cancelled the project, bu has been reluctant ever
authorize another attempt. Ta be acceptable, our proposal must
meet the test of f1 al responsibility. We believe it does.

The ather objections raised as . rationale in the
correspondence are also addressed: tne budget, the time frame and
the interest from other ice users. Qur objective is to obtain
ice time during the summer months and ta demonstrate that
financial and social responsinility can be maintained. The
proposal outlines actions taken based an the Recreation
Department’s refusal specifically outlined in the letter, a
financially-based cost benefit analysis, as well as our vision

the future for Fort Coquitlam ice users.

tlt RECENT PARKS & RECREATION RESPONSE.

Contained in the December 22, 19787 correspondence, the Parks
and Recreation Committee cited the follawing ab yection
/rationale for rejection of our proposal.

1. Ice surface demand
Historical unfulfilled cammitments from community
groups
3. Conflicts with Minor Lacrosse schedules
Fach of these objections are rational concerns. Had our
intervention been recent, and included na research inta
these issues, a postponement proposal to delay us twelve months
would have been perceived ag reasonable and acceptable.
Unfortunately, we have been through this exercise twice before.

In March of 1987 we approached th: Recreation Department for

‘04