Laserfiche WebLink
Park and Recreation Commission <br /> March 30 , 1981 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 of residents to determine <br /> the following: <br /> 1 . Why the referendum failed? • <br /> 2 . Should we proceed with another referendum? <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 Commissioner Lloyd Scott made a motion to accept <br /> MASTER PLAN <br /> the language of the letter dated March 18 , 1981 <br /> to the Planning Couunission and deletion of page 71 <br /> from the City Wide Park System Master Plan. <br /> The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jerry <br /> Linke . The motion passed unanimously . <br /> 7 ayes • <br /> 0 nayes <br />