My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Study Session Summary 2017 10 24
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
STUDY SESSIONS (45.010)
>
2010-2019 City Council Study Sessions
>
2017 City Council Study Sessions
>
City Council Study Session Summary 2017 10 24
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/1/2025 2:15:46 PM
Creation date
2/6/2018 11:21:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITYWIDE
Original Hardcopy Storage
Paper copy disposed of on November 26 2025
Supplemental fields
Test
SSSUM 2017 10 24
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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 />October 24, 2017 <br />Page 2 of 6 <br />Council member Stolzmann asked for the Boulder County greenhouse gas <br />inventory report. Archer will provide to Council once it is available from the <br />County. <br />Louisville Sustainability Advisory Board (LSAB) Chair MaryAnn Heaney <br />discussed the timeline. In 2014, LSAB spent time researching topic areas and <br />what Boulder County and other municipalities have done. They did a tremendous <br />amount of outreach asking citizens what they thought the City should have in a <br />sustainability plan. In 2015, they worked in sub teams to draft sections and then <br />put the plan together in 2016. 2016 plan was adopted by Council. In June 2017, <br />Archer was brought on staff. <br />LSAB focused on 5 categories: <br />• Climate and energy <br />• Water <br />• Transportation <br />• Waste <br />• Local food and agriculture <br />Archer reviewed goals and objectives and the considerations that went into the <br />development of the recommendations: multiple benefits, collaborative approach, <br />social equity, environmental benefit, and technical soundness, harmonize with <br />existing activity, long-term and lasting impact. <br />Archer interviewed staff members and reviewed methods described in the slide. <br />Council member Loo wants local resources. In original plan there was a <br />dictionary; she would like acronyms defined. <br />Council member Stolzmann feels the goals have been rewritten. She would like <br />Council goals for sustainability and to tie project priorities back to key indicators. <br />Look at goals for sustainability sub program. She suggests re -doing the whole <br />goal section. Prioritization should drive us to make progress on our key <br />indicators. She feels the scoring system does not mean much. <br />Council member Maloney feels the goals and objectives don't have fiscal <br />analysis. <br />Mayor Muckle liked the prioritization. Great work in terms of taking the <br />Sustainability Action Plan and attempting to flesh out steps. He agrees they can <br />be tied to key indicators. Feels this is a good step into taking the plan into action. <br />Council member Stolzmann said the prioritization is random and believes higher <br />goals should be set. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.