partnership Company property should be the most important point in arriving at the property value. Replacement costs, income and market comparison is the only way to arrive at a market value of a commercial property. Utilizing replacement cost only, without consideration of the other factors only results in an erroneous figure.
Mr. Bewick asked Mr. Emmert if he did not feel that the City must be uniform in their method of assessing commercial property, alluding to the fact theat the City does use replacement cost as a basis. He further questioned how the City could incorporate comparables such as income and market comparison for this particular property without applying the same formula for all commercial properties in the City of Dover.
Mr. Emmert answered that the City should use all of the aforementioned factors in assessing commercial property and added that he did not feel that an assessment would stand up in court by utilizing only replacement cost.
Mr. Jones pointed out that the Treadway’s selling price was $600,000. Appraisal price was $550,000 and the assessed value was $330,000 with all of these figures being consistent. He added that the Dover Limited Partnership Company property’s selling price, appraisal and assessed value are not consistent.
Mr. Hayes objected, stating that assessments cannot be manipulated according to the fluctuation of the market.
Questioned by Mr. Jones, Mr. Emmert stated that his appraisal of the property, utilizing replacement cost, income and market comparison did compare favorably with the $900,000 purchase price.
Mr. Jones introduced Mr. Sam Schoffer, owner of the property located at 561 N. DuPont Highway, who was sworn to testimony by Mr. Martin, court reporter.
Mr. Schoffer stated that the property located at the aforementioned address was on the market for over a year. Four months ago, he made an offer to the previous owner and delivered a check for $900,000 which was not accepted. When no one else came forward with a better offer, Mr. Schoffer’s check was accepted on March 16, 1979.
At this point, Mr. Jones distributed an income report of Dover Limited Partnership Company which was utilized to arrive at the capital value of the property at purchase. He added that an area of compromise exists on both side but felt that an adjustment would be fair and just.
Mr. Weyandt asked if the county assessment would be appealed also. Mr. Jones stated that based on the figures that now exist, he did not feel that an appeal would be entered.
At this point, Vice-Mayor Muir declared a five minute recess in preparation for testimony by City Assessor Hayes.
Court reported Martin administered an oath to Mr. Hayes prior to statement and testimony.
As a matter of record, City Assessor Hayes read into the record the following calculations from his office: Appraisal for the motel, pool and yard - $1,615,940 Land - $95,300 Final rounded off appraisal - $1,711,200. Sixty percent of the total appraisal amounted to an assessment of $1,026,700.
Mr. Hayes stated that a building permit was issued on August 13, 1973 for $1,500,000. On November 17, 1975, a permit was issued to install a fence in the back of the property in the amount of $1,865.
Questioned by Mr. Witt, Mr. Hayes stated that his evaluation on the property owned by Dover Limited Partnership Company was consistent with all other evaluations of similar properties in the City of Dover.
The following is a line of questioning by City Solicitor Rodriguez directed to City Assessor Hayes:
Mr. Rodriguez: “Mr. Hayes, when was the last general appraisal of the City?”
Mr. Hayes: “It was in1972.”
Mr. Rodriguez: “How did you figure the value of the improvements that you testified to? Was that replacement value?”
Mr. Hayes: “That was replacement value, less a small amount of depreciation. Because of a 1% depreciation on the building, 5% on the swimming pool, 3% on yard improvements and 15% functional depreciation on swimming pool because it is a seasonal item.”
Mr. Rodriguez: “Did you use cost figures for a certain year?”
Mr. Hayes: “1972 cost figures”
Mr. Rodriguez: “Did you do that with all reassessments?”
Mr. Hayes: “Yes, I do”
Mr. Rodriguez: “Is that because of the general assessment of 1972?”
Mr. Hayes: “Yes that’s the assessment year. We have done that since 1956.”
Mr. Rodriguez: “Did you see any particular handbook or any manual in estimating replacement value?”
