My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1984 02 07
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1984 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1984 02 07
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:22 PM
Creation date
10/16/2008 2:29:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
2/7/1984
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E2
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1984 02 07
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
48
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
2/'7/84 Page -11- <br />the revenue loss per household is $317.10, <br />the most current figure from city staff, <br />then our City's replica - a loss of $184,000 <br />pe:r year in revenue. Over the next two <br />years Hunter's Ridge development will re- <br />ceive 249 building permits. They will <br />contribute $80,000 annually to our deficit. <br />In 1985 McStain will receive 238 building <br />permits, adding $75,000 to our deficit. <br />The Ponderosa's 42 building permits for <br />1985 will add an additional $14,000 deficit <br />annually. Iri a 3 year period a deficit of <br />Revenues Lost by Residential an annual amount of $353,000 is promised <br />Development to the taxpayers of Louisville. Even be- <br />fore Homart receives one of its 1,333 build- <br />ing permits. Over a 15 year period they <br />alone will contribute a total of $457,000 <br />annually in revenue losses if the current <br />plan is not z-epealed. How will this mag- <br />nitude of growth impact the duality of <br />services in Louisville? The quality of life <br />is an issue she couldn't even begin to dis- <br />cuss here. How can more people and less <br />revenue provide and maintain the services <br />we currently have in Louisville? Why is <br />City Council considering and negotiating <br />a ;plan that will further burden current <br />Louisville rE~sidents? Council should be <br />finding a practical tax base for our City. <br />It maybe argued that Homart now owns the <br />land, that wE, are stuck with it, and they <br />should be given the same consideration that <br />the City has given other residential developers. <br />Are they. to begin residential development <br />in Louisville to support a regional shopping <br />center? Are the citizens now expected to <br />allow further_ residential development as <br />if there werE~ to be one? Who is now to <br />make up the loss that was originally promised <br />us? Louisvi le taxpayers? You might then <br />say that/~'v~a~ave lost in residential growth <br />can be made up in our commercial development. <br />She thought this may be true if in fact <br />Homart does begin with commercial development. <br />Mrs. Singer then read some Louisville campaign <br />rhetorics that were circulated locally during <br />the November election. <br />"We must promote the development of our <br />commercial base, with an emphasis on our <br />downtown area". Efforts to expand our <br />commercial t<~x base are vital, but must <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.