Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Board Member Sibilski advised that the advantage to moving this forward to the City Council as <br />soon as possible would be to gain as much public support as they could before the actual vote <br />takes place. He advised that it could be something similar to Andover where it is simply open <br />space or a portion of the referendum could be used for open space and the other portion for parks <br />and trails. He explained that some residents support open space and others favor parkland or ball <br />fields. He stated that issue still needs to be addressed. <br /> <br />Board Member Max questioned if a resident survey would still be done. <br /> <br />City Council Liaison Strommen explained that they would be up against a time wall. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Miller questioned if there is a deadline as this would be a <br />ballot issue. <br /> <br />Board Member Sibilski reported that the City Council would need to approve the issue or the <br />petition Jrom the residents would need to be submitted by September 12, 2008. He advised that <br />if they do not meet that deadline and a petition is submitted they would then need to hold a <br />special election. <br /> <br />Environmental Coordinator Anderson questioned if there was any concern with timing <br />considering rising gas prices and the general state ofthe economy. <br /> <br />City Council Liaison Strommen advised that is something that the Trust for Public Land could <br />weigh in on prior to the Council meeting. She thought that they have tracked these things over <br />time and a poor economy has not affected the outcome of an open space referendum. She <br />advised that they would have data on that type of issue. She added that over time open space <br />referendums have been wildly successful, much more than school referendums. <br /> <br />Board Member Sibilski advised that there was an article is the USA Today that stated open space <br />referendums have been passed more than any other type of referendum that tax payers have <br />voted on. <br /> <br />City Council Liaison Strommen and Community Development Director Miller left the meeting <br />to attend another City meeting. <br /> <br />Chairperson McDilda questioned if the hope is that this feasibility is moved to a City Council <br />W orksession for discussion and then to bring to a regular Council meeting to be added to the <br />ballot as a referendum. <br /> <br />Board Member Sibilski advised that the discussion would revolve either around getting a survey <br />done in a fast manner, which would be difficult with the time constraints, or a decision to make <br />an educated guess with Embrace Open Space and Trust for Public Land based on the wording of <br />successful open space referendums in the past. He advised that he would like to see a survey <br />completed but would also like to see this on the ballot in the general election rather than a special <br />election, which would not have the same turnout. <br /> <br />Board Member Max thought that a survey would get them much further, as City Council could <br />determine that this is not the right time to do this and turn it down without the resident <br />information that a survey would give them. <br />Environmental Policy Board / June 17, 2008 <br />Page 4 of8 <br />