Laserfiche WebLink
Presentation re: <br />Citizens Committee <br />to Study Council <br />Changes <br /> <br /> Mr. Conover, ~j~/ ~'-' ...... <br /> a p~aC~Cipant in the softball leagues and <br /> <br />a sponsor of them, remarked that present facilities for softball <br />are inadequate at McIntire Park and Washington Park has a <br />regulation field. He said that the problem has been successful <br />and has expanded and that adequate facilities including parking <br />and bathroom facilities should be provided for the program. He <br />said that participation in the softball games was one of the <br />cheapest and healthiest forms of recreation available currently <br />and one of the few City programs that is self-supporting. He <br />stated that weekend tournaments provide spectator entertainment, <br />participation opportunities and economic benefits to the City. <br />In view of all these benefits, he supported Mr. Albro's <br />suggestion that an alternative site for softball be provided <br />with adequate facilities that do not endanger or inconvenience <br />residents of the neighborhoods. He suggested that the <br />facilities at Piedmont Virginia Community College might be <br />considered. In resPonse to Mr. Conover's question, Mr. German <br />stated that they would need 2-3 months' time after a Council <br />decision to construct or improve softball facilities to have <br />those facilities ready for the next softball season. Mr. Marston <br />.suggested that Council consider realigning and improving the <br />McIntire field or constructing a softball facility near the <br />high school on open space presently available. Mayor Buck <br />remarked that the choice seemed to be one of considering the <br />PVCC facilities or committing to a major capital improvements <br />project. <br /> <br /> On motion by Dr. Hall~ seconded by Mr. Albro, Council <br />unanimously denied the proposal to light the Washington Park <br />field. Mayor Buck suggested that the issue of adequate facilities <br />be considered during consideration of the capital improvements <br />budget in the spring. <br /> <br /> Mr. A1 Gianniny, chairman of the Citizens Committee to Study <br />Council Changes (CCSCC), reported the findings of the committee. <br />A copy of the written report was provided to Council and Mr. <br />Gianniny.briefly summarized.~fthe report. There were six recommenda- <br />tions: (1) Against a ward-only system. (2) Against direct <br />election of the mayor. (3) For mixed ward/at-large system with <br />mayor elected by Council. (4) That Council consider four <br />Council members elected by ward and three elected at-large, with <br />no assumption regarding ward boundaries. (5) That Council should <br />submit the recommendations of the committee to a referendum of <br />voters as part of the process of amending the City charter, if Council <br />looks favorably on those recommendations. (6) That any transition <br />should take place at the time of a regular Council election, <br />with the two or three incumbents completing their terms. Mr. <br />Gianniny qualified these recommendations by stating that the <br />committee did not consider the legal ramifications of them or <br />explore the technical legislative details. The effects of any <br /> <br />359 <br /> <br /> <br />