09/13/2004 - Packet Parks & Recreation Advisory Board
AGENDA
Monday September 13, 2004
7:00 p.m.
Tigard Water Building
8777 SW Burnham Street
1. Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes
3. Comments from the audience
4. SDC Update of Methodology and Rates — Don Ganer
5. Discuss Park and Recreation Assessment Survey
6. Adjourn
CITY OF TIGARD
PARIS AND RECREATION
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
METHODOLOGY UPDATE
REVISED DRAFT as of
September 13,2004
Don
Caner
PO Box 91491 Portland.OR 97291 • 503.690.8981 • DGaner@GanerAssociatjes.com Inc.
CONTENTS
nage
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 AUTHORITY AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2
A. Legislative Authority 2
B. "Improvement fee" and"Reimbursement fee" SDCs 2
C. Requirements and Options for Credits,Exemptions,
and Discounts 3
D. Alternative Methodology Approaches 4
3.0 PARKS AND RECREATION SDC METHODOLOGY 5
A. Population and Employment Growth 6
B. Persons Per Dwelling Unit 6
C. Benefit of Facilities 7
D. Facility Needs 10
E. New Facility Costs 11
F. Compliance/Administrative Costs 12
4.0 RESIDENTIAL PARKS AND RECREATION SDC RATES 13
A. Formula 4a: Net Residential SDC-Eligible Costs 13
A. Formula 4b:Residential Improvements Cost Per Capita 14
C. Formula 4c: Residential Improvements Cost Per Dwelling Unit 14
P g
D. Formula 4d: Residential SDC Tax Credit Per Dwelling Unit 15
E. Formula 4e: Residential SDC Per Dwelling Unit 16
5.0 NON-RESIDENTIAL SDC RATES 17
A. Formula 5a: Net Non-Residential SDC-Eligible Costs 17
B. Formula 5b: Non-Residential Improvements Cost Per Employee 18
C. Formula 5c: Non-Residential Tax Credit Per Employee 18
D. Formula 5d:Non-Residential SDC Per Employee 19
6.0 ANNUAL RATE ADJUSTMENTS 20
APPENDIX A: SDC Parks Capacity Improvements Program
APPENDIX B: Parks SDC Rates in Washington County
APPENDIX C: Parks SDC Update Calendar
TABLES
page
TABLE 3.1: Projected Population and Employment Increases From 6
New Development(2003 -2008)
TABLE 3.2: Average Persons Per Dwelling Unit 7
TABLE 3.3: Estimates of Average Daily Availability 8
of Parks and Recreation Facilities
TABLE 3.4: Total Annual Availability of Parks 9
and Recreation Facilities
TABLE 3.5: Total Residence and Non-Resident Employment Related 9
Availability of Parks and Recreation Facilities
TABLE 3.6: Non Resident Employee-To-Resident Parks Demand Ratio 10
TABLE 3.7: Facility Needs for Population and Employment Growth
and Deficiency Repair 10
TABLE 3.8: Residential and Non-Residential Growth-Required
New Facility Costs 11
TABLE 3.9: Compliance/Administrative Cost Allocations 12
TABLE 4.1: Net Residential SDC-Eligible Costs 13
TABLE 4.2: Residential Improvements Cost Per Capita 14
TABLE 4.3: Residential Improvements Cost Per Dwelling Unit 15
TABLE 4.4: Tax Credit Per Dwelling Unit 16
TABLE 4.5: Residential SDC Per Dwelling Unit 16
TABLE 5.1: Net Non-Residential SDC-Eligible Costs 17
TABLE 5.2: Non-Residential Improvements Cost Per Employee 18
TABLE 5.3: Tax Credit Per Employee 19
TABLE 5.4: Non-Residential SDC Per Employee 19
TABLE 5.5: Square Feet Per Employee 20
CITY OF TIGARD
Parks and Recreation System Development Charges
Methodology Update
1.0 INTRODUCTION
System Development Charges (SDCs) are one-time fees charged to new development to help
pay a portion of the costs associated with building capital facilities to meet needs created by
growth. SDCs are authorized for five types of capital facilities including transportation, water,
sewer, stormwater, and parks and recreation. The City of Tigard adopted the current parks and
recreation SDCs methodology in 1996, and updated the parks SDCs in March 2001 to include
annual rate adjustments to account for changes in costs.
In July 2004, the City engaged Don Ganer & Associates, Inc. to update the City's Parks and
Recreation SDC methodology to reflect an updated Parks Capacity Improvements Program
including selected needs identified in the Tigard Park System Master Plan(July 1999)and in the
Bull Mountain Annexation White Paper on Parks and Open Spaces (May 28, 2004). These
documents consider parks needs for current city boundaries and the urban services planning area
for which the City of Tigard is responsible under agreement with Washington County.
Section 2.0 of this report presents authority and background information including(1)legislative
authority for SDCs; (2) an explanation of"improvement fee" and "reimbursement fee" SDCs;
(3) requirements and options for credits, exemptions and discounts; and (4) alternative
methodology approaches. Section 3.0 presents the methodology used to update the Parks and
Recreation SDCs, section 4.0 presents the calculation of Residential Parks and Recreation SDC
Rates, section 5.0 presents the calculation of Non-Residential Parks and Recreation SDC Rates,
and section 6.0 discusses annual adjustment of the SDC rates. The Parks and Recreation SDC
Parks Capacity Improvements Program (PCIP) listing of projects that may be funded with SDC
revenues is included as Appendix A to this report.
Don Ganer&Associates.Inc. 1 REVISED DRAFT as of 09/13/04
2.0 AUTHORITY AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. Legislative Authority
The source of authority for the adoption of SDCs is found both in state statute and in the City's
own plenary authority to adopt this type of fee. While SDCs have been in use in Oregon since
the mid-1970's, State legislation regarding SDCs was not adopted until 1989, when the Oregon
Systems Development Act (ORS 223.297 - 223.314) was passed. The purpose of this Act was
to "..provide a uniform framework for the imposition of system development charges..".
