My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1992 06 02
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1992 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1992 06 02
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:34 PM
Creation date
8/1/2005 10:58:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
6/2/1992
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E3
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1992 06 02
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
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
3. Seconded by Davidson. Roll call was taken. Motion passed by <br />a 3-2 vote with Howard and Mayer voting against and Hornbostel and <br />Lathrop being absent. <br /> <br />Davidson called for any further discussion on the original motion. <br /> <br />Mayer: <br /> <br />I will support the Council's <br />decision on removing Question No. 3. <br /> <br />Roll call was taken. Motion passed by a 5-0 vote with Hornbostel <br />and Lathrop being absent. <br /> <br />Davidson stated that Council had passed Resolution No. 37 as <br />amended. <br /> <br />Howard moved that the Council eliminate indebtedness other than <br />those things that are specifically allowed in State Statute. <br />Mayer asked to amend it to direct staff to direct the City Attorney <br />to come with an Ordinance. <br /> <br />Howard accepted. Seconded by Hedding. Ail in favor. <br /> <br />Sisk: <br /> <br />In view of the fact that it wasn't <br />on the Agenda, how does Council <br />ensure the fact that Council is <br />acting properly on this. <br /> <br />Davidson: <br /> <br />Since it was related to the issue we <br />were discussing, I went ahead and <br />allowed it. <br /> <br />RESETTING THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR RESOLUTION NO. 38, ORDINANCE NO. <br />1073, AND ORDINANCE NO. 1074 <br /> <br />Susan Griffiths, City Attorney, stated that, as she understood it, <br />the first date the Council could rehear these matter is July 8 <br />(July 7, being the Election). <br /> <br />Howard: <br /> <br />How did this happen? <br /> <br />John Franklin, Director of Community Development, stated that it <br />had been ordered published four times and he was still trying to <br />get the messages between the newspaper and Linda Salas worked out. <br />The notice that we have shows it's to be published four dates and <br />it wasn't published the four dates. In terms of new procedures, <br />this is the first time this has occurred. The paper claims that <br />because it wasn't consecutive weeks that they didn't track it. Now <br />that there has been a problem, they will keep a closer eye on it. <br /> <br />Howard: <br /> <br />I just want the development <br />community and the citizens of <br />Louisville to know that this is not <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.