10/13/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ issues for voter consideration and said the Joint Parks Committee had looked at that aspect and was of the opinion that acquisition of property in the south hills could not be isolated from needs in other areas for parks and open space. As a result, the Committee had developed the more comprehensive, overall proposal. . Mr. Murray continued with regard to cost of acquiring open space in the south hills .that there was no question it would take a lot of money. But he thought failure to preserve the ridge line would be a striking contribution to the sprawl pattern and the costs of such growth. He compared development in the Spencer/ Lorane area to development in the Willakenzie area where some urban services are already available, and quoted costs for services in both areas. He said that sewers, including pumping station, and transportation routes would have to be de- veloped to serve the Spencer/Lorane area at a cost of $22,516,000 to $28,624,000 which should be compared to the $7.45 million cost proposed in this total parks and open space proposal. He thought it importnat too to realize that the Spencer/ Lorane area was only one, others adjacent would have to be included if development occurred. Councilman Williams said he had heard no testimony that would lead him to believe there would be a $27 million cost to the public if development occurred in the south hills. Or that development in the Willakenzie area would require perhaps only $1.5 million for sewers. He said he had no idea whether the testimony was valid but he was terrified, he said, of asking Eugene people to spend $4.5 million to buy south hills land on arguments he didn't understand. Councilman Keller thought the two issues should be separated. He felt the exist- ing parks program might be penalized, if the two issues were combined, for the benefit of trying to acquire land in the south hills. Councilman Hamel agreed. He thought the people of Eugene should have the opportunity to decide whether they wanted to expand the existing park lands separately from acquisition of e south hills property. Councilwoman Beal wondered how the voters could choose between acquisition of land in the south hills and land in the central areas if the issues were separated strictly between a bond issue for parks development and a serial levy for acquisi- tion. Councilman Haws wondered what would happen to the $300,000 included in the bond issue for central parks development if the issues were separated and the serial levy for acquisition in the central area was not approved. Manager remarked that the Mayor had expressed a desire to review testimony pre- sented at this meeting before action was taken in view of the long-range develop- ment plan and its effect on future budgets. Manager suggested that no decision be made at this meeting Councilwoman Beal thought a fair choice would not be given the voters by including acquisition of park areas in the central city in the serial levy. If it was de- feated,she said, and park development approved under the bond issue, there would be ~o parks to develop. She said the central area was the most overcrowded and needed the facilities and open space. Councilwoman Shirey didn't want to separate the issues. She said the Joint Parks Committee had proposed a comprehensive package for the entire city and separation for voter consideration would result either in development of existing parks with no acquisition of new land, or acquisitibn of new land with no development. She noted receipt of a letter from Phyllis Ekr1y, president of the South Hills Neigh-' e borhood Association, supporting the total proposal, and commenting that the city had a commitment to bring to the people a plan for acquisistion and development of a parks system for the future residents ~f the city. 10/13/75 - 4 nv