Laserfiche WebLink
CE,O|CFFS|M2016 <br />ITY OF UGENEREGON ONSERVATION INANCE EASIBILITY TUDY AY <br />Many opportunities exist to fund parks and recreation in the City of Eugene. At the heart of the <br />most successful funding programs is a substantial, long-term, dedicated source of local revenue. <br />With a reliable source of funds, local governments can establish meaningful parks and recreation <br />priorities that protect the most valuable resources, are geographically distributed, and otherwise <br />meet important goals and values. Furthermore, local governments with significant funds are much <br />better positioned to secure and leverage funding from the federal government and attract other local <br />and state government or private philanthropic partners. <br />Nationwide, a range of public financing options has been utilized to fund parks and open space <br />preservation. These include general obligation bonds, the local sales tax, the property tax, and less <br />frequently used mechanisms such as special assessment districts, real estate transfer taxes, impact <br />fees, and income taxes. Communities in Oregon have traditionally been able to rely on a mix of <br />funding due to the availability of state funding and local conservation funding measures. <br />The property tax and general obligation bonds are the principal local revenue sources that could be <br />permitted for conservation purposes in Oregon. Counties and municipalities are authorized to <br />acquire land and easements for purposes including parks, trails, watershed protection, floodplain <br />management, farmland, and cultural and historic preservation. In Oregon, municipalities rather than <br />counties have largely undertaken conservation finance ballot measures. Most of these measures are <br />bonds. <br />This reportis intended to analyze mechanisms available to both the Parks and Open Space Division <br />and the Recreation Division. It does not address the formation of a special district, as there are <br />many legislative and political obstacles that would need to be overcome. Thus a special district is <br />not included in the scope of this report. The report begins by analyzing several local public funding <br />tools available to the City of Eugene, including revenue generating capacity, estimated costs to <br />taxpayers, and implementation procedures. Each revenue option isavailable to bothParks and <br />Recreation. The City of Eugene must determine whether to use the generated revenue for Parks, <br />Recreation, or both divisions. These tools are summarized below, as well asin Appendix A. <br />General Obligation Bonds: Bonds are the most utilized tool for parks capital purposes by <br />local governments in Oregon. Generally, bond proceeds are limited to capital projects and <br />may not be used for operations and maintenance purposes. The City of Eugene could issue <br />a general obligation bond for $30 million at a cost of about $31 per householdper year. <br />Voter approval is required. <br />Local Option Property Tax Levy: In Oregon, three jurisdictions including Eugene have <br />been successful in dedicating a property tax to parks and recreation. The City of Eugene <br />could levy a local option property tax of $0.1616 per $1,000 of assessed value and generate <br />approximately $2.5 million annually, at a cost of about $33per year for the average <br />homeowner. Revenues may be used for operating and maintenance purposes. Voter <br />approval is required. <br />ParksServiceFee: The City of Eugene could implement a maintenance utilityor service <br />feefor parksand recreation facilities. A monthly fee of $3 would generate about $2.5 <br />million annually at a cost of $36per housing unit, not accounting for the costs of <br />administering the fee, which could be substantial. Revenues may be used for operating and <br />maintenance purposes. Several cities in Oregon have used this mechanism. For example, <br />6TTPL::CFD <br />HE RUST FOR UBLIC AND ONSERVATION INANCE EPARTMENT <br /> <br />