Additions and modifications to the Oregon Systems Development Act have been made in 1993,
1999, 2001, and 2003. Together, these pieces of legislation require local governments that enact
SDCs to:
• adopt SDCs by ordinance or resolution;
• develop a methodology outlining how the SDCs were developed;
• adopt a capital improvements program to designate capital improvements that can
be funded with"improvement fee" SDC revenues;
• provide credit against the amount of the SDC for the construction of certain
"qualified public improvements";
• separately account for and report receipt and expenditure of SDC revenues, and
develop procedures for challenging expenditures; and
• use SDC revenues only for capital expenditures (operations and maintenance uses
are prohibited).
R. "Improvement fee"and"Reimbursement fee"SDCs
The Oregon Systems Development Act provides for the imposition of two types of SDCs: (1)
"improvement fee" SDCs, and (2) "reimbursement fee" SDCs. "Improvement fee" SDCs may
be charged for new capital improvements that will increase capacity. Revenues from
"improvement fee" SDCs may be spent only on capacity-increasing capital improvements
identified in the required capital improvements program that lists each project, and the expected
timing, cost, and growth-required percentage of each project. "Reimbursement fee" SDCs may
be charged for the costs of existing capital facilities if "excess capacity" is available to
accommodate growth. Revenues from "reimbursement fees" may be used on any capital
improvement project, including major repairs, upgrades, or renovations. Capital improvements
funded with "reimbursement fee" SDCs do not need to increase capacity, but they must be
included in the list of projects to be funded with SDC revenues.
Don Ganer&Associates,Inc. 2 REVISED DRAFT as of 09/13/04
C Requirements and Options for Credits, Exemptions, and Discounts
1 Credits
A credit is a reduction in the amount of the SDC for a specific development. The
Oregon SDC Act requires that credit be allowed for the construction of a
"qualified public improvement" which (1) is required as a condition of
development approval, (2) is identified in the City's capital improvements
program, and (3) either is not located on or contiguous to property that is the
subject of development approval, or is located on or contiguous to such property
and is required to be built larger or with greater capacity than is necessary for the
particular development project. The credit for a qualified public improvement
may only be applied against an SDC for the same type of improvement (e.g., a
parks and recreation improvement can only be used for a credit for a parks and
recreation SDC), and may be granted only for the cost of that portion of an
improvement which exceeds the minimum standard facility size or capacity
needed to serve the particular project. For multi-phase projects, any excess credit
may be applied against that accrue in subsequent phases of the original
development project.
In addition to these required credits, the City may, if it so chooses, provide a
greater credit, establish a system providing for the transferability of credits,
provide a credit for a capital improvement not identified in the City's capital
improvements program, or provide a share of the cost of an improvement by other
means(i.e., partnerships, other City revenues, etc.).
(2) Exemptions
The City may "exempt" certain types of development, such as "non-residential
development" from the requirement to pay parks SDCs. Exemptions reduce
SDC revenues and, therefore, increase the amounts that must come from other
sources, such as bonds and property taxes.
Don Ganer&Associates,Inc. 3 REVISED DRAFT as of 09/13/04
(3) Discounts
The City may "discount" the amount of the SDC by reducing the portion of
growth-required improvements to be funded with SDCs. A discount in the SDC
may also be applied on a pro-rata basis to any identified deficiencies to be funded
from non-SDC sources. For example, the City may decide to charge new
development an SDC rate sufficient to pay for some types of facilities but not for
others (i.e., neighborhood parks but not trails, etc.), or to pay only a percentage
(i.e., 80%, 50%, etc.) of identified growth-required costs. The portion of growth-
required costs to be funded with SDCs must be identified in the City's capital
improvements program.
Because discounts reduce SDC revenues, they increase the amounts that must
come from other sources, such as bonds or general fund contributions, in order to
achieve or maintain adopted levels of service.
D.Alternative Methodology Approaches
There are three basic approaches used to develop improvement fee SDCs; "standards-driven",
"improvements-driven", and"combination/hybrid".
(1) Standards-Driven Approach
The "standards-driven" approach is based on the application of Level of Service
(LOS) Standards for facilities such as neighborhood parks, community parks, etc.
Facility needs are determined by applying the LOS Standards to projected future
population and employment, as applicable. SDC-eligible amounts are calculated
based on the costs of facilities needed to serve growth. This approach works best
where current and planned levels of service have been identified but no specific
list of projects is available.
Don Ganer&Associates,Inc. 4 REVISED DRAFT as of 09/13/04
(2)Improvements-Driven Approach
The "improvements-driven" approach is based on a specific list of planned
capacity-increasing capital improvements. The portion of each project that is
attributable to growth is determined, and the SDC-eligible costs are calculated by
dividing the total costs of growth-required projects by the projected increase in
population and employment, as applicable. This approach works best where a
detailed master plan or project list is available and the benefits of projects can be
readily apportioned between growth and current users.
(3) Combination ffl b�Approach
The combination/hybrid-approach includes elements of both the "improvements-
driven" and "standards-driven" approaches. Level of Service standards may be
used to create a list of planned capacity-increasing projects, and the growth-
required portions of projects can then be used as the basis for determining SDC-
eligible costs. This approach works best where Levels of Service have been
identified and the benefits of individual projects are not easily apportioned
between growth and current users.
3.0 PARKS AND RECREATION SDC METHODOLOGY
The Improvements-Driven approach has been used to develop the updated Parks and Recreation
SDC methodology. The Tigard Park System Master Plan (July 1999) and the Bull Mountain
Annexation White Paper on Parks and Open Spaces(May 28, 2004)identify projects designed to
repair deficiencies and address growth needs within the City and the adjacent urban services
planning area. The SDC Parks Capacity Improvements Program (Appendix A) includes these
projects and identifies the growth-required portion (if any), the estimated timing, and the
estimated cost of each project.
Don Ganer&Associates,Inc. 5 REVISED DRAFT as of 09/13/04
Parks and recreation facilities benefit City residents, businesses, non-resident employees, and
visitors. The methodology used to update the City's Parks and Recreation SDCs establishes the
required connection between the demands of growth and the SDC by identifying specific types
of parks and recreation facilities and analyzing the proportionate need of each type of facility for
use by residents and employees. The SDCs to be paid by a development meet statutory
requirements because they are based on the nature of the development and the extent of the
impact of the development on the types of parks and recreation facilities for which they are
charged. The Parks and Recreation SDCs are based on population and employment, and the
SDC rates are calculated based on the specific impact a development is expected to have on the
City's population and employment. For facilities that are not generally used by employees (e.g.,
neighborhood parks), only a residential parks and recreation SDC may be charged. For facilities
that benefit both residents and employees (i.e., community parks, etc.), parks and recreation
SDCs may be charged for both residential and non-residential development.
