My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2000 09 19
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2000 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2000 09 19
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:36:46 PM
Creation date
2/2/2004 11:56:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
9/19/2000
Original Hardcopy Storage
7B6
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 2000 09 19
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Louisville City Council Meeting <br />September 19, 2000 <br />Page 28. <br /> <br />VOTE ON THE MOTION: Roll call vote was taken. Motion passed by a vote of 4-3. <br />Mayer, Davidson and Levihn voted no. <br /> <br />CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT <br /> <br />None. <br /> <br />CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT <br /> <br />City Administrator Simmons reminded Council of the closing on the property located at <br />520 South Boulder Road. He noted that the seller's agent has requested an additional two <br />weeks for the current resident to vacate the premises. Simmons reported that on <br />September 1,2000, Moody's Investment Services upgraded the City's rating from Al- <br />A3. He reported that the budget will not be ready for the September 26, 2000 work <br />session, and suggested that at the work session, Council discuss the Resource Advisory <br />Board's proposal on solid waste assessment, and the proposed amendments to the <br />Louisville Municipal Code. <br /> <br />COUNCIL COMMENTS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS <br /> <br />Davidson commented that he had met with major developers in the area with respect to <br />the Community Investment Fee. He stated that they have said they do not understand the <br />justification for the fee. He noted that he watched video tape from the meeting, and did <br />not feel that Council understood the justification of the fee. He suggested that the <br />Community Investment Fee and justification be discussed at the next work session. <br /> <br />Levihn stated that he had met with parents who live on St. Andrews Lane and are <br />concerned about the safety of access in and out of Monarch High School. He also voiced <br />his concern over the potentially dangerous situation. He suggested consulting with the <br />school district to look into another means of access or outlet. <br /> <br />Keany asked for clarification on the Parking Permit Fees for existing PUD's. He asked if <br />the 2-year period must commence at the time building permits are applied for, or 2-years <br />before the permits are issued or returned by the applicant. He asked that Council clarify <br />that issue for Staff and City Attorney. Keany suggested that a permit would have to be <br />obtained within two years, and not simply applied for. Council concurred. <br /> <br />28 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.