06/24/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Mr. Hamel asked which of the five areas this proposed acquisition's funding would come from. Mr. Haniuk responded that this acquisition would be from the Delta/Riverfront section and would not jeopardize possible acquisitions in other areas. Mr. Lindberg asked whether, if we held off on this purchase, in Mr. Haniuk's opinion, there would be other riverfront property to acquire instead of this property. Mr. Haniuk said not at this time and stated that some properties were identified such as along the West Bank. The other aspect of the program was to expand any part of Skinner Butte Park when the opportunity arose. About one year ago, the City acquired some State property with the same intent. Mr. Lindberg asked if there is other property in this area under nego- tiation. He stated this does not seem to be an especially exciting expenditure of $107,000 and asked if it might be better to wait for a better piece of property. Mr. Haniuk stated that nothing that has been identified at this time for potential acquisition is better than this piece of property. They looked at expansion of the Rose Garden. When the opportunity arose to acquire this property, staff recommended that it be done. Mr. Lindberg asked how it would be 'developed. Mr. Haniuk responded that Parks Design staff could better answer that question, but there is a Master Plan for the Riverfront System and for the immediate Skinner Butte area. He feels this probably would be developed for general public use, but it would depend upon public need and desire. Mr. Lindberg asked if these dollars are restricted to this usage or if this money could be transferred into the Willakenzie area. Mr. Haniuk responded that that would be the council's option, but when the serial levy was passed by the voters, there were certain appropriations aimed for the five sections of the City. The Joint Parks Committee helped work on this pl an. Two-thirds of all the available money went for Ridgeline acquisition e with one-third remaining for the other geographical areas. The De 1 ta/R iver- front area received a major portion of that one-third as it was deemed high priority. The major reason for this is that three or four years ago, there was Greenway money available to enable them to purchase more land than they would have been able to purchase with just the money from the bond issue. The council, however, could reallocate these funds if they chose. Mr. Whitlow stated that the council is looking for information as to how much total money is available and where it is allocated, as well as what other riverfront acquisitions are possible. He suggested that this item be held over for two weeks if it would not jeopardize the purchase of this property. Ms. Miller stated that she would rather proceed with this purchase because it has been under negotiation. She feels this request should be taken to the Joint Parks Committee for more development with information being returned to the counc il . She does not feel the dollars should be redistributed; that would be a major undertaking and they could lose the opportunity to purchase this property. In addition, that would be going against what the voters were told at the time they passed the bond issue. It is complicated to compare properties and this could cause them to lose out on the possible acquisition of this land. Specific properties cannot be compared because there are a limited number of available properties for purchase and they are never precisely the same. Ms. Wooten " - MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 24, 1981 Page 8 -