City Council - Regular Meeting
The Louisville City Council discussed a concept plan for affordable senior housing, advanced an ordinance adopting the 2024 Model Traffic Code, and reviewed proposed updates to the city's board and commission handbook.
About this meeting
- Government Body
- City Council
- Meeting Type
- City Council
- Location
- Louisville, CO
- Meeting Date
- October 6, 2026
Published excerpts
Only published remarks appear here. The full transcript is not published.
188 sections (from 190 segments)
to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Second. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Do we have any requests for public comment tonight? We do, right? This is part of the meeting where we ask for public comment, if any, from members of the public. If you're interested in making public comment, some are already, please grab a... a card from in the lobby and bring it to the clerk. She will call your name and order and she'd come to the podium and state your name as well as if you're from Louisville and you can speak up to three minutes. You don't have to speak that long if you have If there's somebody you'd like to po
Okay. One thing I didn't mention at the outset is that because there are public comments on items not on the agenda and on the consent agenda, we can't respond to them from the dais. But rest assured that we're going to... Speak up, please. Absolutely. Thank you. Yes. Is that better? Okay. recognize that because these items are public comments on items not on the agenda and items on the consent agenda that the council can't respond it may seem like we're indifferent up here we are by no means indifferent and are listening and staff is and I'm gonna follow up so thank you for your comments all
Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Next is city, excuse me, city managers. No, council informational comments. Does anybody have any comments around meetings they've been to or anything else? Yes. Council Member Fay, Council Member Kern.
Thank you, Mayor. Yes, I would like to acknowledge two things that have happened and been accomplished by our city employees. One is the Lewisville has earned the national accreditation in parks and recreation. That is something that's very unique, that's given nationally by the Commission for Accreditation of Park and Recreation Agencies. and the National Recreation and Park Association. There are only, let's say, fewer than 3% of the parks and rec agencies nationwide have earned the CAPRA accreditation. So I just wanted to congratulate our staff on a wonderful accomplishment. The other accom
Great. Thanks for the acknowledgement, Council Member Fahey. I'm excited that they do such an outstanding job making sure that we have clean drinking water and clean streets. No septic. So I'll start with the accolades then to staff and continue that. Our Cultural Services Department did an amazing job with an arts grant last Thursday to a local filmmaker, Megan Sweeney, and she had two short films I had the privilege of attending, and it was absolutely outstanding. I just wanted to give major kudos and a round of applause because that was like quite an artistic accomplishment. This is also Go
Thank you. Our first regular item of business is Ordinance Number 1938, Series 2026, an ordinance adopting by reference the 2024 edition of the Model Traffic Code for Colorado. This is on for first reading and to set a public hearing. Tonight we'll be hearing from staff for this ordinance. We're not going to be opening a public hearing or taking public comment tonight. Council will have the opportunity to ask questions of the staff, suggest some amendments for second reading, or instruct staff to return with additional information. May we get a staff report? From the Chief.
Great. Thank you. Appreciate the work that went into these updates. I remember last year when we were discussing this and there were several recommendations for us to update. I just actually had a question. Maybe it's a clarifying thing. What do we do now? What is the procedure or process for clearing trees out of the way of, like, a stop sign, for example? That's what we hear the most. Do we currently not bill trees? Anyone like is it just a cost to the city or how is it? I was curious how this was different That's a good question.
Is there a benefit to having people with expired license plates come to the municipal court as opposed to a broader regional court?
Okay. I also wanted to ask about the fine schedule. What is our current fine schedule like and how does it compare to say state recommended fine schedules at the moment?
I mean in particular. I'm curious why we think that like in one case and more than four times Maximum fine is appropriate for Louisville whereas the state thinks that you know 500 is sufficient As just an aspect of that question And just a comment on that in most municipalities the fines tend to be higher than what the state tables show and Okay. And then, again, related to that same question, maybe it doesn't apply to fines, but I feel like there was a recent state law which prevents lower courts from imposing harsher penalties than state courts. And maybe that doesn't apply to fines, but I'm
Okay. Thank you. Let's see. Do I have any other question? I guess just one comment. I would have found it useful to have a full copy of the 2024 state code included in the packet, as opposed to just the changes that we've made to that code. Thank you, though.
Council Member McCaffrey. Yeah, thank you. I just have one question, which is on the infraction versus offense. What is the virtue of being able to enter a default judgment as compared to a warrant? What's the benefit?
Okay. Let me ask it a different way. A traffic offense is something that is a criminal offense, right, whereas an infraction is just a civil fine?
Presumably higher consequences? Yes. Thank you.
Just one quick one. When you're talking about having expired drivers or vehicle license, is that only for vehicles that are licensed in the City of Louisville?
So you could issue a fine for someone who lives in Weld County who drove through Louisville with an expired plate?
Okay, thank you. Maybe just one, I think, a clarification that I would ask. Are any of the infractions or offenses limited just to Louisville residents, or are they all generally applicable?
Good. All right. Any other questions? All righty. Is there any staff comment? Any more staff comment? Okay. Do we have a motion concerning the ordinance? Yes. Council Member Heffner.
