My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1991 02 19
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1991 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1991 02 19
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:33 PM
Creation date
6/16/2006 11:18:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
2/19/1991
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E3
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1991 02 19
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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
<br />..' . <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />provision in the agreement where approval by <br />Louisville for a Special Improvement District <br />for the 96th Street Interchange. That matter <br />is under considerable discussion. The ap- <br />proval from Louisville would only be neces- <br />sary if territory within the special improve- <br />ment district was also located within the <br />City of Louisville. There may be some desire <br />to include some land from Storage Tek. We <br />are not certain what the position of storage <br />Tek is at this time. Overall I feel there is <br />still a number of very technical issues that <br />are being discussed in terms of specific <br />wording being drafted in the agreement and <br />some issues like liability and these kinds <br />of things. But it seems to me that progress <br />is being made on these matters. <br /> <br />Brand: I talked today with Randy Schneider, from <br />STC, and they have been working with differ- <br />ent parties for quite some time and where it <br />stands at this point is that they are inter- <br />ested in being a participant in the Special <br />Improvement District. They do see the bene- <br />fits, but they are still working to get this <br />worked out. There are a number of issues <br />that they will need to work through before <br />they will be at the point of entering into an <br />agreement. <br /> <br />Hornbostel: This was an issue when we went in to negoti- <br />ate, Broomfield was certain that this a go. <br />We felt uncomfortable since we had never <br />heard from STC on the matter at all. The <br />last draft that was sent to us on the Special <br />Improvement District, they not only wanted us <br />to include STC but also include all the <br />property owners in that area. We need to <br />discuss our feelings on this matter and maybe <br />this needs to be done outside the agreement. <br /> <br />Brand: There are only three parties that would be <br />members of that Special Improvement District <br />and that is STC, Interlocken, and MDC. The <br />other parties are too small and are not <br />interested in it. <br /> <br />Davidson: I see the problem with the agreement as it <br />would require anyone in that area who would <br />benefit from the 96th Street Interchange to <br />join the district at the time they annexed to <br />the city. We haven't had any of those land- <br />holders request to us to be part of the <br />Special Improvement District. This would <br />force those landholders, if they wanted to <br /> <br /> <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.