10/26/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Another aspect of the controversy of the acquisition versus develop- ment was land costs. In a chart distributed to Council, he reviewed e from the years 1974 to 1977 various acquisition projects and the cost per acre, which indicated a fantastic increase in acquisition costs. There are many constraints in acquisition of park land: Unwilling sellers, unavailability of funds, costs associated with acquisition, multiple ownership, or absentee ownership, method of payment for pur- chase, and possible relocation requirements and provisions which in- fluence time schedules. Another focal point determined was to identify all park areas within a five-mile area of the city. He presented a map to Council showing staff had located all park areas within a 30-minute travel time that would be available to the citizens of Eugene. In considering the placement of parks, he said accessibility and safety in travel were major factors. Staff had not always dealt in just a five-mile radius, noting that would consume most of the city. The Parks Department is in the process of adding more information, which would include the private recreational opportunities and updating of schools. He reviewed for Council the suggested acquisition and development project possibilities, which would in total amount to $70.5 million. He said if there were special concerns that Council wanted further reports or study done, the Joint Parks Committee would be available. The Committee could, through its process, identify needs in the community and make priority lists to present to Council. Mr. Haws wondered if there were any requirement in the City Code which e provided, under annexation of large parcels of land, that park land be given to the City. Jim Saul, Planner, said that was not a manda- tory requirement, although it occasionally happens. City Attorney reviewed for Council a recent court case where this question had been raised. He said as a result of that case, if such a requirement were in the Code, it would be limited to requiring dedication only because of special projects which required additional services. Mr. Bradley thought Council should consider adding a provision that would make such dedication of property for park purposes available, especially in newly-annexed areas. Mr. Hamel noted bond levies had been used for acquisition of land the past two or three years. He would like to see the Parks Department start prioritizing areas that need development so such monies could be used to develop property already acquired. Mr. Delay noted the obvious problem of the deteriorating system, with the lack of money available for improvements and acquisitions, and the sum it would take to develop those properties acquired. He wondered if the Joint Parks Committee was willing to pursue and discuss these matters and present to Council some options and recommendations. Mr. Obie felt the Parks Committee had the desire to pursue the objectives - 10/26/77--8 813