My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Study Session Summary 2013 02 12
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
STUDY SESSIONS (45.010)
>
2010-2019 City Council Study Sessions
>
2013 City Council Study Sessions
>
City Council Study Session Summary 2013 02 12
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/6/2019 11:50:39 AM
Creation date
3/6/2013 11:01:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITYWIDE
Supplemental fields
Test
SSSUM 2013 02 12
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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
City Council <br />Study Session Summary <br />February 12, 2013 <br />Page 2of 3 <br />Mary Ann Heaney spoke about her work on finding additional space for <br />community gardens in Louisville. She is also working on a white paper regarding <br />urban agriculture;in particular she is gathering information on how other <br />communities address items such as chickens, bees, and land use. <br />The Council noted their particular interest in rules regarding chickens as they are <br />receiving more and more requests for a code change to allow chickens in <br />Louisville. <br />Andy Johnson noted that the SAB is also determining where they may have <br />overlap with other boards or can help other boards. <br />The Council thanked the members of the SAB for their work. <br />Discussion –Parks and Recreation Advocacy and Advisory Boards <br />City Manager Fleming began the discussion by reiterating the City’s commitment <br />to the City’s existing boards. He noted that the discussiontonight was not to ask <br />for direction or giveany recommendation to consolidate boards, but merely a <br />discussion of what options there might be if a new Parks & Recreation Advocacy <br />board was to be considered. <br />Joe Stevens noted that the Parks RecreationOpen Space and TrailsMaster Plan <br />noted that there was no board advocating forparks and recreation programs. He <br />added that the current set up with some boards acting as both a City board and <br />an independent 501c3 nonprofit has created some issues.He also noted that <br />each board requires a significant amount of staff time. <br />Emily Jasiak asked how people advocate for parks and park land as the Open <br />Space Board and the Horticulture Board have other priorities and missions. <br />Fleming noted that residents can advocate for park land just as they would any <br />other topic, by contacting staff or the Council. <br />Stevens added that if a board was to be created to address parks, he would <br />suggest one also be created to address recreation. It could perhaps be one <br />board. <br />Members of the audience advocated for the City to hire a part-time staff member <br />to act as an arts coordinator for City. <br />Ken Gambon of the Golf Course Advisory Board noted that staff is already <br />stretched thin with the existing boards and adding more would be difficult. He <br />also suggestedeach board should have a sunset clause or a least reevaluate <br />their mission and relevancy periodically. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.