Item 9: Resolution Approving PROS Project and Priority Plan

Home Browse Search

Again, we return to the same question that I raised earlier: How do we reconcile the huge inconsistency between the growth allocations on the project list and the growth allocations staff provides in Table A? The project list that the council is asked to adopt allocates a blanket 35% of the natural area projects to growth. However, as staffhas pointed out in its memo, almost half of the projects' capacity will not be owned by the city and the city cannot collect SDCs for those acres that are owned by other agencies. On the other hand, according to Table 2, staff is proposing that the growth projected for this planning period actually pay for 68% ofthe capacity ofthe city-owned portion of the natural area projects. That is a far- cry from the 35% noted on the project list. An actual allocation of 68% of the 1,490.5 acres of natural area capacity to projected growth is not supported by the numbers. Both PROS and the Priority Plan assume a current population for Eugene of 160,469 persons and a total projected population for Eugene at the end of the planning period of 21 0,900 residents. That means that 50,431 new residents will be accommodated in new housing that is SDC eligible (existing households that are annexed into the city would not pay SDCs). That projected growth will comprise 24% of the total projected population for this planning period. Table B-1 of PROS indicates that the current inventory of natural area totals 1,486.77 acres for an existing level of service for current residents of9.27 acres per 1000 residents. For purposes of growth allocation, staff identifies an existing deficiency of 481.8 acres for current residents (Table 2). Adding the 481.8 acres to the existing 1,486.77 acres would provide the current 160,469 residents with 1,968.57 acres and a level of service of 12.27 acres per thousand. By comparison, the 50,431 person making up future growth would purchase a total of 1008.7 natural area acres for a level of service of 20 acres per thousand. In other words, future residents would be required to pay for a substantially higher level of service than existing residents and I think everyone recognizes that that is not permitted under SDC law. The 100% allocation to growth for the acquisition of neighborhood parks is not consistent with the actual capacity costs needed to serve growth. State law requires that the 309 list identify the portion of the project costs needed to serve growth and that cost share must be based upon the portion of the project capacity needed to serve growth. The 309 list indicates that 100% of the neighborhood park acquisition projects costs are needed to serve growth, and, therefore, 100% of the capacity of each of those neighborhood parks is needed to serve growth. Conversely, that means that none ofthe capacity of any of the proposed neighborhood park acquisitions is needed to serve existing residents. However, a simple examination of the proposed acquisitions shows that to be untrue. LCOG provided the HBA with two maps (one covering north Eugene and the other south Eugene) that identifies the remaining vacant residential lands in the Eugene UGB. I have drawn upon that map the circles that correspond to each of the proposed neighborhood park acquisitions on the 309 list (for example, B-3, R-I, W-II). These maps will be submitted into the record. These specific park acquisition locations are identified on the PROS map entitled Eugene Park Service Areas, School Service Areas, and Unserved Residential Areas. It is very clear that the proposed citywide acquisitions would principally 5