My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PRECM 10-01-1980
NewBrighton
>
Commissions
>
Commissions-OLD
>
Parks And Recreation
>
Minutes Park & Recreation Commission Meetings P&R 01200
>
MINUTES
>
1980
>
PRECM 10-01-1980
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/29/2007 3:53:44 AM
Creation date
3/16/2007 7:47:13 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
October 1, 1.980 Park Board Minutes Page 3 <br />VI. Old Business <br />A. Comprehensive Plan <br />Anderson .passed.:-out the Park. and. Recreation Survey results. The <br />response. was only. about 3~%. Some of the comments are very inter- <br />esting. The comments are valid even though the return was light. <br />Dahl expressed concern. with using-.the survey in the Comprehensive <br />Plan because it becomes gospel when it is published. .She feels the <br />return was not substantial enough to warrant documentation. It <br />would be nice to use in-house. <br />Van Hatten asked what percentage was .needed to warrant validity. <br />Antlerson responded 100. <br />Gunderman asked if there were any surprises in the survey. <br />Anderson said no, it is pretty-much what was expected, but he does <br />not feel comfortable using any. of the figures because of the light <br />response. <br />Gunderman stated he agreed with what Dahl said and prefers not to <br />publish the survey but use it in-house only. The .Park Board ,got <br />burned on the Long. Lake survey, plus the vocabulary problems that <br />occurred. <br />Anderson stated he would like a motion for guideline purposes to <br />know where the Board stands. He would like to know. if, the survey. <br />was not used in the Comprehensive Plan,-does the Park Board wish to <br />do another survey. If so, would it be done professionally. Perhaps <br />the Park Board wants no survey at all. There is $12,000 to be util- <br />ized in .the Comprehensive Park Plan. The City Manager prefers the <br />work.. be done in-house.. <br />Van Hatten asked who could bury the survey. <br />-Anderson said the City can bury it. It was designed by the City <br />Manager,- Administrative Assistant.,.. himself and the Park Board. <br />Gunderman .said the survey can't be buried. It is public: information. <br />The Park Board can state a position of concern because of'lack of <br />val-idity due to light response but use the survey for background <br />information. <br />Anderson stated that if a survey, was done professionally it would <br />be .random sampling. <br />Gunderman stated he was. opposed to doing the survey professionally <br />because there are no real problems, nothing specific that we are: <br />looking for. He prefers to spend the money somewhere else. <br />Dahl'stated the low return could also mean that the people who did <br />not respond were satisfied and did. not return survey because there <br />is no major problem. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.