Full Text
Copyright © Donovan Enterprises, Inc., all rights reserved Printed on Recycled Paper Presented by: March 2025 Parks SDC Methodology Update Final Report Prepared for: Donovan Enterprises, Inc. 9600 SW Oak Street, Suite 335 Tigard, Oregon 97223-6596 [PHONE REDACTED] ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Woodburn Parks SDC Methodology Update Table of Contents 2025 Parks SDC Update Table of Contents Introduction/History of the Project 1 Analytical Process for the Updates 1 SDC Legal Authorization and Background 3 Reimbursement Fee 4 Improvement Fee 4 Process for the Granting of Credits, Discounts, and Exemptions 7 SDC Credits Policy 7 SDC Discount Policy 8 Partial and Full SDC Exemption 9 Parks SDCs 10 Methodology 10 Current and Future Demand for Parks and Recreation Services 10 The 2024 Parks Master Plan Levels of Service and Capacity Analysis 11 Costs 14 Proposed Schedule of Parks SDCs 19 Unit Costs 19 Schedule of Parks SDCs 20 Neighboring Communities’ Parks SDCs 21 Appendix A – Residential/Non-Residential Demand Analysis 22 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Woodburn Parks SDC Methodology Update Page 1 Introduction/History of the Project The City of Woodburn conducts periodic updates to its Comprehensive Plan and its various Public Facility Plans to provide orderly and sustainable growth of municipal infrastructure. A key component to funding these public facilities is the system development charge (SDC) program. SDCs are one-time charges for new development—designed to recover the costs of infrastructure capacity needed to serve new development. This section describes the policy context and project scope upon which the body of this report is based. It concludes with a numeric overview of the calculations presented in subsequent sections of this report for parks SDCs. The city’s current schedule of parks SDCs were last reviewed and adopted by the City Council in August 2016. In October 2024, the City hired Donovan Enterprises, Inc. to review and update the SDC. With this review and update, the City has stated a number of objectives: • Review the basis for charges to ensure consistency with the City’s proposed parks SDC methodology; • Address specific policy, administrative, and technical issues which had arisen from application of the existing SDCs; • Determine the most appropriate and defensible fees, ensuring that development is paying its way; • Consider possible revisions to the structure or basis of the charges which might improve equity or proportionality to demand; • Provide clear, orderly documentation of the assumptions and results, so that City staff could, by reference, respond to questions or concerns from the public. This report provides the documentation of that effort and was done in close coordination with City staff and available facilities planning documents. The SDC updates comply with Woodburn Ordinance No. 2250 (Parks and Recreation SDC Methodology enabling ordinance). Table 1 gives a component breakdown for the current and proposed SDCs for parks. Table 1 - Component Breakdown of the Proposed Parks SDCs Analytical Process for the Updates The essential ingredient in the development and calculation of an SDC is valid sources of data. For this project, the consultant team has relied on a number of data sources. The primary sources have been the newly formulated and adopted parks and recreation master plan. On February 12, 2024, the City Council Parks SDC Components Proposed Current Difference Residential per dwelling unit: Reimbursement fee 1,003 $ 570 $ 433 $ Improvement fee 6,655 4,077 2,578 Subtotal residential 7,658 $ 4,647 $ 3,011 $ Commercial per FTE employee: Reimbursement fee 32 $ 22 $ 10 $ Improvement fee 209 162 47 Subtotal residential 241 $ 184 $ 57 $ ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Woodburn Parks SDC Methodology Update Page 2 adopted this plan via Legislative Amendment 23-04. We have supplemented this data source with City planning department records, certified census data, and other documents that we deemed helpful, accurate, and relevant to this study. Table 2 contains a bibliography of the key documents/sources that we relied upon to facilitate our analysis and hence the resulting SDCs. Table 2 - Data Sources for the Calculation of Parks SDCs Master Plan Document and/or Corroborating Source Documentation • City of Woodburn Parks and Recreation Master Plan; Conservation Technix, Inc.; January 2024 • City of Woodburn Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2023 • City of Woodburn Park System Fixed Asset Schedule; June 30, 2023; City Records • City of Woodburn Parks System Construction Work in Progress Balances Work Papers; June 30, 2023; City Records • City of Woodburn Housing Needs Analysis 2019; Ordinance No. 2576 • City of Woodburn Ordinance No. 2250 (Parks SDC methodology) • U.S. Census American Community Survey: DP03 – Selected Economic Characteristics DP04 – Selected Housing Characteristics DP05 – ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates B08008 – Sex of Workers by Place of Work B25024 – Dwelling Units in Building Structures B25033 – Total Population in Occupied Housing Units S0101 – Age and Sex of Population • City of Woodburn Economic Opportunities Analysis; January 2024; Ordinance No. 2619 • Portland State University, Population Research Center • City of Woodburn Buildable Lands Inventory 2023-2043; ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Woodburn Parks SDC Methodology Update Page 3 The data sources shown in Table 2 were used to formulate the two components of the parks SDCs. These components are the reimbursement and improvement fees. The City has been constructing the SDCs with these two components for over twenty years, and our analysis does not propose changing that methodology. A brief definition of the two components are: • The reimbursement fee considers the cost of existing facilities, prior contributions by existing users of those facilities, the value of the unused/available capacity, and generally accepted ratemaking principles. The objective is future system users contribute no more than an equitable share to the cost of existing facilities. The reimbursement fee can be spent on capital costs or debt service related to the systems for which the SDC is applied. • The improvement fee portion of the SDC is based on the cost of planned future facilities that expand the system’s capacity to accommodate growth or increase its level of performance. In developing an analysis of the improvement portion of the fee, each project in the respective service’s capital improvement plan is evaluated to exclude costs related to correcting existing system deficiencies or upgrading for historical lack of capacity. An example is a facility which improves system capacity to better serve current customers/park patrons. The costs for this type of project must be eliminated from the improvement fee calculation. Only capacity increasing/level of performance costs provide the basis for the SDC calculation. The improvement SDC is calculated as a function of the estimated number