My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
COMMISSION_MINUTES_1978-02-23
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Parks, Recreation & Forestry Commission
>
Minutes
>
1970-1979
>
1978
>
COMMISSION_MINUTES_1978-02-23
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2022 11:54:36 AM
Creation date
9/5/2014 9:24:28 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.
/
66
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
-2- <br />9. 5 of [he 7"no's" said [hey do not envision another. park referendum <br />in the future. � <br />10. When asked what the "no" comctunities would do differen:ly, Chey <br />replied: <br />a. Keep dollar amount under a million. <br />b. Ge[ more support irom local civic groups. <br />c. Concentxate mo=e on the labor unions and Sr. Ci[izen support. <br />d. Develop campaign over longer period (4-5 months). <br />e. Develop a person to person contact. <br />f. Consider a[wo queation bond issue, it g3ves the public something <br />to vote no on. <br />11-. Main co�ent and frustration of "no" communitics was the referendum <br />told them what co�uni[y didn't want but no[ what they wan[ed. <br />12. Oi the 22 co�uni[ies that were successful 13 passed by a 2 to 1 margin. <br />13. Of remaining 9[hat passed 8 were within 100 votes. <br />14. The range on the "yes" was 100,000 to 3.6 million. <br />15. The breakdown on "yes" votes beiween acquisition and developsent is <br />as foliows. <br />a. 5 were combinations close to 50-50. <br />b. 4 were at least 2/3 acquisition. <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. swiimning <br />pool, comnunity center or ice arena. <br />17. When asked what one major factor a[tribu[ed [o their referend�.a <br />success, the following responses were given: <br />a. Backing of strong a[hletic association and other civic groups. <br />b. Coimnunity residen[s support came from a grass roots level. <br />c. Careful study of cammuni[y needs over a one year period. <br />d. Many interests were included in [he plan. <br />e. O£f ' t^='� �t-iuty of facil.�j.t�rs �+�{'�}j p�rte of town. <br />f. The endless work by dedicated volunteers. <br />g. Jus[ pure luck! � <br />h. Lack of voter interest. <br />1. Luck - the less publicity the better. <br />j. Lack of existing park land. <br />k. Personal con[act wi[h each resident. <br />18. When asked whieh type of publicity was moet effective, the folloving <br />were listed on most of the questi.onnairea; word of mouth, brochures, <br />newapaper and radio. <br />� <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.