Mr. Hayes: “Cleminshaw did do the reappraisals and we used their handbook but we also used Marshall and Stevens Cost Book which is updated every month. We have an average cost throughout the country which is applied to the 1972 reappraisal figures.”
Mr. Rodriguez: “You gave an estimate for land value, Mr. Hayes. How did you figure that?”
Mr. Hayes: “Market based on comparables, based on 1972 market.”
Mr. Rodriguez: “In doing your appraisal of this property did you do it any differently than you would do for any commercial property in the City?”
Mr. Hayes: “No they are all done on the same basis.”
Mr. Rodriguez: “You are saying that this method has been applied uniformly throughout the City?”
Mr. Hayes: “I would say that, yes.”
Mr. Jones: “Mr. Hayes, when you say they have all been uniformly assessed, do you recall the appraised value on the Treadway?”
Mr. Hayes: “I think Mr. Emmert quoted it as $550,000.”
Mr. Jones: “Mr. Emmert said that the actual sale price of $600,000 was an arms length transaction, based on true value in the amount of $600,000. Do you recognize that there’s a rather close relationship between what your replacement value was and the actual purchase price?”
Mr. Hayes: “I would say this to you, I had no way of knowing what the purchase price was until I came here tonight.”
Mr. Jones: “You will recognize, I presume, that there is a rather close relationship with your method and the actual arms length transaction of sale. Mr. Emmert further testified that based on the $600,000 figure, which is very close to your $550,000, the per square foot value for that particular commercial property was $9.50 per square foot. When we translate those figures, which were very close, ($600,000 and the $550,000) considering the $9.50 per square foot for the Treadway, proportionately these figures should come out the same when translated to the Ramada. You will recall that Mr. Emmert stated that these figures should come out to the $873,000 translated to the Ramada. Since you are using a proportionate figure, wouldn’t you agree that the appraised value, using your figure, should be at least remotely close to the figure arrived at by Mr. Emmert?”
Mr. Hayes: “Not necessarily.”
Mr. Jones: “Isn’t it mathematically impossible not to do that?”
Mr. Hayes: “I think there is a difference in the quality of the two buildings.”
Mr. Jones: “Then what you are saying is that the reason that it doesn’t proportionately move over is due to the quality of the Ramada?”
Mr. Hayes: “I am inclined to believe that, although I have not inspected the Treadway that closely.”
Mr. Jones: “Does replacement cost reflect the quality of a building?”
Mr. Hayes: “There is depreciation on the Treadway that is much greater that the Ramada, remember that.”
Mr. Jones: “My last point is as Mr. Bewick asked. If each building had been treated basically the same but for the quality, they are not being treated exactly the same unless you throw in the quality factor.”
Mr. Hayes: “I think they are being treated fairly.”
Mr. Jones: “But not necessarily the same?”
Mr. Hayes: “Not necessarily the same, no I couldn’t say that.”
Mr. Rodriguez: “Mr. Hayes, do you have a quality factor that you apply in replacement value?”
Mr. Hayes: “Yes in some cases, but not too awfully much in motels. Some buildings are framed, some concrete block and some are brick veneer.”
Mr. Rodriguez: “Do you base that on your opinion on the type of construction or condition of construction?”
Mr. Hayes: “No, not necessarily the type of construction as you can see it. It is according to the way the books are set up.”
Mr. Rodriguez: “Did you research the title to the property? Mr. Jones stated earlier that the record title holder is Dover Limited Partnership, is that correct?”
Mr. Hayes: “That is the record owner, but that is not the owner as stated in the agreement of sale.”
Mr. Rodriguez: “Were you aware of the foreclosure proceedings that had been initiated?”
Mr. Hayes: “I became aware of this last week.”
Mr. Rodriguez: “Has the foreclosure sale been confirmed as far as you know, Mr. Hayes?”
Mr. Hayes: “As far as I know it has not.”
Mr. Muir declared the hearing proceedings closed.
