1994-00807-Resolution No. 93-104 Recorded 1/7/199494 -DON0'7 0128-1237 REVIEWED
93-45713 6, ")
---
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTE -~e 6 (�
r
A Resolution Establishing System Development * 0128-1094
Charges for Parks and Recreation for Certain *
Development within the Bend Urban Growth
Boundary and Setting an Effective Date.
RESOLUTION NO. 93-104 `~
WHEREAS, Chapter 15.12 of the Deschutes County Code authorizes the
County to establish system development charges; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of ORS Chapter 223--; tine Bend
Metro Parks and Recreation District commissioned a study"'of,-'parks
system development charges for park development within the Bend Urban
Growth Boundary; and
WHEREAS, said study has recommended a level of system development
charges for parks and recreation consistent with the requirements of
ORS Chapter 223; and
WHEREAS the District has adopted a plan of capital improvements as
required by ORS Chapter 223 on which system development charge funds
would be expended; and
WHEREAS the Board of County Commissioners has determined that it
is in the public interest to adopt system development charges for parks
and recreation; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES
COUNTY, OREGON:
Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of the system development charge
identified by this Resolution and imposed under the authority of
Chapter 15.12 of the Deschutes County Code is to impose a portion of
the cost of capital improvements for parks upon those users of the Bend
Metro Parks and Recreation District who create the need for or increase
the demands on parks capital improvements by construction of new
dwelling units within the Bend Urban Growth Boundary.
Section 2. Adoption of Base Parks System Development Charges.
Pursuant to Deschutes County Code Chapter 15.12 a system development
charge of $265.00 per person is adopted as the base system development
charge for neighborhood and community park facilities to be applied
within the Bend Urban Growth Boundary, as an improvement fee, as of
July 1, 1992. For purposes of applying such base charges to applicable
development proposals, the number of persons per dwelling unit shall be
as follows:
Single Family (2.645 persons/unit)
Multi -Family (1.895 persons/unit) _ $5 i'0 y�)uffl
Hotels/Motels (1 person/unit)�c 2 ncp 0 �,,,t v
IFT 99
RESOLUTION NO. 93-104 (12/15/93) r_` � 4
Re-recorded to attach exhibit A to document previously recorded
12/16/93 in Volume 128 Page 1094.x.
0128-1238
0128-1095
Section 3. Methodology and Findings. The methodology used to
establish the base park and recreation system development charges
adopted by this resolution is contained in a document dated September
1992 prepared by Economic and Engineering Services, Inc., entitled
"Bend Metro Parks and Recreation District: System Development Charges
for the Parks System," attached hereto as Exhibit A and by this
reference incorporated herein. The methodology is outlined in Chapter
IV of that report and applied to the facts in this instance in Chapter
V. That exhibit also serves as the findings supporting the adoption of
this resolution.
Section 4. Inflation Adjustment. The parks and recreation
system development charge shall be subject to a once yearly increase
from the base figures adopted in Section 1 above based upon the amount
of inflation ocurring since July 1, 1992, calculated with reference to
an applicable consumer price index for Bend, Oregon. The inflation
factor shall be calculated as of July 1 for each year thereafter and
the revised charge for each fiscal year following adoption of this
resolution shall be adopted as part of the County's annual fee
schedule.
The inflation adjustment to be applied as of July 1, 1993 shall be
5.8% added to the basic charge.
Section 5. Applicability and Collection.
(a) A park and recreation system development charge calculated in
accordance with the provisions of this resolution, and any
amending resolution or fee schedule, shall be collected for
all new single-family residential and multi -family
residential construction and for all new hotel or motel
construction within the Bend Urban Growth Boundary.
(b) The park and recreation system development charge shall be
collected and paid in full upon application for a building
permit for new construction identified in Paragraph 5(a).
Section 6. Initial Parks System Development Charge. The system
development charge for the 1993-1994 fiscal year shall be as follows:
Single Family: $280/person x 2.645 persons/unit = $740.60
Multi -Family: $280/person x 1.895 persons/unit = $530.60/unit
Hotel/Motel: $280/unit
Section 6A. Calculation of System Development Charge. System
development charges shall be calculated for new development proposals
to which system development charges are applicable, as follows:
(a) Single Family: System development charge shall be charged at
the single-family rate.
RESOLUTION NO. 93-104 (12/15/93)
0128-1239
0128-1096
(b) Multi -family: System development charge at the multi -family
rate shall be charged for each new unit, or in the case of
change of use from single-family residential shall be charged
at the multi -family rate for the existing unit and the new
units.
(c) Hotel/Motel: System development charge at the hotel/motel
rate shall be charged for each new unit, or in the case of
change of use from residential use shall be charged at the
hotel/motel rate for the existing dwelling unit and the new
units.
Section 7. Credits.
(a) Each lot or parcel in subdivisions and partitions approved
subject to the requirement of a land dedication for parks or
payment of a fee equivalent for parks acquisition under
Chapter 17.44 of the County subdivision and partition
ordinance, or similar authority, shall be entitled upon
receipt of such fees or dedication to be credited in an
amount equal to the full amount of system development charges
imposed herein.
(b) Where new residential or hotel/motel construction involves a
change of use or replacement of existing residential or motel
dwelling units, system development charges imposed shall be
credited with an amount equal to the current system
development charges associated with the type of dwelling unit
being replaced or changed.
(c) Qualified public improvements, as defined in Deschutes County
Code section 15.12.010, shall be credited in accordance with
ORS Chapter 223.
Section 7A. Expenditures. System development charge funds shall
be expended only for capital improvement projects listed in the Bend
Metro Park and Recreation District's Capital Improvement Plan, as set
forth in the Appendix to the Methodology adopted herein.
Section 8. Definitions.
(a) "New single-family and multi -family residential construction"
includes (1) construction or placement of new single-family
or multi -family residential unit or units on a lot or parcel
not previously occupied by lawfully established residential
development; (2) construction involving the addition of new
dwelling units on a lot or parcel previously occupied by
lawfully established residential development that results in
a change of use from single-family to multi -family
residential development; or (3) an increase in dwelling units
at an existing lawfully established multi -family development.
"New single-family and multi -family residential construction"
RESOLUTION NO. 93-104 (12/15/93)
4128-1240
0128-109'7
shall not include replacement of existing such development
with the same use.
(b) "New hotel or motel construction" includes construction of
(1) a new motel or hotel development on land previously
unoccupied by motel or hotel development; (2) a new motel or
hotel development on land previously occupied by residential
development that results in a change of use from single-
family or multi -family residential development to hotel or
motel development; or (3) an increase in the number of
dwelling units at an existing hotel or motel.
(c) For purposes of this resolution, "single-family residential
construction" shall include a free-standing single family
residential dwelling, including manufactured homes, and a
dwelling unit in a zero lot line subdivision. A second free-
standing dwelling unit on an RM -zoned parcel shall be treated
as a single-family dwelling.
(d) For purposes of this resolution, "multi -family residential
construction" shall include any residential development
having more than one dwelling unit on a lot or parcel or
combination thereof under the same ownership that is neither
a single-family residence nor a hotel or motel as defined
herein.
(e) For the purposes of this resolution, "hotel or motel" shall
include any structure, excluding condominiums, that is
occupied or intended, designed or operated for transient
occupancy for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes and
includes any hotel, inn, motel, bed and breakfast, studio
hotel, bachelor hotel, lodging house, public or private
dormitory or nursing home or other residential care facility.
Section 8. This resolution shall take effect on January 1, 1994.
DATED this J-6— day of December, 1993.
AT t
1
Recording Secretary
BOARD OF�OUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCH TES COUNTY, OREGON
air
POPEJ SUS LANGEN, Commiss
BARRY H. SLAUGHTER, Commissioner
RESOLUTION NO. 93-104 (12/15/93)
EXHIBIT A
. TO
RESOLUTION 93-104
M28-1241
ECONOMIC AND ENGINEERING
SERVICES, INC.
