Laserfiche WebLink
<br />suggestion to contribute a portion of that money to the cost of the feasibility study. He stated <br />that EOS prefers a monetary contribution from the City, but it is not required. He stated that in <br />an effort to get the resolution adopted, he is no longer recommending a city contribution toward <br />the study and thus the only cost to the city at this point would be in terms of Staff time. He <br />explained that the study would cost around $4,500 and the survey would cost about $15,000, <br />both of which would be covered by the $20,000 from Embrace Open Space. <br /> <br />Board Member Max stated that 75 percent ofthe OST sessions centered on the environment. He <br />explained that the survey would be done to determine if open space is what the residents want. <br /> <br />Board Member Sibilski questioned if the vote failed tomorrow, could the resolution be brought <br />back at the February meeting when there is a full Council. <br /> <br />Environmental Coordinator Anderson stated that he would need to look into the legality of failed <br />motions to see if there is a waiting period before a motion could be brought back in front of the <br />Council. <br /> <br />Chairperson McDilda stated that this is not a matter of whether there should be a referendum but <br />a question of whether or not there should be a survey. He stated that if the Board is having this <br />much of an issue on whether or not there should be a survey, he questioned what is going to <br />happen when the Board wants approval for the referendum. He explained that this issue is on the <br />current work plan as something that the Board was going to research. He stated that the Board <br />was going down this path because they wanted to have the backing of the City Council to put <br />forth a referendum for open space. He stated that the Board serves as a recommending body to <br />the Council. He stated that if Council indeed does not want the Board to pursue this matter any <br />further, than that direction should be made clear. <br /> <br />Board Member Bentz questioned if the Council has seen the work plan that includes the open <br />space referendum. <br /> <br />Council Liaison Strommen stated that if the Council wanted the Board to stop working on the <br />issue they would need to strike that item from the work plan. <br /> <br />Board Member Sibilski questioned how often the City turns down $20,000 for a survey to find <br />out what their residents think. <br /> <br />Environmental Coordinator Anderson stated that the City would not be involved in hiring anyone <br />to do the study, and assuming that things moved forward, Embrace Open Space would also be <br />the one to hire a firm to conduct the survey. He explained that there is even a slight chance that <br />the feasibility study would point out that this would not be the right time for an open space <br />referendum. <br /> <br />Board Member Max reported that something he took away from the work session was that the <br />Council wants to see the survey questions prior to it being conducted. <br /> <br />Council Liaison Strommen stated that there are only so many additional tax dollars that a <br />resident will pay by choice. She stated that residents might be willing to pay for open space, but <br />the question is would they rather pay for a community center or some other option. She <br />explained that is what the feasibility study would determine. <br />Environmental Policy Board / January 7, 2008 <br />Page 6 of 10 <br />