Laserfiche WebLink
� Park and Recreation Coimnis�_�n <br />March 30, 1981 <br />. <br />Page 4 <br />FUTURE PARK REFERENDUM There was a general discussion that followed as <br />(continued) to why the referendum may have failed, a synopsis <br />, of the explanations that were offered are as <br />follows: <br />1. General Election <br />2. School referendum <br />3. Misunderstanding of some issues <br />4. Too much publicity <br />5. Poor timing <br />6. Too much money and too costly <br />7. Concern for park maintenance <br />Following the lengthy discussion, the Mayor .. <br />spoke on behalf of the Council directing staff � <br />to establish a task force oi residents to decermine <br />the following: <br />1. Why the referendum failed? �' � <br />2. Should we proceed with another referendvm? <br />3. Assuming the response to number 2 is positive, �. <br />. What should the referendum include? �� <br />a. Specific development � <br />b. Amount of money � � <br />c. Timing-day, etc. <br />4. Should a maintenance referendum be included? -� <br />5. Establishment of a citizens task force. . <br />Staff accepted the challenge and hopes to report <br />to the Council at the April 27 Council meeting. <br />CITY WIDE PARK SYSTEM Cortmiissioner Lloyd Scott made a motion to accept <br />MASTER PLAN � �� <br />the language of the letter dated March 18, 1981 <br />to the Planning Co�mnission and deletion of page 71 �.� <br />from the City Wide Park System Master Plan. <br />The motion was seconded by Co�nissioner Jerry <br />Linke. The motion pasaed unanimously. <br />7 ayes � <br />0 nayea <br />