ENERGY • RESOURCE • MANAGEMENT • CONSULTANTS
5
4I
ECONOMIC AND ENGINEERING
SERVICES, INC.
ENERGY • RESOURCE • MANAGEMENT • CONSULTANTS
1
1
1
1
0128-1242
BEND METRO
PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
FOR THE
PARKS SYSTEM
SEPTEMBER 1992
FINAL REPORT
Prepared By:
Economic and Engineering Services, Inc.
Bellevue, WA * Olympia, WA * Portland, OR
Vancouver, B.C. * Washington, D.C.
' ECONOMIC AND ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.
4380 S.W. Macadam Avenue, Suite 365
97201 ' (503) 223-3033 Portland,FOAX (503) 274-6248 4128-1243
1
File #:
September 14, 1992
Mr. Ernie Drapela
Bend Metro Park and Recreation District
200 N.W. Pacific Park Lane
Bend, OR 97701
Re: System Development Charges - Park System
Dear Mr. Drapela:
60110
Enclosed is Economic and Engineering Services, Inc., (EES) final report on system
development charges for the Bend Metro Park and Recreation District's (District) park
system. The conclusions and recommendations contained within this report should enable
the District to implement system development charges which are cost based.
EES appreciates the opportunity to assist the District in this matter. We would also
like to thank you and your staff for your assistance in this project. If you have any questions,
please call.
Very truly yours,
ECONOMIC AND ENGINEERING
SERVICES, INC.
andall P. Go
Project Manager
I
Olympia. WA Bellevue, WA Vancouver. B.0 Pcrtland.OR Washington, D.0
..,'. r � , . . .
0128'1245
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
FOR
THE PARKS SYSTEM
Table of Contents
Section Description Page
Transmittal Letter
Table of Contents i
List of Exhibits iii
I Introduction 1
Introduction 1
Scope of Services 1
Organization of Report 2
Disclaimer 2
II Executive Summary and Recommendations 3
Introduction 3
Present System Development Charges 3
Proposed System Development Charges 3
Recommendations 4
Sample Resolution or Ordinance 5
Implementation 6
III System Development Charges in Oregon 7
Introduction 7
Requirements Under Oregon Law 8
Economic Theory 9
i
0128-1246
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
FOR
THE PARKS SYSTEM
Table of Contents
Section Description Page
IV System Development Charge Methodology 10
Introduction 10
Overview of Methodologies 10
Planning Standards i2
Existing and Future Capacity 13
Compliance Costs 16
Credits 17
Net System Development Charges 18
V System Development Charge Calculations 20
Introduction 20
Planning Standards 20
Parks 21
Compliance Costs 22
Credits 23
Net System Development Charge 23
Conclusion 24
ll
C
[l
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
Introduction
0128-1248
Population growth and a demand or expectation by citizens for a variety of parks and
recreation activities has caused an increasing burden on municipalities' ability to
finance the range of facilities desired by the general public. To provide the facilities
necessitated by growth and to either minimize the amount of general taxes or to avoid
or minimize user fees, many communities have implemented system development
charges (SDCs) or impact fees for new development. SDCs provide the means of
balancing the cost requirements for new recreation facilities to meet population
growth between existing residents and new residents. New residents under SDCs are
required to 'buy in" to the system in terms of both existing parks and future park
addition requirements in order to mitigate the effect of growth on existing residents.
The 1989 Oregon legislative session passed House Bill 3224, Chapter 449 Oregon
' Laws codified as ORS 223.297 through 223.314 (Oregon law), which set forth
requirements for the calculation and accounting of SDCs. The District currently has
SDCs in place for new development. However, for the District to impose SDCs after
' July 1, 1991, the District must pass a resolution or ordinance which complies with
Oregon law.
B. Scope of Services
Economic and Engineering Services, Inc., (EES) has been retained by the City of
' Bend (City) and Bend Metro Park and Recreation District (District) to review and
calculate SDCs for the parks and recreation system. As part of the process, EES has
' determined SDCs for the City and District which are fair and equitable for both
existing and new residents, and complies with Oregon law. EES has also provided
recommendations for accounting of funds and administrative procedures which the
District needs to follow in order to be in compliance with Oregon law.
1
1
1 G
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0128-1249.
Organization of Report
This report is divided into five sections. The first section is this introduction and
discussion of the scope of services. The second section provides an executive
summary of EES's findings and recommendations. Also included in this section are
recommendations for the accounting of funds and administrative procedures, as well
as a discussion of a resolution or ordinance to be enacted by the District for
compliance with Oregon law. The third section of this report provides an overview of
the requirements under the newly enacted Oregon law for the determination of
SDCs and provides a discussion of economic theory. The fourth section provides an
overview and general discussion of the methodology used in the calculation of SDCs.
The fifth section of this report provides the detailed calculations determining SDCs
for the District's parks system. A draft sample resolution/ordinance and the financial
calculations utilized in determining SDCs are provided as exhibits.
Disclaimer
EES, in its calculation of the system development charges presented in this report,
has used generally accepted planning and rate making principles. This should not be
construed as a legal opinion with respect to Oregon law or property tax limitations. If
a legal opinion is required, EES would recommend that the City and District have the
SDC as provided in this report reviewed by its legal counsel to determine if they are
in compliance with Oregon law and would not be considered property taxes
applicable to property tax limitations.
2
A t
"IV
0128-125
1
SECTION II
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Introduction
The Bend Metro Park and Recreation District, a distinct and separate governmental
body, (District) is located in the City of Bend (City) in Deschutes County, Oregon.
The District provides parks and recreation programs under its own legal authority
and tax base to a 45 square mile area with an approximate population of 35,000. The
District's boundary approximately follows the City of Bend's urban growth boundary.
' The District facilities are comprised of several classifications of parks. Mini Parks are
less than one acre in size and are normally developed based upon the significance of
the site and the desires of the community. Neighborhood Parks are 3 to 15 acres and
provide a wide array of recreational facilities. Currently, there is approximately 42
acres of developed Neighborhood Parks within the City. Community Parks provide
t facilities not normally provided by Neighborhood Parks. These parks are intended to
serve the community as well as visitors to the City. There is also approximately 590
acres dedicated to Special Purpose Park Land. These parks are unique and specific
' in purpose, such as a sports park or nature park.
B. Present System Development Charges
' The District currently does not have an SDC for parks. However, it is indicated in
the Bend Metro Park and Recreation District, 1986 Comprehensive Plan, that there
' exists an eight percent land dedication ordinance administered by the City and
Deschutes County on behalf of the District. This ordinance requires subdividers of
land to dedicate for park purposes eight percent either of the unimproved land or of
' the development site value.
Based on the review of the District's planning criteria, costs, and Oregon law, EES
' has developed new system development charges for the park system.
C. Proposed System Development Charges
EES has calculated SDCs for the District's park system based on generally accepted
rate making principles. Details of the calculations used in determining the SDCs are
' provided in Section V of this report. The planning criteria used in the calculation of
the SDC was based on the report entitled "Bend Metro Park and Recreation District,
1986 Comprehensive Plan" and other information provided by the District. The cost
and timing of future investments by the District were provided from the District's
capital improvement plan. Other financial and accounting information has been
' provided by the District.
1 3
0128-1252
The SDCs for the District's park system presented in this report are calculated based
' on a per person basis. Since it is commonly accepted that only residential
developments create a demand for municipal parks and recreation facilities,
' nonresidential developments are not included in the calculation of SDCs for parks
and it is recommended that no SDC for such improvements be assessed. However,
given that the City of Bend and the surrounding area draws a very large transit
' population due to the recreational facilities provided by the City, hotels and motels
have been included in the SDC. The number of occupants per household type were
based on studies prepared by the District. Presented in Table 11-1 is a summary of
allowable park SDCs for the District.
