Amazon Park 2003-2004 Development Plan

New Search

The park and recreation staff told us they have no knowledge of how much energy is used for lighting the baseball, volleyball or tennis courts. In a time of scarce resources energy audits should be a normal part of determining the cost benefit of nighttime recreation and should not require a research project to be undertaken. Knowing the cost of providing a service is part of making good planning decisions. 2. COSTS: A. Estimate bond, SDC and general fund expenditures on construction and maintenance ofAmazon Park corridor areas devoted to different recreational activities. B. Determine approximate expenditures on these different areas during the past 10 years within Amazon Park. C. Show approximate income to Recreation and Parks associated with different recreational activities. While some information was made available on expenses in the Amazon Park and adjacent city expenditures, this information was neither thorough nor complete (see Attachment A for the information that was provided). The cost of on -going maintenance costs and project expenditures (i.e. new volleyball courts and lights, SEHS synthetic turf) were not included. Information on bond, SDC, and general fund expenditures should be easily available on -line. There is no excuse for lumping items in the quarterly reports on bond expenditures (e.g., "Community/Regional Parks) with the result that citizens cannot see what it is that their money is buying. Now that we are living in the age of computer- stored information, citizens should not be told that expenditures require a research project but should be provided with adequate spread sheets. The item that was provided on natural area expenditures for 2003 shows that delayed maintenance creates large expenditures for a single year and should not be construed as parallel to ongoing maintenance of sports fields. In addition, numbers provided on the hours of field maintenance (70 hours /year) was 10% of the listed cost (43 hours /week) in another parks publication ( "Eugene Outdoors! "). Integrity between publications is a must otherwise the comparison of inflated delayed maintenance of natural areas against grossly under- exaggerated sport -field maintenance costs appears to be highly suspect. 3. BALLFIELD DATA: Create a map of current soccer, base /softball fields on school and City properties and an inventory of ball fields that could be enhanced and areas that could be developed as ball fields. The only existing information on soccer & softball fields in the city was created six years ago, in 1998: this information was compiled before extensive field updates, has inaccuracies, and needs updating by city planners. What this document does provide is the fact that 84% of current fields exist on school property. The 17 -plus fields that were updated using the City of Eugene 1998 bond money were updated on school properties. It is critical that the city's investments be protected as well as equitably shared between school and city services. Currently, the only fields protected by a contract are the synthetic turf fields. Since a majority investment by the public already exists on school (public) property and would wisely continue, contracts should be made for existing upgraded fields and future fields to be upgraded. The 6 year old information provided makes it apparent that a number of fields already exist but only need upgrades and viable contracts to provide shared interest of our public resources. Sharing resources such as fields only seems a natural recreational partnership between the city and schools. The map we were provided does not include the number of fields or the impact of the UO student population on surrounding areas. Cooperation with LCC, UO, and private schools should also be pursued. According to Oregon and Natl. Recreation & Park Association average standards for soccer and softball /baseball facilities, Eugene meets the Oregon standard and exceeds the national standard rive times.