Laserfiche WebLink
4.Ellen Hyman testimony (December 22, 2005) states that: <br /> <br />a) The PROS Plan should contain the priority list as a way to hold the City <br /> <br />accountable to the voters and measure accomplishments. Promises were <br />made but not delivered from the 1989 Plan and the 1998 POS bond <br />measure. <br />b)Additionally, there are concerns about how the bond measure has been <br /> <br />implemented including: <br />Four planned projects not listed in the expenditure history, <br /> <br />? <br />including a community park for Santa Clara <br />Expenditures have been made on items not mentioned in the bond <br /> <br />? <br />measure including planning, signage, the PROS Plan, and <br />additional projects. Only $387,307 has been spent in Santa Clara <br />of the total bond measure. <br /> <br />Staff Response: <br />a)See staff response to item 3(b) and (c). <br /> <br /> <br />b)There are inherent costs associated with implementing a bond measure. <br /> <br />These costs include the planning, engineering, and management of <br />projects. The dollar estimates for each category listed in the bond measure <br />include these inherent costs. Additionally, there are opportunities which <br />can be acted on during the implementation of a bond measure, such as <br />developing a new park sign standard for the numerous new parks which <br />are being developed. Bond measure dollars were leveraged in many <br />instances by grants, donations, and partnerships. The implementation of <br />the bond measure has exceeded expectations in most categories. The few <br />remaining projects are considered staff’s highest priority and will be <br />completed in the near future. In addition to $387,307 in park development <br />costs, $1,956,670 has been spent on park acquisition in Santa Clara to date. <br /> <br /> <br />5.Larry Reed, JRH Planning, testimony (December 12, 2005) states that the <br /> <br />PROS Plan is flawed because: <br />a)The inventory does not address private and other agency lands and <br /> <br />recreation facilities. By law, these facilities cannot be ignored. The <br />inventory also does not include the Willamette River and adjoining <br />vegetation and bike paths. <br />b)The Plan is out of balance with other planning elements of equal or more <br /> <br />importance than the City’s recreational elements. <br /> <br />Staff Response: <br />a)There are numerous agencies and private entities which own land within <br /> <br />Eugene’s Urban Growth Boundary and provide recreation opportunities to <br />Eugene residents. These providers include: <br />Attachment B January 18, 2006 Page 5 <br /> <br />