My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
PRC MIN 1976-02-11
RedwoodCity
>
Park and Rec Commission
>
Parks & Rec Comm Minutes
>
1970-1978
>
1976
>
PRC MIN 1976-02-11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/4/2014 9:32:16 AM
Creation date
12/4/2014 9:31:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Park and Rec Comm
Park and Rec Comm - Document Type
Minutes
Date
2/11/1976
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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
TO : Parks & Recreation Commission <br /> FROM : Budget Committee <br /> Chairman : Commissioner Weintraub <br /> DATE : February 4 , 1976 <br /> SUBJECT : CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BUDGET- - FISCAL YEAR 1976 -77 <br /> The Budget and Capital Improvements Committee met on February 4 , 1976 <br /> to continue their discussion relative to the possible projects for the <br /> Capital Improvement Program for 1976-77 . A review of their January 7th <br /> meeting was made together with reviewing the projects which had been <br /> suggested for the Capital Improvement Program for the coming year . <br /> The Committee again reviewed all the projects for the various parks as <br /> currently projected in the five-year plan , and agreed to continue to place <br /> the Canyon Park , Palm Park , and Red Morton Park as the top priority areas <br /> for possible projects in Fiscal Year 1976-77 . It was pointed out that <br /> these projects were actually carry -over projects which were not authorized <br /> during Fiscal Year 1975 -76 . Upon reviewing the 15 possible projects involving <br /> the three park areas it was felt that Canyon Park should remain as the Number 1 <br /> Priority , so that initial grading and turfing could be completed in 1976- 77 . <br /> Additionally , it was felt that the remaining projects should be prioritized <br /> collectively rather than prioritized into individual park areas . This would <br /> allow greater flexibility in selecting projects , particularly if funds were to <br /> be severely limited . <br /> The Committee arrived at a possible priority ; however , it was the consensus of <br /> the committee that the priority should be discussed with the Commission at <br /> their meeting of February 11th so that the entire Commission could have input <br /> into the project priorities . A proposed summary of the committee ' s action <br /> would be prepared for the February meeting so that if time allowed , the <br /> Commission could discuss the matter , or if they preferred , a special meet- <br /> ing could be called to consider the Capital Improvement project priorities . <br /> File 8 . 5 . 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.