Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Meisner shared others' concerns about the City's constant reliance on property taxes, which <br />most of the proposals represented. He looked forward to a council discussion of other sources of <br />revenues that encompassed transportation funding. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that development pressures were eliminating available land that could be used for <br />parks, in effect making the council's decisions for it. He indicated his intent to place a motion on <br />the table that addressed his concern. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey agreed with Mr. Meisner about the status of the issues list. It could serve as a <br />general roadmap but the council was not committed to it. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Fart, moved that the mayor constitute a new <br /> mayor's committee on parks and open space similar to the one created about <br /> five years ago. The committee's charge should include consideration of gaps <br /> in the parks and open space system, consideration of what projects should <br /> be included in a future parks and open space bond measure, advice to the <br /> council and staff regarding funding the maintenance and programming of <br /> new facilities, advice to the council regarding the timing of a future parks and <br /> open space bond measure. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said the word "recreation" was implied throughout the motion. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey called for discussion of the motion. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said that when she had worked on the current bond, it had been to address <br />equities in the system. Her ward still contained the least amount of recreation and parks space in <br />the entire community, and the situation frustrated her. She had been very patient and understood <br />the timing issue, but thought it appalling given the inequity that existed in her ward would persist <br />for some time. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson was skeptical about forming a committee now if there was an expectation a <br />measure would go on the ballot right away. She asked staff how that effort would dovetail with <br />the other work efforts in progress. She pointed out that unless the City increased staff for <br />acquisition, planning, design, and construction, it would still not be able to implement a bond <br />measure if approved. Ms. Nathanson also pointed out that there was still money to spend from the <br />existing bond. She wished the acquisition work associated with the bond had happened faster <br />and there was more staff available for that effort, but the City could only do so much with existing <br />resources. She questioned how a new committee would speed things up if City was already <br />working as fast as it can. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr supported the motion because of the pressure on developable land. He wanted the <br />committee to determine how critical the problem was, and what the City had to lose by not moving <br />forward. He suggested that the money left from the existing bond would be spent by the time the <br />committee completed its work. He hoped the motion would encompass other things outside park <br />land acquisition, such as a pool at Churchill High School or other more significant regional <br />projects. He agreed with Ms. Nathanson that southwest Eugene was not well-served, and did not <br />think the remaining bond money would address the problem. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 11, 2002 Page 7 <br /> State of the City <br /> <br /> <br />