Laserfiche WebLink
TASK FORCE MINUTES <br /> PAGE 2 <br /> MAY 28 , 1981 <br /> • November 4 , 1980 <br /> Referendum Staff introdiced the subject stating that th <br /> referendum had failed november 4 by 259 vote <br /> and furthermore that it had generally Carrie <br /> South of 10 and failed North of 10 . <br /> Following the brief introduction a general <br /> discussion was had by all members a synopsis <br /> of their reactions is as follows : <br /> Dave Long 1. Felt it was too extensive <br /> 2 . Too many tennis courts <br /> 3 . Residents didn' t generally understand <br /> the issue <br /> Ed Letendre 1. Too many tennis courts <br /> 2 . Residents wanted more <br /> a. ballfields <br /> b. horseshoe pits <br /> c. bleachers, benches <br /> 3 . Park should be oriented towards children <br /> 4 . Can' t send children anywhere for $20-25 . 1 <br /> Jerry Blanchard 1. Citizen will pay for the faucilities and <br /> • improvements if there informal <br /> 2. Should have nore personal conduct in <br /> selling of issue <br /> 3 . Residents received too much literature <br /> 4 . Many of the "old time" residents already <br /> had sizeable lots which may detract from <br /> voting on the views <br /> Bob Stone 1. The residents basically did not understa <br /> the issue that was to be voted upon <br /> The following issues were generally agreed <br /> upon as to why the issue failed: <br /> 1 . The general election was not ideal for tr <br /> park referendum. <br /> 2 . The proximity to the successful school <br /> referendum <br /> 3 . Too many brochures were mailed out to <br /> residents which may have confused some <br /> voters. <br /> 4 . The referendum was possibly to large and <br /> it should be scaled down. <br /> 5 . The issue of "how the parks would be <br /> maintained" was discussed by residents. <br /> 6 . A stronger corps of citizens is needed to <br /> • sell the issue on a individual basis to <br /> the resident. <br />