I
Table II -1
'
City of Bend
Allowable Park Development Charges
Park SDC $ 265
/person
Single Family Residential (2.6 persons) $ 700
/unit
'
Multi -Family Residential (1.895 persons) $ 500
/unit
Hotel/Motel $ 265
/room
' Since the park SDC is based on maintaining the existing park standards of the
District, the SDC funds will be used for the construction of new parks. Therefore, the
' SDC as provided in Table II -1 is considered an improvement fee as defined in
Oregon Law.
' D. Recommendations
' Based on its review and analysis in the determination of SDCs for the District, EES
makes the following recommendations:
1. That the District establish by resolution or ordinance that any capital
improvement being funded wholly or in part with SDC revenues shall be
included in an approved capital improvements plan, public facilities plan,
' master plan, or comparable plan which lists the capital improvements which
may be funded with improvement fee revenues and the estimated cost and
timing for each improvement.
' 2. That the District establish SDCs for new residential developments which are
no greater than the SDCs set forth in this report.
C,
11
1
0128-1253
3. That the District update the actual calculations for SDCs based on the
methodology as approved by the resolution or ordinance setting forth the
methodology for SDCs on an annual basis or at such time when a new capital
improvements plan, public facilities plan, master plan or a comparable plan is
approved or updated by the District.
4. That the District set up an accounting system that provides an annual
accounting of SDC revenue collected from improvement fees and the projects
that were funded with the revenue.
5. That the District establish in the resolution or ordinance enacting the
methodology used in the determination of SDCs and a provision for
administrative procedures allowing protests within 60 days following the
adoption or modification of the SDC methodology.
6. That the District provide for an administrative review procedure by which any
citizen or other interested party may challenge the expenditure of SDC funds.
Such procedure provides that a challenge must be filed within two years of the
expenditure of SDC funds.
7. That the District adopt by resolution or ordinance that "reimbursement fees"
as such term is defined in ORS 223.299 shall be spent only on capital
improvements associated with the system for which the fees were assessed,
including expenditures related to the repayment of indebtedness.
8. That the District establish by resolution or ordinance that "improvement fees"
as such term is defined in ORS 223.299 shall be spent only on capacity
increasing capital improvements, including expenditures related to the
repayment of the debt for such improvements.
E. Sample Resolution or Ordinance
' Based on EES's review of Oregon law establishing the requirements for enactment of
SDCs, EES has provided two sample ordinances/resolutions for enactment of SDCs.
An ordinance and resolution are provided to ease the administrative burden
' associated with the update of SDCs based on annual calculations and/or changes in
the capital improvements plan.
' The first sample ordinance is provided as Exhibit 1 attached to this report. This
ordinance sets forth definitions, the administrative procedures for review of the
' methodology used for the determination of SDCs and the review of expenditures of
SDC funds, and establishes the accounting system for revenues and expenditures.
This ordinance does not specify actual SDCs. This ordinance was taken in part from
a sample provided by the League of Oregon Cities.
0128-1254
Provided as Exhibit 2 is the resolution for the actual calculation of SDCs.
F. Implementation
' The methodology used to calculate the system development charge takes into account
the cost of money or interest charges and inflation. Therefore, EES would
recommend that the District examine the SDC charge each year to determine the
' effect of interest costs and inflation on the calculation. The charge should be
increased by an escalation factor each year to reflect the cost of borrowing or
inflation. This method of escalation can be used for a four- to five-year period. After
this, EES would recommend that the District update the charge calculation based on
the actual cost of infrastructure and new facilities based on the master plan or capital
' improvements plan.
C
r
� r �
� � 4.9 � : .
0128-1256
SECTION III
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES IN OREGON
IA. Introduction
' The 1989 Oregon Legislative session passed House Bill 3224 Chapter 449 Oregon
Laws codified as ORS 223.297 through 223.314 (Oregon law) which sets forth the
requirements for calculation of system development charges (SDCs) and the use of
funds collected through SDCs. Oregon law also requires establishment of
administrative review procedures for the adoption of the methodology used in the
calculation of SDCs and the collection and expenditures of funds. The law applies to
' SDCs collected after July 1, 1991.
' The imposition of regulations on SDCs in Oregon is not a new concept. A similar
version of House Bill 3224 was first introduced in the 64th Oregon Legislative
Assembly at the request of the Oregon Home Builders Association. While the bill
' was approved by the legislature, it was ultimately vetoed by the Governor. In vetoing
the bill, the Governor requested that the League of Oregon Cities and the Oregon
State Home Builders Association attempt to reach a settlement agreement as to the
' form and content of appropriate law. As a consequence of the settlement
negotiations, House Bill 3224 was introduced in the 65th Oregon Legislative
Assembly by the League of Oregon Cities, Oregon State Home Builders Association
' and the Oregon Builders Association of Metro Portland, and it was passed and
approved.
A summary of the legal requirements under Oregon law as defined in House Bill
3224 is provided in this section. It is meant to be a summary recap of the Oregon law.
' It in no way constitutes a legal interpretation of Oregon Law by EES. Additionally, a
general overview of the economic theory associated with the enactment of SDCs is
provided.
I
1
0128-125'7
B. Requirements under Oregon Law
The purpose of the recently passed Oregon law for the enactment of SDCs is to
provide a uniform framework for the imposition of SDCs by local governments for
specified purposes and to establish that such fees be used only for capital
improvements. Capital improvements as defined under the law are as follows:
• water supply, treatment and distribution;
• wastewater collection, transmission, treatment and disposal;
• drainage and flood control;
• transportation;
• parks and recreation.
A SDC means a reimbursement fee, an improvement fee, or a combination thereof.
As defined under Oregon law, "improvement fee" means a fee for the costs associated
with capital improvements to be constructed. 'Reimbursement fee" means a fee for
costs associated with capital improvements already constructed or under construction.
As defined in Oregon law, the methodology setting forth the calculations for
reimbursement fees and improvement fees shall make the following considerations:
'Reimbursement fees shall be established by ordinance or resolution,
setting forth a methodology that considers the cost of existing facility or
facilities, prior contributions by existing users, the value of unused capacity,
rate making principals employed to finance publicly owned capital
improvements and other relevant factors identified by the local government
imposing the fee. The methodology shall promote the objective of future
system users contributing no more than an equitable share to the cost of
existing facilities. The methodology for establishing such fees shall be
reduced to writing and be available for public inspection. "
'Improvement fees shall be established by ordinance or resolution setting
' forth the methodology that considers the cost of projected capital
improvements needed to increase the capacity of the systems to which the
' fee is related. The methodology for establishing such fees shall be reduced
to writing and be available for public inspection. "
' In addition to the definitive requirements for the establishment of a SDC as an
improvement fee and/or replacement fee, other requirements under the Oregon law
are as follows:
0128-1258
• The SDC must be based on an approved capital improvements plan, public
facilities plan, master plan, or comparable plan which lists the capital
improvements that may be funded with the improvement fee revenues and the
estimated costs and timing for each improvement.
' • Proper administrative review procedures must be followed in the enactment of
a SDC resolution or ordinance.
• System development charge funds must only be spent on facilities for which
they were collected.
• A proper accounting system must be established which provides an annual
accounting for SDCs showing the total amount of revenue collected and the
' projects that were funded.
A more definitive list of the requirements under Oregon law is provided in the
' recommendations.
' C. Economic Theory
System development charges are generally imposed as a condition to development.
' The objective of a SDC is not merely to generate money for the District, but to
ensure fair and equitable financing is available to support needed capital additions.
Imposing SDCs on new development will provide equitable payments for existing
excess capacity and contribute to constructing new capacity. Through the
implementation of fair and equitable SDCs, existing and future customers will not be
unduly burdened with the cost of new development.
n
0
0
«�, �.. ...�.d ...;,..
