Sustainable City Year Reports 2021-22 (Hermiston)

Permanent URI for this collection

https://hdl.handle.net/1794/27098

Browse

Browsing Sustainable City Year Reports 2021-22 (Hermiston) by Author "Kataoka, Natalie"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Financing an Aquatic Center: Health and Wellness in Hermiston
    (University of Oregon, 2021) Kataoka, Natalie; Lewis, Rebecca
    This report evaluates alternatives to fund a new area Health, Wellness, and Aquatic Center located in the city of Hermiston. Funding options that students evaluated included: • Create a special park and recreation district • Create anintergovernmental entity • Place construction and management of facility under the Hermiston Parks and Recreation Department To evaluate these alternatives and make a recommendation, students researched financing strategies and assessed the feasibility of their proposals. Students also reviewed relevant statutes and analyzed GIS-based maps of Hermiston’s existing city limits to determine the boundaries of a potential parks and recreation special district. Relevant facility funding case studies from comparator communities informed student proposals. Additional financial and political considerations relevant to the preferred alternative included: capitalizing on revenue from neighboring cities, working within the City’s existing framework or creating a new district, and factoring in current resident opinions on increasing taxes. Proposals leveraged mechanisms such as taxes, bonds, user fees, and system development charges as funding sources for the construction and operations of Hermiston’s Health, Wellness, and Aquatic Center. The selection and integration of mechanisms can be guided by teams assessment regarding how Oregon Revised Statutes allow municipalities to finance capital projects. Following the summary of proposal packages and the alternative recommendations of Group A and Group B, each proposal was evaluated based on equity, neutrality, efficiency, and productivity. Students ranked the of proposal packages from most to least recommended at the conclusion of this report.