08/12/1985 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

She distributed copies of a memo, dated August 9,1985, containing information e about the responses. The order of priorities was: l. Airport improvements 2. CIP 3. Li bra ry 4. Riverfront Project 5. Downtown 6. Transportation 7. Entrance Beautifi ca tion 8. Swimming Pool Mr. Rutan asked Ms. Bellamy if she felt there was a significant breaking point in the amount of support necessary for a project to be approved. She said the figures also depended on the number not responding to a question, but an indi- cation of 50 percent or more probably was significant. Mr. Rutan said he fe1 t that unless there was a significant difference in numbers, public support probably was not strong. Ms. Bascom said she felt the ratings in the "not important" column were signi- ficant, and she noted that the least number of respondents had rated the 1 ibrary as not important, placing it ahead of the airport in terms of support, but not as important in terms of timing. She added that she fe1 t those fac- tors should be taken into account when designing projects to appeal to voters. Ms. Wooten said she felt the downtown development numbers were interesting, e and she suggested that the presentations possibly had been unclear. Mr. Holmer said the same might be true of the transportation system numbers. Ms. Wooten said the downtown development plan was basically the pending pro- posal on the Price Development Project. She said the possibility of paying for the pUblic side of the infrastructure requirement for new downtown devel- opment through tax increment money had been discussed in the past, and what remained unclear was where improvements for the balance of the downtown plan were in the agenda--whether they were under downtown development, transpor- tation, or capital improvements. She added that better technical information was needed in those areas. Ms. Ehrman reminded the council that a large portion of the community still had not been heard from. Mr. Rutan asked about the 19 percent not accounted for in the financing figures, and Ms. Bellamy said they either had not responded or had favored some other type of tax, such as a property tax, sales tax, or user fee. Ms. Wooten requested a separate breakdown of the figures from town hall meet- ings and those from service clubs, and Ms. Bascom also requested figures from the mailed-in forms. Mr. Obie said he was interested in why the CIP had received such a high response, and he suggested that perhaps citizens fe1 t existing infrastructure shou1 d be ma inta ined. Ms. Ehrman suggested that another reason for the responses might be the ties to federal revenue sharing. e MINUTES--City Council Dinner Session August 12, 198~_ Pa ge 2