10/13/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. williams moved second by Mr: HameL to refer the proposal to staff for consideration of testimony taken at this meeting and ask that th€ issue be brought back to the Council either with a series of alternatives for consideration, or._ sound reasons e why alternatives should not be considered and the package presented to the voters in its existing form. Councilman Murray asked if intent of the motion was to refer the issue to staff or to the Joint Parks Committee. Mr. Williams replied, IrStaff." Manager said further suggestions could probably be worked out with regard to the issue. He noted the impact the proposal would have on the budget and suggested it could be reviewed by the budget committee, soon to start its work. Councilman Williams said the motion referring the proposal to staff would not pre- clude staff's referring it wherever they wanted for analysis. Mr. Keller thought it should have further review because of the concern expressed about acquisition of park areas in the central city. Councilwoman Beal suggested instructing staff also to recommend some division of the issues for voting purposes. Councilman Haws said he would vote against the motion. He thought the appropriate place for review was the Joint Parks Committee because they made the original recommendation. Councilman Murray agreed. Although he was not wholly in favor of referral, he said, if it was referred, it should be to the policy makers who developed the proposal rather than to staff. Mr. Haws moved second by Mrs. Beal to amend the motion to refer e the proposal to the Joint Parks Committee rather than to staff. Councilman Williams was opposed to the amendment. He thought input in terms of revised considerations from other than those preparing the original proposal would be more appropriate. Councilman Haws pointed out that the makeup of the Joint Parks Committee had changed (he is now a member) and a different viewpoint therefore might be obtained. He didn't think staff would present anything too different from what might result from the Committee's review. Councilwoman Shirey thought the Committee could use the in put gained from testi- mony at this meeting in a creative way and come up with the necessary changes. Councilman Bradley suggested a time limit for returning the issue to the Council- perhaps 30 or 45 days. Councilman Haws asked if timing was critical so far as election dates were concerned. Manager answered that his understanding was that the issue could not be ready for the voters before early spring. He said the critical matter was the impact on the city's operating budget as well as the tax rate. This proposal, he said, involved about a 6l~ tax increase and since budget- ing problems would be greater this year very careful consideration of the entire proposal was necessary. A 30- or 45-day time limit would be fine, he said, adding that finance, parks, and other departments could give some input in that time. Mr. Haws with consent of the second (Mrs. Beal) included a 45-day - time limit in the amendment. Councilman Keller hoped that would hot rush a decision back to the Council. He was not in favor of setting a limit because people working on the Joint Parks Committee were volunteers and they might not be able to give adequate considera- 533 10/13/75 - 5