A. Population and Employment Growth
The Parks and Recreation SDCs are based on costs per "capita" (person). Estimates of current
and projected population and employment within the City of Tigard and the adjacent urban
services planning area were calculated using data from Metro and the Population Research
Center at Portland State University.
TABLE 3.1
PROJECTED POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT
INCREASES FROM NEW DEVELOPMENT(2003- 2008)
Estimated
2008(Projected) 2003 Projected Increase
Population: 58,367 - 53,099 = 5,268
Employment: 41,575 - 38.441 = 3,134
R Persons Per Dwelling Unit
The Residential Parks and Recreation SDC rates are based on costs per capita and are calculated
based on the number of persons per dwelling unit. Dwelling units typically house different
numbers of persons depending on the type of unit (i.e., single family, multi-family, etc.). To
determine the appropriate number of persons per dwelling unit, official U.S. Census data
gathered for Tigard in 2000 was analyzed, and the resulting calculations are displayed in Table
3.2, page 7.
Don Ganer&Associates,Inc. 6 REVISED DRAFT as of 09/13/04
TABLE 3.2
CITY OF TIGARD
AVERAGE PERSONS PER DWELLING UNIT
2000 Census
Avg.Persons
Type of Unit Per Dwelling Unit
Single-Family 2.67
Multi-Family 1.86
Manufactured Housing 1.81
G Benefit of Facilities
Facility needs must consider the proportionate benefit each type of facility has for residents and
employees. A resident is any person whose place of residence is within Tigard and the adjacent
urban services planning area. An employee is any person who receives remuneration for
services, and whose services are directed and controlled either by the employee (self-employed)
or by another person or organization. The parks and recreation facilities discussed in this report
are defined in the Tigard Park System Master Plan (July 1999). For purposes of this report,
neighborhood parks are considered to be used primarily by residents, rather than by employees
and other non-residents, and; therefore, the identified needs for these types of facilities are based
only on population and do not consider employment. For all other facilities including
community parks, linear parks, etc., both population and employment were considered when
identifying in facilityneeds.
While parks and recreation facilities benefit both residents and employees, the amount of time
these facilities are available for use by employees is not the same as for residents; an employee
does not create demands for facilities equal to those created by a resident. In order to equitably
apportion the need for facilities between employees and residents, an employee-to-resident
demand ratio was developed based on the potential time these facilities are available for use.
First, estimates for the average number of hours per day these facilities are available for use were
identified. Children's ages, adult employment status, work location (inside or outside the City),
and seasonal variances were taken into account and are displayed in Table 3.3, page 8.
Don Ganer&Associates,Inc. 7 REVISED DRAFT as of 09/13/04
TABLE 3.3
ESTIMATES OF AVERAGE DAILY
AVAILABILITY OF PARKS AND RECREATION FACMITIES
Non-Employed Live In/ Live In/ Live Out/
Adult(18+) 5-17 Kids Work In Work Out Work In Total
Summer(June-Sept)
Weekday
Before Work 1 1 2
Meals/Breaks 1 1 2
After Work 2 2 4
Other Leisure 12 12 2 2 28
Sub-Total 12 12 6 2 4 36
Weekend
Leisure 12 12 12 12 0 48
Sub-Total 12 12 12 12 0 48
Summer Hrs/Day 12 12 7.71 4.86 2.86 39.43
Sprmg/Fall(April-May,Oct-Nov)
Weekday
Before Work 0.5 0.5 1
Meals/Breaks 1 1 2
After Work 1 1 2
Other Leisure 10 4 2 2 18
Sub-Total 10 4 4.5 2 2.5 23
Weekend
Leisure 10 10 10 10 0 40
Sub-Total 10 10 10 10 0 40
Spring/Fall Hours/Day 10 5.71 6.07 4.29 1.79 27.86
Winter(December-March)
Weekday
Before Work 0.5 0.5 1
Meals/Breaks 1 1 2
After Work 0.5 0.5 1
Other Leisure 8 2 1 1 12
Sub-Total 8 2 3 1 2 16
Weekend
Leisure 8 8 8 8 0 32
Sub-Total 8 8 8 8 0 32
Winter Hours/Day 8 3.71 4.43 3 1.43 20.57
Annual Weighted Avg.Hours 10 7.14 6.07 4.05 2.02 29.29
The Annual Weighted Average Hours of availability was calculated for each category of
residents and employees using the following formula:
(Summer Hours/Day X 3 [months] + Spring/Fall Hours/Day X 6 +Winter Hours/Day X 3)/12
Don Ganer&Associates,Inc. 8 REVISED DRAFT as of 09/13/04
Next, the Annual Weighted Average Hours (from Table 3.3, page 8) were applied to population
and employment data(2000 Census)to determine the Total Annual Weighted Average Hours for
each category of Resident and Employee. The results are displayed in Table 3.4.
TABLE 3.4
TOTAL ANNUAL AVAILABILITY
OF PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES
Non-Employed Live In/ Live In/ Live Out/
Adult(18+) 5-17 Kids Work In Work Out Work In Total
Population&Employment Data 9,140 7,270 5,798 15,821 27,382 65,411
(2000 Census)
Annual Weighted Avg.Hours 10 7.14 6.07 4.05 2.02 29.29
Tot.Annual Weighted Avg.Hm 91,400 51,929 35,202 64,037 55,416 297,984
Next, the available hours (from Table 3.4) were allocated between resident hours and non-
resident employment hours, as displayed in Table 3.5.
TABLE 3.5
TOTAL RESIDENCE AND NON-RESIDENT EMPLOYMENT RELATED
AVAILABILITY OF PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES
Hours %of Total
Resident
Non-Employed Adult 91,400
5-17 Kids 51,929
Live In/Work In 35,202
Live In/Work Out 64.037
sub-total 242,568 81.40%
Non-Resident
Non-Resident Employee 55,416 18.60%
Finally, the Non-Resident Employee to Resident Parks Demand Ratio was calculated by dividing
the total of non-resident employment hours by the total for resident hours (from Table 3.5), with
results summarized in Table 3.6, page 10.
