12/08/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

question investigated and given the opinion it could be a l5-year levy. That opinion, dated November 24, has been distributed to Council along with data from Parks on ... op~rationa1 costs if the proposal passes, plus material from the Finance Director on the tax rate question. Councilwoman Shirey said the committee has drawn together as a total package e what they felt were the priority items, starting with a $15,000,000 package and cutting it down to $7,000,000 by prioritizing. The committee would welcome additions or deletions by Council. Mr. Haws commented he would have some suggestions but would like further time to study the proposal before commenting. Mayor Anderson pointed out that the issue would be on the consent calendar of the next Council meeting at which time fur- ther discussion could be held, even if a decision is made "today." Mrs. Bea1 also mentioned she might have some ideas to add. Mr. Haws asked why acquisition costs were raised from $300,000 to $350,000 since May. Parks Director said the adjustment stemmed from the opinion that the original estimate tv'aS a little low. Mr. Hamel remarked that perhaps the proposal could be split, noting some might vote against the entire package if objecting to one portion of it; he mentioned previous ridgeline acquisition opposition. Mr. Murray felt there should be a comprehensive approach, feeling the total proposal is one of sound urban planning. He added that the 1990 Plan puts the city in a position of making various pledges to the public such as developing a balanced park system, maintaining a variety of open spaces and expanding outdoor recreation uses. Any problems that have come up, he added, would tend to prove planning has not been comprehensive enough. For instance, there is still a need today for central city parks, since other demands have previously taken priority. It would seem necessary, then, at this point to tackle the parks e issue head, on to the degree it can be afforded. The practice of picking one more popular project without deciding priorities should be stopped. If the problem is one of money, that of course is legitimate; then the answer would be to submit re- ductions in the comprehensive package and start that reduction by cutting lowest priority items. He would argue strenuously too that, in setting priorities and bumping some items, the very last Ltem to scratch would be the ridgeline pro- posal. There has been a very long history of enactments that should obligate the ci ty to submi t that proposaL. Another factor, added Mr. Murray, is the political one. Each Council member has his or her own area of interest and "picking out certain ones" results in pitting the public against itself. First-rate programs should not be sacrificed for second-rate ones. Councilman williams' only concern is whether the proposal is a logical and balanced one. It seems to be a combination of two different proposals - one a question of urban park development and the second a question of whether the city should invest funds in protecting and bringing in the 1990 Plan urban service boundary. .Mr. Williams speculated whether bringing in that boundary is really the ultimate priority but thought that, if Mr. Murray felt it to be the No. 1 priority, it is not inappropriate to separate the two issues and let the public decide on them not as a package but as they philosophically exist. Mr. Murray referred again to pledges to the public. The 1990 Plan stateS the city will secure a healthful and attractive environment. It also identifies ways of doing that, ,and to him it appears they all '~elong together in a sense that they are all ways of preserving and maintaining quality environment." If there is indeed an e interest in separating the issues, Mr. Murray would think the logical approach would be to address total parks and recreation development at a later time after tackling the first priority. 12/8/75 - 18 04'