Yeah, so I actually have four amendments that I would propose to come back to us on second reading. Three of them were in the packet addendum. The more recent state laws and there were three I think our staff agreed might be reasonable to consider on second reading they would be sb 2465 regarding mobile devices hb 26 1237 regarding bike lanes and hb 26035 regarding repeat and excessive speeding i would like to see those come back as at least for consideration on second reading um And then my fourth one is I would prefer to keep the infraction offense threshold at 20 rather than going up to 25.
Okay, so you're suggesting that we have all those amendments brought back to us for further consideration? Okay, I mean, are folks agreeable with that? Just generally, you can make a motion to that effect, but is there comment?
Yeah, I'm fine with it coming back and we can discuss it on that day. I think my understanding is it's not so much a desire to let people speed up to 25. It's about aligning city and state and being able to deal with it in an easier way, but it has the consequence potentially of a smaller infraction. But can you help us again with the intent of allowing up to 25 to be dealt with a certain way?
Okay. I am too. I wanted to just say that I really appreciate the lift that all the staff has done, the prosecutor and the municipal judge and you and everyone else, because this is a big, you know, it's a big update that we haven't done for a while. So really appreciate the work. Thank you. Yeah. Council Member Kern.
So I'll second and with the amendments. But I would like for staff, if they could, to bring us back some or at least put in the packet for us some more clarifying comments for some of the questions we had today. And if there is some information or evidence, Chief, that the prosecutor could bring about violations over 20 miles an hour that might help us to understand why she had made this recommendation before or is asking for this recommendation now, that would be helpful, I think, in our decision at second reading.
Maybe a question for staff. Do we think it's possible for the prosecutor to be present at the second reading to answer questions?
I need to grab something for my car anyway, so that's terrific. Appreciate it. All right, we're going to resume the meeting. I'm sorry for the delay, but we've had a Zoom glitch. Folks, I think, can hear us. They can't hear us. And there is a disconnect. We can't all hear each other. On Zoom, there is a YouTube channel that we simultaneously run the meeting on is available. But we're not going to be able to take any virtual public comment as a result of this. If there's any way that that gets changed or fixed, you'll let us know. But at least for right now, our rules permit us to do it that wa
Okay. Do we have any questions right at this second, or should we? I WAS GOING TO PLAN TO MOVE TO THE APPLICANT AND HEAR THAT PRESENTATION. OKAY. GOOD. LET'S DO IT. GET THE APPLICANT UP THERE AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE PLAN.
I have a question just at the outset, and then I will ask my colleagues to ask their questions. What efforts have you made to contact neighbors, involve them in the design, the initial concept, getting feedback, and so forth? Recording in progress. That's something that obviously gets done later in the process. I'm interested right now if you've done any of that.
To be clear, this is a great way to do that, and I do appreciate that. I know there are members of the community here. Are there others on council that have some initial questions? Yes, Council Member Kern.
Great, thanks. Thanks for bringing the idea to the community. You're right, it is a need. I'm just curious about what you guys are initially thinking design style. You're talking the similarities to the project that you're already building in Superior. Love the sustainability measures and that not, because that just makes, I think, life cleaner for people living there as well as everyone else. But I'm curious, the design that they used in Superior, they have very specific standards for the new downtown. They're very different stylistically from what Louisville tends to lean toward and that you
Great, thank you. I'm actually looking forward to seeing what happened when you hear from some of the community members and their concerns around the layout of the property. That might be something that would influence perhaps the style or the shape of things to create the spaces. Like you're already being mindful, I think, of some of the privacy concerns, but maybe there's even more that could be done related to that. Thanks.
Thanks. Um, it's my first question is what do you say is the primary factors driving the number of units?
that's very helpful so I had one other question which maybe I've answered for myself but I assume that you put the parking in the front because if you had to if you put in the back you'd have drive aisles that would take up a lot of space yeah yeah okay no that's fine okay and then I had maybe two questions for staff So the first, right, you mentioned that there are no residential design standards for this particular location. Does that include like lot coverage standards?
Okay, and so then is the proposal compatible with those lot coverage standards at the moment?
And then my other question, so we recently approved some amendments to our inclusionary housing ordinance, right? This project would be all affordable, but I'm curious what the interplay might be between the incentives in our inclusionary housing ordinance and a project like this.
Thank you very much Council member Dickinson Other than what you guys already presented about housing needs, is there financial, as you go for LIHTC and things, that it should be 55 and up and not just open to whomever wants. It might be most attractive to that population, but a 20-year-old single parent could also live here. So why the 55 and up? And I'm guessing at the answer.
Other questions of the applicant or staff? All right. Do we have any public comment?