Don Ganer&Associates,Inc. 9 REVISED DRAFT as of 09/13/04
TABLE 3.6
NON RESIDENT EMPLOYEE-TO-RESIDENT PARKS DEMAND RATIO
Weighted Average Weighted Average Non-Resident
Hours/Non-Resident Weighted Average Employment%
Employment Hours/Residents to Resident Demand
55,416 — 242,568 = 22.8%
D. Facility Needs
The Tigard Park System Master Plan (July 1999) included a 10-year Capital Improvement Plan
(Table 11) that was not adopted by the City, pending updating the SDC Methodology. The
Master Plan also included a recommended Level of Service (LOS) standard of 11.0 acres per
1,000 persons that was not adopted, but instead is "viewed by the Council as a visionary goal or
ideal standard". The facility needs identified in the "Bull Mountain Annexation White Paper
on Parks and Open Spaces" have been combined with major needs included in the Master Plan
to develop the Parks Capacity Improvements Program included as Appendix A to this report.
Table 3.7, below, presents a summary of facility needs through the year 2008, both for growth
and to repair deficiencies for current residents and employees. The "Current Need" is the
proportionate share needed to provide facilities to current residents and employees (if
applicable) at the levels of service planned for the year 2008. The "Growth Need" is the
proportionate share needed to provide facilities to future residents and employees (if applicable)
at the planned levels of service for 2008.
TABLE 3.7
FACILITY NEEDS FOR POPULATION AND
EMPLOYMENT GROWTH AND DEFICIENCY REPAIR
Current Current Surplus or 2008 Growth
Facility Type Inventory Need (Deficiency) Need Need
Neighborhood Parks(acres) 19.06 3621 (17.15) 39.80 3.59
Community Parks(acres) 102.87 112.03 (9.16) 122.87 10.84
Greenways(acres) 173.00 201.05 (28.06) 220.50 19.44
Linear Parks(acres) 52.22 50.14 2.08 55.00 2.78
Trails(miles) 8.00 11.95 (3.95) 13.11 1.16
There are deficiencies in the number of acres of Neighborhood Parks, Community Parks, and
Greenways; and in the miles of Trails available to serve current residents and employees.
Improvement fee SDC revenues must be used only for growth needs, and may not be used to
remedy deficiencies. Alternative non-SDC revenues must be used to repair deficiencies.
Don Ganer&Associates,Inc. 10 REVISED DRAFT as of 09/13/04
E. New Facility Costs
The SDC Parks Capacity Improvements Program (PCIP), included as Appendix A, identifies
new facilities needed to serve parks and recreation needs of the City through the year 2008.
Table 3.8, below, shows a breakout of residential and non-residential share of costs for these
new facilities. Because employees need fewer facilities than those required for a resident, the
residential share of growth costs is 88.1% of the total for those facilities that benefit both
residential and non-residential development(i.e., community parks, linear parks, etc.), and 100%
for those facilities that benefit residential development only(e.g., neighborhood parks).
TABLE 3.8
RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL
GROWTH-REQUIRED NEW FACILITY COSTS
Cost
Per Total New New Facility Residential Non-Residential
Facility Unit Facility Costs Growth Costs Growth Costs Growth Costs
Neighborhood Parks(acres)* $420,000 $8,710,800 $1,508,220 $1,508,220 $ 0
Community Parks(acres)** 450,000 9,000,000 4,878,000 4,297,518 580,482
Greenways(acres)*** 140,000 6,650,000 2,721,600 2,397,730 323,870
Linear Parks(acres)# 240,000 667,200 603,200 531,419 71,781
Trails(miles)## 520,000 3,193,750 725,000 587,803 79.397
Totals $27,685,200 $10,378,220 $9,322,690 $1,055,530
Percentage of Growth Costs 89.8% 10.2%
Neighborhood Parks are considered to benefit residential population only;cost per unit is based on land at
$250,000 per acre and development at$170,000 per acre. Land cost estimate is based on a review of recent similar
acquisitions by the cities of Sherwood,Tigard,Tualatin and Hillsboro,and by the Tualatin Hills Park&Recreation
District.
**Community Parks cost is based on$250,000 per acre for acquisition and$200,000 for development Land cost
estimate is based on a review of recent acquisitions in the cities of Sherwood,Tigard,Tualatin and Hillsboro,and by
the Tualatin Hills Park&Recreation District.
***Greenways cost of$140,000 per acres is based on a review of recent similar acquisitions in the cities of
Sherwood,Tigard,Tualatin and Hillsboro,and by the Tualatin Hills Park&Recreation District.
#Linear Parks cost is based on$140,000 per acres for acquisition and$100,000 per acre for development.
##Trails costs include land acquisition at approximately$70,000 per mile(1/2 acre per mile),and development at
$450,000 per mile. Land cost estimate is based on a review of recent similar acquisitions in the cities of Sherwood,
Tigard,Tualatin and Hillsboro,and by the Tualatin Hills Park&Recreation District
Don Ganer&Associates,Inc. 11 REVISED DRAFT as of 09/13/04
it
F. Compliance/Administrative Costs
' I
The City incurs costs in the development and administration of the SDCs and may recoup a
portion of those costs in accordance with ORS 223.307(5). Compliance/administrative costs
during the 5-year collection period have been estimated as follows:
Master Plan Update($100,000 for consulting and staff services) $100,000
Annual PCIP Management,Accounting and Reporting Costs(approximately
$10,000 per year for consulting,legal, audit, financial reporting and
staff services) $50,000
SDC Methodology Reviews and Update $15,000
Total Estimated 5-year Compliance/Administrative Costs $165,000
These costs are allocated between population and employment based on the growth share
percentages included in Table 3.8,page 11, and are shown in Table 3.9,below.
