Laserfiche WebLink
-3- <br />The tollowing stafF concluaions have been drawn from the questionnaire: <br />1. A s[rong geaas rac:� aitiz_n lnvolvement is neceasary. <br />2. Park Bond Referend�s appear to be a controversial issue as 19 <br />of [he 26 city referendums either failed or pasaed by a 2 to 1 margin. <br />3. A bond referendum 1a usually a one time shot as 18 of the 26 <br />cities who retumed [he quea[ionnaire said they would not attempt <br />another referendum within 3 yeare. <br />4. There is no "pat" fozmula for the success of a Park Referendum. <br />5. The following "ingredients" appear to breed success: <br />a. Offer something for everyone. <br />b. Grase roote approach. <br />c. Development rather than acquisition. <br />d. A good track record from sponsoring agency. <br />6. Public hearings are not as succeseful as other means of promotion <br />and publicity. <br />7. There are two distinct approaches to bond refezend�me: <br />a. The so called "lucky approach" - that is a very low key approach <br />[hat "soft aells" the issue and only eontacts the poteatial yes <br />w[ers. This approach does not at[empt to "sway" the no wters, <br />but rather make sure that the yes votera get out to vote. <br />b. The co�unity "grass roots, rah, rah, give it all you got" approach <br />involves a great deal of citizen input at a neighborhood level. This <br />approach attemp[s to "hazd eell" the issue and inform each residen[ <br />on a personal basis. <br />Copiea of [he co�le[ed referendum surveys are available for Commisalon <br />review in the .Tanuaxy reeource file. <br />