Laserfiche WebLink
111 <br /> MEMO TO: Parks and Recreation Commissioners <br /> FROM: Staff <br /> • DATE: January 20, 1978 <br /> RE: Park Bond Referendum Survey <br /> A survey was mailed to 97 municipal park and recreation, community education <br /> and community services agencies throughout the state in late December. To date <br /> we have received 47 replies for a 48.5% return. Of the returned surveys <br /> 21 communities had never had a bond referendum, 7 had one that failed and 19 <br /> had one that was successful. <br /> Although the return was not exceptionally high, there were some "constants" <br /> that 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 failed. <br /> 2. 17 of the 21 "nevers" feel there is no need for a referendum because <br /> funds have been adequate from liquor revenue, park dedication or <br /> state and federal monies. <br /> 3. 7 of the 21 "nevers" stated they felt their communities would not <br /> support a referendum for a park. One community put it this way: <br /> • "The chances of passing a park referendum is similar to the prospects <br /> of Tampa Bay winning the Super Bowl. If it meant higher taxes our <br /> residents would vote against breathing." <br /> 4. 11 of the 21 "nevers" city population was under 10,000 people. <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 at least 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 the past 3 years. <br /> 8. The reasons listed as to why their referendums were not successful are <br /> as follows: <br /> a. Apparently the citizen did not want any more parks. <br /> b. Citizen apathy or ignorance of the issue. <br /> c. The proposed site was to close to another city - resident didn' t <br /> feel they would benefit enough. <br /> d. Poor timing - came out same time as tax statements. <br /> e. The city had not established a successful enough track record. <br /> f. Failure to convince people of the need. <br /> • g. The dollar amount was too high and negative brochures were <br /> distributed by opponents. <br /> h. Lack of money and to close to other successful bond referendums. <br />