TABS
COMPLIANCE/ADMINISTRATIVE COST ALLOCATIONS
Estimated 5-year Compliance/
Share of Compliance) Administrative
Type of Development Growth Costs Administrative Costs Cost Allocation
Population(Residential) 89.8% $165,000 $148,218
Employment(Non-residential) 10.2% $165,000 $16,782
Don Ganer&Associates,Inc. 12 REVISED DRAFT as of 09/13/04
4.0 RESIDENTIAL PARKS AND RECREATION SDC RATES
The City's Residential Parks and Recreation SDC rates are calculated using a series of
sequential formulas which, when completed, yield the total SDC rates for each new dwelling
unit in the City. The formulas identify:
a) the net residential SDC-eligible costs(Formula 4a,below)
b) the residential improvements cost per capita(Formula 4b,page 14),
c) the residential improvements cost per dwelling unit(Formula 4c,page 14),
d) the residential SDC tax credit per dwelling unit(Formula 4d, page 15), and
e) the residential SDC per dwelling unit(Formula 4e, page 16).
The Residential SDC rate is an "improvement fee" only, and does not include a"reimbursement
fee" component.
A. Formula 4a: Net Residential SDC Eligible Costs
The net residential SDC-eligible costs are calculated by adding the residential portion of growth-
required improvements cost (identified in Table 3.8, page 11) and Compliance/Administrative
Costs (Table 3.9, page 12).
Residential Compliance/ Net Residential
4a. New Facility + Administrative = SDC—Eligible
Costs Costs Costs
Table 4.1 presents the calculation of the net total SDC-eligible costs.
TABLE 4.1
NET RESIDENTIAL SDC-ELIGIBLE COSTS
Residential
SDC
Eligible Costs
Growth-Required Facilities $9,322,690
PLUS:Compliance/Administrative Costs $148.218
EQUALS: Total Growth-Required Costs $9,470,908
Don Ganer&Associates,Inc. 13 REVISED DRAFT as of 09/13/04
R. Formula 4b: Residential Improvements Cost Per Capita
The residential improvements cost per capita is calculated by dividing the net residential SDC-
eligible portion of growth-required improvements cost (identified in Table 4.1, page 13) by the
increase in the City's population expected to be created by new development through 2008 (from
Table 3.1,page 6).
Net Residential Residential
4b. SDC-Eligible - Population = Improvements Cost
Costs Increase Per Capita
Table 4.2 presents the calculation of the facilities cost per capita.
TABLE 4.2
RESIDENTIAL MPROVEMENTS COST PER CAPITA
Residential Residential
SDC Population Improvements Cost
Eligible Costs Increase Per Capita
Net Residential SDC-Eligible Costs $9,470,908 5,268 = $1,798
G Formula 4c: Residential Improvements Cost Per Dwelling Unit
The residential improvements cost per dwelling unit is calculated by multiplying the average
number of persons per dwelling unit (from Table 3.2, page 7) by the residential improvements
cost per capita(from Table 4.2, above).
Residential Residential
4c. Persons Per x Improvements Cost = Improvements Cost Per
Dwelling Unit Per Capita Dwelling Unit
The results of these calculations are displayed in Table 4.3, page 15.
Don Ganer&Associates,Inc. 14 REVISED DRAFT as of 09/13/04
TABLE 4.3
RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS COST PER DWELLING UNIT
Average Total Residential
Persons Per X Residential Cost = Improvements Cost
Type of Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit Per CaRiita Per Dwelling Unit
Single-Family: 2.67 $1,798 $4,800
Multi-Family: 1.86 $1,798 $3,344
Manufactured Housing: 1.81 $1,798 $3,254
D. Formula 4d: Residential SDC Tax Credit Per Dwelling Unit
Debt instruments will likely be used as a future source for funding capacity improvements. A
portion of funds used to repay these debts may come from property taxes paid by growth. A tax
credit has been calculated to account for potential payments in order to avoid charging growth
twice; once through the SDC, and a second time through property taxes. A credit has been
calculated for each type of dwelling unit using the following assumptions:
• $17.5M in 20 year G.O. bonds at 5.5%, $3.5M to be issued in 2007,
• 6.0% average annual increase in total City property valuation for taxes,
• 3.0% annual increase in assessed property valuations,
• 3.0% annual inflation(decrease in value of money),
• Average 2003 property valuations for new construction at $250,000 for single family,
$60,000 for multi-family, and $85,000 for manufactured housing units ($75,000 for unit,
$10,000 for lot)
Present Value SDC Tax
4d. of Future Property = Credit Per
Tax Payments Dwelling Unit
The amounts of these credits are shown in Table 4.4, page 16.
Don Ganer&Associates,Inc. 15 REVISED DRAFT as of 09/13/04
TABLE 4.4
TAX CREDIT PER DWELLING UNIT
Tax Credit Per
Type of Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit
Single-Family: $907
Multi-Family: $218
Manufactured Housing: $171
E. Formula 4e: Residential SDC Per Dwelling Unit
The residential SDC rate per dwelling unit is calculated by subtracting the tax credit per
dwelling unit(Table 4.4, above) from the residential improvements cost per dwelling unit (Table
4.3, page 15).
Residential SDC Tax Residential
4e. Improvements Cost - Credit Per = SDC Per
Per Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit
The results of these calculations are shown in Table 4.5,below.
TABLE 4.5
RESIDENTIAL SDC PER DWELLING UNIT
Residential SDC Tax Residential
Improvements Cost - Credit Per = SDC Per
Tyke of Dwelling Unit Per Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit
Single-Family: $4,800 $907 $3,893
Multi-Family: $3,344 $218 $3,126
Manufactured Housing: $3,254 $171 $3,083
Don Garter&Associates,Inc. 16 REVISED DRAFT as of 09/13/04
5.0 NON-RESIDENTIAL SDC RATES
The City's Non-Residential Parks and Recreation SDC rates are calculated using a series of
sequential formulas which, when completed, yield the total SDC rates for each new employee
added by new development in the City. The formulas identify:
a) the Non-Residential Improvements Cost Per Employee(Formula 5a, below),
b) the Tax Credit Per Employee(Formula 5b, page 18); and
c) the Non-Residential SDC Per Employee(Formula 5c, page 18).
The Non-Residential SDC rates is an "improvement fee" only and does not include a
"reimbursement fee" component. The SDC rates are based on costs required for and benefits
received by new development only, and do not assume that costs are necessarily incurred for
capital improvements when an employer hires an additional employee. SDCs are charged for
the activity of development, not employment, and the non-residential parks SDCs are based the
impacts new capacity for employees will have on the need for parks facilities.
