Features |
|
...Mount Hood neighbors pose challenging questions and strong opinions about Park Commission's selection.
|
Proposed Athletic Field options developed from the feasibility study were discussed at two different meetings of the Park Commission.
The first meeting held September 2 was devoted solely to the feasibility study. The meeting’s objective was to select a configuration from the five different options, both golf related and non-golf related, which had been developed by the Beals & Thomas consultants. The selected option would be discussed again at the Commission’s regularly scheduled meeting on September 14. Both meetings were held at the Mount Hood clubhouse. At the September 2 meeting four of the options were displayed side-by side. Each of them, propped up on a chair, was represented by color enhanced, engineering-type drawings approximately 3 feet in width. Driving range option not included in selection process. One of the configurations, calling for a driving range and a par-3 golf hole, had already been eliminated, at least it was not displayed along with the other four. Three of the configurations involved an athletic field; the fourth involved a complete relocation of the 17th golf hole. Of the three athletic field options one included a running track, a second involved a complete relocation of the 17th hole, and a third only required a modification of the current 17th hole. The Commission members were looking for consensus on a single option which could be refined by the consultant so that it could be discussed with the Conservation Commission. The Commission had previously requested that no program would move ahead without addressing its previously expressed environmental concerns. At the outset the Commission expressed the understanding that their might not be an agreement on a single option and was open to the possibility that more than one option would be selected, or more than one option with a preference. Selection process involves vigorous discussion among Commission members. There was a vigorous discussion among the Commission members about the options and, initially, not all of the agreed on which was the best. The discussions eliminated the running track configuration. It would require a $3 million premium just to prepare the space where it would be built and the premium put it beyond the money that would be available to pay for it. Eventually the discussion boiled down to the option which called for an athletic field requiring only a modification, not relocation of the 17th hole. Commission members John McLaughlin, John Mercer, and Bob Christiansen were in favor of this option. Chairman Interbartolo expressed no preference. The Commission’s vote was unanimous on pursuing the favored option. In the next step the consultant will more fully develop the option and then issue its final report of the feasibility study. Once this is done there will be a meeting with the Conservation Commission to address the environmental concerns. Few citizens present at September 2 meeting to comment. There were very few citizens attending this meeting but the Commission, as its custom, provided a time for public participation when any citizen after giving his name and address is free to comment. Mr. John McDonald of nearby Laurel Street did just that. Mr. McDonald was prepared in his comments which he stated as issues of safety, quality of life, and noise that would affect nearby residents like him. He wanted the athletic field to be located in the fill area close by the 11th hole which is far away from the proposed 17th hole location. The fill area, so called because it was where the Big Dig landfill was dumped, would be accessed by building a road through to Route 99. He wanted the forest area ,which would be cut down to accommodate the proposed athletic field at the 17th hole, to be retained and its wildlife undisturbed.. Chairman Interbartolo responded that any accessibility to Route 99 is not possible since the two businesses that abut this area hold long-standing leases for the land where an access road would have to be built. Bigger group shows up for Commission's regular meeting on September 14. Public participation was very much the issue at the Park Commission’s regularly scheduled meeting on September 14. There was not a large crowd but about ten or twelve neighbors of Mount Hood were there to ask some penetrating questions about the proposed athletic field. The Commission members recognized that these people wanted to express their feelings and changed the agenda to move the Public Participation period, originally scheduled to take place at 9:20, to become the first order of business. Mrs. Dolores Cohen of Sycamore Road who identified herself as president of Hoodwinks, a group of lady golfers, expressed a dissatisfaction as to what was happening. She wanted to know if the course would be shut down during the construction, it would not be said chairman Interbartolo. Mr. Interbartolo went on to explain that Mount Hood is the only place left in the city to build an athletic field that can accommodate school sports programs. "Why not use money to buy laptop computers for the kids?" Ms. Cohen responded why not use the money to buy laptop computers for the kids, why devote all the money to sports players? She recalled issues in the past when “carpetbaggers came