My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
COMMISSION_MINUTES_1978-01-26
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Parks, Recreation & Forestry Commission
>
Minutes
>
1970-1979
>
1978
>
COMMISSION_MINUTES_1978-01-26
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2022 11:54:36 AM
Creation date
9/5/2014 9:24:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Parks, Recreation & Forestry Commission
Documnet Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
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
-z- <br />9. 5 of the 7"no's" said [hey do not envision another park referendum <br />in the fu[ure. <br />10. When asked what [he "no" communities woutd do differen[ly, they <br />replied: <br />a. Keep dollar amount under a million. <br />b. Get more euppor[ from local civic groups. <br />c. Concentrate more on the labor mions and Sr. Citizen support. <br />d. Develop campaign over longer period (4-5 montha). <br />e. Develop a pereon to person contact. <br />f. Considex a two question bond issue, it gives the public aomething <br />to vote no on. <br />11. Main comnent and frus[ration of "no" communities was the referendum <br />told them what comnunity didn't want but no[ what they wanted. <br />12. Of the 22 co�unities tha[ were successful 13 passed by a 2 to 1 margin. <br />13. Of remaining 9 that passed 8 were within 100 votes. <br />14. The range on the "yes" wae 100,000 to 3.6 million. <br />15. The breakdown on "yes" votea between acquisition and development is <br />as follows. <br />a. 5 were combinations cloae to 50-50. <br />b. 4 were at least 2/3 acyuisi[ion. <br />c. 13 were at least 2/3 development oriented. <br />16. 7 of the 22 "yes" votes were for special use facilities, i.e. swivmiing <br />pool, cooununity center or 3ce arena. <br />17. When asked what one majar factor attributed to their referendume <br />auccess, the following responses were given: <br />a. Backing ot strong athletic asaocia[ion and o[her civic groups. <br />b. Community tesidents auppor[ came from a graes roota level. <br />c. Careful study of community needa over a one year period. <br />d. Many Snteres[s wexe included in the plan. <br />e. Offered large variety of facilitiea in all parta of town. <br />f. The endless work 6y dedicated volun[eera. <br />g. Just pure luck! <br />h. Lack o£ voter interest. <br />i. Luck - the lees publicity the better. <br />j. Lack oF exieting park land. <br />k. Peraonal contact with each xeaident. <br />18. When aeked which type of publicity wae moat effective, [he following <br />were lie[ed on mont of the questionnaires; wtd of mouth, brochures, <br />newspaper and rndio. <br />� <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.