Item 9: Resolution Approving PROS Project and Priority Plan

Home Browse Search

However, the initial problem still remains. There is no way to know, based on the project list that council is being asked to adopt, what the growth capacity actually is. Using natural area parks again as an example, according to the Priority Plan and Project List, it is simply 35% of all ofthe projects' total capacity - 35% of2,821.7 acres. So, the project list that council is being asked to adopt could require growth pay SDCs for the acquisition of 987.6 acres. However, that would not be consistent with the level of service proposed by staff for natural area parks. We need to turn again to Table 2. For all of the park acquisition and development categories, staffhas allocated a percentage of the capacity to current residents to meet existing deficiencies and then a percentage to growth. In all but one category, the two capacities add up to 100%, as they should. For example, for land acquisition for community parks, staff identifies an existing deficiency of 51 % to be paid for by current residents, while growth is allocated the remaining 49%. For the development of linear parks, the ratio is 60% to 40%. For acquisition ofland for neighborhood parks, the ratio is 0% to 100%. However, for natural area parks, the ratio is very different. Through the 20 year planning perio'd, staff recognizes an existing deficiency of32% to be paid by current residents and growth's allocation is 35% - for a total of 67% rather than 100%. Then something strange happens. The table allocates the missing 33% (492.4 acres) to growth for projects to be acquired beyond the planning period. Houston, we have a problem. Are we to assume that the projected population (both current residents and projected growth) for this planning period is to pay for all of the 1490.5 acres of natural area, with current residents paying 32% of the cost and growth paying 68%, even though 492.4 acres would be acquired outside this planning period? That won't fly. The growth allocation can only be applied to projects to be acquired or developed within this planning period. Projects to be acquired or developed during subsequent planning periods are allocated to the projected population of that subsequent planning period. If staff is proposing, as it appears they are, that the projected population of this planning period pay for not only the natural areas to be acquired during this planning period but also 492.4 acres to be acquired during the following planning period, then they are also proposing that the projected growth of this planning period not pay for 35% ofthe 1490.5 acres; they are really proposing that growth pay for 68% of the acres acquired by the city for natural areas - a total of 1013.54 acres. Wow! Growth was better off paying 35% of all of natural acres on the project list even though many of those acres (1331.3 acres) are to be owned by agencies other than the city (according to the staff memo dated April 4, 2006). After all, 35% of the total 2,821.7 total natural area acres shown on Table A only totals 987.6 acres compared to the 1013.54 acres that staffis apparently proposing growth should pay for. The staff memo dated April 4, 2006, says: "A clarification is that acres considered in the growth allocation percentages include only city-owned parks and facilities; acres in Tables 1 and 2 ofthe March 6 memo are net of other agency-owned acres". That makes perfectly good sense because Eugene can not collect SDCs from city residents for other agencies. That brings us back to the 1490.5 acres that staff has identified as being acres that will be city- owned. 4