Item 2: PH on Resolution Adopting Amended SDC Methodology and Rates

Home Browse Search

The park SDC is different from the oth r SDCs. With water and wastewater SDCs for , example, the nexus between new cons ction is very clear and the demands placed on the infrastructures can be reasonably m asured. Park SDCs are very different. The city of Eugene actively encourages nonresi nts to use its park facilities. The Bach Festival, concerts at the Cuthbert Amplitheater, utte to Butte, the Saturday Market, the Science Factory, the Rhododendron Festival, th~ BMX Track, Art and the Vineyard, The Eugene Celebration, The Rotary Duck Race, Uqiversity of Oregon football games... The list goes on and on of events that are sponsqred and / or promoted by the City of Eugene or current residents, organizations, or institutions of Eugene which draw participants from out of town who are likely to use Euge 's parks. Those numbers are likely to increase in the future as current and new events e promoted, putting increased demands on the city's parks. That is a growth demand t at cannot be shifted from new commercial and industrial construction to new residenti construction. Besides, it seems a bit ungracious for Eugene to refuse to pay for the park apacity needed for the guests that it encourages to come to its city, especially since it bi Is itself as the World's Greatest City for the Arts and Outdoors. I We know that eliminating the commerc~ and industrial component of the SDC charge is going to cost us more money, and, wi~ reason, we accept that. We made a conscious decision that we would not support whatwe believe to be a departure from SDC principles in order to save ourselves mo eYe Besides, standing up for SDC principals allows us to continue to complain in the future when we believe the jurisdictions are wandering astray. In this case, the SDClprincipal that we choose to support is that there must be a clear nexus between the impa~ts of growth on the park infrastructure and the city's imposition of the SDC. We do n~t believe that such a nexus exists for commercial and industrial construction. , I We, therefore, propose a solution. Und~r the proposed SDC methodology, 16.4% of the costs allocated to growth have been assi~ned to commercial and industrial construction. Those costs need to be reallocated betw,en residential construction and current residents. We don't have any explicit data on hOWl much park usage occurs by nonresidents as a result of city and community promoti~n , notoriety, and events; however, the park survey can provide suggestions. i I Table 11.7 (page 11-6) of the survey itemizes the reasons given by nonresidents for why they were visiting the city's parks. The' ercentages of specific reasons given varied, depending on the type of park. We sug est that the percentage of park usage by nonresidential visitors who use Eugene' parks (1) for work; (2) to visit commercial establishments; and (3) to visit friends d family be reallocated to residential construction. The percentage of park us by nonresidents resulting from (1) recreation; (2) special events; (3) to attend Universi~ / school-related activities; (4) to visit the parks and / or park related activities; and (5) vrcations be reallocated to current residents. Residential construction and current res;' ents would split the "other" category. If you calculate the weighted uses from the Ov raIl Column of the Table and allocate the different reasons between residential co struction and current residents, 55% of the I I