So... Is it working here in terms of people can see the... No, it's on my little pad here. Your pad. All right. Yeah. maybe just it's nice it's nice to know maybe within 15 seconds sure let people you know wave your hand or don't do this okay just say something but yeah why don't we do that next up is Steve Welsh followed by Eric Rutherford
Anybody else? Okay, thank you. And will there be more opportunities to meet with us? I'll shut up. No, we'll get to it in just a second. And, in fact, you know what we'll do right now is, yes, one, it's 50 units. It's 50 units is my understanding. 50 units. Yes. Yes. Yeah. That's the whole thing. There's no hidden units. It is 50 units. And second, this, and it's a really good question because people don't know, gee, is this the last we're going to see? And is something going to go up without any input? The answer to that is absolutely not. It's not even an application yet. Okay. That goes thr
Yes. There will be plenty of opportunities for you and others. I appreciate your exuberance and your interest because it's really, the public input is important. It's why we do this, we get early input and that's exactly why we have this process going. So stay tuned, stay tuned and stay following it. Other, why don't we come back to council discussion. Yes. Councilmember Dickinson.
Yeah, I'll try to keep briefing, throw the timer on if you want. I think this is a great concept. Obviously, I think we've been very clear as a community that we're excited for affordable housing. I think senior housing is one of the categories in which we are in need. I think the location is great. I think the concept is great. I think the three stories is reasonable. I think we've talked a lot about, you know, trying to find density and other things, height and density to, you know, allow for these projects to pencil. And 100% of the 50 units being in the affordable housing world is really,
I'll echo everything that Councilor Dickinson just said and add that I am also incredibly pleased that you're going with the heat pumps and making it all electric because that will reduce our carbon footprint, which is an important component item for me personally, and I also appreciate that you designed the building so that it doesn't impact the neighbors on each side with noise or with whatever impact that seniors would have on the kids. So thank you.
Actually, I kind of had a question, and this came up through some resident comments. Well, first, I just want to say thank you for everybody who came tonight in an early stage to ask questions and be present and be proactive in letting us understand that we are heading in the right direction and that it reaffirms that we've heard the community and the needs assessments that we're getting from a lot of amazing counseling is accurate. So I I also agree. I would love to see this project move forward. As the largest growing population in the state of Colorado, that's people over 65, I think this i
And so since this is a 55 plus, our senior center is actually located on the other side of town off of Via Appia. Will there be easy ways, because I know the dash does not go unfortunately in front of the Rec and Senior Center, for people to be able to access that? Is that part of the plan at all?
I appreciate it I Will just echo the comments that my fellow council members have made I'm excited about this project And especially the all-electric nature of it Yes
Yeah, thank you and thanks everybody for being here. I agree in substantial part with everything that's been said. I think the one thing that I personally, and this won't be a surprise to my colleagues, am not crazy about is the age segregation requirement. I would prefer to see non-segregated housing over segregated housing, but I don't think that's likely to be one of our formal review criteria. I'm just going to say that for the record.
Yes, I just want to add one more caution that you might be concerned about and that's with the senior population and it being all electric and the issues that we're having currently with our Excel energy companies that there is some kind of battery backup or storage system of some kind for seniors who are on some kind of assisted device.
Thanks. The comments of my colleagues are terrific. I just wanted to say two things. Just thank you for bringing this forward. This is what we've been really trying for for years. This is a part of diversifying the economy, diversifying our service to society. different populations here and creating diverse housing in Louisville generally, which has lacked it for a long time. And I said and have for 14 years, and many have echoed in a different sort of way, that we don't want to be a community that requires people to be kind of double high income without any kids to even move in. And we don't
Good. We will get to her very shortly. Council questions initially? Okay, we're gonna get to the first round of public comment.
excuse me the council members have questions the first round of questions and comments no we can go back to public comment then for the second round no second round of cabal comment okay then we'll bring it back to council discussion Are there council comments or discussion right now? Yeah. Council Member Dickinson.
Yeah, I appreciate the work bringing it back. I understand that most of the delay is on our end slash the consultant that we hired and not a whole lot has happened since we made the agreement. I think the concerns of the residents are absolutely valid and were heard then. I think, you know, the decision for me holds, while imperfect and expensive and all those things, I still think that the decision we made was the right decision. And certainly, I don't know, what are we at, seven, eight months later, changing courses is odd without a lot of new information available. So I support moving forwa
Just briefly, Likewise, I agree that not much has changed about this particular situation over the last several months. So I haven't really had any basis to change my decision about how I voted then. So likewise tonight, I'll probably be voting no.
Okay. All right, I'm going to close public hearing then and ask for any motion. I'm happy to make a motion, Mayor.
Please do. I move to approve ordinance 1937 series 2026 as written.
Yes. Okay. Let us move on. The next item on our agenda is Discussion and direction, actually, let me take a time out for just a second. It is five to eight. I just want to, you know, we can absolutely keep going and I'm fine doing that, but this will take a little bit of, And we want to give our deputy city manager plenty of time to explain a really important subject and have us have a good discussion without being interrupted. But if people would like to take a minute, I think I'm glad to call it. There are people, I'm seeing some nodding heads. So why don't we do this? Why don't we take a br
Council, do you have a preference? Let's say, why don't you do it the way that you had planned to do it in the event that nobody objected?
May I just ask one confirmation? I just want to make sure before you move forward. I wanna make sure that council is in agreement with the problems that deputy city manager has identified and that we're all on the same page. There's not additional problems that council members have identified besides this. Because I want us to be firmly affirming that and if not, raising those now.
