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
5/6/2019 11:56:38 AM
Creation date
2/6/2018 11:21:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITYWIDE
Original Hardcopy Storage
7B4
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.