My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
May 12, 1980
Public Access
>
City Council Minutes
>
1980
>
May 12, 1980
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/19/2016 11:55:09 AM
Creation date
8/22/2011 2:42:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Council Meeting
Supplemental fields
Minutes - Date
6/12/1980
TYPE
REGULAR
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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).
View images
View plain text
Session 1244, Minutes Page 6 <br />May 12, 1980 <br />Councilmember Kelley said he felt it would be acceptable to ask the Traffic Com- <br />mission to study the area but he was against holding a public hearing to consider <br />the return of that portion of Eastgate to the LCRA He felt the Council should <br />retain control of the street and should not vacate it at present. <br />Mrs. Metcalfe said perhaps there wasn't a need at this time for input from the <br />Traffic Commission, since most of the Council seem to feel this land should not <br />at this time be vacated to the LCRA. She moved that the entire matter be tabled <br />for the present, and until there is a request for change brought to the Council. <br />Mr. Kelley seconded the motion. All voted Aye except Mr. Adams and Mr. Lieberman, <br />who voted Nay. Mr. Lieberman said the motion was out of order, since it has not <br />been ascertained whether or not the City owns the street. Mayor Mooney said ac- <br />tion would be deferred until the City Attorney determines who owns the street. <br />Mrs. Metcalfe agreed that Mr. Kay should research this question, but also felt <br />that it was proper to make the motion she did, adding the clause "if the City owns <br />the street." Of course, if it does not own the street, the point is moot. <br />PUBLIC HEARING ON URBAN -RENEWAL PLAN AMENDMENTS <br />The City Manager said that counsel for the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Author- <br />ity recommended that a formal public hearing be held by the Council Council to con- <br />sider.amendments to the urban renewal plan which have been approved by resolution, <br />but must also be approved by ordinance. <br />Councilmember Adams moved that the public hearing be held on June 2, 1980, at <br />8:00 P.M. Councilmember Sabol seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. <br />FEDERAL REVENUE 9HAIUM f'R(i'FOSED USE OF FUNDS <br />The City Manager said that according -to the schedule -approved by the Council sev- <br />eral weeks agohe was to report on the proposed use of federal revenue sharing <br />funds. A public hearing has been held and another will be held on June 11. The <br />exact dollar amount available will be indicated in the budget which Council will <br />receive at'the end of May. Mr. ,011endorff said he pr`o'posed that the entire amount, <br />which is expected to be $310,000, be allocated to street lighting. This amount is <br />less than that allocated last year, but the City received a larger amount at that <br />time. He proposed that the amount left from this fiscal year (1979-80), $20,000, <br />be shared between senior citizen programs andtheestablishment of a fund for City <br />Hall improvements. He said no action is needed by ..Council at this time, and that <br />this should be looked at within the context of the entire budget. <br />Mrs. Thompson .said she had some suggestions for use of revenue sharing funds -- <br />uniforms for Khoury League players, transportation for older adults, a portion for <br />the City Hall roof, and emergency loans for low- and moderate -income homeowners <br />to bring their homes into compliance with the housing code. <br />Mrs. Metcalfe commented that all of the things Mrs. Thompson -mentioned are desir- <br />able, but that if money from revenue sharing.is not..used to pay for lighting, that <br />money will have to come from some other place. She said as thebudgetis developed, <br />it will become disappointingly clear that the money -is not there to pay for light- <br />ing. Mrs. Metcalfe said as far as the roof is concerned, the Councilreally does <br />not have a choice. T'.Ye roof was built in a certain way, and it has now deteriorat- <br />ed and must be replaced. It is not a question of ordering a fancy roof when a <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.