Item B: Proposed Modifications to the Parks Systems Development Charge Methodology and Rates

Home Browse Search

The analysis identified four models for nonresidential park SDCs. These included: ? – bases the parks SDC on survey results, which provide data on the Actual use model proportionate use of parks by residents and employees. This approach was used in California, Oregon, Arizona, and British Columbia, which was the widest geographic area among approaches identified. None of the surveyed municipalities that follow the actual use approach have been challenged legally on their parks SDC. ? – bases the SDC on the number of hours that residents and Hours of opportunity model employees have available during the day to use parks. It assumes that employment brings people into the municipality and creates a demand on parks. This approach was followed in municipalities in Oregon and California. ? – this model assumes that only residents and Tourist accommodation development model hotel/motel guests use parks. Municipalities that apply this model often have an economy that relies heavily on tourism. (However, other municipalities surveyed, that also rely significantly on tourism, have SDCs for commercial/industrial users, including hotels/motels.) This approach was found in Oregon, Florida, and Utah. ? – in this model, the SDC is seen as providing compensation for a lost Opportunity cost model public good, as opposed to buying into a benefit for growth. This approach is not widely used, and was found in Utah only. Of the models identified, only the actual use model provided a direct nexus between nonresidential development and park use. For this reason, the Project Team pursued a parks and recreation facilities’ user survey, discussed below. The communities’ surveyed also revealed that a variety of means are used to determine the created by different land uses. These means, typically based on the amount of capacity demand size and type of development, included: ? Number of employees (typically based on employee density per square foot of building space; in one case measured by number of parking spaces) ? Number of motel/hotel rooms or their related size (for communities only charging the nonresidential fee on motels/hotels) ? Construction value ? Location / land value (a factor on top of employee density) Each approach was evaluated and found to have shortcomings in terms of linking capacity costs with estimated park demand of nonresidential development. The approaches inferred this nexus and generally were not based on direct measurements or specific data, which again underlined the value of a parks and recreation facilities’ user survey. In addition to conducting an analysis of practices in other communities, the Project Team reviewed available literature on this topic. A recently conducted study on non-residential parks 1 SDCs, conducted in Oregon by Don Ganer & Associates, included interviews with several representatives of stakeholder organizations. These revealed that the most frequently identified 1 Portland Parks and Recreation: Non-Residential Parks SDC Feasibility Study , by Don Ganer & Associates, Inc., updated May 11, 2005 (from draft of March 3, 1999), page 15. PSDCNOA P210 ARKS ONRESIDENTIAL PTIONS ATTACHMENT AGE OF