Laserfiche WebLink
Louisville City Council Meeting <br />September 5, 2000 <br />Page 12. <br /> <br />Mayer asked that Staff direction on the pole issue be made a part of his motion. <br /> <br />COUNCIL DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION <br /> <br />Davidson stated that the Home Rule issue is.turning into a tax question. He noted that <br />Home Rule would give significant advantages to the City and should not be utilized for <br />one issue. <br /> <br />Brown stated that Home Rule is a process that the City needs to pursue regardless of the <br />PSCo application. He noted that the sales tax issue of last year, the Plumbing Code issue <br />of this year, and a number of other issues has brought Home Rule discussions to the <br />forefront. <br /> <br />Mayer stated that Home Rule was on his list of goals prior to the PSCo application. He <br />stated that Home Rule does not force a tax, but affords the citizens the ability to make a <br />decision. <br /> <br />Howard felt the citizens would be able to tell the difference between a Home Rule issue <br />and a tax issue. He stated that Home Rule issues are those generally accepted throughout <br />the City for the benefit of the entire City, and not on single issues such as burial of power <br />lines. <br /> <br />VOTE: Roll call vote was taken. The motion failed by a vote of 3-4. Davidson, Levihn, <br />Howard and Keany voted no. Brown, Sisk and Mayer voted yes. <br /> <br />Mayer suggested that Council direct th~ City Attorney to come back with findings at the <br />next regular meeting. City Attorney Light asked for a motion to reconsider Resolution <br />No. 42, Series 2000. <br /> <br />MOTION: Mayer moved that Council reconsider Resolution No. 42, Series, seconded <br />by Sisk. All in favor. <br /> <br />City Attorney Light requested a motion directing the City Attorney and Staff to prepare a <br />revised Resolution No. 42, Series 2000, disapproving the application, including findings <br />and conclusions for final City Council consideration and action on September 19, 2000. <br /> <br />MOTION: Keany moved that Council direct the City Attorney and Staff to prepare a <br />revised Resolution No. 42, Series 2000, disapproving the application, including findings <br />and conclusions for final City Council consideration and action on September 19, 2000, <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br /> <br />