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

Home Browse Search

establishment. Though some RAC members supported the use of a nonresidential SDC assessment based on trip rates (from an equity perspective), others indicated that employees were a better link to park demand than trips. Other concerns with the trip generation approach included the complexity of the methodology, ranges of trip rates within categories of development types (tiers) and across tiers, consideration of vehicle occupancy load factors, etc. There was general agreement of the need for a relatively simple methodology – like those based on employment density – with a desire for greater equity (i.e., recognition of non-employee driven park demand). As an alternative to the trip generation approach, it was suggested that nonresidential developments could be classified as either “High” or “Low” loading for park SDC assessment. The park loading factor concept was designed as a means for recognizing potential park demand above and beyond employment. It was intended to estimate additional people who visit a nonresidential establishment and may also use the parks. However, determination of the appropriate factors to apply to different land uses was considered problematic. The RAC raised concerns about averaging data over tiers/classes of land uses. In addition, the concept was based on International Building Code (IBC) data, rather than employment density data, and problems were raised with interpreting occupancy capacity from the IBC to determine likely park use. At the RAC’s June 2005 meeting, employment density was considered again as the basis for the nonresidential SDC calculations, due to complications mentioned in relation to other proposed approaches. However, The RAC disagreed with this recommended approach. The RAC’s feedback was that nonresidential SDCs in general, and this approach in particular, were a complicated matter that would be difficult to explain, defend, and administer. The committee therefore recommended adding only one commercial park SDC element, a hotel/motel fee, to be included as part of the proposed residential SDC. Staff committed to present to City Council the RAC’s recommendation in addition to another nonresidential park SDC assessment option that aligns with the City Council’s prior direction. These options are presented in this memo. Nonresidential Parks SDC Assessment Options Evaluation Criteria The methodological approaches presented in this memorandum were developed with the following objectives in mind: ? Equity (both among different types of nonresidential developments and different size developments) ? Simplicity (both in terms of public understanding and administration) ? Defensibility (i.e., consistency with industry standard approaches and supportable by local data) A discussion of two nonresidential parks SDC approaches follows. The first considers all nonresidential developments, and the second presents SDCs for tourist accommodation developments only. All Nonresidential Development Through results of the parks survey conducted by the City in 2004, 16.4 percent of park usage may be attributable to nonresidential development (as discussed in Parks Technical PSDCNOA P410 ARKS ONRESIDENTIAL PTIONS ATTACHMENT AGE OF