So I actually do have this question. I realize this board was fairly busy when there were a lot of Marshall Fire rebuild permits that were coming through. What looks more like the normal, is it like three a year that are coming to them? I was curious to see how this would impact Planning Commission's timetabling projects as well.
Should we provide feedback on each board as you go or would you prefer that we wait? I think we should do it as we go.
Sure. I'll just say I tend to support the idea of having the Planning Commission act as the board of adjustment. Okay.
One thing that I would mention in light of the comment that Council Member Cooperman mentioned is we may be able to address some of these issues in a kind of quick hit way. How many of you are comfortable with the Planning Commission being the Board of Adjustment? Yeah. Anybody to the contrary?
For me, it depends on volume, because they're already a very busy board. And each one of those individual hearings does take specific review, and there's always residents. And it's already a very intimidating process for residents who are asking for something like this. Yeah, so I think, I mean, if there's very few, like if there's three a year on average anymore, now that we've really reduced a lot of the residential buildings, sometimes it's an extension of a deck. I've heard about that, like back toward the golf course where there's really limitations and things. It might be a quick and eas
Council Member Cooperman. Thank you. The last bullet point in the current description is very broad, and it doesn't really get reflected in the proposed description, whereas the last bullet point in the proposed description is kind of different, I would say, from what's in the current description. I was just wondering if you could say a few words about that.
We're sort of working through this, and I will say that I'm trying to work through a way to manage the discussion without making assumptions. But I do want to say silence on this is agreement. so we can keep moving. If there's a question people want to raise, raise it. But what I really, because she's got so much material, I don't want to come back later to have to manage that. Is that okay with folks? Are we comfortable? Okay, go ahead.
First, I'll follow up to the mayor's comment. If the ballot measure 2B passes, there's that added flexibility for how you can use the other 70% of the revenue, which could be museum-related things. So I guess I could potentially see that sort of changing the status of this board, you know, if they are somehow going to be deciding on how some of that funding gets used. I don't know.
Right. Okay. My other... question. So in the current description on this one, there's a third bullet says promotes public awareness of the history of Louisville and its surrounding community. And I feel like that didn't really make it through into the proposed description. And there are actually a couple of other places where something similar happens, like with the Cultural Advisory Board and I forget where else, where there's sort of a public-facing element to the current description which is sort of asking the board to Kind of promote what they represent for the city and I felt like those d
Yeah, I don't know if I would necessarily want to make it a requirement, but I also wouldn't necessarily want to rule it out for board members who are interested.
My question is on the combining of boards. If we are going to combine the Historic Preservation Commission with the Historic Museum Board, how would that impact how the two boards work as one? And so the members of both boards would be... members of the board and would have to take on the additional duties of the other board that they weren't originally a member of.
Okay, thank you. Council Member Kern. Yeah, thank you. I think that it is interesting because one of the, like as I'm reading this and I'm just thinking I'm a resident, I'm interested in boards, the old, the current description that we have feels more like a community member who's going to be engaging with history in the museum. The new one feels a lot more sterile, and it feels like we're not asking for that. I would hate to lose that. I would love for the people who are interested in that to still see that as a role in here. So I think I do agree. Maybe if it's not a mandate that they volunt
I think it's good because it establishes, like you said, the different sections and especially pulling out the quasi-judicial piece. I think that's really imperative. But I agree. I just feel like we've lost it across the board that this is still just a very small town of 20,000 people and this is neighbors gathering to make life better for other neighbors. And I feel like maybe that got lost in this. Thanks.
Council Member Cooperman? Just one very short follow-up. I think part of that is also just how it's written. Like somehow the feel of the current descriptions have more of what Council Member Kern was emphasizing, and somehow the feel of the proposed descriptions lack that.
I don't know. Just building on that, I agree with what both Councilmember Cooperman and Councilmember Kern have said about this. And I'm looking specifically at the comment that or the description bullet that Council Member Cooperman mentioned. I think you could work the language there. I don't, promote sounds like an activity or something, but I think part of the advice we're seeking is advice about helping the public to be aware of the history of Louisville. I mean, you know, I think we can probably juice that up a bit.
Thank you. Those are, you know, I got to tell you, some of this is, is, uh, scrivening and, um, and I, you know, I know none of us probably want to spend the rest of the night scrivening. So I apologize for just scrivening.
Just ask a clarifying question. So when we met with the Library Board of Trustees, we talked about how their role has kind of shifted this last year since we hired Director Cummings. Would you say that the way that they are functioning now is consistent with what's written into the code or what is desired under the proposed description?
So I know that the city clerk has already commented to us, but I would love just like a brief understanding from her, you don't have to be lengthy, just really brief, on where you see the advantage of this no longer being like an appointed board, but instead making it, I think, more administrative with the hearing. And would there still be a place where you might need a board, maybe like once or twice a year to handle things that are a little bit more delicate, that are less procedural?
Okay, so right now that licensing authority does these hearings when those things come up? Yes, yes. I definitely like the idea of the administrative, like the in-compliance ones being administrative. I think that our business community would really appreciate that. I'm not completely sold on for the other.