P x _ � � � �� '�'. . � � �' �. r �.., � w ,� �� i _ .. .. � _
,.. .:... � � _< .w
LII
IA. Introduction
0128-1250
SECTION IV
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY
This section provides a generic discussion of the methodology used in the
determination of park SDCs. A general theoretical framework is presented. The
calculations presented in this section are examples of a hypothetical city for
I
illustrative purposes. Section V of this report provides the specific calculations
applicable to the District's park system.
The methodology used to calculate SDCs under Oregon law is not specific, except as
it pertains to the facilities that can be included in the charge. Therefore, in defining
the methodology, a number of factors must be considered. These factors are as
' follows:
'0 The method must be easy to understand.
• The method must be easy to administer.
' • The method should recognize the system planning criteria.
' • The method must strike an equitable balance between existing
customers and new customers.
' • The method should conform to accepted utility ratemaking principles.
• The method must conform to the requirements under Oregon law.
The methodology presented in this section is based on these criteria.
' B. Overview of Methodologies
A number of methods for determining SDCs have been used in the municipal parks
' and recreation field. The particular method used is dependent on the characteristics
of the utility. The three main methods used can be summarized as follows:
F
• System Buy -in Approach,
• Replacement Cost Approach, and
• Existing and Future Capacity Approach.
10
0128--1261
The system buy -in approach calculates the SDC based on the average investment per
customer. The system buy -in approach is based on the premise that new customers
are entitled to park service at the same cost as existing customers. The downside of
this approach is that it does not recognize the time value of money associated with
the investment in excess capacity by existing customers, nor does it take into
consideration the cost of constructing additional capacity to serve new customers.
The replacement cost approach determines the SDC by calculating the average
investment per customer based on a reconstructed system in current dollars. That is,
the cost of the system is recalculated assuming the prices in effect today. The
advantage of this method is that it provides existing customers compensation greater
than the average investment. This helps to reflect the time value of money associated
with investment in excess capacity and the cost of additional capacity. However, the
method suffers from the fact that the calculation of the average system investment
based on replacement cost does not reflect an accurate cost of excess existing and
future capacity based on the particulars of the system. The data necessary to reprice
the system based on replacement cost may also be difficult or impossible to obtain.
The existing and future capacity approach charges the new customer for excess and
future capacity based on the quantifiable costs of excess and future capacity. The
method also recognizes the time value of money for existing customers' investment in
excess capacity and new customers' investment in future capacity additions. The
method provides an equitable balance between new and existing customers, since new
customers are given the benefit of any excess capacity of the system and existing
customers are not burdened with the cost of new capacity additions. The only
disadvantage to this method is the collection of data. To calculate the SDC under
this method it is necessary to determine the amount of excess capacity on the system
and the cost. The use of this method is also recognized in Oregon law by the
definition of SDCs as a reimbursement fee and/or improvement fee as discussed in
Section III.
Given the foregoing discussion on the various methods to calculate SDCs and the
advantages and disadvantages of each, the method used in this report is the existing
and future capacity approach.
For ease in understanding and clarity, the calculation of the SDC can be separated
into five main steps. These are as follows:
• Determination of planning standards,
• Calculation of average and future capacity costs,
• Compliance costs,
1
1
11
0128-1262
fl
• Calculation of credits, and
I• Determination of net SDC.
Presented in the rest of this section is a discussion of each step and an example
calculation for a hypothetical system.
'
C. Planning
Standards
In order
to put the
calculation of the SDC on an equal basis, it is necessary to
determine an equivalent unit of measurement. Once this is done, all quantities such
as existing capacity, capacity additions, credits and compliance costs can be defined
in terms of these units. Since all the component parts will be calculated on the same
' basis, they can then be linearly added in calculating the net SDC.
' In determining the units for use in the calculation of the park SDC, it is first necessary
to examine the planning criteria used in the determination of parks and recreational
facilities. While many different measurements can be used to determine the amount
' of park space, the most common is the use of acres per population. This is usually
expressed as acres per 1,000 population. The appropriate number of persons for
various types of dwellings that utilize the parks and recreational facilities are then
' determined based on the average number of people per household. This, in turn,
defines the cost for a single family residence, multi -family residence, etc. This is
somewhat different than a definition of equivalent residential units used in SDCs for
' water systems, wastewater systems, etc. However, the definition of the SDC using a
per person basis is necessitated by the planning criteria used in the park systems.
Table IV -1 provides the determination of units and planning standards for the
example system. For ease in understanding, the example assumes one standard for
all types of parks. However, depending on the planning criteria used by the utility,
district parks, community parks, and neighborhood parks have different service
standards.
u
1
12
0128-1263
Table IV -1
Example System
Equivalent Units
' Unit 1 person
Planning Standard 5 acres/1,000 population
Usage 0.005 acres/person
Residential (2.6 persons) 0.013 acre/unit
' Multi-Family(2.3 persons) 0.0115 acre/unit
Existing and Future Capacity
In determining the SDC for parks using the existing and future capacity method, two
' different approaches are used depending on the type of park. For regional and
community parks, an incremental existing excess capacity is determined as the last
park constructed by the utility. For parks which are designed to serve specific areas
' within the city, such as neighborhood parks, an average investment is used in the
determination of existing excess park space and future park space. This is
' appropriate since the SDC for neighborhood parks is generally the same regardless of
location.
' To determine the amount and price of excess capacity for regional and community
parks, the last installed component is used as the starting point. To determine the
units of excess capacity, the number of persons of the component is first calculated
' based on the service standard. Next, the number of persons associated with growth
are determined based on the actual population growth. This quantity is then
subtracted from the original number of persons to determine the remaining excess
' capacity. Future capacity in number of persons is determined based on the level of
service criteria and persons per residence conversion factor. Table IV -2 provides an
' example of units of excess capacity and future capacity for regional and community
parks.
n
0
13
Table IV -2
Example System
Excess and Future Capacity
Per Person Basis
IParks - Existins Parks - Future
0
11
I
I77
J
0128-1264
Lone Valley Regional Park:
Westside Park:
Year Developed
1980
Year
1994
Total Acreage
100
Planned Acreage
20
Design Criteria
0.005 acre/person
Design Standard
5 acres/1000 residents
Total Person
20,000 persons
Remaining Capacity
4,000 persons
Population 1991
27,000 persons
Population 1980
23,000 persons
Growth
4,000 persons
Remaining Capacity
16,000 persons
Once the number of persons of excess and planned future capacity are calculated, the
average cost of capacity can be determined. In determining the average cost per
person of capacity, two components are utilized. The first component is the average
cost of existing capacity on the system, and the second component is the average cost
of future capacity additions to the system. These two costs are then weighed based on
capacity available to serve new growth to ascertain the average cost of capacity.
The use of an average investment in excess existing and planned future capacity is
common. Charges for service are generally based on the recreation and not the
location of the customer. The use of an average investment method for
determination of SDCs provides for an equitable sharing of costs and minimizes the
administrative burden of tracking SDC charges based on the varying users of
facilities.
The price per person for excess capacity is determined in current dollars based on the
cost of borrowing. The use of the present value factor assures that existing customers
are compensated for the carrying cost of investment in excess capacity. The average
' investment price is then calculated based on the present value cost per person and the
remaining number of persons available to meet new development.
14
E
0128-1265
Future capacity additions are normally determined for a five- to ten-year projection
period. The cost and number of persons are determined based on the approved
master plan. The average price per person is then discounted to current dollars using
the assumed cost of borrowing for the utility. The use of a discount rate assures that
the new customers are fairly compensated for the up -front payment of future capacity
additions. The average investment is then calculated by multiplying the cost per
person times the number of persons.
Once the average investment has been calculated for each park, a total average
investment and number of persons are calculated. Dividing the average investment
by the total number of persons provides the amount of the gross SDC per person for
each component.
Presented in Table IV -3 is an example calculation of gross SDCs for regional and
community parks.
