Dublin Core
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
CITY OF ATLANTA
DEPARTMENT of PARKS
Office of General Manager
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 19
July 19, 1967
JACK C. DELIUS
GENERAL MANAGER
Mr. Charles L. Davis
Comptroller
City of Atlanta
City Hall
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Dear Charles:
Thank you for your letter of July 13, 1967, advising us that
the Finance Committee on July 12, 1967, had discussed the problem
of financing additional parks and improvenents; and, more particularly
reference to the additional State Grant funds by which the Finance
Committee desires to make some portion available to the Parks
Department for additional park sites, etc.
I have called together all of our staff members concerned with
park development and acquisition to very carefully review
priorities on park projects. At the same time, we considered
the City's committment towards the purchase of four urban renewal
park sites located in various areas of the City.
After we completed the attached priority list, we reviewed it
with Chairman Leftwich on July 17, 1967. Mr. Leftwich has given
his endorsement to the attached proposed disbursement of funds.
This entire priority list is based on the fact that we would
receive some $350,000 from the State grant.
As an explanation to you and by copy of this letter an explanation
to the other members of the Aldermanic Parks Committee, I would
like to explain to you just how we arrived at priorities. First
of all, Peyton Road is the only one of the fourteen parks purchased
since 1964 which we have not allocated any funds for the development
of or have not actually borken ground. In the case of Daniel
Stanton Park Site (People's Town), we have under construction
at the presenttime a recreation building and a modest amount of
money has been set aside for storm drainage in the park. However,
on a %, (Cont 1 d)
| ee
a
®
C
, “
™ 4 a , ——
ers es 3h ape (ERS) KERO
xR XERO AP AD ERO ;
eons] Sone | COP COPY
Mr. Davis
Page Two
July 19, 1967
this will be a case where we will have a completed recreation
building and yet the land immediately surrounding it, etc., will
not be usable. We built the park "backward" only because of
an existing sub-station structure which could be remodeled into
a gymnasium and we felt that having indoor facilities for year-
round use took priority over basic site development of the park.
In the case of Harper Park, we would like very much to do the
second stage and this would virtually finish this facility except
for a large project such as possibly a recreation building. In
the case of Gun Club, we are not deviating from our announced
and formal policy of building only neighborhood size pools since
Gun Club is a community size park — the only one purchased under
the 1963 Bond Issue. Some 3900 children live immediately adjacent
to this park site and we have laready installed parking, electrical
condiut, sewerage, water supply, etc., as well as lighting (general)
for the wimming pool. If we move rapidly, Stan Martin feels
that one-half the cost ot the swimming pool could be obtained
under the Land and Water Conservation Act. As to Center Hill,
located on Bankhead Highway, this was at one time a fairly well
developed park which fell into disuse and now that the population
has surged we feel that we must use a modest amount of our money
renovating this facility. It is good level land in an area
deficient of parks and we feel like moving very quickly on it.
As to Benteen, we are under contract for phase one, which will
cover only basic siting and improvements and when we finish this
you can hardly tell that anything has been done —- it will
all be under ground. Therefore, we feel like moving very rapidly
into phase two so that the citizens can have something to use.
Thomasville Urban Renewal Park is unusual in that we have already
gone through phase one and are starting phase two and yet have
very little to show the public. It's another case of a lot of
money being spent underground to handle drainage, etc. We feel
however, that the modest additional expenditure of $15,000 would
virtually complete the park except for a swimming pool or recreation
center. As ot items 8,9,10, & 11, you have advised me of what
you compute the total cost to be and the fact that the City has
formerly committed itself to purchasing these lands within
urban renewal projects.
The entire priority list, including the purchase of new park lands,
is based on the assumption that the City will get 50% assistance
from the Federal government either under the open-space program
or the Land and Water Conservation Act,
We still have a considerable number of parks which we should
move into on phase two such as Benteen, Cleveland, Collier, the
funding of Field Road when it's purchased, Shady Valley, Waters,
recreation buildings for Washington, Butler, University, Wilson
Mill, Wesley, etc.
Mr. Leftwich has asked that in the next few days we have a
called meeting of the Parks Committee to formally endorse this
priority list and I assume that you will be reviewing the same
xERO XERO {xERO
copy COPY PCOny my
Mr. Davis
Page Three
July 19, 1967
with your committee.
We are deeply indebted to the City Finance Committee for making
available these additional funds and assuring you of our appreciation
I am
Cordially,
ack C. Delius
neral Manager of
arks and Recreation
JCD:1g ’
CC: Mr. George Berry, Comptroller's Office
All members of the Aldermanic Parks Committee
Hon. Ivan Allen, Jr.