of additional equivalent residential units to be served by the City’s facilities over the planning period. Such a fee represents the greatest potential for future SDC changes. The improvement fee must also provide a credit for construction of a qualified public improvement. SDC Legal Authorization and Background SDCs are authorized by Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 223.297-314. The statute is specific in its definition of system development charges, their application, and their accounting. In general, an SDC is a one-time fee imposed on new development or expansion of existing development and assessed at the time of development approval or increased usage of the system. Overall, the statute is intended to promote equity between new and existing customers by recovering a proportionate share of the cost of existing and planned/future capital facilities that serve the developing property. Statute further provides the framework for the development and imposition of SDCs and establishes that SDC receipts may only be used for capital improvements and/or related debt service. Finally, two cost basis adjustments are potentially applicable to both reimbursement and improvement fees: fund balance and compliance costs. In this study, the project team paid attention to this detail to align future infrastructure costs to those responsible for paying those costs. The reasons for this attention is as follows: • Fund Balances - To the extent that SDC revenue is currently available in fund balance, that revenue should be deducted from its corresponding cost basis. For example, if the city has park improvement fees that it has collected but not spent, then those unspent improvement fees should be deducted from the park system’s improvement fee cost basis to prevent charging twice for the same capacity. • Compliance Costs - ORS 223.307(5) authorizes the expenditure of SDCs on “the costs of complying with the provisions of ORS 223.297 to 223.314, including the costs of developing system development charge methodologies and providing an annual accounting of system development ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Woodburn Parks SDC Methodology Update Page 4 charge expenditures.” To avoid spending monies for compliance that might otherwise have been spent on growth-related projects, this report includes an estimate of compliance costs in its SDCs. Reimbursement Fee The reimbursement fee represents a buy-in to the cost, or value, of infrastructure capacity within the existing system. Generally, if a system were adequately sized for future growth, the reimbursement fee might be the only charge imposed, since the new customer would be buying existing capacity. However, staged system expansion is needed, and an improvement fee is imposed to allocate those growth related costs. Even in those cases, the new customer also relies on capacity within the existing system, and a reimbursement component is warranted. In order to determine an equitable reimbursement fee to be used in conjunction with an improvement fee, two points should be highlighted. First, the cost of the system to the City’s customers may be far less than the total plant-in-service value. This is due to the fact that elements of the existing system may have been contributed, whether from developers, governmental grants, and other sources. Therefore, the net investment by the customer/owners is less. Second, the value of the existing system to a new customer is less than the value to an existing customer, since the new customer must also pay, through an improvement fee, for expansion of some portions of the system. The method used for determining the reimbursement fee accounts for both of these points. First, the charge is based on the net investment in the system, rather than the gross cost. Therefore, donated facilities, typically including local facilities, and grant-funded facilities, would be excluded from the cost basis. Also, the charge should be based on investments clearly made by the current users of the system, and not already supported by new customers. Tax supported activities fail this test since funding sources have historically been from general revenues, or from revenues which emanate, at least in part, from the properties now developing. Second, the cost basis is allocated between used and unused capacity, and, capacity available to serve growth. In the absence of a detailed asset by asset analysis, it is appropriate to allocate the cost of existing facilities between used and available capacity proportionally based on the forecasted population growth as converted to equivalent dwelling units over the planning period. This approach reflects the philosophy, consistent with the City’s Updated Master Plans, that facilities have been sized to meet the demands of the customer base within the established planning period. Improvement Fee There are three basic approaches used to develop improvement fee SDCs: “standards driven,” “improvements-driven,” and “combination/hybrid” approaches. The “standards-driven” approach is based on the application of Level of Service (LOS) standards for facilities. Facility needs are determined by applying the LOS standards to projected future demand, as applicable. SDC-eligible amounts are calculated based on the costs of facilities needed to serve growth. This approach works best where level of service standards have been adopted but no specific list of projects is available. 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 projected future demand, 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. Finally, 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 are then used as the basis for ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Woodburn Parks SDC Methodology Update Page 5 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. In the past, the City has utilized the LOS standards approach for parks. This study continues to use this method and has relied on the LOS standards prescribed in the 2024 parks and recreation master plan. Specifically, a LOS standard of 10.