My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 2019 04 02
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
2010-2019 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
2019 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 2019 04 02
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:12:30 PM
Creation date
4/19/2019 11:29:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Original Hardcopy Storage
9A1
Supplemental fields
Test
CCAGPKT 2019 04 02
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
271
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
rebate is only a ten-year deal and the building will outlive the deal. He stated that <br />precedent does not apply to a governmental body; decisions on future projects would be <br />on a case -by -case basis. He stated people say sales tax revenue is solid, but many of the <br />retail shops in downtown are struggling. Costs are up across the board as is internet <br />competition. Having this project will help increase the likelihood retail can afford the rents. <br />The DBA supports the agreement. <br />John Leary, 1116 Lafarge, stated this project will forever change the historic character of <br />downtown. The voters of Louisville have taxed themselves for preservation. The growth <br />rate in downtown has far outpaced the rest of town. The City should let nature run its <br />course. This is a subsidy based on the premise that downtown is blighted. However, any <br />place can be found to be blighted based on the criteria. Allowing this without modifying <br />parking codes along with the subsidy will encourage large projects with parking deficits. <br />This will lead to a request for a large parking garage. <br />Chief John Willson, Louisville Fire District, stated the LFPD is in support of redevelopment <br />in Louisville as it keeps us thriving. He noted the District is funded by property tax and he <br />would like to discuss with Council and LRC the impact on emergency services demand <br />this redevelopment will have on the District while collecting less revenue. <br />Caleb Dickinson, 721 Grant Avenue, stated the City has asked for changes to the building <br />against market interests. The market would say build the third story and they aren't doing <br />it at the request of us, the government. He stated Council should use this tool to say <br />thank you for doing this type of redevelopment; offer this rebate so it is still profitable. As <br />Vice President of DBA, he stated one of the biggest issues for restaurants is not having <br />viable daytime traffic and a daytime population. Retailers are dependent on restaurants to <br />bring people here. This project would be huge for them; as would Boulder Creek leaving <br />downtown. It is important for retailers and restaurants to have this project. <br />Councilmember Stolzmann stated she would prefer a policy discussion with the LRC first <br />to talk about how to address blight in the urban renewal area. The policy question is about <br />providing direct assistance for private gain. We shouldn't make decisions based on what <br />other cities are doing; we need to represent our community. An urban renewal authority <br />that is appointed and has no constituency to answer to sometimes does not listen to the <br />public input. She felt the LRC should have a constituency to answer to. <br />She feels saying it is their money we are giving back to them is not a real argument. We <br />wouldn't give tax money back to homeowners. If the money is for blight, there were only <br />two blight factors on this property, one being power lines and danger to life or property <br />from fire or other causes. The fire department is doing a good job without revenue growth <br />and will be asking the taxpayers for more money as they are not getting the money they <br />should from the areas in the urban renewal area. Life safety issues impact other rate <br />payers and is not a fair way to do this and not how we should be funding things. We don't <br />have real blight in our downtown; it is a vibrant downtown. We should use the money for <br />public infrastructure. Downtown is vibrant because of organic growth over time with a <br />20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.