Item 9: Resolution Approving PROS Project and Priority Plan

Home Browse Search

list under the General/Citywide planning area for New Parks and Open Space. The project is titled "Acquire additional ridgeline to complete Fern Ridge to West Eugene Wetlands". The project cost is identified as $10 million. The Growth Allocation share is 35% of the $10 million cost, or $3.5 million. The question, therefore, is what percentage of the project is needed to provide capacity for growth at the same level of service as the current residents? We must first determine the total capacity of the project to determine how much of that capacity is SDC eligible. Staff has provided two supplemental spreadsheets. The first is entitled "Table 2 Allocation of Project List Acreage / Cost". The second is entitled "Table A: PROS Project and Priority Plan - Project Acres". (Both spreadsheets are attached.) The first spreadsheet provided to the council, Table 2, indicates the acreages of park categories. For example, it says that the project list acreage of Natural Area Parks is 1,490.5 acres. Frankly, however, that is not true, at least according to Table A. Table A says that the total proposed acquisition for Natural Areas is 2,821.7 acres - a substantial difference of 1,331.3 acres. Looking specifically at our Fern Ridge example, the project cost of$1O million is to acquire a total of 1,000 acres. However, Table A goes on to indicate that 750 of the 1,000 acres would be "partner funded", that "Acquisition Acres Net of Partner Funded" are 250 acres, and that Growth Share is 35% of the 250 acres at a cost of$865,984. We can assume, therefore, that it is staffs position that only 250 of the 1,000 acres ofthe project would be acquired by the city and qualify as an SDC improvement project and that 35% of the 250 acres represents the capacity needed to serve growth. That means that growth's share of the $10 million project cost is not 35% ($3.5 million) but rather 8.7% ($865,984). This problem exists with all of the acquisition projects that are partially "partner funded". The growth allocation on the project list council is being asked to adopt is for the entire project cost, even though Table A indicates that many ofthe projects are not to be fully acquired by the city. The "Partner Funded" issue raises another question. What happens if the partner funding falls through? Let's look again at the Fern Ridge example. Staff indicates that 750 acres will be purchased by a funding partner and 250 acres will be acquired by the city. Let's now assume that the funding partner does not materialize. There are then three possibilities. First, the city could be content with 250 acres and charge growth for 35% of that acquisition. That scenario (although not necessarily the growth percentage) is fine. The second possibility is that the city will not go forward with the project at all. That raises some issues, because the city will have collected SDCs for a project that doesn't happen. However, if the project review period is short enough, that is manageable, because the SDC funds can be diverted to future projects and reduce the future need for SDC increases. It is the third possibility that is problematical. The city could choose to acquire the entire 1000 acres itself. If so, what is the allocation that should be assigned to growth? If it remains 35% of 250 acres, current residents would pay more than their share. If it is 35% of the 1,000 acres, growth pays more than its share. Can that dilemma be resolved? I believe it can, and I will propose a solution in the next section of this discussion. 3