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 population. For this SDC update, the improvement fee represents a proportionate share of the cost to expand the systems to accommodate growth. This charge is based on the newly adopted capital improvement plans established by the City for parks. The costs that can be applied to the improvement fees are those that can reasonably be allocable to growth. Statute requires that the capital improvements used as a basis for the charge be part of an adopted capital improvement schedule, whether as part of a system plan or independently developed, and that the improvements included for SDC eligibility be capacity or level of service expanding. The improvement fee is intended to protect existing customers from the cost burden and impact of expanding a system that is already adequate for their own needs in the absence of growth. The improvement portion of the SDC is based on the proportional approach toward capacity and cost allocation in that only those facilities (or portions of facilities) that either expand the respective system’s capacity to accommodate growth or increase its respective level of performance have been included in the cost basis of the fee. As part of this SDC update, City Staff and their parks planning consultants were asked to review the planned capital improvement lists in order to assess SDC eligibility. The criteria in Figure 1 were developed to guide the City’s evaluation: ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Woodburn Parks SDC Methodology Update Page 6 Figure 1 - SDC Eligibility Criteria In developing the improvement fee, the project team in consultation with City staff evaluated each of its CIP projects to exclude costs related to correcting existing system deficiencies or upgrading for historical lack of capacity. Only capacity increasing/level of performance costs were used as the basis for the SDC calculation, as reflected in the capital improvement schedules developed by the City. The improvement ORS 223 •Adoped capital improvement plan required •Parks & Trails – Pocket parks, urban plaza parks, neighborhood parks, community parks, nature parks, regional parks, trails, and bike/ped expansion •The SDC improvement base shall consider the cost of projected capital improvements needed to increase the capacity of the systems to which the fee is related •An increase in system capacity is established if a capital improvement increases the “level of performance or service” provided by existing facilities or provided by new facilities. City Decision Rules •Repair costs are not to be included •Replacement costs will not be included unless the replacement includes an upsizing of system capacity and/or the level of performance of the facility is increased •New regulatory compliance facility requirements fall under the level of performance definition and should be proportionately included •Costs will not be included which bring deficient systems up to established design levels ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Woodburn Parks SDC Methodology Update Page 7 fee is calculated as a function of the estimated number of projected additional people over the planning horizon. Once the future costs to serve growth have been segregated the numerator), they can be divided into the total number of new people that will use the capacity derived from those investments the denominator). Process for the Granting of Credits, Discounts, and Exemptions SDC Credits Policy ORS 223.304 requires that credit be allowed for the construction of a "qualified public improvement" which is required as a condition of development approval, is identified in the Capital Improvement Plan, and 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 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 SDCs that accrue in subsequent phases of the original development project. In addition to these required credits, the City may, if it 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 Capital Improvement Plan, or provide a share of the cost of an improvement by other means. The City has adopted a policy for granting SDC credits and has codified this policy in the Woodburn Ordinance No. 2250. The adopted SDC credit policy consists of five items as follows: Ordinance No. 2250 Section 3(F) Credits for Developer Contributions of Qualified Public Improvements. The city shall grant a credit, not to exceed 100% of the applicable Parks and Recreation SDC, against the system development charges imposed pursuant to Section and for the donation of land as permitted by Ordinance 1807, or for the construction of any qualified public improvements. Such land donation and construction shall be subject to the approval of the city. 1) The amount of developer contribution credit to be applied shall be determined according to the following standards of valuation: a) The value of donated lands shall be based upon a written appraisal of fair market value by a qualified and professional appraiser based upon comparable sales of similar property between unrelated parties in a bargaining transaction; and b) The cost of anticipated construction of qualified public improvements shall be based upon cost estimates certified by a professional architect or engineer. 2) Prior to issuance of a building permit or development permit, the applicant shall submit to the City Administrator a proposed plan and estimate of cost for contributions of qualified public improvements. The proposed plan and estimate shall include: a) plan is being submitted. a designation of the development for which the proposed b) a legal description of any land proposed to be donated pursuant to Chapter 39 of the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance 1807, and a written appraisal prepared in conformity with subsection of this section; ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Woodburn Parks SDC Methodology Update Page 8 c) a list of the contemplated capital improvements contained within the plan; d) an estimate of proposed construction costs certified by a professional architect or engineer; and e) a proposed time schedule for completion of the proposed plan. 3) The City Administrator shall determine if the proposed qualified public improvement is: a) Required as a condition of development approval; b) Identified in the adopted capital improvement plan (CIP);and either c) i. Not located on or contiguous to property that is the subject of development approval; or ii. Located in whole or in part on or contiguous to property that is the subject of development approval and required to be built larger or with greater capacity than is necessary for the particular development project to which the improvement fee is related 4) The decision of the City Administrator as to whether to accept the proposed plan of contribution and the value of such contribution shall be in writing and issued within fifteen (15) working days of the review. A copy shall be provided to the applicant. 5) A proposed improvement which does not meet all three of the criteria included in Section 3(F)(3) above shall not be considered a qualified public improvement and the city is not required ORS 223.297 - 223.314 to provide a credit for such an improvement. However, the city shall grant a credit, in an amount not to exceed fifty percent (50%) of the total amount of the applicable Parks and Recreation SDC, for certain other contributions of capital facilities under the following conditions: a) The capital facilities being contributed must exceed the city standard required for the specific type of development residential, industrial, etc.); and b) Only the value of the contribution which exceeds the city standard required for the specific type of development residential, industrial, etc.) shall be considered when calculating the credit; and 6) Any applicant who submits a proposed plan pursuant to this section and desires the immediate issuance of a building permit or development permit, shall pay the applicable system development charges. Said payment shall be deemed paid under "protest" and shall not be construed as