in to make money on us.” Again, the Chairman reiterated the need for the field and said there would be three steps taken before the athletic field would be built. The first had been completed, using the recommendations of a professional consultant to determine a series of realistic configurations which could be developed at Mount Hood. At its September 2 meeting the Commission had selected one of these configurations for implementation. The second step will be to present the proposed configuration to the Conservation Commission to be sure it passes any environmental limitations. This is expected to be a long process since any environmental studies cannot be started until Spring. If the proposal satisfies the environmental issues it will move to the next step. Step three will involve retaining a qualified consultant to conduct a traffic study to determine the effects the athletic field will have on the neighbors. The athletic field proposal will be required to pass all of these investigations if it is to continue. There were other questions, too. Chris Wallace wanted to know will it come to a point where the program would be abandoned? Interbartolo said that it would depend on the results of the three-step study. Wallace also wanted to know if public opposition would stop the program? Interbartolo said it hadn’t so far. Neighbors express apprehension that field will have lights. Myron Dittmer of Altamont Avenue whose property adjoins the course, said he hadn’t heard anyone specifically state how many people would be playing on the field and when. He had heard that the field was going to be lighted. Interbartolo answered that the current proposal does not includes lights. In response Mr. Dittmer wanted to know can it be guaranteed ”right now” that there will be no lights. Chairman Interbartolo reiterated that the plan did not include lights . If necessary, the subject would be addressed and the Commission will keep the public involved. There were other questions from the attendees. Most of them lived nearby the area where the athletic field is proposed to be built. Their questions indicated an apprehension as to how the athletic field would affect their neighborhood. Alderman asks Commission to reconsider location of athletic field. Peter Mortimer, is the Alderman of Ward 6 where most of the attendees live. Alderman Mortimer urged the Commission to carefully review its decision to locate the field near the 17th hole. He said it would mean the Tot Lot would have to be removed. It would be possible, too, for golf balls to be hit onto the Athletic field because of its proximity to the 17th. Mr. Mortimer held fast to the position that the athletic field should be built in the fill area where people attending the games would have a beautiful view. He said that considering the premium cost of building in the 17th hole area that it may be cheaper to build an access road from the fill area to Route 99. Chairman Interbarolo responded that feasibility study puts the commission on solid ground in arguments over where the athletic field should be located. He added another fact, one which had not been heard at previous meetings, that the soil in the fill area was not conducive to a synthetic field. The Big Dig land fill which had been dumped there, and now underneath a grass cover, is subject to shifting and will not provide the solid ground needed for a synthetic turf athletic field. Alderman Mortimer wanted a discussion on what would happen to traffic on Slayton Road, the only access to Mount Hood, if parking for 100 more cars is added at the Hood? Traffic, according to Mr. Mortimer, has tripled over the last ten years, and cited golfers driving down the hill with “a couple of beers under their belt.” There was a risk, said the Alderman , in increasing the parking area. "Mount Hood has more money than the City has!" Although it was not an agenda item, Alderman Mortimer introduced a financial issue. “You have money,” he said to the commission, “the City doesn’t.” He continued, “Mount Hood has more money than the City has.” Mr. Mortimer said that he would get some of his friends, naming State Senator Tom Magee, and Representative Catherine Clark to go to the State Legislature and overturn the limitation that money earned at Mount Hood must stay at Mount Hood. Chairman Interbartolo responded that the limitation was not established by the State Legislature but by the party donating the land to the City as a condition of the donation. City takes $200,000 out of golf revenues, "in lieu of taxes." This led to other questions from the audience about finances at the Hood. One person asked how much the City is taking from Mount Hood golf revenues. Chairman Interbartolo responded that after Mount Hood had accounted for all of its payments to the golf management company and after paying all other obligations $275,000 remained. Of this amount the City took $200,000. It is classified as, “Payment in lieu of taxes.” It provokes the question, payment for what? For some people this will be a stunning revelation. It completely contradicts the covenant that money earned at Mount Hood stays at Mount Hood. It puts into question Mr. Mortimer’s claim that he will approach the State Legislature to overturn the agreement. Such an action should not be necessary if the City is already taking the money. October 2, 2009
|