10/01/2001 Park Board Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • Park Board Meeting - June 4, 2001 Minutes Paul stated money is not the issue. The property owners see the property more valuable if it remains a 20 -acre parcel. He suggested there may be other options such as the City Attorney writing a letter to their attorney. The Park Board directed Rick to discuss with the City Attorney the possibility of sending a letter to the Whitcomb's attorney regarding the three options: City doing nothing, pursuing the purchase as proposed, or condemnation. Review Park Dedication Fund Balance - Rick referred to an update Park Dedication Fund Summary noting the following items: * Received $61,840 from Trapper's Crossing Second and Third Additions. • Total undesignated funds are $89,330 ($164,330 - $75,000). Bond Referendum Update - Rick advised that several documents pertaining to a potential referendum were reviewed and discussed at the April 2, 2001, Park Board meeting. Items included were Resolution 97 - 30, Council support to referendum, the referendum process overview, various Park Board meeting minutes, Spring, 1998 article in City Newsletter, program statement /cost analysis, estimated annual tax impact analysis, and check list for a successful referendum. The City Council discussed a potential bond referendum during the May 16, 2001, Goal Setting meeting. There was some interest to consider a possible bond referendum next spring. Staff and City Council will continue to consider a potential referendum next year, a commitment of General Fund dollars for a special election, informational materials, and consultants would need to be included in next year's budget. Rick stated he will keep the Park Board informed as discussions related to a possible bond referendum continue. Chair Lindy asked when the upcoming budget meetings will be held. Rick advised the meetings are currently on hold due to the legislature. Chair Lindy stated the Council needs to be aware of the time that it takes to prepare a referendum. Rick stated he believes the Council is receptive to a referendum. The question is when to • pursue it and the challenge will be determining how much of a referendum the City will pursue. 6