A. Formula Sa. Net Non-Residential SDC Eligible Costs
The net non-residential SDC-eligible costs are calculated by adding the non-residential portion of
growth-required improvements cost (identified in Table 3.8, page 11) and
Compliance/Administrative Costs(Table 3.9, page 12).
Non-Residential Compliance/ Net Non-Residential
5a. New Facility + Administrative = SDC—Eligible
Costs Costs Costs
Table 5.1 presents the calculation of the net total SDC-eligible costs.
P �
TABLE 5.1
NET RESIDENTIAL SDC-ELIGIBLE COSTS
Non-Residential
SDC
Eligible Costs
Growth-Required Facilities $1,055,530
PLUS:Compliance/Administrative Costs $16,782
EQUALS: Total Growth-Required Costs $1,072,312
Don Garter&Associates,Inc. 17 REVISED DRAFT as of 09/13/04
A Formula Sb: Non-Residential Improvements Cost Per Employee
The Non-Residential Improvements Cost Per Employee is calculated by dividing
the net non-
residential SDC-eligible costs (from Table 5.1, page 17) by the increase in the City's
employment expected to be created by new development through 2008 (from Table 3.1, page 6).
Net Non-Residential Employment Non-Residential
5b. SDC-Eligible — Increase From = Improvements Cost
Costs Development Per Employee
Table 5.2 presents the calculation of the Non-Residential Improvements Cost Per Employee.
TABLE 5.2
NON-RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS COST PER EMPLOYEE
Net Non-Residential Non-Residential
SDC Employment Improvements Cost
Mdble Costs Increase Per Emnlovee
Growth-Required Facilities $1,072,312 — 3,134 = $342
G Formula Sc: Non Residential Tax Credit Per Employee
Debt instruments will likely be used as a future source for funding capacity improvements. A
portion of funds used to repay these debts may come from property taxes paid by growth. A tax
credit has been calculated to account for potential payments in order to avoid charging growth
twice; once through the SDC, and a second time through property taxes. A credit has been
calculated for each type of dwelling unit using the following assumptions:
• $17.5M in 20 year G.O. bonds at 5.5%, $3.5M to be issued in 2007,
• 6.0%average annual increase in total City property valuation for taxes,
• 3.0%annual increase in assessed property valuations,
• 3.0%annual inflation(decrease in value of money),
• Average 2003 property valuation for non-residential (office) development at $45 per square
foot,
• An average of 470 square feet per employee(retail)
Present Value of Tax
5c. Tax Payments Per = Credit Per
Employee Employee
Don Ganer&Associates,Inc. 18 REVISED DRAFT as of 09/13/04
The amount of this credit is shown in Table 5.3, below.
TABLE 5.3
TAX CREDIT PER EMPLOYEE
Tax
Credit Per
Employee
Present Value of Tax Payments = $77
D. Formula Sd. Non-Residential SDC Per Employee
The non-residential SDC rate per employee is calculated by subtracting the tax credit per
employee(from Table 5.3, above)from the improvements cost(Table 5.2, page 18).
Non-Residential SDC Tax Non-Residential
5d. Improvements Cost - Credit Per = SDC Per
Per Employee Employee Employee
The results of these calculations are shown in Table 5.4, below.
TABLE 5.4
NON-RESIDENTIAL SDC PER EMPLOYEE
Improvements Tax Non-Residential
Cost Per - Credit Per = SDC
Employee Employee Per Employee
$342 $77 $265
The parks and recreation SDC for a particular non-residential development is determined by:
1) dividing the total building space (square feet) in the development by the number of
square feet per employee(from the guidelines in Table 5.5, page 20), and
2) multiplying the result(from step 1)by the Non-Residential SDC Per Employee (from
Table 5.4, above).
Don Ganer&Associates.Inc. 19 REVISED DRAFT as of 09/13/04
For example, the parks and recreation SDC for a 40,000 square foot office building for services
such as finance and real estate would be calculated as follows:
1) 40,000(sq. ft. building size) _ 370(sq. ft. per employee) = 108 employees,
2) 108 employees X$265 (SDC rate) _ $28,620.
For non-residential development where more than one SIC may be used, multiple SICs may be
applied based on their percentage of the total development.
TABLE 5.5
SQUARE FEET PER EMPLOYEE
(recommended guidelines from Metro Employment Density Study)
Standard Industry Square Feet Standard Industry Square Feet
Classification(SIC)* Per Employee Classification(SIC) Per Employee
1-19 Ag.,Fish&Forest Services; 37 Transportation Equipment 700
Construction;Mining 590 40-42,
20 Food&Kindred Products 630 44,45,47 Transportation and Warehousing 3,290
22,23 Textile&Apparel 930 43,46,48,
24 Lumber&Wood 640 49 Communications
25,32, and Public Utilities 460
39 Furniture;Clay,Stone,&Glass; 50,51 Wholesale Trade 1,390
Misc. 760 52-59 Retail Trade 470
26 Paper and Allied 1,600 60-68 Finance,Insurance&Real Estate 370
27 Printing,Publishing&Allied 450 70-79 Non-Health Services 770
28-31 Chemicals,Petroleum, 80 Health Services 350
Rubber,Leather 720 81 -89 Educational,Social,
33,34 Primary&Fabricated Metals 420 Membership Services 740
35 Machinery Equipment 300 90-99 Government 530
36,38 Electrical Machinery,Equipment 400
* Source:U.S.Department of Commence Standard Industrial Classification Manual
6.0 ANNUAL RATE ADJUSTMENTS
City of Tigard Resolution No. 01-13 provides for annual adjustments to parks SDC rates to
account for changes in the costs of acquiring and constructing parks facilities. The SDC rate
adjustment is based on two factors: (1)the change in average market value of residential land in
Washington County, and(2)the change in construction costs according to the Engineering News
Record (ENR)Northwest (Seattle, Washington) Construction Cost Index. The weight given to
each factor should be modified as needed reflect the portion each factor represents of total costs
in the Parks Capacity Improvements Plan (Appendix A).
