My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2000 04 18
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2000 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2000 04 18
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:36:46 PM
Creation date
1/30/2004 11:22:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
4/18/2000
Original Hardcopy Storage
7B6
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 2000 04 18
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
Louisville City Council Meeting <br />April 18, 2000 <br />Page 9. <br /> <br />stated that he did not believe that the Statute extends to a lease where only a portion of <br />property may be for school purposes. <br /> <br />Light stated that House Bill 1124 is pending at the State Legislature on this issue. The <br />bill is intended to clarify this matter in some respects by apparently providing charter <br />schools the same power as boards of education. <br /> <br />Brown asked Light about the use issue with respect to other schools such as Monarch and <br />its development process. <br /> <br />Light stated that the use questions with regard to Monarch School were dealt with in the <br />annexation and development agreements. The school was approved within the PCZD <br />zoning district and the General Development Plan. Light noted that smaller tracts within <br />the southwest corner of the site were identified for platting and development of private <br />medical office facilities. Light stated that a school use not by right in the zone requires a <br />Special Review Use Permit. <br /> <br />Mayer asked for Light's interpretation of the intent of House Bill 1124. <br /> <br />Light states that his understanding is that House Bill 1124 addresses Section 124, with <br />regard to the siting, construction and inspection of public schools and will apply directly <br />to charter schools. He noted that there is an amendment in the Bill that the siting, <br />construction and inspection of charter schools shall be conducted as provided in Section <br />124 and as provided in the charter. Light stated that the amendment is not entirely clear, <br />and that CML believes that the bill will probably be adopted. <br /> <br />Mayer stated it was his understanding that the section specifically referring to siting was <br />amended. <br /> <br />Light stated that according to the latest version of House Bill 1124 he reviewed, the <br />phrase still reads "decisions regarding the planning, siting and inspection of charter <br />school facilities shall be in accordance with Section 22-32-124 and as specified by <br />contract with the district." <br /> <br />Sisk asked that Mayor Davidson request the City Attorney keep a separate billing on <br />hours spent on the Charter School issue. <br /> <br />Howard asked for clarification or a ruling on he whether he must recuse himself on <br />matters dealing with the Peak to Peak Charter School. He asked permission from the <br />Mayor or City Administrator to obtain an opinion on the conflict of interest issue. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.