' Table IV -3
Example System
' Gross System Development Charge
Regional Community Parks
'
Price/person Persons
Average
Year Investment Persons
Price/yerson 1991 1991
Investment
'
Historical:
1980 $2,403,000 20,000
$120.15 $252.90 16,000
$4,046,367
'
1981-1991 0 0
0 0 0
0
Projected:
1991 0 0
0 0 0
0
1992 0 0
0 0 0
0
1993 0 0
0 0 0
0
'
1994 700,000 4,000
1995 0 0
175.00 142.85 4,000
0 0 0
571,409
0
Total
20,000
$4,617,776
'
Gross System Development Charge
$ 230.89
'
For neighborhood parks and facilities, a slightly different calculation is utilized for
determination of population.
Neighborhood parks and facilities are often utilized
only by nearby residents. Therefore,
the number of persons
should be factored,
'
where data is available, on an
estimate of the persons served
in the neighborhood
15
i 0128-1266
rather than number of persons in the total community. However, the financial and
t ratemaking principles used in the calculation of the SDC for neighborhood parks and
facilities is the same as for regional and community parks and facilities.
Presented in Table IV -4 is an example calculation of the gross SDC for neighborhood
parks.
Table IV -4
' Example System
Gross System Development Charge
Neighborhood Parks
'
Description
Year
Persons
Acres Investment Served
Price
(person)
Price Usable
($/person) Parkland
$1991 (,persons)
Average
Investment
North Park -1
1985
10.6
$800,000
2,210
$361.99
543.48
543.25
712.39
954
207
$518,261
147,465
South Park -1
1987
2.3
250,000
460
Northwest Park -1
1990
20.6
1,500,000
4,120
364.08
389.56
1,854
722,244
'
North Park 2
1992
7.3
600,000
1,460
410.96
384.07
1,460
560,742
South Park -2
1995
8.5
859,669
1,700
505.69
385.79
1,700
653,843
Total
6,175
$2,604,555
Neighborhood Park SDC
$421.79
' To the extent that the current standards for park space are below the planning
standards and no plan is available to raise the existing standards, then the use of the
existing standards is recommended. This assures that new customers do not subsidize
' the existing population by increasing the existing standards. In this case, an average
investment in various park space is utilized and the SDC is considered an
' improvement fee.
E. Compliance Costs
' As allowed under Oregon law, the SDC can include the cost of compliance.
Compliance costs include: the cost of determining SDCs, including engineering, legal
and administrative costs; the cost of review procedures; and the cost of accounting for
revenues and expenditures. To provide for equity among new customers and
recognize the greater expenses associated with first time compliance, an average of
' compliance costs over a five- to ten-year period is used. The compliance cost portion
' 16
7i
0128-126'7
of the SDC is calculated as the net present value of compliance costs over the period
divided by the projected number of persons. Table IV -5 gives an example calculation
of the compliance cost portion of the charge.
' Total $ 46,250 $ 39,659 502
Compliance Cost SDC $79.00
' F. Credits
To assure that the new development is not charged twice for investment in existing
' capacity, a determination of any credits must be made. Credits for park and
recreation facilities generally come from property tax payments. While in many
cases land has been donated to the City, it is accounted for in the cost of existing
I
facilities.
The credit for property tax payments is accounted for in two ways. The first is the
' amount of property tax that will be assessed in the future for payment of General
Obligation bonds. The second credit associated with property taxes is for taxes
assessed on raw land for construction of existing capacity. The credit for property
taxes is determined as the present value of property tax payments divided by the
number of persons to determine the property tax credit per person. While the ideal
I
method would be to determine a credit by tax lot, the amount of data required and
1 17
Table IV -5
Example System
System Development Charge
'
Compliance Costs
Cost
Additional
Year
Cost 1990
Persons
1990
$15,000 $15,000
100
'
4,630
102
1991
5,000
1992
6,000 5,144
90
1993
6,500 5,160
65
t1995
1994
6,750 4,961
65
7,000 4,764
80
' Total $ 46,250 $ 39,659 502
Compliance Cost SDC $79.00
' F. Credits
To assure that the new development is not charged twice for investment in existing
' capacity, a determination of any credits must be made. Credits for park and
recreation facilities generally come from property tax payments. While in many
cases land has been donated to the City, it is accounted for in the cost of existing
I
facilities.
The credit for property tax payments is accounted for in two ways. The first is the
' amount of property tax that will be assessed in the future for payment of General
Obligation bonds. The second credit associated with property taxes is for taxes
assessed on raw land for construction of existing capacity. The credit for property
taxes is determined as the present value of property tax payments divided by the
number of persons to determine the property tax credit per person. While the ideal
I
method would be to determine a credit by tax lot, the amount of data required and
1 17
0128-1268
the administrative burden precludes this method. Therefore, the use of an average
' credit per person for property tax provides an equitable method of reflecting
property tax payments for utility infrastructure. Table IV -6 provides an example of
the credit for property taxes.
Table IV -6
Example System
System Development Charges
' Property Tax Credit
Historical Tax Payments
' (Principal & Interest) $ 40.56 /person
Future Annual Tax $8.60 /person
Property Tax $ 1,273 /person
Present Value (20 yr. at 8%) $84.44 /person
SDC Property Tax Credit $ 125.00
'G. Net System Development Charge
' Once all the components have been calculated for the SDC, the net SDC can be
determined. The net SDC is merely the sum of the average and future cost of
capacity, the buy -in costs, compliance costs less any credits. This charge is expressed
on a per person basis. Table IV -7 provides a summary of the calculation of the net
SDC for the example presented in this section.
18
�
1
ITable IV -7
' Example System
Net System Development Charge
1
1
i
1
1
A
1
Description
Community Parks
Neighborhood Parks
Compliance Costs
Property Tax Credit
Total
Net System Development Charge
Single Family Resident
Multi -Family
19
0128-1269
Chary -e
$ 230.89
421.79
79.00
125.00
$ 606.68
$ 610 /person
$1,586
$1,403
0128-1271
SECTION V
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE CALCULATIONS
IA. Introduction
' Presented in this section are the detailed calculations for the determination of SDCs
for the District's park system. The calculations are based on the methodology as
discussed in Section IV of this report. The calculation of the SDCs presented in this
' section are based on future capacity increasing capital improvements as identified in
the District's capital improvements plan and planning criteria based on the District's
' current developed park land. To the extent that the cost and timing of future capital
improvements change, then the SDCs presented in this section should be updated to
reflect the cost of these adjustments.
B. Planning Standards
' The equivalent unit for measurement used in the determination of park SDCs is
population. The number of persons for single family and multi -family customers was
obtained from the District based on the average persons per dwelling unit consistent
' with the District's and City's planning documents. The planning standards utilized by
the District in its "Metro Park and Recreation District, 1986 Comprehensive Plan" are
' based on the National Recreation and Park Association guidelines. These guidelines
suggest approximately 5 acres/1,000 population. However, the current standard
based on population and developed acres is 3.97 acres/1,000. This includes
' neighborhood parks, community parks and community river parks. While it is
conceivable that the District will upgrade the existing park standard to the 5
acres/1,000 population standard in the future, no definite plan or funding source has
been identified at this time. Therefore, to assure equitable treatment of future
customers, the current park standard is utilized in the determination of the park SDC.
' A summary of the planning standards is presented in Table V-1. The population
projection and detailed calculation of the planning standards are provided as Exhibit
' 3 in the Technical Appendix. Projected population was based on the growth rates
used by both the City and District in their planning documents. The base population
is based on the population for the urban growth boundary. The planning standard for
I
motels is based on 2 persons per room at a 50 percent occupancy rate.
I
l
1
20
h
n
I
n
�J
0128-12'72
Table V-1
Bend Metro Park District
Planning Standards
Population - 1991
Developed Acres
Planning Standard
Usage
Residential (2.645 persons)
Multi -Family (1.895 persons)
Hotel
C. Parks
35,129
139.5 acres
3.97 acres/1,000 population
0.00397 acres/person
0.010501 acres
0.007523 acres
0.00397 acres/room
The District's park and recreational facilities consist of mini parks, neighborhood
parks, community parks, and special use parks. For the calculation of the SDC
presented in this report, only neighborhood and community parks have been included
in the calculations. To the extent that special use park land is also used as a
neighborhood park or a community park in the District's planning documents, the
cost of these parks have been included under the same usage standard as
neighborhood parks.
