Laserfiche WebLink
-3- <br /> 111 <br /> The following staff conclusions have been drawn from the questionnaire: <br /> • 1. A strong grass roots citizen involvement is necessary. <br /> 2. Park Bond Referendums appear to be a controversial issue as 19 <br /> of the 26 city referendums either failed or passed by a 2 to 1 margin. <br /> 3. A bond referendum is usually a one time shot as 18 of the 26 <br /> cities who returned the questionnaire said they would not attempt <br /> another referendum within 3 years. <br /> 4. There is no "pat" formula for the success of a Park Referendum. <br /> 5. The following "ingredients" appear to breed success: <br /> a. Offer something for everyone. <br /> b. Grass roots approach. <br /> c. Development rather than acquisition. <br /> d. A good track record from sponsoring agency. <br /> 6. Public hearings are not as successful as other means of promotion <br /> and publicity. <br /> 7. There are two distinct approaches to bond referendums: <br /> a. The so called "lucky approach" - that is a very low key approach <br /> that "soft sells" the issue and only contacts the potential yes <br /> • voters. This approach does not attempt to "sway" the no voters, <br /> but rather make sure that the yes voters get out to vote. <br /> b. The community "grass roots, rah, rah, give it all you got" approach <br /> involves a great deal of citizen input at a neighborhood level. This <br /> approach attempts to "hard sell" the issue and inform each resident <br /> on a personal basis. <br /> Copies of the completed referendum surveys are available for Commission <br /> review in the January resource file. <br /> • <br />