DEPARTMENT of PARKS
Office of General Manager
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 19
July 19, 1967
JACK C. DELIUS
GENERAL MANAGER
Mr. Charles L. Davis
Comptroller
City of Atlanta
City Hall
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Dear Charles:
Thank you for your letter of July 13, 1967, advising us that
the Finance Committee on July 12, 1967, had discussed the problem
of financing additional parks and improvenents; and, more particularly
reference to the additional State Grant funds by which the Finance
Committee desires to make some portion available to the Parks
Department for additional park sites, etc.
I have called together all of our staff members concerned with
park development and acquisition to very carefully review
priorities on park projects. At the same time, we considered
the City's committment towards the purchase of four urban renewal
park sites located in various areas of the City.
After we completed the attached priority list, we reviewed it
with Chairman Leftwich on July 17, 1967. Mr. Leftwich has given
his endorsement to the attached proposed disbursement of funds.
This entire priority list is based on the fact that we would
receive some $350,000 from the State grant.
As an explanation to you and by copy of this letter an explanation
to the other members of the Aldermanic Parks Committee, I would
like to explain to you just how we arrived at priorities. First
of all, Peyton Road is the only one of the fourteen parks purchased
since 1964 which we have not allocated any funds for the development
of or have not actually borken ground. In the case of Daniel
Stanton Park Site (People's Town), we have under construction
at the presenttime a recreation building and a modest amount of
money has been set aside for storm drainage in the park. However,
on a %, (Cont 1 d)
| ee
a
®
C
, “
™ 4 a , ——
ers es 3h ape (ERS) KERO
xR XERO AP AD ERO ;
eons] Sone | COP COPY
Mr. Davis
Page Two
July 19, 1967
this will be a case where we will have a completed recreation
building and yet the land immediately surrounding it, etc., will
not be usable. We built the park "backward" only because of
an existing sub-station structure which could be remodeled into
a gymnasium and we felt that having indoor facilities for year-
round use took priority over basic site development of the park.
In the case of Harper Park, we would like very much to do the
second stage and this would virtually finish this facility except
for a large project such as possibly a recreation building. In
the case of Gun Club, we are not deviating from our announced
and formal policy of building only neighborhood size pools since
Gun Club is a community size park — the only one purchased under
the 1963 Bond Issue. Some 3900 children live immediately adjacent
to this park site and we have laready installed parking, electrical
condiut, sewerage, water supply, etc., as well as lighting (general)
for the wimming pool. If we move rapidly, Stan Martin feels
that one-half the cost ot the swimming pool could be obtained
under the Land and Water Conservation Act. As to Center Hill,
located on Bankhead Highway, this was at one time a fairly well
developed park which fell into disuse and now that the population
has surged we feel that we must use a modest amount of our money
renovating this facility. It is good level land in an area
deficient of parks and we feel like moving very quickly on it.
As to Benteen, we are under contract for phase one, which will
cover only basic siting and improvements and when we finish this
you can hardly tell that anything has been done —- it will
all be under ground. Therefore, we feel like moving very rapidly
into phase two so that the citizens can have something to use.
Thomasville Urban Renewal Park is unusual in that we have already
gone through phase one and are starting phase two and yet have
very little to show the public. It's another case of a lot of
money being spent underground to handle drainage, etc. We feel
however, that the modest additional expenditure of $15,000 would
virtually complete the park except for a swimming pool or recreation
center. As ot items 8,9,10, & 11, you have advised me of what
you compute the total cost to be and the fact that the City has
formerly committed itself to purchasing these lands within
urban renewal projects.
The entire priority list, including the purchase of new park lands,
is based on the assumption that the City will get 50% assistance
from the Federal government either under the open-space program
or the Land and Water Conservation Act,
We still have a considerable number of parks which we should
move into on phase two such as Benteen, Cleveland, Collier, the
funding of Field Road when it's purchased, Shady Valley, Waters,
recreation buildings for Washington, Butler, University, Wilson
Mill, Wesley, etc.
Mr. Leftwich has asked that in the next few days we have a
called meeting of the Parks Committee to formally endorse this
priority list and I assume that you will be reviewing the same
xERO XERO {xERO
copy COPY PCOny my
Mr. Davis
Page Three
July 19, 1967
with your committee.
We are deeply indebted to the City Finance Committee for making
available these additional funds and assuring you of our appreciation
I am
Cordially,
ack C. Delius
neral Manager of
arks and Recreation
JCD:1g ’
CC: Mr. George Berry, Comptroller's Office
All members of the Aldermanic Parks Committee
Hon. Ivan Allen, Jr.