The City's policy with respect to park SDC is to collect the same charge regardless of
the location of the residence. However, the City has divided the land area into
thirteen (13) sections for accounting purposes. Land dedication funds collected in
one of the thirteen areas is deposited into that area's dedication account. Therefore,
in determining the cost of park development, an average cost per acre or person has
been developed based on future planned park capacity.
Since the actual park planning standard is below the desired park planning standard
' no excess park capacity exists within the District. Park SDC funds will therefore be
used to maintain the existing park standard by addition of park acreage or capacity.
To maintain the existing park standard, the District has prepared a capital
improvements plan detailing the cost and timing of future additions. A copy is
provided as Exhibit 4 in the Technical Appendix.
The basis for the development of the capital improvements plan is a developed cost
per acre. The cost of each type of park was provided by the District. Next, to assure
' that future customers are treated equally, an average cost per acre was developed.
1 21
0128-12'3
The amount of each type of park development was assumed to be developed based
' on the existing developed park area by park type. This results in a cost per developed
park land of $63,443/acre. Details are provided in Table V-2.
Table V-2
fl
Bend Metro Park District
Cost per Developed Acre
Type Cost Acre
Neighborhood $72,000
Community 36,000
River Community 85,120
TOTAL:
Percent
Weighted
Developed
Cost
30.25%
$21,780
36.05%
12,978
33.70%
28.685
100%
$63,443
Based on the planning standard of 3.97 acres/1,000 population, the SDC for parks is
$251.87 per person. Details of the calculation are provided in Table V-3.
Table V-3
Bend Metro Park District
Developed Park Land SDC
Cost per acre
Planning Standard
Developed Park Land
$63,443
0.00397 areas/person
$251.87/person
D. Compliance Costs
' The cost to the District for compliance with Oregon law in the determination of SDCs
includes the cost of engineering, legal and administrative costs. Also included is the
cost of accounting for revenues and expenditures. The cost for each of these items
' has been conservatively estimated for the period from 1991-1996. The number of
persons added during this period is estimated in Exhibit 3. A summary of the
' compliance cost SDC is provided in Table V-4.
1
22
0128-12'4
Table V-4
' E. Credits
' As discussed in Section IV, it is necessary to determine if any credits are applicable in
the determination of the SDC to assure that new customers are not charged "twice"
for the cost of facilities. Based on EES' review of the District's financing practices for
' park and recreational facilities, no credits are applicable to the calculation of the
SDC. While the District does collect property taxes for the park system, these monies
are deposited in a separate account for operations and maintenance of the park and
' recreational facilities. A separate account is maintained within the District's financial
system to track expenditure and revenues for construction of new park capacity.
' F. Net System Development Charge
' Once all of the components have been calculated for the SDC, the net SDC can be
determined. The net SDC is the sum of the existing and future cost of capacity,
compliance costs less any credits. This charge is expressed on a per person basis.
' Table V-5 provides a summary of the calculation of the net SDC for the City's parks
system.
1
1
23
Bend Metro Park District
Compliance Costs
'
Cost
Additional
Year
Cost
1991
Persons
'
1991
1992
$25,000
10,000
$25,000
9,346
719
703
1993
10,500
9,171
717
1994
11,025
9,000
731
1995
11,576
8,831
746
1996
12.155
8.666
760
Total
$80,256
$70,014
4,376
Compliance Cost SDC
$16.00
' E. Credits
' As discussed in Section IV, it is necessary to determine if any credits are applicable in
the determination of the SDC to assure that new customers are not charged "twice"
for the cost of facilities. Based on EES' review of the District's financing practices for
' park and recreational facilities, no credits are applicable to the calculation of the
SDC. While the District does collect property taxes for the park system, these monies
are deposited in a separate account for operations and maintenance of the park and
' recreational facilities. A separate account is maintained within the District's financial
system to track expenditure and revenues for construction of new park capacity.
' F. Net System Development Charge
' Once all of the components have been calculated for the SDC, the net SDC can be
determined. The net SDC is the sum of the existing and future cost of capacity,
compliance costs less any credits. This charge is expressed on a per person basis.
' Table V-5 provides a summary of the calculation of the net SDC for the City's parks
system.
1
1
23
0128-12'75
Table V-5
Bend Metro Park District
Net System Development Charge
Description Charge
Neighborhood Parks $ 251.87
Compliance Costs $ 16.00
Total $ 267.87
Net System Development Charge $ 265 /person
Single Family (2.645 persons/unit) $ 700 /unit
Multi -Family (1.895 persons/unit) $ 500 /unit
Hotels/Motels $ 265 /room
G. Conclusion
The system development charges presented in this section are based on the planning
criteria used by the District and generally accepted rate making principals.
24
L
[1
Technical Appendix
Emil
0128-1277
L
r
J
Ll
C
Exhibit 1
SDC Resolution - General
A-2
U128-1278
0128-12'79
ORDINANCE NO.
1 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGE AND
RELATED PROCEDURES BY THE BEND METRO PARK AND
RECREATION DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, during the 1989 Session of the Legislative Assembly of the State of
Oregon a uniform framework for the imposition of the systems development charge (SDC)
' by local governments was established by the provisions of ORS 223.297 to 223.314, inclusive,
and
' WHEREAS, among other things, the statutory provisions define and limit the
purpose, use and method of calculation of and accounting for SDC imposed and collected
by the District, and
' WHEREAS, to analyze and evaluate the District's existing method for calculation,
imposition, collection and expenditure of SDC and to determine compliance with the
provisions of ORS 223.297 to 223.314, inclusive, the District retained the services of
Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. (EES), and
' WHEREAS, in September, 1992, EES presented and filed its report and
recommendations entitled 'Bend Metro Park and Recreation District System Development
Charges for the Parks System, April, 1992" a copy of which is on file in the office of the
Business Manager of the District for examination by the public, and
' WHEREAS, based upon the report and recommendation of EES, the District finds
that it is necessary to amend the existing method of calculating, imposing and administering
the park SDC by providing:
' (a) That any capital improvement being funded wholly or in part with SDC revenues
shall be included in an approved capital improvements plan, public facilities plan,
master plan or comparable plan which lists the capital improvements which may be
funded with improvement fee revenues and the estimated cost and timing for each
improvement, and
(b) That the District shall set up an accounting system that provides an annual
accounting of SDC revenue collected and the projects that were funded with the
' revenue, and
(c) That the District shall establish by resolution administrative review procedures
by which any citizen or other interested person may challenge an expenditure of SDC
revenues in accordance with the requirements of ORS 223.302(2), and
A-3
0128-1280
(d) That portion of the District's SDC defined as an "improvement fee" under the
provisions of ORS 223.299(2) shall be spent only on capacity increasing capital
' improvements, including expenditures related to the repayment of the debt for such
improvements, and
' (e) That the portion of the District's SDC defined as "reimbursement fees" under the
provisions of ORS 223.299(3) shall be spent only on capital improvements associated
with the systems for which the fees were imposed, including expenditures related to
' the repayment of indebtedness, and
(f) That the SDC be a fee imposed by the District upon the person, firm or
corporation seeking to build a new residential or multi -family dwelling. The SDC
shall be calculated to include an "improvement fee" and a "reimbursement fee" as
those terms are defined by ORS 223.299(2) and (3), respectively. The SDC is a fee
related only to the building of a new residential or multi -family dwelling by a person,
firm or corporation irrespective of the applicant's right, title, interest, estate or
ownership of the property within which the facilities are located, and
(g) That the SDC revenues imposed and collected by the District shall be placed in
' a separate, restricted fund and accounted for and expended in compliance with the
provisions of ORS 223.297 to 223.314, inclusive, and
' WHEREAS, the District has determined to amend the existing SDC regulations in
the manner set forth below.
' BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION
Section 1: Purpose. The purpose of the SDC is to impose a portion of the cost of
' capital improvements for park's upon those customers of the District who create the
need for or increase the demands on capital improvements by construction for new
residents.
Section 2: Scope. The SDC imposed by this Ordinance is separate from and in
addition to any applicable tax, assessment, charge or fee otherwise provided by law
or imposed as a condition of development or based upon the ownership of property.
Section 3: Definitions. As used in this Ordinance, the following terms shall mean:
' (a) Capital improvements. Facilities or assets used for providingParks and
recreational facilities.
b Improvement fee. A fee defined b ORS 223.299 2 for costs associated
() P Y ()
with capital improvements to be constructed after the date the fee is adopted.
1
� a<
1 0128-1281
(c) Reimbursement fee. A fee defined by ORS 223.299(3) for costs associated
' with capital improvements constructed or under construction on the date the
fee is adopted.
' (d) Systems development charge. A reimbursement fee, an improvement fee
or a combination thereof assessed or collected at the time of increased usage
of a capital improvement payable at the time of connection to the capital
improvement. "System development charge" does not include fees assessed
or collected as part of a local improvement district or a charge in lieu of a
' local improvement district assessment or the costs of complying with
requirements or conditions imposed by a land use decision.
' Section 4: Method of Establishing Systems Development Charge. Systems
development charge shall be established or revised by Resolution of the District.
' Section 5: Authorized Expenditures
(a) Reimbursement fees shall be applied only to capital improvements for the
District's parks and recreational facilities including expenditures relating to
repayment of indebtedness.
0
�7
(b) Improvement fees.
(i) Improvement fees shall be spent only on capacity increasing capital
improvements, including expenditures relating to repayment of future
debt for the improvements. An increase in system capacity occurs if
a capital improvement increases the level of performance or service
provided by existing facilities or provided new facilities. The portion
of the improvements funded by improvement fees must be related to
demands created by development.
(ii) A capital improvement being funded wholly or in part from
revenues derived from the improvement fee shall be included in the
plan adopted by the District pursuant to Section 7 of this Ordinance.
(c) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of this section, SDC revenue may
be expended on the direct costs of complying with the provisions of this
Ordinance; including the costs of developing SDC methodologies and
providing an annual accounting of SDC expenditures.
A-5
0128-1282
Section 6: Expenditure Restrictions.
'
(a) SDC shall not be expended for costs associated with the construction of
'
administrative office facilities that are more than an incidental part of other
'
capital improvements.
'
(b) SDC shall not be expended for costs of the operation or routine
maintenance of capital improvements.
(e) In lieu of payment under section 9(a), the customer building may exercise
Section 7: Improvement Plan. The Bend Metro Park and Recreation District shall
'
adopt a plan that:
assessment lien for a public improvement and shall be duly recorded in the
'
(a) Lists the capital improvements that may be funded with improvement fee
revenues;
'
(b) Lists the estimated cost and time of construction of each improvement;
'
(c) Describes the process for modifying the plan.
'
Section 8: Collection of Charge.
'(a)
The SDC is payable upon issuance of a building permit.
(b) If a building is constructed without an appropriate permit, the SDC is
immediately payable upon the earliest date that a permit was required.
'
(c) The (Appropriate Individual) shall collect the applicable SDC from the
applicant prior to issuance of a permit that allows construction of a residential
'
or multi -family dwelling.
(d) The (Appropriate Individual) shall not allow a building permit to be
issued until the charge has been paid in full.
(e) In lieu of payment under section 9(a), the customer building may exercise
his right under state law to 'Bancroft" the SDC. Such charge shall thereupon
'
become a first lien against the property served and have the same effect as an
assessment lien for a public improvement and shall be duly recorded in the
'
Docket of (Appropriate Agency) Liens.
Section 9: Segregation and Use of Revenue.
(a) All funds derived from the SDC shall be segregated by accounting
practices from all other funds of the District. The SDC shall be used for no
'
purpose other than those set forth in Section 5 of this Ordinance.
0128-1283
' (b) The (Appropriate Individual) shall provide the District with an annual
accounting, based on the District's fiscal year, for SDC showing the total
' amount of SDC revenues collected for each type of facility and the projects
funded from each account.
Section 10: Administrative Review Procedure.
(a) Any customer or other interested person aggrieved by a decision made by
' the (Appropriate Individual) under this Ordinance relating to the expenditure
of SDC revenues may appeal the decision or the expenditure to the District
by filing a written request with the (Appropriate Individual) describing with
1
n
Ll
u
particularity the decision of the (Appropriate Individual) or the expenditure
from which the person appeals.
(b) An appeal of an expenditure must be filed within two years of the date of
the alleged improper expenditure. Appeals of any other decision must be
filed within ten (10) days of the date of the decision.
(c) The District shall determine whether the (Appropriate Individual's)
decision or the expenditure is in accordance with this Ordinance and the
provisions of ORS 223.249 to 223.314, inclusive, and may affirm, modify or
overrule the decision. If the District determines that there has been an
improper expenditure of SDC revenues, the (Appropriate Agency) shall
direct that a sum equal to the misspent amount shall be deposited within one
year to the credit of the account or fund from which it was spent.
(d) A legal action challenging the methodology adopted by the District shall
not be filed later than 60 days after the adoption of the SDC.
Section 11: Prohibited Connection. No person, firm or corporation shall construct
a residential or multi -family dwelling unless the SDC has been paid.
Section 12: Construction. The rules of statutory construction contained in ORS
Chapter 174 are adopted and by this reference made a part of this Ordinance.
Section 13: Severability. The invalidity of a section or subsection of this Ordinance
shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections or subsections.
INTRODUCED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1992.
By
ATTEST:
BEND METRO PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT
A-7
1
Exhibit 2
' SDC Resolution
I
Specific Calculations
IJ
11
11
A-8
0128-1284
0128-1285
RESOLUTION NO.
' A RESOLUTION BY THE BEND METRO PARK AND RECREATION
DISTRICT AMENDING SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGE FOR
THE PARK SYSTEM AND DECLARING EFFECTIVE DATE.
I�
11
11
u
WHEREAS, in September, 1992, the District received the report and
recommendation of Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. (EES), which included, among
other things, a recommendation that the District's systems development charge (SDC) for
the parks system be changed to provide revenues necessary for capital improvements
constructed and to be constructed by the District, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 4 of Ordinance , the District by this Resolution
amends the SDC for the park system as set forth below.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE DISTRICT THAT:
Section 1: Definitions. As used in this Resolution, the following terms shall mean:
(a) Connection to S, sy tem. The issuance of a building permit for construction
of a residential, multi -family dwelling or hotel/motel.
(b) Change in Usage. A condition wherein the number of residential
dwellings will increase from the number specified on the original building
permit.
(c) Equivalent Unit of Measure. A single person.
All other definitions as used in this Resolution shall have the same meaning
as defined in Ordinance No.
Section 2: Collection of Charge.
(a) The (Appropriate Agency) shall collect the SDC as determined by the
(Appropriate Individual) when:
(i) The customer connects the system,
(ii) When a change in usage occurs as determined by the (Appropriate
Individual). Such change in usage may be determined by the
(Appropriate Individual) upon issuance of a new building permit.
(b) To the extent that the (Appropriate Individual) finds that a change in
usage has occurred in accordance with subsection (a) (ii), then the customer
will be required to pay an additional sum equal to the current system
development charge on a dollar/person basis times the increase in number of
persons. In no instance will a refund be provided if it is found that the charge
A-9
0128-1286
' in usage results in a decrease in the number of persons.
' Section 3: Methodology.