I'll just offer my two cents. I've appeared before licensing authorities, city councils, and hearing officers on liquor matters. It is better 100% of the time, I think, for everyone involved to have a hearing officer. It can be a technical and difficult area for non-attorneys, not to say anything bad about our licensing authority, but for non-attorneys to sort of wade through and reach the appropriate result. And I think there's a lot of merit in having somebody who just does these all the time act as the decider.
Thank you. That actually helps that you've got the seal of approval and the endorsement of that. Good. Go ahead. Unless anybody has any other questions about that. All right.
Yeah. I'm going to ask a question here that's a little bit more general but is somehow more explicit. So, in the note at the bottom of your proposed description, right, you talk about a resolution to advise duties and replace existing code sections. So, just trying to understand, right, so right now we have sections of our code which state duties for certain boards, but maybe not for all boards. So is the idea that if we went this route, we would sort of strip out of our code basically all that stuff, and it would only be in a resolution, which would then show up in the handbook. Is that the i
Okay. And you think the main reason for doing that is the added flexibility to change roles if it's a resolution?
Yeah, one little thing about the Planning Commission. On the ones on the current description, it says suggests municipal code amendments to the City Council and that seems to have been replaced with may initiate zoning ordinance or zoning map amendment request. Are those supposed to be? Commensurate or? Or is that change purposeful?
I do note on that that there's in the... Let me just look at this. No, never mind. That's a quiz as usual. Nothing further on that one. Does anybody else?
Oh, yeah. So has anybody reached out to or engaged with other than the survey, the members of the current members of the boards about some of these potential like combining or mergers? No.
Member Cooperman. Just a very quick follow-up. I'm also curious about asking for feedback on the new role descriptions. I actually feel like when I was on the sustainability board, we certainly talked about our bylaws and I don't know if it was a formal description or sort of an informal description, but there were discussions of that when I was on the board.
First a comment. The description doesn't seem to say anything about senior services on either side of the new or the old. And then I guess we've had some, I think there's been some discussion about the possibility of combining PPLAB with RAB, which I'm potentially interested in doing. I feel like, I don't know where that leaves senior services and the senior center though. So I think that's something to try to figure out if we move in that direction.
I think the council member Cooper brings up a great point, but I would like that to not be combined rec and senior. I would like it to be a special line item. It's a completely different conversation and needs and involves maybe some different staff recommendations to the board than what you would get from the rec advisory.
I will echo the concerns about promoting the senior center as a kind of a separate section, not part of the rec center, but the senior center just happens to be located in the rec center. So as a separate unit. Great. Thank you.
This is kind of heretical, and I'm not sure I even agree with it, but I want to throw it out there. You know, this is called the Recreation Advisory Board, and we have had a senior board in the past. That's a whole complicated historical piece, but is it worth calling out? Not just in the description, but in the title of the board itself. And the reason I mention that is recreation is a huge part of what the senior center does, but it's not the only thing. something to think about I don't know there's any interest in that or if people are adamantly opposed to that that's it's fine I just wonde
sort of like they understand there is still a distinct role in representing the golf course, not just the rec center. I mean, don't put it in the title, but it's a dedicated line item so that I can see the value in that because I think there might be people who volunteer who think, well, that's nothing I'm going to have anything to do with, and I have no interest or information, and it would be shocking for them to realize that was a major part of their role.
Does staff have any thought about either the expansion or not the expansion, but the calling out of senior matters in the proposed description or part of the title?
You know, one other part of this is, and we're getting maybe a little bit ahead, but to the extent we're thinking about some kinds of community education efforts that are regular. You know, we may want to sort of incorporate the Youth Advisory Board in that in some way. I don't know exactly how that is, and I'm not sure it needs to be part of this, but that's a sort of initial response to your comment about their wanting to know more about governmental decision-making and so forth. Yes, Council Member Kern.
Just an idea that came to me. Would it? What if the youth, because I always thought, like, what is their purpose? And I have heard from some of the kids who have served that they'd like to learn more about government, but it's not really then an advisory board, right? Then it's a whole different role, and it's probably a governmental group that should be part of BVSD, not the city of Louisville necessarily. But I'm wondering, as an advisory role, if it wouldn't be beneficial to have these young people participate or give, like, every month they're meeting, they're discussing one of the differe
I was just wondering, the proposed description doesn't seem to say anything about the projects that this board has typically worked on or the volunteer events that are referenced in the current description. Is that?
Yeah, just on this one, I think it's a little complicated, but I think we are, you know, often looking for input and feedback from, you know, that subset of our population. It's kind of hard to get with surveys and other things, and we put a lot of work in at events and things like that. But I think there is a potential for some truly meaningful, not just, what am I trying to say? theater of bringing issues that the council is weighing or that planning commission is weighing or that parks and landscaping, like these are important issues. And can that issue be brought to that youth group to get
Let me clarify something. I guess I heard pretty strong consensus around the first two mergers that you mentioned. The other two we can talk about right now if you'd like. Any thoughts about it? Hefner and then councilmember.
