My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1985 09 03
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1985 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1985 09 03
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:25 PM
Creation date
7/18/2008 12:48:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
9/3/1985
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E2
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1985 09 03
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
would help the capital improvements program in the <br />immediate future -- improvements that the City <br />must provide. Also, Mr. Hornbostel feels that the <br />purchasing of open space is costing less than $5 <br />per resident. <br />Fauson stated that he would not be able to support <br />a property tax increase supporting residents' <br />claims that the City should be seeking alternative <br />sources of revenue. However, should this proposed <br />increase be earmarked for specific capital <br />improvement projects, he might consider the issue. <br />Leary addressed the open space issue by stating <br />that all but $10,000 (initiated this year) of the <br />expenditures for open space was committed by the <br />previous Council. specifically the Aquarius <br />Property. All open space represents 1$ of the <br />City's Capital Improvements Budget and does not <br />accept the statement that it is Council's Number 1 <br />Priority. Leary further stated that before <br />Council tonight is not the issue of raising <br />property taxes, but to continue with the Public <br />Disclosure Procedure and set a Public Hearing <br />allowing time to gather additional data with <br />respect to the impacts of this proposed increase. <br />Leary suggested that alternatives in other sources <br />of revenue, i.e., use tax, earmarking the funds <br />for specific capital improvement(s), imposing the <br />tax for a specific number of years, etc., should <br />all be investigated prior to the next public <br />hearing. <br />Cussen stated that capital improvements are <br />necessary and residents demand them. Cussen <br />supports alternate revenue sources and welcomes <br />suggestions as to what these may be. Building <br />fees are already too high according to Cussen, and <br />being dependent on growth related fees is one <br />reason the City is having revenue problems as it <br />does not provide a consistent revenue source. <br />Mayor Meier reiterated that this is only a Public <br />Hearing to consider a resolution adopting the <br />Public DisclosurE: Procedure. "The reason the <br />City's mill levy is this low was due to the impact <br />of the City's assessed valuation when Storage <br />Technology Corporation (STC) opened its plant in <br />Louisville. Th assessed valuation was so high <br />because of the advent of STC that due to the 7$ <br />limitation required by the State the year <br />previously, Louisville had to drop its mill levy <br />to 7.28 mi 11 s. TYiat was never the intention of <br />the City of Louisville to drop its mill levy to <br />the level it is n.ow. Council 8 years ago began <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.