Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Lathrop stated that his intention was to not use the lights once the new complex was operating, but <br />not remove the lights or the potential for using Miner's Field for special events. He felt the lights <br />should be turned off, but not removed. The lights should remain in a safe, repaired manner. <br /> <br />Sisk agreed with Lathrop. He wanted to see the effect and ramifications of the new field. He wanted <br />Parks & Recreation to look into youth activities being utilized at Miner's Field. <br /> <br />Mayer pointed out that not only is Louisville providing fields for people in surrounding communities, <br />but they are also subsidizing them. Those communities should be providing their own fields. He <br />stated that if Council wanted to keep the lights at Miner's Field, did the City want to keep the lights <br />as they are. If so, did they want to go with the existing lighting technology or replace it and bring <br />it up to date. <br /> <br />Levihn thought the lights should be left in place. He agreed with Lathrop and thought there should <br />be restrictions to turn the lights off at 10:00 p.m or sooner. <br /> <br />Keany agreed with Lathrop. He was in favor oflimiting the lighting to specific hours. <br /> <br />Davidson stated that Louisville has as many ballfields as the City of Boulder, which is five times larger <br />than Louisville. On a per capita basis, Louisville has six or seven times as many ballfields and are <br />going to have nearly three times as many lighted ballfields. On the number of ballfields available per <br />team, Louisville is substantially ahead. The four new ballfields occurred through the negotiations <br />with Boulder County, Lafayette, and Louisville in the purchase of the Harney/Lastoka property. As <br />part of the negotiation, he insisted upon an area set aside for Louisville to build ballfields. He stated <br />that the lights had been up since 1962 and he was in favor of tradition. He asked the City <br />Administrator to find out if there was any immediate issue regarding the safety of the poles. If the <br />lights are to be kept, it should be done with the non-intrusive lights as is at the Sports Complex. <br /> <br />Sisk moved that Council reconsider Resolution No. 50, Series 1994. Seconded by Levihn. All in <br />favor. <br /> <br />Lathrop asked to separate the issue into two phases: the issue of lights and the issue of the P.A. <br />system or noise. <br /> <br />Lathrop moved that Council add at the end of the last full paragraph, "... unless for special events or <br />needs as permitted by the Recreation Director and/or City Administrator." Seconded by Sisko <br /> <br />Sisk offered a friendly amendment that under no circumstances would activities at Miner's Field <br />continue after 10:00 p.m., lights are out at 10:00 p.m. <br /> <br />Lathrop accepted that. <br /> <br />Baysinger stated that there is no operable P.A. system at Miner's Field. <br /> <br />5 <br />