Laserfiche WebLink
Drainage Way D detention pond design is being <br />reviewed and should be out for bid by the end of <br />the month. Street chip sealing and a water line <br />to the cemetery area being planned. <br />DISCUSSION - CONTINUATION OF LOUISVILLE FUTLfRES <br />CONFERENCE SERIES Hundley stated that: in 1986, the Louisville City <br />Council supported t:he Louisville Futures <br />Conference Series which proved to be very <br />successful in promoting citizen involvement on key <br />issues facing the City. As a follow-up to the <br />last Futures Conference, a planning group was <br />organized to direct: the next phase of the Louis- <br />ville Futures ConfE~rence. Their initial meeting <br />was held Wednesday„ January 14th. Three key <br />issues were raised regarding the next phase: 1) <br />Was there support too proceed, 2) Are key actors <br />willing to make a financial commitment to support <br />the next phase, andl 3) How should the coordination/ <br />facilitation of they next phase be handled. The <br />next meeting of the Planning Group is scheduled <br />for Wednesday, January 28th. At that time, <br />Council representatives (Mike Mohr and Terry <br />Hundley) must be able to convey whether the City <br />supports the conce~-t and whether it is willing to <br />participate financially in the continuation of the <br />Louisville Futures Conference. <br />Hundley recommended that based upon the success of <br />last years Futures Conference, Council express <br />support for the cor.~tinuation and allocate up to <br />$3,000, however, if' fundraising activities are <br />successful, the City would not need to incur all <br />of that $3,000. <br />Mohr stated that there was some misunderstanding <br />after the last Planning Group meeting on January <br />14th as to what really transpired. To clarify the <br />idea of of this consensus building group, Mohr <br />stated that it is t:o involve as many as can be <br />identified of the k.ey players in Louisville who <br />might have input into various issues, priorities <br />and discussions. Mohr felt that some of the <br />reporting of this rneeting made it sound as if this <br />"was an attempt for this group to come to some <br />special agreement with a couple of other groups <br />who had been behind initiatives and such as that. <br />I think those people live in town, too, and are <br />certainly welcome Ito participate in this. But I <br />don't think, in fact I'm sure, that is not the <br />priority. Those wYio participated in the Futures <br />Conference in November know that and those people <br />who were at the meE~ting the other night know that, <br />but I don't think it was reported too clearly and <br />I'd like to clear that up. The idea of this is to <br />7 <br />