My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1992 09 15
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1992 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1992 09 15
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:35 PM
Creation date
8/3/2005 8:42:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
9/15/1992
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E3
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1992 09 15
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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
present the other evening. The rest of the people who were here <br />are working cooperatively with Council and have not violated any <br />agreement. John Franklin, Director of Community Development, has <br />taken steps to see that no one violates the agreement. <br /> <br />Franklin stated that they had passed along the word, because they <br />sensed that there were a lot of pre-sales that might come in that <br />the Council did not want to run on permits. They passed along the <br />word to the builders that by "run" they meant in excess of their <br />average monthly for the year. The only notable increase has been <br />with McStain and that's in Pine Street Park where they had about 40 <br />pre-sales. The other builders are below there average monthly. <br /> <br />Mayer: <br /> <br />A person at NCAR came to me and said <br />they had visited Storck Development, <br />not knowing I was on City Council, <br />and said they were telling them <br />about a $4,000.00 increase. We all <br />know that it's not going to be, <br />particularly for homes in that price <br />range, anywhere near $4,000.00. <br />Anyone who has done a modest amount <br />of checking would realize that. I <br />don't mind people alerting their <br />customers about potential increases. <br />If they're trying to piggy back <br />their own profit margins on top of <br />that and blame it on the Council, I <br />take strong exception to that. <br /> <br />Davidson had a question concerning the City Administrator's monthly <br />report. On the finance section of the grand totals it showed <br />revenues of 96.1% and expenditures of 47'.8%. He wondered if this <br />could be covered at the next Finance Committee meeting. <br /> <br />Brand: Yes. <br /> <br />Davidson stated that also on the City Administrator's report was <br />the wonderful news that Louisville is acquiring money much faster <br />than the City is spending it. He complimented the new Code <br />Enforcement Officer on a much more efficient operation, because <br />year-to-date the Code Enforcement Officer has done 404 verbal <br />warnings and last year there were just 67. He also noticed on the <br />Police report that year-to-date the number of vandalisms reported <br />is 131 vs. 92 for the prior year. He wondered if the Police <br />Department intends to take any special actions on that particular <br />item. All other statistics are down. <br /> <br />Brand: <br /> <br />Rod has mentioned several times that <br />whenever the building activity is <br />up, the vandalism is up. They go <br />hand in hand. <br /> <br />23 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.