Item 9: Resolution Approving PROS Project and Priority Plan

Home Browse Search

24%. (Current residents comprise 160,469 persons of the projected 210,900 total population and growth would constitute the remaining 50,431 persons.) The acquisition portion by current residents would have to be actual acquisition by existing residents through bonds measures, etc. For example, grants or other funding from outside sources could not be used to reduce the cost to current residents without doing so for growth as well. If the allocations we propose are used, we will not argue against the use of SDCs for projects outside the UGB. We will ignore that fact that undoubtedly much less that 57% of the neighborhood park acquisition is benefiting growth and much more than 43% of the neighborhood park acquisition is actually benefiting current residents. PARK DEVELOPMENT We have a couple of issues relating to park development. Again, it is a comparison of the level of service found in PROS versus Table 2. The PROS inventory determined that we currently have 219.17 acres of community parks. Of that total, 24% is set aside as natural areas. This is in addition to park land identified in the PROS and the project list as natural areas. Neighborhood parks has a higher ratio - 35% (73.23 acres) ofthe current 208.63 acres of neighborhood parks is set aside as natural areas. Despite the considerable amount of acreage in our neighborhood parks and community parks that is set aside as natural areas, the proposed project list assumes that every acre of all neighborhood and community parks designated for development on the project list will be fully developed. Staffs position in their April 4 memo is that "It is impossible to identify the portions of future parks that might be designated as natural areas until specific sites are acquired and park design is complete". However, the development costs are higher because there is no consideration of the fact that some portion of the neighborhood and community parks will not be developed. It would seem reasonable to use the same ratios as our current parks, because the trend is toward more open space rather than less. Ifwe assumed, therefore, that each of the neighborhood parks would be comprised of35% natural area, neighborhood park WI 1 would have 2.6 developed acres rather than 4 developed acres, which would in turn reduce the development costs on the project list. The same analysis would apply to community parks. We also have the same issue with the development of the neighborhood parks that we had with the land acquisition. Virtually all ofthe parks being developed are to serve fully-developed or almost fully-developed neighborhoods. There are only two neighborhood parks (WCI and WC3) being proposed in areas that are perhaps 50% undeveloped, and that is presumably because the those two neighborhood parks include additional acreage for "gateways" to the Ridgeline Trail. Neither of those parks are scheduled for development during this 20 year planning period. Yet, growth, which will constitute only 24% of the population at the end of the planning period and which will receive very little capacity benefit from the developed neighborhood parks, is being asked to pick up 49% ofthe bill. That is because Table 2 assumes that there is only an existing deficiency of 9