Laserfiche WebLink
City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />September 17, 2018 <br />Page 8 of 11 <br />relate to our legislative agenda. These measures include: <br />1. SUPPORT Proposition 110, Let's Go Colorado <br />2. OPPOSE Proposition 109, Fix Our Damn Roads <br />3. OPPOSE Amendment 74, Compensation to Owners for Decreased Property <br />Value Due to State Regulation <br />4. SUPPORT Amendment Y, Congressional Redistricting <br />5. SUPPORT Amendment Z, Legislative Redistricting <br />6. SUPPORT Boulder County 1A, Alternative Sentencing and Jail Modernization <br />Resolution No. 41, Series 2018 — Deputy City Manager Davis stated this is a resolution <br />in support of Proposition 110 proposition which has specific funding for transportation <br />improvements in Louisville and across Colorado and creates a sales tax to fund the <br />Colorado Department of Transportation. <br />Public Comments — None. <br />Councilmember Stolzmann moved to approve Resolution 41; Councilmember Loo <br />seconded. <br />Vote: All in favor. <br />Resolution No. 42, Series 2018 Deputy City Manager Davis stated this is a resolution <br />opposing Proposition 109 which would obligate general fund dollars to be used to bond <br />for transportation projects none of which are in Louisville and does not include any <br />funding for multimodal options. It is in direct conflict with the City's legislative agenda <br />looking for a new funding source for transportation. <br />Public Comments — None. <br />Councilmember Maloney moved to approve Resolution 42; Councilmember Loo <br />seconded. <br />Vote: All in favor. <br />Resolution No. 43, Series 2018 — Deputy City Manager Davis stated this is a resolution <br />opposing Amendment 74 which would amend the constitution allowing property owners <br />to seek compensation for any action someone feels reduced the fair market value of a <br />parcel. It would impact much of the work local governments function regarding land use, <br />planning, building codes, and transportation. It affectively limits local government's <br />authority to regulate land development and would interfere with our authority to <br />complete transportation projects. This amendment is in direct conflict with the City's <br />legislative agenda. <br />