In closing, Mr. Jones stated the following: We are not asking the City to throw out their appraisal system. We recognize that you have as system and you have to apply it. What we are suggesting, is what Mr. Emmert said, and that was, on any given occasion you have three different systems. On any given occasion, one of them will fall significantly out of line with what is fair and equitable. When you make comparisons as I tried to make through asking Mr. Hayes, concerning the Treadway, I think this is one of these times when the system the City is presently using has fallen out of line. We are not asking you to throw your figure or method of appraisal out the window. Al was are asking is at this particular time and case, your application figure has given an unfair result and that it be adjusted.
Mr. Witt moved that the appraised value for taxation of $1,026,700 as recommended by the City Assessor, be approved. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carey and unanimously carried.
APPEAL - ACORN LANE APARTMENTS, INC. (VILLAGE CONSTRUCTION)
Mr. Hayes explained that Acorn Lane Apartments has appealed three sections (one, ten and eleven) of a recorded plot for use as farmland. The committee recommended approval until such time as the plots are developed.
Mr. McDonough asked how the City would be aware of development. Mr. Hayes stated that the developer would have to fill out forms each year for exemption of taxes. Application for a building permit would signify an end to any exemption.
Mr. Weyandt referred to the recently adopted ordinance on farmland and asked if the land qualified as to acreage and income.
Mr. Hayes stated that his office would make every effort for assurance that the land meets the stipulations of the ordinance for exemption.
Vice-Mayor Muir declared the appeal hearing closed.
Mr. Witt moved for approval of the recommendation of the committee for exemption, seconded by Mr. Weyandt and unanimously carried.
TAX RATE - 1979-80
Mr. Witt moved to set the tax rate at 92¢ per hundred for the General Fund and 8¢ per hundred for the Library Fund. The motion failed for lack of a second.
Mr. Weyandt suggested tabling the tax matter regardless of what the Charter says until such time that an opportunity is afforded to review the budget.
Mr. Hayes stated that in accordance with the law, it is the duty of his office to have the tax bills in the hands of the public by May 1st. In consideration of the 5% discount provision, this cannot be accomplished if Council delays action until August 30th. Delaying the issuance of the tax bills will also delay the derived income since most taxes are paid within the first month.
Mr. Mogan reported that he has not finalized his study on the budget but is working diligently toward that end. He concurred with Mr. Hayes, that issuance of the tax bills is very important to the cash flow of the City. He recommended the addition of 2¢ to the tax rate which will only produce a maximum of $35,000. His approach to the proposed budget is based on a balanced budget for the coming fiscal year and with the cooperation of Council, new sources of revenue investigated.
Mr. Bewick moved that the tax rate be set the same as last year or 90¢ per one hundred for the General Fund and 8¢ per one hundred for the Library Fund. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carson and carried by a vote of four (4) yes, two (2) no (Mr. Weyandt and Mr. Witt) two (2) absent (Mr. Hardcastle and Mr. Muir - presiding as Vice-Mayor).
Mr. Weyandt suggested that the matter of changing the charter to allow for adopting the budget before the tax rate is set appear on the next council agenda.
MR. MOGAN’S ABSENCE FROM OFFICE DURING MAY
Mr. Mogan advised Council that he will be absent from his office during May 11, 14 and 15.
APPROPRIATION FROM GENERAL FUND - NEW COMPUTER
Mr. Mogan requested authorization to appropriate $11,213 from the General Fund to complete the purchase transaction of the new computer. He stated his reluctance to borrow such a small amount.
Mr. Weyandt moved for approval of the City Manager’s recommendation, seconded by Mr. Witt and unanimously carried.
GENERAL REVENUE FUND - 1979-80
Mr. Mogan advised Council that he has been notified that the revenue sharing received by the City for the entitlement period of October 1979 through September 1980 will be reduced by $3,876.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:03 P.M.
WILLIAM H. WILLIS
CITY CLERK
All orders, ordinances and resolutions adopted by City Council in their meeting of April 9, 1979, are hereby approved.
JAMES P. MUIR
VICE-MAYOR
April 16, 1979
db