Don Ganer&Associates,Inc. 20 REVISED DRAFT as of 09/13/04
APPENDIX A
SDC PARKS CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM page 1 of 5
City of Tigard draft as of 09/03/04
Parks and Recreation Facilities
li 2004 - 2008
TOTAL % SDC-ELIGIBLE % OTHER PROJECT
PROJECT GROWTH PORTION OTHER PORTION FUNDING
PROJECT 'QRS COST NM) OF TOTAL COS IMF OF TOTAL COST SOURCES
NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
1 Bull Mountain Neighborhood Park Site Acquisition 04-08 $750,000 40% $299,250 60% $450,750 SDC,Grants,Donations
- acquire approximately 3 acres for a neighborhood park to_ _ Bonds,Partnerships,LII
meet growth and non-growth needs in Bull Mountain, Sponsorships, Other
Bull Mountain Neighborhood Park Site Acgmaition 04-08 $750,000 40% $299,250 60% $450,750 SDC,Grants,Donations
- - - - _
- acquire approximately 3 acres fora neighborhood park to Bonds,Partnerships,LI
j meet growth and non-growth needs-in Bull Mountain, Sponsorships, Other
I
3 Bull Mountain Neighborhood Park Site Acquisition 04-08 $750,000 40%( $299,250 60% $450,750 SDC,Grants,Donations
- acquire approximately 3 acres for a neighborhood park to Bonds,Partnerships,LIl
meet growth and non-growth needs in Bull Mountain. _ _ _ _ _ Sponsorships, Other
4'Bull Mountain Neighborhood Park Development 04-08 $510,000 40% $203,490 60% $306,510 SDC,Grants,Donations
- develop a neighborhood park of approximately 3acres Bonds,Partnerships,LI
I to meet growth and non-growth needs in Bull Mountain, . _._..__- _ -_ _ Sponsorships, Other
5 Bull Mountain Neighborhood Park Develop Ment 04-08 $510,000 40%J $203,490 60% $306,510 SDC,Grants,Donations
- ---. _P . --- --- - - - _
- develop a neighborhood park of approximately 3 acres _ _ _ -- -__ -_- - Bonds,Partnerships,L
to meet growth and non-growth needs in Bull Mountain. �- _ __- _ Sponsorships, Other
- - -- - -
Bull Mountain Neighborhood Park Development 04-08 $510,000 ! 40% $203,490 60% $306,510 SDC,Grants,Donations
- develop a neighborhood park of approximately 3 acres Bonds, Partnerships,L
to meet growth and non-growth needs in Bull Mountain, Sponsorships, Other
I II
APPENDIX A
SDC PARKS CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM page 2 of 5
City of Tigard _- -- —_ _ _ -� - draft as of 09/01/04
Parks and Recreation Facilities
2004 - 2008 j
TOTAL % SDC-ELIGIBLE % OTHER PROJECT
---------___-- _ _-
PROJECT GROWTH PORTION OTHER PORTION FUNDING
PROJECT M COST NM2 OF TOTALhM2 OF TOTAL COST SOURCES
NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
I
7 j Neighborhood Park Site Acquisition 04-08 $750,000 00/0 $0 100% $750,000 Grants,Donations
- acquire approximately 3 acres for a neighborhood park Bonds,Partnerships,L
to meet non-growth needs in the City. Sponsorships, Other
8 Neighborhood Park Site Acquisition 04-08 $750,000 00/0 $0 100% $750,000 Grants,Donations
acquire approximately 3 acres for a neighborhood park Bonds,Partnerships, LI
to meet non-growth needs in the City. Sponsorships, Other
i
9 Neighborhood Park Site Acquisition 104-08 $750,000 0% $0 100% $750,000 Grants,Donations
- acquire approximately 3 acres for a neighborhood park j Bonds,Partnerships,L
to meet non-growth needs in the City. Sponsorships, Other
10 Neighborhood Park Site Acquisition 04-08 $685,000 00/0 $0 100% $685,000 Grants, Donations
- acquire approximately 2.74 acres for a neighborhood park Bonds,Partnerships,LIl
to meet non-growth needs in the City. Sponsorships, Other
i -
Neighborhood Park Site Development 04-08-
$510 000 0% $0 100% $510,000 Grants,Donations
- develop a neighborhood park of approximately_3 acres _ - -- - Bonds,Partnerships, L11
to meet non-growth needs in the City. Sponsorships, Other
121 Neighborhood Park Site Development 04-08 $510,000 00/0 $0 100% $510,000 Grants,Donations
- develop a neighborhood park of approximately 3 acres Bonds,Partnerships,L11
to meet non-growth needs in the City. Sponsorships, Other
APPENDIX A
SDC PARKS CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM page 3 of 5
City of Tigard - - draft as of 09/01/04
Parks and Recreation Facilities
12004 - 2008 - --
- - - - - - -- -----
- - --TOTAL % SDC-ELIGIBLE % OTHER PROJECT
PROJECT GROWTH PORTION OTHER PORTION FUNDING
PROJECT S COST NEED OF TOTAL_ COST NEED OF TOTAL COST SOURCES
NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
i
131 Neighborhood Park Site Development 04-08 $510,000 0% $0 100% $510,000 Grants,Donations
- develop a neighborhood park of approximately 3 acres i Bonds,Partnerships, LIl
to meet non-growth needs in the City. - - - -i - Sponsorships, Other
14',Neighborhood Park Site Development
104-08 $465,800 00% � $0 100% $465,800 Grants,Donations
.
- develop a neighborhood park of approximately 2.74 acres Bonds,Partnerships, L
to meet non-growth needs in the City, Sponsorships, Other
COMMUNITY PARKS I
15 Bull Mountain Community Park Site Acquisition 04-08 $5,000,000 54% $2,710,000 46% $2,290,000 SDC,Grants,Donations
-
acquire approximately 20 acres for a CommunityPar
lq Bonds,Partnerships,L
to meet growth(10.84) and non-growth(9.16) j Sponsorships, Other
needs in Bull Mountain.
16Bull Mountain Community Park Development 04-08 $4,000,000 54% $211682000 46% $1,832,000 SDC,Grants Donations
11- develop a community park of about 20 acres in size Bonds,Partnerships,L
to meet growth(10.84)and non-growth(9.16) -- -- --- _- -- _ __- -- --_ --_- _---_ _. _._ Sponsorships, Other
needs in Bull Mountain.
APPENDIX A
SDC PARKS CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM page 4 of 5
City of Tigard draft as of 09/01/04
- -- --
Parks and Recreation Facilities
-
'i2004 - 2008.
