My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2019 05 21
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2019 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2019 05 21
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/19/2022 3:14:58 PM
Creation date
6/12/2019 8:45:37 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Original Hardcopy Storage
9C1
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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 />Meeting Minutes <br />May 21 2019 <br />Page 6 of 14 <br />opportunity to buy a property, landmark it, and then be able to sell it. We should have a <br />ranked list for what we want to buy similar to how we rank open space properties. <br />Mayor Muckle agreed with Councilmember Stolzmann We are ready for the program to <br />be bold and aggressive, the worst outcome is to landmark more structures. <br />Councilmember Maloney stated we do want to be more aggressive. We have a finite <br />number of historic structure and we want to preserve as many as possible He supports <br />the changes for higher levels of grants to get people interested He feels the loan rate is <br />fine as proposed He will support it as written Mayor Muckle agreed <br />Councilmember Loo stated this is just a slush fund A $10K incentive is much too high if <br />there is no requirement to use it on the structure She cannot support it with that in the <br />resolution Councilmember Loo agreed below prime for the loan is good, but 3% is too <br />much We should target properties we want to save to make sure we have enough <br />funding to cover those This is way too generous a program for using tax -payer money <br />Councilmember Leh stated he shares the concern about how aggressive this is however <br />the taxpayers of town have said they want this. The HPC put a great deal of effort into this <br />with a lot of thoughtful work. He wonders if there is a reason to be less aggressive to keep <br />more money in the fund He is not as concerned about the 10K incentive and it doesn't <br />need to be tied to work. It is not likely to lead to a rush on the fund Inclined to support it <br />as written <br />Mayor Muckle moved to approve Resolution No 17, Series 2019, Councilmember <br />Stolzmann seconded <br />Discussion of motion <br />Mayor Pro Tem Lipton felt it is important to stimulate reinvestment in this area to keep the <br />homes and buildings from being functionally obsolete, but this is too aggressive. He is <br />fine with HSA and with the landmark incentive, but would prefer using smaller increases <br />to start with so as not to give too much Just give enough to stimulate more interest if that <br />doesn't work we can increase again in a few years. It is a hard sell to those who live in <br />newer homes and don't have access to these funds He stated he can't approve it as <br />written, but is interested in some changes. <br />Councilmember Stolzmann asked Mayor Pro Tem Lipton what levels he would support. <br />Mayor Pro Tem Lipton stated he would need to go line by line to look at each grant. <br />Mayor Muckle stated he would like to have the problem that we are spending more <br />money or we are using it too fast. He would like to have the problem of more people <br />landmarking He prefers aggressive now than the other way around <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.