04/05/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Williams questioned the significance of the June 27 date, wondering ~ whether it could be put on the primary or general election where there ,.., would be a more substantial voter turnout. Mr. Anderson said the Commis- sion had discussed such possibilities at great length. However, a delay in presenting the bond issue to the voters would not help the project. He said the project, as presented, is one that will be essentially understood by the voters. A group of people in the community now are willing to work on the project, and it was thought the June 27 date would give these people the opportunity to get the information out to the voters. Another very important issue was the cost, with $135,000 being added monthly by inflationary costs. If the vote were in November, that additional money would be wasted and could have been used elsewhere. As to holding the election earlier, Mr. Anderson said there were certain other conflicts, so it was felt the June 27 date to be more appropriate. Mr. Haws asked Council to take a look at the other options that were available for the amount of money that was being requested for this project. He suggested money could be used for additional swimming pools, park acquisition and development, tennis courts, urban beautification, ball fields and soccer fields. He felt the community would want those kinds of programs rather than the expensive project being proposed. Mr. Anderson clarified for Mr. Haws the process of Council today would actually be a vote as to whether or not the citizens in the community are entitled to make that choice. He said if Mr. Haws were to vote against the recommendation today, he would in fact be voting against giving the citizens in the community the opportunity to make their wishes known. He felt a choice .between those items Mr. Haws listed and such a project being ~ recommended were ones that should be debated among the community. The ~ Civic Center Commission has to be able to face those arguments, comparing needs among the community, but the opportunity to allow voters to express their choice is at issue today. Mr. Del ay and Mayor Kell er agreed the commi ssi on had done very fi ne work to date, and it was time to allow the voters to make their wishes known. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to place on the June 27, 1978, a ballot measure seeking approval of the City's issuance and sale of general obligation bonds in the amount of $18.5 million for use in the construction and development of the Civic Center Project. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to amend the motion to delete the issue of general obligation bonds and substitute the financing process through a business license tax. Mr. Haws said it seemed this project was designed to attract a hotel in the area and it would be best, in his belief, that people who would be benefitting should be standing the cost of such a project. Ms. Smith said she would oppose the motion, as Council had appointed a Commission asking it to bring its recommendation and that form of financing had not been included in the recommendation. She felt it to be inappropriate. " 4/5/78--4 ll1