Laserfiche WebLink
March 27, 1978 Page 6 <br />term goals should be but need additional time for the long range goals, extra <br />time could be granted. <br />Ray Lang, 7435 Spring Lake Park Road asked what the status of Project 1978 -1 would <br />be if resolution #889 was voted in. Mayor Pickar replied that he would be entering <br />a motion that no part of Project 1978 -1 be implemented without going through the <br />Task Force first. <br />Mr. Lang stated that he felt Project 1978 -1 was totally unacceptable in any form <br />and that a vote to postpone the project would be a delayed yes vote. He stated <br />he would like to see the project totally denied tonight. <br />Mayor Pickar replied that there was considerable discussion as to the wording of <br />the motion and that although Project 1978 -1 was unacceptable as a whole, it did <br />have several good parts, and that if they voted against it in its entirety, it <br />would mean throwing the $37,000 study down the drain. <br />Mr. Lang replied that he agreed there was valuable information in the study but <br />that he felt there was also some misleading and inaccurate information contained <br />in it also. He added that everything must be taken in context and that he did <br />not want to see any aspect of Project 1978 -1. <br />Mayor Pickar again pointed out that parts of the study were useful and that he <br />felt it would be poor economics to through it out as a whole. <br />Neil Loeding, 5046 Longview Drive asked why parts of Project 1978 -1 couldn't be <br />salvaged and brought back later at a public hearing. He stated his primary <br />concern was what the Council was committed to and that he felt a postponement <br />did not give any assurance. He pointed out that the August 14, 1978 date for the <br />Task Force to give their recommendation to the Council was only a few days before <br />the six month deadline and that he was concerned the Council might approve the <br />project at that time. Mayor Pickar replied that that was not the Council's <br />intent at all. <br />Mr. McCarthy stated that he felt Project 1978 -1 should be buried completely and <br />that they could go back and pick up parts later if they were needed. He added <br />that the Council would have to get rid of Project 1978 -1 if they wanted him on <br />the Task Force. Mr. McCarthy also pointed out that Well 25 in the study was <br />located under an ice skating rink so when it thawed in the Spring, the water <br />level was much higher there then it would normally be. <br />Mr. Lang stated that he wanted the study from Short, Elliott and Hendrickson but <br />did not want Project 1978 -1. <br />Mayor Pickar polled the Council members for their feelings on what to do with <br />Project 1978 -1. <br />Councilmember Rowley stated that she had a hard time rejecting or denying the <br />whole project now since she was not convinced that the best thing to do was throw <br />the project out, even though she didn't agree with the total project. She added <br />that there were parts of the project that were good but she could understand the <br />citizens feelings that if Project 1978 -1 was not denied by the Council, they <br />could wake up some morning and read in the paper that it had been approved. <br />Councilmember Rowley stated that she would like to have something for the Task <br />Force to work from, whether they were for it or against it. <br />