a waiver of any review rights. Any difference between the amount paid and the amount due, as determined by the City Administrator, shall be refunded to the applicant. In no event shall a refund by city under this subsection exceed the amount originally paid by the applicant. SDC Discount Policy The City, at its sole discretion, may discount the SDC rates by choosing not to charge a reimbursement fee for excess capacity, or by reducing the portion of growth-required improvements to be funded with SDCs. A discount in the SDC rates may also be applied on a pro-rata basis to any identified deficiencies, which must be funded from sources other than improvement fee SDCs. The portion of growth-required costs to ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Woodburn Parks SDC Methodology Update Page 9 be funded with SDCs must be identified in the CIP. Because discounts reduce SDC revenues, they increase the amounts that must come from other sources, such as user fees or general fund contributions, in order to acquire the facilities identified in the Updated Master Plan(s). Partial and Full SDC Exemption The City may exempt certain types of development from the requirement to pay SDCs. Exemptions reduce SDC revenues and, therefore, increase the amounts that must come from other sources, such as user fees and property taxes. As in the case of SDC credits, the City has articulated a policy relative to partial and full SDC exemption. This SDC exemption policy is codified in Ordinance 2250, Section 3, subsection E and is as follows: Exemptions. The following development shall be exempt from payment of the system development charges: 1) Alternations, expansion, or replacement of an existing dwelling unit where no additional dwelling units are created. 2) The construction of accessory buildings or structures which will not create additional dwelling units, and which do not create additional demands on the city's capital improvements. 3) The issuance of a permit for a mobile home on which applicable system development charges have previously been made as documented by receipts issued by the city for such prior payment. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Woodburn Parks SDC Methodology Update Page 10 Parks SDCs Methodology The methodology for calculating parks SDCs involves first determining the cost basis, which includes the total costs related to addressing the capacity needs due to growth. Next, the growth costs are divided by the projected growth units, such as population and employees, to determine the system-wide unit costs of capacity. Finally, an SDC schedule is created to outline how these system-wide costs will be allocated to individual development types. Current and Future Demand for Parks and Recreation Services Growth should be measured in units that most directly reflect the source of demand. In the case of parks, the most applicable units of growth are population and, where appropriate, employees (or new jobs). However, the units in which demand is expressed may not be the same as the units in which SDC rates are charged. Many SDCs, for example, are charged on the basis of new dwelling units. Therefore, conversion is often necessary from units of demand to units of payment. For example, using an average number of residents per household, the number of new residents can be converted to the number of new dwelling units. 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 park and recreation facilities and analyzing the proportionate need of residents and employees for each type of facility. 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 that development on the types of park and recreation facilities for which they are charged. The Parks and Recreation SDCs are calculated based on the specific impact a development is expected to have on the City’s population and employment. Table 3 shows population and employment data from recent City planning documents for the SDC analysis. It uses the concept of equivalent population to measure park usage by residents and employees, with nonresidential development's equivalent population set at 4% of total employees. This reflects future park use by residents compared to employees (see Appendix A for details). Table 3 - Existing and Future Demand Data U.S. Census Existing Projected Item 2022 2024 2029 2034 CAGR Population 25,985 29,455 33,326 37,705 2.50% 0 Employment 12,110 13,500 15,274 17,281 2.50% Equivalent Population 26,480 30,007 33,950 38,412 Recent Growth (2024 vs 2022) 3,527 Future Growth (2034 vs 2024) 8,405 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Woodburn Parks SDC Methodology Update Page 11 The 2024 Parks Master Plan Levels of Service and Capacity Analysis In 2024, the City completed a parks and recreation master plan addressing needs until 2034. It uses levels of service (LOS) to assess current and future park adequacy. LOS standards measure public recreation parklands and facilities against established benchmarks. To determine needs, providers compare the ratio of existing developed park acres per 1,000 residents to the desired level. The gap reflects the required park acreage. As population grows, more acreage is needed to maintain the desired ratio. Through the Parks Master Plan, the City plans to acquire and develop parks according to the community's desired LOS. Funding for improvements will come from contributions by both new development and existing users, based on their needs as determined by planned LOS. The planned LOS specifies the quantity of future City-owned park acreage or facilities per 1,000 equivalent population served. The following equation shows the calculation of the planned LOS. This process was used by the City in the 2016 Parks and Recreation SDC methodology and is in use for this update. 𝐸𝑥𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑄+ 𝑃𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑄 𝐹𝑢𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑃𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑆𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑑 = 𝑃𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝐿𝑂𝑆 Where: Q = quantity (acres of parks, miles of trails, or number of facilities), and Future Population Served = projected 2034 equivalent population Table 4 shows the existing and future LOS by park type and trails. The capacity requirements, or number of park acres or trail miles, needed for the existing population and for the growth population are estimated by multiplying the planned (future) LOS for each park type (from Table 4) by the equivalent population of each group (from Table Table 5 shows this capacity analysis for each park type, and for the recreational trails network. Table 6 shows the capacity analysis for park and recreation facilities, amenities, and appurtenances. Table 4 - Existing and Planned Levels of Service Existing Existing Future Future Type Units of Measure Total Units LOS Developed Units LOS Total Units LOS Developed Units LOS Parks and Open Space: Pocket parks Acres 2.75 0.09 2.75 0.09 2.75 0.07 2.75 0.07 Specialty use parks Acres 