Laserfiche WebLink
MEMO T0: M.R.P.A. Members <br />FROM: Bruce Anderson <br />DATE: Sanuary 20, 1978 <br />RE: Park Bond Referendum Survey <br />A survey was mailed [0 97 municipal park and recrea[ion,community education <br />and community services agencies [hroughout the s[ate in la[e December. To date <br />we have received 4I replies for a 48.SX return. Of the returned aurveys. <br />21 communitiea had nevec had a bond referendum, 7 had one that failed and 19 <br />had one that was successful. <br />Although the re[urn was no[ exceptionally high, there weze some "constants" <br />[hat appeared to surface: <br />1. Of the 21 that have not had a bond referendum, 5 of the communities <br />had tried referendums for other municipal services, i.e. library, <br />schools, city halls that had iailed. <br />2. 17 of the 21 "nevers" feel [here is no need for a referendum bwcause <br />funds have been adequate from liquor revenue, park dedica[ion or <br />atate and federal monies. <br />3. 7 of Che 21 "nevers" stated they felt their co�unities would not <br />support a referendum for a park. One comnunity pu[ it this way: <br />"The chances of paseing a park referendum is similar to the prospects <br />of Tampa Bay winning [he Super Bowl. If it meant higher taxes our <br />residents would vote against breathing." <br />,_ i,t. of tht. . -` .-. �iCy populacl��� ,�i .�.000 Pen�le. <br />5. The 7 unsuccessful referendums varied in size from 400,000 to 4.56 <br />million. <br />6. 6 of the 7 referendums that failed, failed by a[ leas[ a 2 to 1 margin. <br />7. 4 of the 7"no's" had a referendum pass in their city for other <br />municipal services within [he past 3 years. <br />8. The reasona listed as to why [heir referendums were not succesecful are <br />as follaws: <br />a. Apparently the ci[izen did no[ wan[ any more parka. <br />b. Citizen apathy or ignorance of the issue. <br />c. The pcoposed site was to close to ano[her city - resident didn't <br />feel they would benefit enough. <br />d. Poor timing - came aut same time as [ax atatements. <br />e. The city had not establiehed a succeestul enough track record. <br />f. Failure to convince people of the need. <br />g. TMe dollar amount was too high and negative brochures werr <br />dietributed by opponenta. <br />h. Lack of money and to close to other succesaful bond referendums. <br />