Item 5: Resolution Adopting Amended SDC Methodologies and Rates

Home Browse Search

depending on other data collected, their use was attributable to residential or nonresidential development. Concerns were expressed that charging both residential and nonresidential development would charge future residents twice for park capacity. In the proposed methodology the cost basis for the SDCs is allocated between residential and nonresidential, such that 83.6 percent is charged to residential, and 16.4 percent is charged to nonresidential, such that overall cost recovery equals 100 percent; no project or capacity cost is charged twice. Several questions related to the percentage of park users that do not live in Eugene and of those what portion are associated with commercial or other nonresidential development. Nonresidents were 16.5% of total survey respondents and of those 40.9 % of nonresidents had an origin, destination, or both that was a nonresidential land use, or were staying overnight in a commercial establishment. The weighted percentage is 40.9% x 16.5% = 6.8% of total survey respondents who were not residents of Eugene whose park usage was attributable to nonresidential development. For nonresidents, usage attributable to nonresidential development included users with either an origin or destination from a nonresidential land use. For residents of Eugene (the majority of survey respondents) who indicated that their origin or destination was commercial in nature, their use was not immediately assumed attributable to nonresidential development. The majority of resident park users attributable to commercial development indicated specifically that the proximity of the park to work or a commercial establishment determined their choice to use a particular park. The only other resident park usage attributable to commercial development was if both the origin and destination were to a nonresidential land use. This more restrictive definition of usage associated with commercial development was seen as appropriate for city residents, as any usage by residents not accounted for in the nonresidential SDC would be recovered through the residential SDC. Several comments questioned the assumption that parks demand associated with development of k-12 schools is considered to be accounted for in the residential development charge. The survey found that only 1.7 percent of park usage resulted from students on their way home from school and 1 percent from students on their way to school (tables 11.10 and 11.11). By comparison, commercial establishments and work related uses amounted to 7.5% and 5.9% respectively for origins and 15.5% and 7.0% respectively for destinations. It was determined reasonable to assume that most of the small percentage of park usage by students was by those who were Eugene residents of a local neighborhood (since students who live a mile or more from the school are usually transported to and from the school without an independent opportunity to use the parks) and were thus attributable to residential development. 2. Determination of parks SDC rates for residential development based on household size A concern was expressed that data used to develop the SDC rate schedule for residential development categories was inconsistent with U.S. Census data on household size. In articulating this concern data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2005 American Community Survey was cited which provides overall household size, expressed in average number of persons per household and size of owner-occupied households, without distinguishing between dwelling types used in the proposed SDC methodology. The determination of average number of persons per dwelling unit structure type is articulated in Table 18 of the proposed methodology. The