0.30 0.01 0.30 0.01 0.30 0.01 0.30 0.01 Neighborhood parks Acres 29.20 0.97 29.20 0.97 44.20 1.15 44.20 1.15 Community parks Acres 51.00 1.70 51.00 1.70 51.00 1.33 51.00 1.33 Trails/linear parks Acres 28.00 0.93 28.00 0.93 28.00 0.73 28.00 0.73 Nature parks/open space Acres 23.80 0.79 - - 23.80 0.62 - - Total Acres 135.05 4.50 111.25 3.71 150.05 3.91 126.25 3.29 Recreation Trails: Centennial park trail Miles 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.03 1.25 0.03 1.25 0.03 Legion park trail Miles 0.26 0.01 0.26 0.01 0.51 0.01 0.51 0.01 Mill creek greenway trail Miles 1.34 0.04 1.34 0.04 3.03 0.08 3.03 0.08 Nelson park trail Miles 0.22 0.01 0.22 0.01 0.47 0.01 0.47 0.01 Right-of-way route Miles 0.57 0.02 0.57 0.02 0.82 0.02 0.82 0.02 Senior estates park trail Miles 0.25 0.01 0.25 0.01 0.25 0.01 0.25 0.01 Smith creek trail Miles 1.22 0.04 1.22 0.04 1.47 0.04 1.47 0.04 Other Miles 0.17 0.01 0.17 0.01 0.17 0.00 0.17 0.00 Total Miles 5.03 0.17 5.03 0.17 7.97 0.21 7.97 0.21 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Woodburn Parks SDC Methodology Update Page 12 Table 5 - Capacity Analysis and Project List Allocations for Parks and Trails Existing Population Growth Population Project List Allocation (SDC eligibility) Reimbursement Existing Growth Park Type Total Future Units Total Need (Surplus)/ Deficit Total Need From Existing Inventory From Project List Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Parks and Open Space: Pocket parks 2.75 2.15 (0.60) 0.60 0.60 - - 0.0% - 0.0% 0.60 21.88% Specialty use parks 0.30 0.23 (0.07) 0.07 0.07 - - 0.0% - 0.0% 0.07 21.88% Neighborhood parks 44.20 34.53 5.33 9.67 - 9.67 5.33 26.2% 15.00 73.8% - 0.00% Community parks 51.00 39.84 (11.16) 11.16 11.16 - - 0.0% - 0.0% 11.16 21.88% Trails/linear parks 28.00 21.87 (6.13) 6.13 6.13 - - 0.0% - 0.0% 6.13 21.88% Nature parks/open space 23.80 18.59 (5.21) 5.21 5.21 - - 0.0% - 0.0% 5.21 21.88% Recreation Trails: Centennial park trail 1.25 0.98 (0.02) 0.27 0.02 0.25 - 0.0% 0.25 100.0% 0.02 2.35% Legion park trail 0.51 0.40 0.14 0.11 - 0.11 0.14 35.6% 0.25 64.4% - 0.00% Mill creek greenway trail 3.03 2.37 1.03 0.66 - 0.66 1.03 37.8% 1.69 62.2% - 0.00% Nelson park trail 0.47 0.37 0.15 0.10 - 0.10 0.15 37.1% 0.25 62.9% - 0.00% Right-of-way route 0.82 0.64 0.07 0.18 - 0.18 0.07 22.0% 0.25 78.0% - 0.00% Senior estates park trail 0.25 0.20 (0.05) 0.05 0.05 - - 0.0% - 0.0% 0.05 21.88% Smith creek trail 1.47 1.15 (0.07) 0.32 0.07 0.25 - 0.0% 0.25 100.0% 0.07 5.87% Other 0.17 0.13 (0.04) 0.04 0.04 - - 0.0% - 0.0% 0.04 21.88% ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Woodburn Parks SDC Methodology Update Page 13 Table 6 - Capacity Analysis and Project List Allocations for Facilities Existing Growth Facility Type Existing Inventory Existing per Equivalent Population Future Facilities Planned per Equivalent Population Need (each) Project List % Need (each) Project List % Reimb. Inventory Reimb. % Ballfield 4.00 7,502 6.00 6,402 0.69 34.36% 1.31 65.64% - 0.00% Ballfield complex 1.00 30,007 1.00 38,412 - 0.00% 0.22 N/A 0.22 21.88% Basketball 2.50 12,003 5.50 6,984 1.80 59.89% 1.20 40.11% - 0.00% Loop walk 3.00 10,002 5.00 7,682 0.91 45.30% 1.09 54.70% - 0.00% Soccer fields 3.00 10,002 3.00 12,804 - 0.00% 0.66 N/A 0.66 21.88% Open turf 13.00 2,308 13.00 2,955 - 0.00% 2.84 N/A 2.84 21.88% Playgrounds 15.00 2,000 17.00 2,260 - 0.00% 3.72 100.00% 1.72 11.46% Shelter 8.00 3,751 13.00 2,955 2.16 43.11% 2.84 56.89% - 0.00% Parcourse 1.00 30,007 1.00 38,412 - 0.00% 0.22 N/A 0.22 21.88% Skate park 1.00 30,007 1.00 38,412 - 0.00% 0.22 N/A 0.22 21.88% Tennis 2.00 15,004 3.00 12,804 0.34 34.36% 0.66 65.64% - 0.00% Splash pad/spray feature 1.00 30,007 2.00 19,206 0.56 56.24% 0.44 43.76% - 0.00% Sport court 5.00 6,001 7.00 5,487 0.47 23.42% 1.53 76.58% - 0.00% Exercise stations 1.00 30,007 1.00 38,412 - 0.00% 0.22 N/A 0.22 21.88% Aquatic Center 1.00 30,007 1.00 38,412 - 0.00% 0.22 N/A 0.22 21.88% Community center & System-Wide LOS 1.00 - 2.00 19,206 0.56 56.24% 0.44 43.76% - 0.00% ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Woodburn Parks SDC Methodology Update Page 14 As shown in Table 5, the City has varying degrees of excess (surplus) capacity in existing park and trails acreage; however, there are deficits – both in terms of total land owned and developed compared to the planning standard. For example, additional acreage included in the CIP is limited to 15 acres of neighborhood parks (both land purchase and development). Based on the planned LOS shown in Table 5, existing patrons require an additional 5.33 acres in this parks category. Based on capacity analysis, a total acreage need is (5.33 + 15.00 = 20.33 acres). Since the City is only planning on adding an additional 15 acres, the improvement fee SDC eligibility is (15.00 / 20.33 = 73.8%). The same logic applies to the City’s recreational trail system. In the case of the Mill Creek greenway trail, the CIP is limiting the mileage alignment addition to 1.69 miles. Based on the LOS, there is an existing mileage deficiency of 1.03 miles. The current and future need therefore is (1.03 + 1.69 = 2.72 miles). The calculated improvement fee SDC eligibility is then (1.69 / 2.72 = 62.2%) A separate capacity analysis (shown in Table 6) was conducted for parks and recreation facilities. Similar to the park land analysis, the capacity analysis for facilities is based on the planned LOS. As shown in Table 6, the planned LOS for facilities is shown as the equivalent population served per facility. In some cases, the additional planned investment will yield an enhanced LOS – meaning that the number of people served by a single facility is lower. In other cases, new facilities types are being added. For facilities with enhanced LOS – either existing or new facility types – a portion of the planned investment is needed to meet the needs of existing development. In other cases, where the planned LOS declines (meaning each facility will serve a higher equivalent population than currently), all of the new investment is needed for future development. Costs Improvement fee - The current Parks CIP (based on the Parks Master Plan) includes almost $46 million in improvements to existing parks and facilities, and acquisition of additional land for Parks and Trails. Table 7 provides a listing of park improvements during the planning period, and an allocation of costs between existing development, and future development (growth). The SDC project list shown in Table 7 identifies the portion of planned capital project costs that are related to future development, for purposes of calculating the updated SDCs. Total SDC-eligible costs amount to $26 million. Reimbursement fee - The reimbursement fee cost basis is the sum of the value of the existing system inventory funded by City revenues that will serve growth. The capacity requirements for existing development and growth were developed in Tables 4 through 6 for the City’s parks, trails, and facilities. Existing acreage and facilities that exceed the capacity requirement of existing development are available to meet the needs of growth. As Tables 5 and 6 indicate, the existing system has available (surplus) capacity in acreage for some parks, trails, and many facilities. Table 9 shows the calculation of the reimbursement fee cost basis. The City’s existing fixed asset records were used to determine the cost of prior investment in parks and facilities; the reimbursement allocation percentages from Tables 3 and 6 were then used to determine the cost of each line item eligible for reimbursement. As shown in Table 8, the reimbursement fee cost basis totals almost $2.7 million. