MAINTENANCE
MAYHEM
Eugene’s parks need new funding
to keep them running
By Claire Rischiotto
I
t’s 1938 in Eugene, and Spencer Butte is in danger.
If Eugeneans can’t raise $7,000, Spencer Butte and
its iconic trees will be on the chopping block for the
logging industry.
Peeling through archived newspaper articles,
Heather Kliever, curator of education and registrar
at Lane County Historical Society, reads aloud
descriptions of a daunting fate for the prominent
Eugene landmark.
The Eugene community succeeded in saving
Spencer Butte, she says, with help from the Eugene
Business and Professional Women’s Club and chairman of
the Eugene city park commission, F.M. Wilkins, a local
businessman who was the driving force and voice for the
cause.
In the winter of 1938, after a series of town meetings,
news stories and donations, the park fund reached its
halfway point in eight days, according to Kliever. To make
up the rest of the money needed to purchase the land, the
city proposed and later voted through a tax levy.
“What is interesting to know is, could he have done this
sort of stuff nowadays?” Kliever asks. “We don’t think the
same way anymore, I don’t think. How fortunate were we
to have this guy, really.”
Spencer Butte likely would not be the tree-abundant
hiking destination it is today if it weren’t for a previous
generation of Eugeneans who cared about their parks.
This love of local parks has resurfaced over the years
through voting records, especially with the 1998 and 2006
bond measures that were passed to acquire and develop
land for parks.
But as Eugene’s park system has grown considerably
in size, the funding to maintain all of that parkland has
not kept pace. With a $4.3 million yearly budget for
maintenance, Parks and Open Space has an estimated $2
million operational maintenance budget gap and a capital
backlog of close to $30 million for renovating parks — this
has led to an aging system with problems like decrepit park
furniture, broken-down bathroom facilities and worn-out
running trails, according to a 2016 report.
The report also linked illegal camping and homelessness
with illicit activity, saying that “the financial impact of
illegal homeless camping on the park system has become
very significant and difficult to address within existing
resources.”
Other Oregon cities have used utility fees to pay for park
upkeep, but as with many things in Eugene, the funding
discussion is slow to develop. Conversations between the
parks department and City Council have taken place for
years.
Mayor Kitty Piercy says insufficient funding for parks
is not a new conversation. It’s ultimately up to the people
of Eugene to decide how they want to fund their parks,
Piercy says.
MORE PARKS, MORE PROBLEMS
Eugeneans use their parks so often that 73 percent
of adults visit local parks in any given week. That’s 9.3
million annual visits to parks in Eugene, according to the
Eugene Parks and Recreation System Needs Assessment
Report, a collaboration between Parks and Open Space,
a division of Public Works, and Recreation Services,
a division of the Library Recreation Cultural Services
department, according to city planner Carolyn Burke.
Eugene’s concern for preserving and protecting its
natural areas and parks can be seen throughout the entire
park system. From the expansive view at the top of
Spencer Butte’s summit to the abundance of trees that line
the Willamette River along the Ruth Bascom bike path,
Eugene is full of natural beauty.
According to Craig Carnagey, director of Eugene Parks
and Open Space, the number-one amenity Eugeneans
said they wanted in a survey conducted last year “was to
maintain what we have right now and see those amenities
improved,” including things like park benches and tree
canopies. “People really want to get back to the basics, but
improve those basics throughout the system,” the survey
revealed.
In one of its newsletters, Parks and Open Space briefly
explains the consequences of insufficient funding for
“existing and planned parks, trails and amenities” with
three categories. The first is maintenance.
According to the newsletter, 14 of Eugene’s 105 parks
and natural areas and three facilities are characterized as
in good condition and require “only basic maintenance.”
Emily Proudfoot, principle landscape architect in the Parks
and Open Space planning office, explains that some of
these parks include Acorn, Friendly and Awbrey parks.
Twenty-two parks and two facilities have some
basic features in poor condition, which require modest
rehabilitation, and 24 parks require major renovation,
including Tugman Park, Lincoln School Park and Fladden
Park, according to Proudfoot.
If this funding issue is not resolved, the consequences
include an ongoing delay in developing 17 acquired
parklands across Eugene, from Ferndale Park and Ruby
Park in North Eugene to Golden Gardens Park and
Grasshopper Meadows in West Eugene.
According to Parks and Open Space, delayed
development and a shortage of funds means a prolonged
lack of access to parks for children and families throughout
Eugene, a decline in the function and appearance of
playground equipment, restrooms, ornamental landscapes,
lawns and trails, as well as limited access to more than
1,000 acres of natural area and a system-wide decline in
habitat quality.
BUDGET ISSUES
As a result of budget cuts and an operational and
maintenance budget gap, Eugene Parks and Open Space
has developed only one neighborhood park — Creekside
Park, in north Eugene off of Gilham — over the past seven
years, Carnagey says.
In order to resolve the budget gaps, Carnagey says it
will take more than the efforts of public officials. It will
require a show of support by the local community.
“This community loves its parks. It wants us to do
something so that it continues to have great parks. That’s
been fantastic to hear. But again, we need to see that
support come out and make it known,” Carnagey says.
He adds that this support would be “for adequate
operating and maintenance funding and then also support
for capital improvements to our facilities," which would
"provide parks to areas that are underserved right now in
the north and in the west.”
These budget issues, internal to the parks department,
have been made known to the public through recent reports
and newsletters.
This past winter, Eugene Parks and Recreation System
released a system needs assessment report. In this 93-page
report, the department discussed its history, success, usage
of parks and needs. As Burke and Carnagey explain, the
report gathered information from 7,000 Eugeneans who
participated in the PARKS and RECreate surveys — an
effort from Parks and Open Space as well as Recreation
Services to hear from the community — to help adopt a
master plan for the next 10 years and beyond.
The report clearly states that “because of the magnitude
of the need,” funding for maintenance “will require voter-
eugeneweekly.com • September 15, 2016
13