Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson McDilda, Board Members Bentz, Max, Olds and <br />Sibilski. Voting No: None. Absent: Board Members Freeburg and Harvey. <br /> <br />POLICY BOARD BUSINESS <br /> <br />Case #1: <br /> <br />Open Space Referendum Discussion <br /> <br />Environmental Coordinator Anderson summarized that at the November 20, 2007 Council Work <br />Session, there was further discussion regarding a community survey and, if one were to be <br />conducted, what information should be included. After some discussion, the general consensus <br />of Council was that the survey, at this time, should not include information on a community <br />center and general citizen satisfaction with city services; rather, the EPB should continue to <br />pursue a survey with regard to open space/natural resources protection. Furthermore, Council <br />also advised that if there is an opportunity to obtain funding for a survey from an outside source, <br />such as Embrace Open Space (EOS), than that too should be pursued. <br /> <br />This direction now puts the EPB in position to formally request technical assistance from EOS. <br />The request could also seek assistance with a feasibility study on protecting land within the city, <br />including financing options to accomplish this. Staff can draft and submit a formal request to <br />EOS for consideration. The likely components of the request would include researching the <br />likely cost for a feasibility study and a public opinion survey; funding for the feasibility study <br />(with a possible match or modest contribution from the city); assistance with the public opinion <br />survey (criteria and design); and funding for the public opinion survey. <br /> <br />Board Member Max questioned what the feasibility study would entail. <br /> <br />Environmental Coordinator Anderson stated that the feasibility study would look at the things <br />such as demographics, median incomes, voter trends and turnouts in the city, the city's financial <br />standing, etc. He explained that the study would also look at all the possible funding options for <br />the referendum, as property taxes may only be one option. <br /> <br />Chairperson McDilda stated that he understood the feasibility study to be a base of information <br />for taking the next step towards the survey for the referendum. <br /> <br />Environmental Coordinator Anderson reported that Staff recommends, based on conversations <br />with the Trust for Public Land, the City offer a modest monetary contribution towards the <br />feasibility study. He stated that Staff had identified a line item in the 2007 budget that could <br />have been used to cover the majority of the cost for a survey. If funding is secured for a survey, <br />Staff would suggest that a portion of the money from the Professional Services line item be <br />applied to the cost of the feasibility study. He advised that he has received an estimate of about <br />$10,000 for the feasibility study and about $10,000 for the survey itself. He stated that Council <br />requested that they remain informed on this matter as it progresses. Moreover, regardless of the <br />results of the survey, Council approval will be necessary to place an open space referendum <br />question on the ballot next fall. <br /> <br />Board Member Max gave a brief summary of what occurred at the November 20th Council <br />session. He reported that the first thing Council mentioned was that if a referendum is wanted on <br />the ballot, all that is needed is a resident petition. Board Member Max explained that the <br />purpose of the survey was to gather information on the types of open spaces that are wanted if <br />Environmental Policy Board / December 3,2007 <br />Page 2 of7 <br />