City Council - 01/27/1976 - Joint Meeting APPROVED MI NUT ES
JOINT COUNCIL, PARKS , RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
MEETING
JANUARY 27 , 1976
MEMBERS PRESENT COUNCIL: Mayor , Wolfgang Penzel , Joan Meyers ,
Sidney Pauly , Tim Pierce
s
a
PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION: Chairman, Marvin Erickson, Bill Garens ,
Geneva Middleton, Terry Kingrey
}
` J
STAFF PRESENT: Roger Ulstad , City Manager, Marty jessen,
Director of Community Services
Mayor Penzel called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Mayor Penzel opened the meeting for general discussion and asked that it
remain infcrmal so as everyone would have an opportunity to comment on the 1
various issues to be raised.
C
Chairman, Erickson raised several questions with regards to the need for
recreational improvements in the community. Following is a summary of the
questions and the general discussion which took place with regards to each.
Question 1:Is there a need for recreational improvements .? General agreement
on the part of all present that additional park and recreation areas and facilities
are needed in the community.
Question 2:Does the Council feel that the Commission has a handle on the needs,
and does the Council see any additional needs? The Council Members expressed
general concurrence in the need for those items included in the previous question
1 from the Recreational Improvement Program Referendum of 1975 .
Question 3:Is a Bond Issue the way to finance a program to meet the needs and what
other alternative techniques might be considered ? The Council advised the
Commission that there were no other alternatives available within the financial
abilities of the City, stating that the general fund will not provide adequate
monies for recreational improvements.
Question 4 :What is a,reasonable time for implementing a program of improvements.
General discussion took place centering around the possibility of having another
referendum this spring or if not probably having to wait until after the tenatively
r
proposed School Referendum which will take place this fall. Geneva Middleton
reported that the School Board was considering approximately a $8 million dollar
Bond Issue.
f
t
l/
_ _2-
Should neighborhood meetings be held now to develop the program or later to
promote the Bond Issue ? The general consensus of the Council was that
meetings should be held now to be sure that the proposal responds to the
communities perceived needs , and also prior to the vote to make sure that
all the citizens are well informed on the issues.
How does the Bond Issue interface with the Guide Plan Update and should a
proposal wait until after the update is completed? The consensus of the
general discussion was that a Park Bond Referendum does not necessarily have
to wait until after the Update of the Guide Plan because a great amount of
study has previously occurred on the needs and the program which the Guide
Plan Update will not overturn.
Question 5:Does the Council have any feel for how large a Bond issue and hove
many questions ought to be asked ? General discussion on this matter was that
one question including all elements of a park program would probably have the
best possibility for passage. General sentiment was expressed supporting
question one of the 1975 Referendum as having been well thought out and
planned and hoped that the upcoming proposal would look very much like
the previous proposal. It was also agreed that final form of any Bond Issue
would not be determined until after the citizen input is first solicited and
received.
" The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
40,