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Woodburn Parks SDC Methodology Update Page 15 Table 7 - Improvement Fee Cost Basis ( 2024 Parks Master Plan CIP) Row Labels Total MP Costs Grants and Contributions Other City Funding Sources System Development Charges Facility Projects 16,164,000 $ 4,217,976 $ 5,128,604 $ 6,817,420 $ Ceiling repair & paint 54,000 - 54,000 - Center construction 15,000,000 4,217,976 4,217,976 6,564,048 HVAC system upgrade 179,000 - 100,669 78,331 Pool re-plaster (multiple tanks) 208,000 - 208,000 - Replace storefront doors/windows 45,000 - 45,000 - Re-tile pool area 89,000 - 89,000 - Roof repair & replacement 189,000 - 189,000 - Spray features & water slides 400,000 - 224,959 175,041 Park Acquisitions 6,046,000 $ - $ 1,584,879 $ 4,461,121 $ Acquisition in E area 1,338,000 - 350,739 987,261 Acquisition in NW area 1,262,000 - 330,817 931,183 Acquisition in SE area 1,594,000 - 417,846 1,176,154 Acquisition in SW area 899,000 - 235,661 663,339 Acquisition in SW area 953,000 - 249,816 703,184 Park Improvements 14,966,000 $ - $ 6,048,119 $ 8,917,881 $ ADA compliant picnic table & bench 14,000 - 7,874 6,126 Additional ADA improvements 150,000 - 84,360 65,640 Connecting paved pathway (Lexington ct. to Jamestown st.) 36,000 - 7,926 28,074 Destination/Boundless playground (inclusive) 947,000 - 532,590 414,410 Dog off-leash area (OlA) upgrades 133,000 - 74,799 58,201 Dog park (drinking fountain, shelter, play features, irrigation, fencing, concrete entry) 268,000 - 70,253 197,747 Exercise stations 80,000 - 20,971 59,029 Expand & improve parking areas 562,000 - 316,067 245,933 Expand parking lot 631,000 - 354,872 276,128 Improvement planning 11,000 - 6,186 4,814 Interactive play feature 119,000 - 31,194 87,806 Irrigation extension 80,000 - 20,971 59,029 Minor repairs & renovations 450,000 - 253,079 196,921 Park and playground improvements 133,000 - 74,799 58,201 Park development Phase I 477,000 - 125,039 351,961 Park development Phase II 1,195,000 - 313,253 881,747 Parking lot repairs 106,000 - 106,000 - Paved interior loop trail & connecting pathway 101,000 - 26,476 74,524 Paved loop trail - connect all amenities and side entries 149,000 - 39,058 109,942 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Woodburn Parks SDC Methodology Update Page 16 Table 7 - Improvement Fee Cost Basis ( 2024 Parks Master Plan CIP) - continued Row Labels Total MP Costs Grants and Contributions Other City Funding Sources System Development Charges Paved loop trail - connect all amenities to trail 25,000 - 6,553 18,447 Paved loop trail, plus connect all amenities & side entries 119,000 - 31,194 87,806 Paved pump track (small and large) 803,000 - 210,496 592,504 Paved trail upgrade 90,000 - 50,616 39,384 Picnic tables & benches (ADA compliant) 20,000 - 5,243 14,757 Play equipment upgrade & playground surfacing 286,000 - 74,971 211,029 Playground replacement & playground surfacing 466,000 - - 466,000 Playground replacement, safety surfacing & improved access 454,000 - - 454,000 Playground surfacing 161,000 - 42,204 118,796 Rebuild existing shelter 77,000 - 77,000 - Replace shelter 387,000 - 154,844 232,156 Restroom & drinking fountain 953,000 - 249,816 703,184 Restroom replacement 757,000 - 425,734 331,266 Restroom upgrade 53,000 - 29,807 23,193 Riparian restoration 238,000 - 238,000 - Security or low-level lighting 150,000 - 150,000 - Shade trees & tree replacements 70,000 - 70,000 - Skate park upgrade 631,000 - 631,000 - Soccer field upgrade 54,000 - 54,000 - Sport court 88,000 - 23,068 64,932 Sport court resurfacing 107,000 - 107,000 - Sport court resurfacing & striping 108,000 - 26,802 81,198 Sports court complex (replaces ballfield) 1,578,000 - 369,559 1,208,441 Sports court resurfacing & lighting 379,000 - 88,760 290,240 Sports field improvements 1,136,000 - 390,324 745,676 Viewing platform access improvements 34,000 - 19,121 14,879 Wayfinding & signage 100,000 - 56,240 43,760 Trails 9,049,369 $ 1,932,369 $ 1,304,290 $ 5,812,710 $ Acquisitions for alignment 476,000 - - 476,000 Acquisitions for MCG trail alignment 600,000 - 226,799 373,201 Acquisitions or easements to support alignments 2,000,000 - 440,340 1,559,660 Add restrooms, lighting, drinking fountains, bike racks 500,000 - 188,999 311,001 Hermanson trail connections westward 400,000 - 88,068 311,932 Mill creek greenway OCP grant for trail construction 1,932,369 1,932,369 - - Pavement & surfacing repairs or rehabilitation 250,000 - 250,000 - Trail construction 2,391,000 - - 2,391,000 Trail construction (OCP funds) 500,000 - 110,085 389,915 Grand Total 46,225,369 $ 6,150,345 $ 14,065,892 $ 26,009,132 $ ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Woodburn Parks SDC Methodology Update Page 17 Table 8 - Reimbursement Fee Cost Basis Reimbursement Acquistion Date Asset Category Description Park Category Original Cost Reimb. % Reimb $ Allocation Basis 07/01/14 Land Land Legion Park Community Park 15,888 $ 21.88% 3,476 $ Community Parks Reimbursement 07/01/47 Land Land, Cowan Park Neighborhood Park 1,129 0.00% - Neighborhood Parks Reimbursement 07/01/62 Land Land Parks Maintenance shop Facilities 5,501 18.23% 1,003 Facilities Reimbursement 07/01/69 Land Land Settlemier Park Community Park 13,698 21.88% 2,997 Community Parks Reimbursement 07/01/85 Land Centennial Park Purchased Community Park 116,333 21.88% 25,454 Community Parks Reimbursement 07/01/87 Land Land - West Woodburn Park Neighborhood Park 12,566 0.00% - Neighborhood Parks Reimbursement 06/30/05 Improvements Centennial Park Ballfields Community Park 28,490 21.88% 6,234 Community Parks Reimbursement 12/31/06 Improvements centennial ballfield #3 Community Park 16,438 21.88% 3,597 Community Parks Reimbursement 06/30/07 Improvements Motorola DP-2 Digital Patroller Cam Community Park 5,036 21.88% 1,102 Community Parks Reimbursement 06/30/10 Improvements Centennial Park Community Park 930,914 21.88% 203,685 Community Parks Reimbursement 06/30/11 Rehabilitation Pool Resurfacing Facilities 9,229 21.88% 2,019 Facilities Reimbursement 06/30/12 Rehabilitation Pool Resurfacing Facilities 180,529 21.88% 39,500 Facilities Reimbursement 06/30/12 Rehabilitation Pool Circulation Pump - AQUATICS Facilities 24,218 21.88% 5,299 Facilities Reimbursement 06/30/12 Rehabilitation Pool Roof Facilities 108,894 21.88% 23,826 Facilities Reimbursement 06/30/13 Improvements Security Cameras - Transit Vehicles Facilities 14,756 21.88% 3,229 Facilities Reimbursement 06/30/13 Improvements Tablet Interface Software Module - Facilities 19,000 21.88% 4,157 Facilities Reimbursement 