-
TOTAL % SDC ELIGIBLE % I OTHER - PROJECT
PROJECT GROWTH PORTION OTHER PORTION FUNDING
PROJECT YRS COST N OF TOTAL COST NEED OF TOTAL COST SOURCES
i
GREENWAYS
1.71 Greenways Acquisition 04-08 $6,650,000 41% $2,721,600 59% $3,928,400 SDC,Grants,Donations
- acquire approximately 47.5 acres of greenways _. _ _ _ Bonds,Partnerships,LII
to meet growth(19.44)and non-growth(28.06) -_ -- Sponsorships, Other_
needs in the City planning area. l
L--
TRAILS - _
18 Trails Acquisition/Development 04-08 $2,657,200 23% $603,200 77% $2,054,000 SDC,Grants,Donations
- acquire/develop approximately 5.11 miles of trails to Bonds Partnerstus
, _ _Partnerships,,L
meet growth(1.16)and non-growth (3.95) needs. Sponsorships, Other
LINEAR PARKS
i
191,Linear Parks Acquisition/Development 104-08 $667,200 100% _ $667,200 00/0 $0 SDCz Grants,Donations
- - -- --
- acquire/develop approximately 2.78 acres of linear arks _ - _ Bonds,Partnerships,LI]
_
i
- -- -
to meet growth needs in the City planning area S onsorshi s Other
-- - -- ---- -- -- - - -- - - -- ---- --- - — -- -- -! --- - p-z ---- -
i
APPENDIX A
SDC PARKS CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM page 5 of 5
City of Tigard draft as of 09/03/04
Parks and Recreation Facilities
2004 - 2008
TOTAL % SDC-ELIGIBLE % OTHER
------ -
- --- - - - - - -
PROJECT GROWTH PORTION OTHER PORTION
PROJECT YRS COST NEM OF TOTALCOST NEM OF TOTAL COST
TOTALS $27,685,200 37.49% $10,378,220 62.51% $17,306,980
Neighborhood Parks $8,710,800 17.31% $1,508,220 82.69% $7,202,580
Community Parks - $9,000,000 54.200XO $4,878,000 45,80% $4,122,000
Greenways $6,650,000 40.93% $2,721,600 59.07% $3928,400
Trails $2,657,200 22.70% $603,200 77.30% $2,054,000
Linear Parks $667,200 100.00% $667,200 0.00% $0
Totals $27,685,200-: 37.49% $10 378,220 62.51% $17,306,980
APPENDIX B
Parks SDC Rates
Washington County Cities
Singje Famft Multi-Family Non-Residential
Sherwood $4,996 $3,851 $50/employee
Beaverton' $2,533 $1,948 $79/employee
Hillsboro $2,168 $2,168 $364/parking space
Tualatin2 $2,100 $2,100 none
North Plains $2,144 $2,308 none
Forest Grove $2,000 $2,000 none
Tigard $1,852 $959 $131/employee
Tualatin Hills PRD provides parks for the City of Beaverton.
2 City of Tualatin Parks SDC rate is scheduled to increase to $3,150 in January 2005.
APPENDIX C
Tigard Parks SDC Update
Task Calendar
NLT Date Lead Person Task
08/25/04 Dan Plaza Schedule pubic hearing for November 23
and send Notice to HBA (and to anyone else
who has sent a written request for
notification). Notice is required 90 days
before the first public hearing.
08/30/04 Don Ganer Prepare draft SDC methodology and project
list for review by City Staff.
09/21/04 Dan Plaza City Council review of draft SDC
methodology and project list at work
session.
09/24/04 Don Ganer Have draft SDC methodology report
available for public review at City Hall
(send or email a courtesy copy to HBA and
others). The draft report must be available
for public review 60 days prior to the first
public hearing.
10/15/04 Don Ganer Draft updated parks SDC ordinance and
resolutions for review and modification by
City staff.
08/27 — 11/23 Dan Plaza Community review of draft parks SDC
methodology report.
Nov 23/Dec 2004 All Public Hearings and City Council Action
Dec 2004 Don Ganer Update Procedures Guide and Provide
Training Session
01/01/05 City Implement updated Parks SDCs
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Roster
Jason Ashley Shelley Richards
13350 SW Brittany Drive 15080 SW 89th Place
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97224
Home: (503) 579-1711 Home: (503) 968-6168
Work: (503) 692-4882 Work: (503)423-3719
E-mail: ace ica(a yahoo.com FAX: (503) 423-3737
E-mail: shelley.richards(ab_hdrinc.com
David Baumgarten
8670 SW Stratford Court Carl Switzer
Tigard, OR 97224 11120 SW 109th Avenue
Home: (503) 639-7969 Tigard, Or 97223
Work: (503) 528-5406 Home: (503) 201-7078
E-mail: dabaumgarten _earthlink.net Work: (503) 478-2345
FAX: (503) 274-1412
Scott Bernhard, DC E-mail: switzer _pbworld.com
10895 SW Tigard Street
Tigard, OR 97223
Home: (503) 639-4733
Work: (503) 598-9302 (Tigard-Tualatin School District Representative)
FAX: (503) 598-0755 Barry Albertson, Ph.D
E-mail: scottc@-oregonchiro.com Tigard-Tualatin School District 23J
6960 SW Sandburg Street
Michael Freudenthal Tigard, OR 97223
16129 SW Palermo Lane Home: (503) 590-5445
Tigard, OR 97223 Work: (503) 452-0915 x 26
Home: (503) 590-4005 FAX: (503) 246-0255
Work: (503) 515-6452 (503) 431-4047
E-mail: mfreud .pacificfoods.com (503) 768-9232
E-mail: docs cnnw.net
Darrin Marks
10729 SW River Drive
Tigard, OR 97224 (Youth Advisory Council Representative)
Home: (503) 620-3036 Ethan Brown
Camp Fire USA Portland Metro Council 11725 SW 116th Avenue
619 SW 11 th Ave., Suite 200 Tigard, Oregon 97223
Portland, OR 97205 Home: 503 524 4042
Work: (503) 224-7800 x668 E-mail: way2cool4u973(@,aol.com
E-mail: dmarks(d-)portlandcampfire.org
August 2004