CCMinutes - 12/08/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

public review and implementation. Ms. Nathanson said the committee tried to come up with a plan to meet the needs of the individuals and live up to the aspirations of the community as a healthy, active and beautiful place to live, work, and play. Andrea Riner, Parks and Open Space Division Planning Manager, provided a brief overview of the plan. She explained that Priority 1 indicated a project that would be tackled soon, Priority 2 indicated a project to be considered within the next 10 years, and Priority 3 indicated a project to be considered within the next 20 years. She noted that only the Priority 1 projects had been %osted out." Ren~e Grube, Recreation Services Director for the Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department, called the document a tremendous community involvement process that reemphasized the importance of parks and programs to the community. She added that the plan was different from the 1989 document in that it included recreation programs and services. Mr. Kelly complimented staff and the committee and, in particular, the public that was involved. He said the document was thorough and well-organized. He liked that it began with goals and values and looked at levels of service. He stated that the community's residents often indicated that parks and open spaces were very important. Mr. Kelly wanted to begin developing next steps, as the plan was a ~huge undertaking." He noted that the total projected cost for the Priority 1 projects was $128 million. He thought it likely that more prioritization of that list would have to occur. He added that acquisition was his first priority. Ms. Taylor agreed that acquisition should be a priority. She hoped that the plan would be brought to every neighborhood for input. She also hoped that land that needed ~to be saved" was also part of the plan. Ms. Riner stated that the committee analyzed the existing inventory of natural areas and discussed the criteria for land acquisition. She said natural resource values and connectivity for wildlife were a part of the criteria. Mr. Pap6 complimented the work of Ms. Nathanson and the committee. He questioned the City's ability to acquire more park lands when the City could not afford to maintain what it already owned. He noted that maintenance costs were still paid out of the General Fund. Ms. Nathanson responded that finding such funding would be a challenge for the City Council to face. She emphasized that the plan looked at installation and construction of parks from the perspective of needing less maintenance once a park was established. Ms. Grube added that maintenance and operations costs were included with cost projections for each capital project. Ms. Bettman also lauded the committee and the plan. She said it would be necessary to come up with %ome kind of a filter" so that staff and the council could determine what was doable. She commented that every time the City built a new road it was saddled with the maintenance and operation costs for it. She asked how the committee looked at SDCs and wondered if there was any interaction with the Public Works Rates Advisory Committee (RAC). Ms. Riner responded that the list of prioritized projects would be submitted to the RAC so that it could review those issues. She stressed that when looking at the $128 million cost it was important to recognize that it was not expected that the City of Eugene would pay the entire cost. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 2004 Page 6 Work Session