I don't think we ought to decide right now, but I would like to see The the proposals sort of fleshed out a little more and brought forward for consideration, but that says I think that's where I'm at Yeah, it's funny I kind of like no the way saying is like I'd like you to come back and show us in the 20th Why we shouldn't merge the historic boards, you know, I mean, it's like I don't think that's the right choice But actually I think we should talk about it. It's like But maybe I'm a little more supportive of parks and rec potentially.
right yes counselor just to get this out there i think my my only concern with taking larger very active boards uh that do have reasons to meet on their regular frequency um is it it gives the appearance that we are less interested in having our communities engage in these areas and i don't want that impression to be out there and so that's I'm thinking why don't we move forward with some of the suggestions we have a couple of the mergers where we clearly that there's a major benefit to the business community and some efficiencies but maybe we hold off on the others and see how how we proceed
I disagree. I think that we're taking a hard look at boards and commissions. This is the time to consider it and I'm certainly not committing to move forward on either of them. I'm certainly not committing to move forward in any particular time frame. I think these are all important questions to ask and discuss. But to me, when we're comprehensively looking at boards and commission, this is the best time to at least have the conversation.
I agree. I just didn't want to set like this expectation and like for the hours of staff maybe and depending on, you know, what those board members also feel is their role and how they would be more active. And I just didn't want to, have you put too much work into it? If we're not a hundred, like that's what we want to do.
And it sounds like there's at least interest in talking about them. And it's efficient. I mean, I can—from hearing the deputy city manager talk about this, the cost or the—there's a lot of sunk cost in terms of time and analysis that's been done. So I don't know that it's marginally a lot more, but go ahead.
Absolutely. I mean, Is that going to put you in a funny spot or staff in a funny spot or the people who are potentially applying to them in a funny spot if we're saying, which I think we are saying that the first two are the Billinger Board of Appeals and Licensing? It's not the Licensing Board. Board of Adjustment, yes, are being combined. We can make that clear to people. We don't have the resolution of exactly how it's going to be done, but we know we don't want people to have any confusion about that. The other two are just up in the air. Because we haven't had the discussion yet. How can
Yeah, I think I think they should have, you know, sort of special treatment to, you know, not necessarily have to apply, but it might be in there. I think the problem is it might be in their benefit to actually apply so that they're getting out there. The why? But yeah. You know Board of Adjustments is not a member of Board of Adjustments isn't necessarily going to just get a vacancy in Planning Commission, right? That's a highly sought after role. And so, you know, do they have to apply or can they just inform us? Sure, but it's still going to be an application process in a selection process,
Is that, I think, articulated it well? Does everybody agree with that? Or is there, looks like there's a lot of nods. Yes. Does that provide the...
There has been some discussion that some of the boards and commissions may not need to meet, every month. I mean, many of these are monthly. Yes. That's obviously sort of inconsistent board to board. I'm gathering what you're talking about on consistency is with, well, mostly across the boards, right?
And so, I'm assuming Planning Commission the week before 07 PPLAB is intentional versus switching that order like that is the preferred?
Because if it creates a three-week delay versus a one-week delay, that's a big difference, obviously. Yeah, I'll follow up on that. If I have to go to 07 and abandon commission, there's a long wait.
I'll just add that I think that this is also going to free up the room in the library for other events all year round.
Good, thanks. I just have one recommendation is that, and I understand the role that planning commission has is very different than the other roles with the intensity of the quasi-judicial nature of what they do. But my suggestion would be if we're using chamber for all of the others, that it be set up like when we meet with other, instead of using the dais, they're sitting at tables down here so that it is more conversational with each other and with the community versus like an elected body, like in a hearing,
I think in a quasi judicial role. I think there's advantage in to, I mean, people are presenting evidence. I think the kind of seriousness deserves a distinction in the way that people are arrayed in the room. And I'm also thinking from a, you know, an audiovisual perspective that I think that is a better record. You know, I don't know if the city attorney has any comment on Development of a record as you know on the on the ground versus on the dais. I That's certainly worth thinking about too. Do you have any thought?
Could you just say a word about how you chose 6 p.m.?
I'm just wondering, how are you going to deal with people who are currently on boards but who might not be able to make the new schedule?
More on that. Does that include the HPC? I just, I recall being on a subcommittee often to like go to a house and those kinds of things. So is that,
One question there. I'm just assuming changing, you have it just as a one, not a one plus, but changing terms is kind of like a long-term process, right? Or you just sit out and say, okay, well, you have a three, a three, a two, a two, a one, and a one. so that we have regular turnover and they don't all come up, but like, do you have a plan for that to all at once or to like let a five year term be a five year term and when it expires, maybe it needs to be a two year term once to get back on cycle. Like I just, do you have a plan for that?
Let me try to do one thing to try to move this forward, because I take Council Member Heffner's comment, and I think the way we've worked together, all of us, to try to make some of the hard decisions now, if there are some of these that we don't want right now or don't think we want to... I think getting them off the list right now or putting them off, not necessarily getting them off the list, but just simply putting them off might be a good thing. I think another is some of them seem like to me, maybe not to you, but you'll tell us, seem like sort of, oh, do this, don't do this, as opposed
I was just going to say I'm generally comfortable with the sort of timeline characterization in the staff memo. And I would proceed accordingly with the ones marked for year one and skip the ones marked for future. And, you know, if we have a capacity problem, somebody make a judgment call on the rest. But I generally think that's the right categorization for me.