(a) The methodology used to establish the reimbursement fee shall consider
the cost of then existing facilities, prior contributions by then existing users,
the value of unused capacity, rate -making principles employed to finance
publicly owned capital improvements, and other relevant factors identified by
' the District. The methodology shall promote the objective that future systems
users shall contribute no more than an equitable share of the cost of then
existing facilities.
(b) The methodology used to establish the improvement fee shall consider the
cost of projected capital improvements needed to increase the capacity of the
' systems to which the fee is related.
(c) Based on the principles for the establishment of reimbursement fees and
' improvement fees, the methodology for the determination of SDC shall
consist of the following:
(i) The number of acres per person for park development shall be
determined by the District based on the planning criteria for parks.
(ii) The costs of existing plant and future plant shall be divided by the
number of persons for which the park provides service to determine a
' charge on a $/persons basis.
(iii) The cost of existing plant shall be reduced by the amount of plant
' which was contributed to the District.
(iv) The charge as determined in subsection (ii) above will be adjusted
' by a present value factor to adjust for the interest earned on funds
from the actual date of construction or planned date of construction.
(v) The SDC for compliance costs shall be determined by dividing the
estimate cost for compliance for the next six years by the number of
persons added in each year. Such charge each year shall be adjusted
to reflect the interest earning on funds.
A-10
1 0128-1287
1 Section 4: System Development Charge Calculations.
(a) Based on the methodology as specified in Section 3, the SDC for parks is
' $267.87/person. Such charge consists of:
(i) The SDC for future plant is $251.87/person and is considered an
improvement fee.
(ii) The SDC for compliance costs is $16.00/person and is considered
an improvement fee.
' (b) The number of persons per dwelling type shall be determined by the
District at appropriate times as determined by the District. For the purpose
of the charge set forth herein the number of persons per dwelling unit shall
' be as follows:
Single Family Residential
(per unit) 2.645 persons
Multi -Family Residential
(per unit) 1.895 persons
Motel/Hotel (per room) 1.000 person
Section 5: Schedule of Charges
Based on the report of EES, the District may impose a maximum SDC for
parks of $267.87/persons.
In consideration, the Commission has determined that the SDC shall be
' $265.00/person the charge for various types of dwelling units shall be as
follows:
Single Family Residential 2.645 persons $700/unit
Multi -Family Residential 1.895 persons $500/unit
Motel/Hotel 1.000 persons WAM11
Section 6: The SDC established in Section 5 above shall be effective at 8:00 a.m.
PST, , 1992.
INTRODUCED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1991.
BEND METRO PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT
By.
ATTEST:
' By
A-11
1
J
Exhibit 3
Planning Standards
A-12
0128-1288
Bend Metro Park District
Projection of ERUs
Exhibit 3
0128-1289
Page 1 of 2
(1)Population projections are based
upon a two percent growth rate.
A-13
Additional
Year
Population (1)
ERU's
1990
34,440
0
1991
35,129
689
1992
35,831
703
1993
36,548
717
1994
37,279
731
1995
38,025
746
1996
38,785
760
1997
39,561
776
1998
40,352
791
1999
41,159
807
2000
41,982
823
2001
42,822
840
2002
43,678
856
2003
44,552
874
2004
45,443
891
2005
46,352
909
(1)Population projections are based
upon a two percent growth rate.
A-13
1
LF�
1
i
1
fl
EXHIBIT 3
Page 2 of 2
Bend Metro Park District
Determination of Planning Standards
)p
0128-1290
Total
Developed
Undeveloped
Acreage
Acreage
Acreage
Neighborhood Parks
Canal Park
23.50
10.50
13.00
Columbia Park
2.00
2.00
0.00
Harmon Park
3.00
3.00
0.00
Hillside #1
8.00
8.00
0.00
Hillside #2
4.40
4.40
0.00
Kiwanis Park
4.50
4.50
0.00
Larkspur Park
14.60
0.00
14.60
Stover Park
2.20
2.20
0.00
Sylvan Park
3.80
3.80
0.00
Summit Park
3.80
3.80
0.00
Sunburst Park
9.20
0.00
9.20
Vlhaga Park
4.00
0.00
4.00
Blakley Area
5.00
0.00
5.00
Hamby Area
5.00
0.00
5.00
Deschutes Rd. Site
5.00
0.00
5.00
College Area Site
5.00
0.00
5.00
N. Highline Site
5.00
0.00
5.00
S. Highline Site
5.00
0.00
5.00
Total Neighborhood Parks
11300
42.20
70.80
Planning Standard Neighborhood Parks (1)
1.20 acre/1000
Community Parks
Juniper Park
22.30
22.30
0.00
Ponderosa Park
19.00
8.00
11.00
Big Sky I Park
97.20
0.00
97.20
Skyline Park
23.80
20.00
3.80
Westgate Park
103.30
0.00
103.30
Bend Sports Park
33.40
0.00
33.40
Kalanee Park
80.00
0.00
80.00
Blakley Area
25.00
0.00
25.00
Glen Vista
25.00
0.00
25.00
Total Community Parks
429.00
50.30
378.70
Planning Standard Community Parks (1)
1.43 acre/1000
Community River
Brooks Park
0.60
0.60
0.00
Drake/Mirror Park
13.10
13.10
0.00
Flume Park
4.30
2.00
2.30
Pacific Park
3.20
3.20
0.00
Pageant Park
0.30
0.30
0.00
Pioneer Park
5.10
5.10
0.00
Riverview Park
1.00
1.00
0.00
Sawyer Park
41.60
20.00
21.60
Simondson Open Space
0.40
0.40
0.00
Woodriver Park
4.50
0.00
4.50
River Run Trail
2.00
1.00
1.00
Magill River Easement
0.30
0.30
0.00
Miler Site
4.00
0.00
4.00
Ulleoren Site
3.50
0.00
3.50
Shevlin Ind. Riverfront
10.00
0.00
10.00
Total Community River
93.90
47.00
46.90
Planning Standard Community River Parks (1) 1.34 acre/1000
Total All Parks 635.90 139.50 49640
Planning Standard 3.97 acre/1000
(1) Based on a 1991 population, for the urban growth boundary, of 35,129.
A-14
P
�_ I
-1
J
0
Exhibit 4
Capital Improvement Plan
A-15
0128-1291
Exhibit 4
Bend Metro Park District
Park System Development Charges
Development of ERUs
Total:
`128~-1292
Page 1 of 2
Growth Rate:
SDC Escalation:
Equivalent System
Residential Development
Units Charge
A-16
0
$0
Change in
Year
Population
Population
287
642
1990
34,410
0
1991
35,129
719
1992
35,832
703
1993
36,548
717
1994
37,279
731
1995
38,025
746
1996
38,785
760
1997
39,561
776
1998
40,352
791
1999
41,159
807
2000
41,982
823
2001
42,822
840
2002
43,678
856
Total:
`128~-1292
Page 1 of 2
Growth Rate:
SDC Escalation:
Equivalent System
Residential Development
Units Charge
A-16
0
$0
288
0
282
600
287
642
293
687
299
735
305
786
311
842
317
900
323
963
330
1,031
336
1,103
343
1,180
2.00%
7.00%
SDC
Revenue
$0
0
169,200
184,254
201,273
219,773
239,876
261,716
285,439
311,200
340,201
370,633
404,840
$2,988,405
§
Ix
Em
E
u a
kom�
»E
IL ta■
2ECL
� 2�=
k 2 L
w 2aa
A.1
0128-1293
S, wSj °0°°°c
§
16 toca
2
0 c
k
g
;
�
A
~
K
a0000§00000c
§
K
§
k
00 00 M 0 C
~
J
£
§
A
00C
§
$
■,�,f�������
2�°§§i00,,,0c
§
§
0c
0 0 0 0 c
#7
§_
$
$00c
§
§
K o 0 0 a o 0 0 0 0 0 C
!
&22x2§§2E@§)
§
Ix
Em
E
u a
kom�
»E
IL ta■
2ECL
� 2�=
k 2 L
w 2aa
A.1
0128-1293