06/30/13 Improvements Playground Equipment - Mastodon Dig Community Park 15,875 21.88% 3,473 Community Parks Reimbursement 06/30/13 Improvements Playground Equipment & Install - Va Community Park 41,572 21.88% 9,096 Community Parks Reimbursement 06/30/13 Improvements Interpretive Graphics & Metal Bases Community Park 6,080 21.88% 1,330 Community Parks Reimbursement 06/30/13 Improvements Greenway Park Trails/Linear Park 483,879 0.00% - Trails Reimbursement 06/30/13 Improvements Centennial Park Improvements Community Park 336,853 21.88% 73,704 Community Parks Reimbursement 06/30/16 Improvements centennial park playground Community Park 72,114 21.88% 15,779 Community Parks Reimbursement 06/30/16 Rehabilitation legion park rehabilitation Community Park 657,542 21.88% 143,871 Community Parks Reimbursement 06/30/17 Rehabilitation aquatic center - 2017 natatorium Facilities 22,300 21.88% 4,879 Facilities Reimbursement 06/30/18 Rehabilitation pool heater replacement 2017-18 - Facilities 52,428 21.88% 11,471 Facilities Reimbursement 06/30/19 Improvements community center design Facilities 11,262 0.00% - Facilities Reimbursement 06/30/19 Rehabilitation aquatic center water heater Facilities 9,415 21.88% 2,060 Facilities Reimbursement 06/30/22 Improvements park drinking fountain Community Park 5,427 21.88% 1,187 Community Parks Reimbursement 06/30/22 Rehabilitation alamo building roof mbwa3321 Facilities 17,507 21.88% 3,831 Facilities Reimbursement 06/30/23 Improvements Community Center Design CBGF 1571 Facilities 9,663 0.00% - Facilities Reimbursement 06/30/23 Improvements Senior Estates Park Shelter Neighborhood Park 83,199 0.00% - Neighborhood Parks Reimbursement 06/30/23 Improvements Centennial Park Dog Park Community Park 1,332 21.88% 291 Community Parks Reimbursement 06/30/24 Improvements Park Signs Community Park 55,504 21.88% 12,144 Community Parks Reimbursement ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Woodburn Parks SDC Methodology Update Page 18 Table 8 - Reimbursement Fee Cost Basis - continued Reimbursement Acquistion Date Asset Category Description Park Category Original Cost Reimb. % Reimb $ Allocation Basis 06/30/24 Rehabilitation Aquatic Center DX Recovery Unit CBG Facilities 143,700 21.88% 31,442 Facilities Reimbursement 06/30/24 Improvements legion park improvements - Community Park 5,066,014 21.88% 1,108,452 Community Parks Reimbursement 06/30/24 Improvements Boones crossing park gpgf1678 Neighborhood Park 18,886 0.00% - Neighborhood Parks Reimbursement 06/30/24 Improvements Mill Creek Greenway Trail CPGF167 Trails/Linear Park 40,483 0.00% - Trails Reimbursement 06/30/24 Improvements Centennial Dog Park CPGF1673 Community Park 97,716 21.88% 21,380 Community Parks Reimbursement 07/01/47 Land Land, North Front St. Park Neighborhood Park 1,304 0.00% - Neighborhood Parks Reimbursement 07/01/50 Improvements Parks Utility Building Settlemier Community Park 1,200 21.88% 263 Community Parks Reimbursement 07/01/50 Improvements Cooking Unit and Shelter Settlemier Community Park 4,400 21.88% 963 Community Parks Reimbursement 07/01/51 Land Land Settlemier & Hayes Community Park 1,001 21.88% 219 Community Parks Reimbursement 07/01/60 Improvements Restroom Structure Settlemier Community Park 40,880 21.88% 8,945 Community Parks Reimbursement 07/01/63 Improvements Parks Dept Equipment Storage Facilities 28,280 18.23% 5,156 Facilities Reimbursement 07/01/63 Improvements Parks Dept Office Facilities 32,411 18.23% 5,910 Facilities Reimbursement 07/01/65 Improvements Ball Field Settlemier Park Community Park 49,941 21.88% 10,927 Community Parks Reimbursement 07/01/67 Improvements Restroom, Storage, Concession Community Park 31,131 21.88% 6,812 Community Parks Reimbursement 02/25/78 Improvements Drop In Center at Settlemier Community Park 28,550 21.88% 6,247 Community Parks Reimbursement 01/01/80 Improvements Museum/Theater 469 Front Facilities 91,972 21.88% 20,124 Facilities Reimbursement 07/01/80 Improvements Parks Pole Building Facilities 6,488 18.23% 1,183 Facilities Reimbursement 07/01/94 Improvements Legion Park Picnic Pavilion Community Park 25,106 21.88% 5,493 Community Parks Reimbursement 07/01/95 Improvements Aquatic Center Facilities 2,500,957 21.88% 547,213 Facilities Reimbursement 05/23/03 Improvements Centennial Park Restroom Community Park 26,513 21.88% 5,801 Community Parks Reimbursement 11/01/03 Improvements Cipriano Ferrel Center Facilities 600,152 18.23% 109,429 Facilities Reimbursement 04/01/04 Improvements Skate Park @ Settlemier Community Park 211,447 21.88% 46,265 Community Parks Reimbursement 06/30/06 Rehabilitation Pool Electrical Panel Facilities 12,141 21.88% 2,656 Facilities Reimbursement 06/30/06 Rehabilitation Pool Heater Facilities 25,072 21.88% 5,486 Facilities Reimbursement 08/01/06 Improvements Playground Equipment Neighborhood Park 35,000 0.00% - Neighborhood Parks Reimbursement 07/10/07 Improvements Playground Equipment Neighborhood Park 25,000 0.00% - Neighborhood Parks Reimbursement 05/30/08 Improvements Playground Equipment Neighborhood Park 44,829 0.00% - Neighborhood Parks Reimbursement 06/30/08 Improvements Software Facilities 14,990 21.88% 3,280 Facilities Reimbursement 06/30/08 Improvements Playground Equipment Neighborhood Park 29,723 0.00% - Neighborhood Parks Reimbursement 06/30/10 Rehabilitation Pool HVAC Facilities 520,469 21.88% 113,879 Facilities Reimbursement 06/30/14 Improvements Centennial Park-Outdoor Exercise Eq Community Park 9,940 21.88% 2,175 Community Parks Reimbursement 06/30/15 Improvements Flashcam Vandalism Deterrent Camera Community Park 7,805 21.88% 1,708 Community Parks Reimbursement 06/30/15 Improvements ADA related improvements Community Park 24,816 21.88% 5,430 Community Parks Reimbursement 06/30/16 Improvements Settlemier/west Lincoln Community Park 4,815 21.88% 1,054 Community Parks Reimbursement 06/30/18 Improvements centennial park splash pad - Community Park 202,118 21.88% 44,224 Community Parks Reimbursement 06/30/19 Improvements natatorium (pool) led lighting Facilities 31,876 21.88% 6,975 Facilities Reimbursement 06/30/20 Improvements Plaza Improvements Pocket Park 25,075 21.88% 5,486 Pocket Parks Reimbursement 06/30/20 Improvements Community Center Design Facilities 603,926 0.00% - Facilities Reimbursement 06/30/21 Improvements Community Center Design Facilities 363,380 0.00% - Facilities Reimbursement 14,414,078 $ 2,743,271 $ ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Woodburn Parks SDC Methodology Update Page 19 Compliance costs - Local governments are entitled to include in the SDCs, the costs associated with complying with the SDC statutes. Compliance costs include costs related to developing the SDC methodology and project list a portion of planning costs), and annual budgeting and reporting. The estimated compliance costs over the 10-year planning period are $170,000. A detailed breakdown of the projected component costs of compliance are shown below in Table 9. Proposed Schedule of Parks SDCs Unit Costs To determine the SDC schedule, the system-wide unit costs of capacity are calculated as shown in Table 