My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 1973 08 21
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
1973-1989 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
1973 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 1973 08 21
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 1:30:33 PM
Creation date
12/28/2009 3:28:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Signed Date
8/21/1973
Supplemental fields
Test
CCAGPKT 1973 08 21
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
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
aloAkili/N -\11 <br /> - 41E11 11F41 $ 1711 <br /> %OM ' Srliti MAN ISMIWAI AVTNOSItY C h <br /> 1 o ios tie kA ti <br /> i <br /> 1OY 1 iv 1 t 11 cotoRAoo fRe <br /> . Ril7 <br /> • <br /> TCLRPNON(iiR4414 <br /> July ?s, 1973 <br /> SPECIAL WORK STUDY S£SSIO'Z <br /> PRESENT: Alan D. Lundberg, Chairman and Commissioners <br /> S. Rupp, L. Jacoe, S. Gans , J. Scholl, J. Lang, G. Stead, <br /> and D. Delforge. Robert N. Davis, Executive Director; <br /> Steven C. Ferris, Rehabilitation Director; and Mary Ellen <br /> Ogden, Secretary-Bockkeeper were staff n+.embers present. <br /> The objective stated by Dot.r!rt I. Davit was to stabilize <br /> "Old Louisville". He felt that with the new annexations, <br /> the City Administration and City Council would be very <br /> busy and would be forced to reduce time on the original <br /> part of Louisville. Fe stated that this agency should be <br /> the ones responsible for the rehabilitation and housing <br /> of Old Louisville. ! e desires this Agency to be maintained <br /> as it now functions and after two (2) years, then absorbed <br /> into the City. He also stated that Urban Renewal has <br /> started this job and 141 wishes to nee it finish the ;ob. <br /> • <br /> Jack Lang asked questions of will ttse agency phase out <br /> after a two (2) year period and how much will the expen- <br /> ditures be over the two (2) year period? Will the Urban <br /> Renewal Agency keep taking money out of the City Treasury? <br /> What will be the plans of this agency by acting independently? <br /> Mr. Davis respondpd to Mr. Lange quention by suyinr. "This <br /> agency as we see it tnday cculd become: a part of the City <br /> Government. However, ^uch action at thin time ie hard to <br /> do. Estimated $400,000-no-. We are only requiring funding <br /> at past levels. We will not act separately as we did not <br /> in the past and will not in the future. We currently go <br /> before City CouncTT7 fie Planning Commission and the Citizens • <br /> Advisory Committee, to obtain their approval. This local <br /> review will continue. <br /> Robert Davis then explained that the Community Act Money <br /> is money that this agency has earned as an Urban Renewal <br /> Authority and recommends that it be utilized to the goals <br /> and objectives of this agency. To account for the request <br /> of this agency of $200,000, an administrative budget of <br /> Se0,000 to $45,000 is not a large amount. We already have <br /> the staff that is trained to implement such a program. <br /> Therefore, no money cther than current levels would be taken <br /> from the City. This agency has and will continue to function <br /> in the guidelines set by City Council. <br /> • <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.