My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1995 09 19
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1995 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1995 09 19
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:36:40 PM
Creation date
4/20/2004 9:42:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
9/19/1995
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E4
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1995 09 19
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
Davidson called for Council questions. <br /> <br />Keany asked where the 1988 valuation came from. <br /> <br />Tom Talboom, Chief Building Official, had not had time to look into that. <br /> <br />Davidson stated that in comparing the figures, the fees are higher in Louisville than they are in the <br />other two cities because of the capital improvements fee and the major thoroughfare fee. <br /> <br />Sisk, in referring to Section 2, page 2, the last sentence, wanted to use the word "calculation" rather <br />than the word "determination". He suggested including in the ordinance, using a formula in terms <br />of a percentage of that, based upon good value, such as 85% or 90% of the good value. <br /> <br />Susan Griffiths, City Attorney, stated that the way this is ordinance is written, it would allow Council <br />to make that choice by resolution. <br /> <br />Talboom pointed out that at this time the Building Standards table refers to a multiplier of 81% for <br />Colorado and Council could amend that. <br /> <br />Mayer stated that, ifa 90% deflator were used, the valuation for good construction would be $70.11. <br />He pointed out that Louisville's fees are high, but property taxes are significantly lower than other <br />communities and the level of amenities that Louisville offers is the envy of most other cities in the <br />area. He stated that 3/8% will go to open space and 3% will go help defray the cost of school <br />facilities for Louisville. He preferred Ordinance "C" and, if Council specified, to specify that the value <br />used will be for good construction and by resolution set the deflator at 90%. <br /> <br />Lathrop stated that Louisville's total building permits, less water and sewer tap fees, is approximately <br />$5,000 higher than any other community in the area and by adopting Ordinance "C" they would be <br />$7,000 higher. He pointed out that the City had been seeing diminishing returns with building permits <br />to date this year at 84 compared to 200+ last year and 400+ the year before. <br /> <br />Keany and Howard preferred Ordinance "C". <br /> <br />Davidson stated that building fees play a part in home prices, they are not the only factor. The low <br />number of houses being built this year are a result of a conscious effort by Council to limit <br />annexations. <br /> <br />Lathrop asked if it was fair and necessary to again raise Louisville's permit fees approximately <br />$2,000/house. <br /> <br />Sisk moved that Council approve Ordinance "C". <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.