City Council Minutes 2003 06 03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Louisville City Council Meeting June 3, 2003 Page 6 of 10 City Attorney Sam Light stated Council could adopt an ordinance or resolution that makes a change in the water rates through a study of a financial correlation with the rates and the tap fees. He stated an additional category could be added for the purpose of rates. Public Works Director Phare stated has been addressed and no adjustment would be required. Laus concurred with Phare that the different rates could be handled administratively. Sisk stated his understanding a separate ordinance would be drafted to address the use tax. City Attorney Light stated Ordinance No. 1421, Series 2003 has a provision to reduce the water tap rate and exempt the use tax. He noted Council has the choice of requiring a separate ordinance. Davidson called for public comment and hearing none, closed the public hearing. MOTION: Davidson moved that Council approve Ordinance No. 1421, Series 2003, seconded by Brown. City Attorney Light noted Section 3 of the Ordinance.has a blank line for a date, which will be the date 30 days after final publication of the ordinance. VOTE: Roll call vote was taken. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. Davidson asked Staff to draft a resolution to address the water rates. DISCUSSION/DIRECTION - LOUISVILLE PUBLIC LIBRARY BOND Davidson called for Staff introduction. Finance Director Charlene Laus reviewed the options for paying the debt service and increased operating expenses for the possible construction/operation of a new library. She reported on two scenarios: 1) Scenario A includes a principal balance of $8.2M. 2) Scenario B includes a principal balance of $7.2M. Each scenario has three different options and all options in each scenario include a designation of 50% of the lodging tax collected for the operation expenses at the proposed new library. None of the options include a designation of the use tax on residential building materials for the operation expenses at the proposed new library. Option 2 and 3 in both scenarios include a backfill dollar amount that would be necessary to keep the mill levy at desired levels. She explained the backfill amount in Option 2 in both scenarios are the amount necessary to keep the mill levy at a level that equates to approximately $48 annually on an average $300,000 residence. The backfill amount in Option 3 in both scenarios are the amount necessary to keep the mill levy at a level that equates to approximately $35 annually on a average $300,000 residence. She noted the cost of a new library does not include the cost of the issuance for the bonds. One option would be to roll the cost of the issuance of the bonds into the bond amount.