Let me ask staff, is it helpful, would it be helpful for us to at least prioritize or is it just fine to leave the ones as one? I just want to make sure if we can help you to make this easier the next time you appear before us and to move the project ahead.
councilman Cooper yeah on the minimum age requirement I'm just curious about why you think we should have that I didn't seem like there was much in the staff report about that in particular and then on the recruitment expectations I can't remember, do we typically have some kind of event where people can come and learn about the boards and commissions?
Okay. Okay. And then one comment. I felt like we didn't actually really discuss the proposed work plan process, and I'm interested in discussing that further, but that's a large conversation.
Yep. Council member Hafter. Can I just follow up on that? I don't have it in front of me, but the staff packet said something like there's additional difficulties. We've considered those and determine that they're not additional difficulties?
So this is like at this point, it's just purely a...
Okay. One that I would say is kind of interesting is it's like council liaisons, but the recommendation is not to have council liaisons. So I'm not sure whether... What I would say is I don't think we should counsel liaisons, and I would just mark that off, which is to say I agree with the recommendation. I don't think anything more needs to be done with it. But I, because we made a decision years ago not to do that. I think it was a good decision. It's not without disagreement, maybe even on counsel about that, but that's what I would offer if anybody has any thoughts about that.
That's also the staff recommendation, right? Okay. I'm good.
Yeah. Let's see. So I guess I like a lot of the suggestions, you know, in particular to sort of have a matrix that sets out a lot of the work plan for boards and commissions. I guess I feel like, I don't know, I don't think council should get sort of too much into the weeds in a sense. I think to some extent our boards and commissions should have some independence. We've selected these people to be enthusiastic or have expertise in these particular areas and I feel like I don't want to constrain them too much. And so then some of the suggestions about approvals or approving subcommittees, whic
I rather, the more I think about it, I like the proposal of we put some items on board and commission work plans. They also have autonomy to put their own items on their work plans, and they tell us what those are. If we object, we can say no. But otherwise, it feels collaborative to me, and we have an ability to sort of And I don't think we should reconsider every item they put on their work plan. But I think it's an opportunity to say, well, this one is so far out of bounds that it wouldn't even be worth spending time on kind of thing. So I kind of like the process we have. I don't need to a
Yeah, I almost feel like that could be something that's handled with the staff liaison and the city manager. If the subcommittees become, like, really overwhelming, cumbersome, or time-consuming for staff members, then maybe that's where they're looking at whether there's a real need and a role and a value in it versus that coming to us. Because... They're kind of determining where they want to do some deep dives. My bigger concern is when we have board members who are not elected by residents out representing the city meeting with other cities. That concerns me. We're worried about a council
I guess one other comment that hasn't really come up. You know, when I was on the sustainability board, especially in the later years, I felt like we were often providing feedback to staff on staff projects. And I actually think that's a very good role for the boards to have, to kind of be advisory to staff. And I don't know, I just don't see that reflected anywhere in the materials. I don't know how staff feels, but at least in this particular instance, I felt like staff was coming to us because they wanted our advice, not because we were demanding that staff bring their projects to us. So to
I guess I disagree with the notion that these boards are advisory to staff. I may not be following that exactly. But if... I'm sort of trying to think how to describe this. One, I think it's really important for us to encourage people who are creative and have ideas to be on boards. I think that's good. I think it's good for us. I think not constraining them too much to just say you have to You can't think independently at all of what's on the work plan, I think is probably a mistake. I think giving us the ability to say, no, that is outside, really, we don't want you working on that is import
Does it depend on the board? Like I was thinking CAB, for example, that is their role is to, they're working together with the staff on events and where, you know, and so I think that maybe it's, it would, to me, it would be a little, to the point of that, or other council members, it's flexibility. Instead of prohibiting or mandating, it's let the board and the staff member determine, I think, the level of that engagement. And if it becomes, beyond what they want, then the staff member can always pull it back and not ask for that.
That's fine. Yeah, I mean, I think it's a little bit in semantics, but it matters, right? They have to advise someone and council's not in the room. So they're like sort of advising staff, but as Chris said, sort of as a conduit, like, sorry, we're meant to advise. This is our advice for the thing you're working on. Take that message to council. or if not needed, I guess we're advising you, but like I think it, It triggered me when you said, like, they should advise staff. I'm like, oh, no, they should not. Oh, I see what you're saying. But, like, yeah, I think we want to be very careful that
I agree with that. I think it maybe is. I don't want advisory boards directing staff, supervising staff or any of those kinds of words truly advising like, hey, what do you think about this? We think it's a good idea. We think it's a bad idea. That's a useful piece of information, I think, for us. And it does. It is sort of the conduit thing like that's how it gets to us is like this proposal went to LSAB and they thought it was great or they thought it wasn't great. And here were their comments. But like, I also think You know, earlier in the process, that can be useful information for refini
I mean, I'm comfortable with that. I think my question to you, and it's rhetorical, really, based on your folks' experience and your liaisons with those boards, is whether that's workable. Whether, you know, and I hope it is. That is, I hope... that that can be a collaborative process and not an adversarial one. And I know it can, you know, the issue of direction versus advice, sometimes it's a tough call. I guess if there's any guidance that you all can build into that, I think hopefully you're hearing what our concern is and what our limit in that is for you.
