My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 2015 10 06
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
2010-2019 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
2015 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 2015 10 06
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:08:09 PM
Creation date
10/12/2015 9:45:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Original Hardcopy Storage
7A5
Record Series Code
45.010
Supplemental fields
Test
CCAGPKT 2015 10 06
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
439
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
City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />September 21, 2015 <br />Page 11 of 17 <br />Council member Keany stressed streets are high priority for residents. He did not want <br />to see any black (failed) or red (serious) on the maps. <br />Mayor Muckle noted some decisions had been made for other things in years past. He <br />asked to be cognizant of a slow and steady approach. <br />Council member Stolzmann asked for some reconsideration of pushing out some of the <br />neighborhoods and stated some jargon reflects streets are okay, but this is in conflict <br />with how residents view it. She asked the life cycle of chip seal. <br />Public Works Director Kowar responded chip seal Iastsl0 years. Council member <br />Stolzmann asked if there could be a program for getting to each street every 10 years. <br />Public Works Director Kowar noted the system in place is not perfect but is best practice <br />in the industry; the department is willing to evolve. <br />PRELIMINARY 2015 ASSESSED VALUATION <br />Mayor Muckle stated the net assessed valuation has increased in Louisville and there <br />will be more revenue as a result, especially for the Urban Renewal Authority. There is <br />no known number because of the expectation of appeals on the assessments. He <br />suggested leaving this discussion for later. <br />Council member Stolzmann stated when Council adopts the budget, they set the tax <br />level. She felt an obligation to taxpayers to note the assessed value went up by 18 %, <br />but asked the question as to whether the cost of providing service went up a similar <br />amount. Should the tax level be the same, or should some be returned to taxpayers? <br />All the taxing districts have the opportunity to re -look at their mill levy. <br />Council member Keany recalled a conversation in Finance Committee noting part of the <br />increased valuation is new construction, which should come out of the calculation. <br />Then question then becomes how much of the increased valuation is existing property <br />and what has been the cost of living increase. <br />Council member Loo inquired if the mill levy was bumped down it would be okay with <br />residents. <br />Council member Stolzmann noted the City was only one piece of the puzzle. <br />Council member Loo noted the cost of the City doing business is going up and citizen <br />demand is increasing and was in favor of leaving the mill levy where it is. <br />Mayor Muckle echoed the cost of significant parts of doing business is going up. <br />Council member Keany said 14% was new construction. <br />48 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.