9. The calculations start with allocating the cost basis between residential and nonresidential development. For SDC purposes, park costs are divided based on each group's share of future equivalent population. According to Table 3, the total growth in equivalent population is estimated at 8,405, including 8,250 new residents (98 percent) and 155 nonresidential equivalents (2 percent). Accordingly, residential development is allocated $27.6 million (combined reimbursement and improvement costs), and nonresidential development is allocated $1.2 million of future growth-related park costs from Tables 7 and 8. Compliance costs are apportioned to each group proportional to the total capital costs. The growth capacity units for both residential and nonresidential developments are measured by population; for residential, it is the total population, and for nonresidential, it is employment. The estimated growth in population and employment during the 10-year planning period is 8,250 and 3,781, respectively. Dividing the residential cost by the total growth in population results in improvement and reimbursement unit costs per person of $2,248 and $339, respectively. Similarly, the unit costs for nonresidential are $209 (improvement) and $32 (reimbursement) per employee. Table 9 - Parks SDC Unit Cost Calculations Future Demand Line Item Description Fee Basis SDC Fund Bal Compliance* Total Units Number Fee - $/Unit Improvement fee: Residential 24,945,121 $ 6,396,258 $ - $ 18,548,864 $ Population 8,250 2,248 $ Non-residential 1,064,011 272,826 - 791,185 Employees 3,781 209 $ Total 26,009,132 $ 6,669,084 $ - $ 19,340,048 $ Reimbursement fee: Residential 2,631,046 $ - $ 163,045 $ 2,794,092 $ Population 8,250 339 $ Non-residential 112,225 - 6,955 119,179 Employees 3,781 32 $ Total 2,743,271 $ - $ 170,000 $ 2,913,271 $ Total Residential 2,587 $ Non-residential 241 $ * Compliance Costs: Parks Master Plan update 85,000 $ Parks SDC Methodology update 35,000 Accounting, reporting 50,000 Total 170,000 $ ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Woodburn Parks SDC Methodology Update Page 20 Schedule of Parks SDCs Parks SDCs are based on average dwelling occupancy and employee density. City data shows no significant difference in occupancy by dwelling type, so a uniform SDC of $7,658 per unit (2.96 persons/household) is recommended, up from $4,647. The updated nonresidential SDC per employee is $241, compared to $184 currently. For nonresidential development, SDC is based on employee estimates using employment density and building size. The proposed schedule of parks SDCs is shown below in Table 10. Table 10 - Proposed Schedule of Parks SDCs Parks SDC Fee - $/Unit of Demand People Per Dwelling Unit Per DU Per Employee Residential Single-family $ 2,587 2.96 $ 7,658 Multifamily $ 2,587 2.96 $ 7,658 Non-Residential Employee $ 241 $ 241 Parks SDC Components Proposed Current Difference Residential per dwelling unit: Reimbursement fee 1,003 $ 570 $ 433 $ Improvement fee 6,655 4,077 2,578 Subtotal residential 7,658 $ 4,647 $ 3,011 $ Commercial per FTE employee: Reimbursement fee 32 $ 22 $ 10 $ Improvement fee 209 162 47 Subtotal residential 241 $ 184 $ 57 $ ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Woodburn Parks SDC Methodology Update Page 21 Neighboring Communities’ Parks SDCs $3,119 $4,647 $5,445 $6,913 $7,658 $7,912 $9,389 $14,000 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 $16,000 Keizer McMinnville Woodburn - now Salem Canby Woodburn - proposed Oregon City Newberg Wilsonville Regional System Development Charges - Parks Single Family Residential March, 2025 ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Woodburn Parks SDC Methodology Update Page 22 Appendix A – Residential/Non-Residential Demand Analysis Resident Non-Resident Non-Employed Adults Children Ages 5 to 17 Adult Live In and Work In City Adult Live In and Work Outside City Adult Live Outside and Work Inside City Totals Summer demand (June-September) Weekday hours: Before work - - 1.0 - 1.0 2.0 Meals/breaks - - 1.0 - 1.0 2.0 After work - - 2.0 - 2.0 4.0 Other leisure 12.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 - 28.0 Subtotal weekday hours 12.0 12.0 6.0 2.0 4.0 36.0 Number of summer, 2014 weekdays 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 Weekend hours: Leisure 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 - 48.0 Subtotal weekend hours 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 - 48.0 Number of summer, 2014 weekend days 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Weighted average summer hours/day 12.00 12.00 7.72 4.87 2.85 39.44 Spring/Fall demand (April-May, October-November) Weekday hours: Before work - - 0.5 - 0.5 1.0 Meals/breaks - - 1.0 - 1.0 2.0 After work - - 1.0 - 1.0 2.0 Other leisure 10.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 - 18.0 Subtotal weekday hours 10.0 4.0 4.5 2.0 2.5 23.0 Number of spring/fall, 2014 weekdays 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 Weekend hours: Leisure 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 - 40.0 Subtotal weekend hours 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 - 40.0 Number of spring/fall, 2014 weekend days 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 Weighted average spring/fall hours/day 10.00 5.72 6.08 4.30 1.78 27.88 Parks Demand by Patron Classification ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Woodburn Parks SDC Methodology Update Page 23 Resident Non-Resident Non-Employed Adults Children Ages 5 to 17 Adult Live In and Work In City Adult Live In and Work Outside City Adult Live Outside and Work Inside City Totals Winter demand (December-March) Weekday hours: Before work - - 0.5 - 0.5 1.0 Meals/breaks - - 1.0 - 1.0 2.0 After work - - 0.5 - 0.5 1.0 Other leisure 8.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 - 12.0 Subtotal weekday hours 8.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 16.0 Number of winter, 2014 weekdays 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 87.0 Weekend hours: Leisure 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 - 32.0 Subtotal weekend hours 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 - 32.0 Number of winter, 2014 weekend days 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 Weighted average winter hours/day 8.00 3.69 4.40 2.97 1.44 20.50 Forecast of demand by parks patron group: Annual weighted average hours/day 10.01 7.15 6.07 4.05 2.03 Census data on parks patrons 578 5,277 3,470 7,782 2,022 Potential daily demand hours/day 5,783 37,705 21,072 31,490 4,097 100,148 Percentage of demand by parks patron class 5.77% 37.65% 21.04% 31.44% 4.09% 100.00% Resident/Non-resident percentages 95.91% 4.09% 100.00% Resident Non-Resident Total Sources and Credits: Census data - U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, Tables DP03, DP05, and S0101,American FactFinder tool Parks Demand by Patron Classification Hourly parks demand forecast - Donovan Enterprises, Inc.; A Guide to Community Park and Recreation Planning for Oregon Communities, April, 2013; Oregon Department of Parks and Recreation