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
5/6/2019 11:56:38 AM
Creation date
7/25/2017 8:00:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITYWIDE
Original Hardcopy Storage
7B4
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.