My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Study Session Summary 2017 04 25
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
STUDY SESSIONS (45.010)
>
2010-2019 City Council Study Sessions
>
2017 City Council Study Sessions
>
City Council Study Session Summary 2017 04 25
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/1/2025 2:15:47 PM
Creation date
7/25/2017 8:00:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITYWIDE
Original Hardcopy Storage
Paper copy disposed of on November 26 2025
Supplemental fields
Test
SSSUM 2017 04 25
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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 />Study Session Summary <br />April 25, 2017 <br />Page3of6 <br />spent to authorize up to 20% of the proceeds to be used for operating and <br />maintaining the Louisville Museum Campus. Additionally, the draft language <br />included expanding to citywide the area within which historic preservation funds <br />may be spent. <br />Deputy City Manager Basler asked for feedback. Councilors requested a map of <br />the current old town overlay, a report on what money has been raised to date <br />and projects that have been funded along with their addresses. <br />Council member Maloney suggested there are actually 3 items, renew funding, <br />potentially using money for the museum and expanding the boundaries. He said <br />we should look at renewing. He discussed that the draft language included <br />continuing the tax now as well as funds for operating the museum — he would like <br />to separate those items on the ballot. <br />Council member Loo said the "up to 20%" is concerning to her. What exactly is <br />the number? She suggested a set percentage. Balser said the intent was the <br />Museum may not need the full 20%. It is for operations and maintenance. The <br />Historic Preservation Commission and Historical Commission wanted Council <br />flexibility to approve only what is needed. <br />Council member Stolzmann said to set a policy on the "up to" and whether to <br />supplant the existing funding. Transportation funding bill is dead — would like to <br />see what our total sales tax would be. <br />Mayor Pro Tem Lipton said he struggles with this. He has worked on task forces: <br />it takes a lot of explaining. People will want answers to questions. The City may <br />have the cart before the horse. Perhaps build the facility first then ask for <br />additional operating and maintenance. There needs to be a business plan. <br />Balser said the Museum conducted a Master Plan, Needs Assessment, and <br />Business Plan recently adopted by City Council. Background on the Master Plan <br />will be included the next discussion. Lipton stated optics will need to be very <br />clear. <br />Council member Leh cautioned that the measures may cannibalize each other. <br />People have some measure of weariness having 3 tax initiatives on one ballot. <br />Council member Loo said some people believe the Museum is being funded <br />currently out of historic preservation funds. She does not know if there is enough <br />political will to support the museum. <br />Mayor Pro Tem Lipton said we may be overreaching. He suggested possibly <br />expanding the boundaries but do not make it city-wide. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.