Okay. But I think you've, my recollection of talking to you with you when you were interim and it was that you've had this on your, you've been thinking hard about this for a long time. And I really, I appreciate the same people, but I really appreciate your leadership. Are there others that would like to say more?
I agree. And I'll just say for all my unhappy comments about consultants, this is the kind of thing that we could have paid a consultant, you know, a mid six figure amount to complete with the surveys and all the detail and all the charts and tables. And it's wonderful to see it done in house.
Very good point. Anybody else? Okay. Let's move on to the city attorney's report. Okay. Upcoming agenda items and identification of future agenda items. Yes, we've got Council Member Kern and then Council Member Fahey.
So I have two items that I wanted to see if we can... see if there's interest in us discussing further. One is about data centers and maybe looking at some type of moratorium. I realize there's not a lot of area where this could potentially be, and I don't want to prevent companies already in place that have small data centers that support their current business. I was thinking the commercial data centers. It's a topic that's being taken up in a lot of other local communities. We have major concerns around power and water, and I just want to see if we want to take that one up. The other one is
I will just echo Council Member Kern's concerns. I was going to bring up the drone delivery issue.
Just one. I would encourage the data center conversation, I think there's also potential to hard pivot there and kind of, is there a super environmentally friendly data center version? And that's what we do here in Louisville. Like we are a data center magnet if you do it a certain way, right? Sort of like having your own landfill done correctly.
Yes, Councillor Hafner. I would just say these feel like 2027 work plan items to me and we should, in my view, consider them in that context as we think about our work for next year.
My only concern is some of the urgency around both of these topics. If we wait until like another 12 months before we get around to discussing it, they could get in front of us. So if we want to wait and add it to our 27 work plan, it might be something we want to consider working on very early in the year.
Why don't we, I mean... This is just to get them on the agenda, but the agenda that we have doesn't include them. I think that's accurate, and there may be an urgency to it. I guess just based on your raising these, do you think that drone delivery is more urgent than data centers? Is that your thought?
I would actually leave that if we are willing to have the conversation or add it to the very early part of the 27 work plan to staff's recommendations for us in some of the research that they're able to do and bring to us.
Others? Thoughts? And one possibility on the data, I mean, I think drone delivery is great. I agree on that one, that that ought to be a, I think that ought to be a 2027 issue. But I think it's important that it's not important. I think data centers, it would be nice to have, I wonder if it's possible to have some kind of presentation of just information about that that would help us to know whether we ought to be, more urgently considering it? I don't know their staff. Is it something that staff could provide? Would that just be a lot?
Councilmember Kern. So it could be that we and we could and it could be that we copy someone else's but a short-term moratorium until we can address the bigger conversation to Caleb Dickinson point perhaps it's you know setting in a stat like establishing a type of data center with requirements that would be perfect but that would get us the time that we need without one being proposed in commercial space where we currently have no zone prohibiting it from going in. It buys all of us, it buys the council and it buys staff time to greater look into the, I think it was eight different items that
Council Member Harvey. I would just say I'm in no rush to sort of jump to conclusions on this at a time when we're actively courting tech and aerospace businesses to move to Louisville, doing across-the-board moratoriums for something that we don't really expect to come here and don't have a... We don't have a great grasp on and I don't think there is developable land to build a huge data center. In Louisville. I would not jump to that conclusion. I'm not eager to add it to our short term plan. I'm happy to discuss it as part of the 27 plan.
I don't want, we're getting perilously close. The city attorney has not yet turned to me and said, but we're getting perilously close to kind of having a substantive discussion about a very, very important, potentially urgent issue. complicated in some respects, very emotional issue in the area kind of thing. And I guess what I maybe make a suggestion, which would be that we, We considered sort of monitoring this. We'll have another meeting in a couple of weeks. Maybe part of this is I and perhaps others have you have or are going to presentations concerning data centers and it may be good for
At a minimum is there interest then in putting it on the 27 work plan neither of these items are on our work plan they've not been on this council's radar to my knowledge and I that would at a minimum put it on our and staff's radar. to add it to the 27 plan. Right.
Yeah, so my proposal is we have a lot of other items to balance for consideration in 27. I think we should discuss these as part of that discussion. I don't think sitting here at the end of our meeting tonight we should commit to adding them to the 27 work plan, which was not on our agenda tonight. When is our next discussion of the work plan?
I tell you what, why don't we raise this then, and what I would encourage, does that sound acceptable? All right, and what I would urge the council to do, everybody who's interested, and even if you're not interested, to be thinking about this and doing a little bit of research and reacting on your own. There's gonna be a lot of measures, I am confident, in this area, around the area, which is measures that different municipalities that you could consider. I think that'll be useful stuff. And I think November 2nd, we can talk about whether to add it. If so, or if need be, to reconsider the ide
These excerpts are remarks by officials whose identity a person confirmed, from a transcript generated automatically from the official public meeting video and presented unedited. Accuracy may vary; view the original recording for reference.