CFP And Impact Fees...monies to pay impact fees for low income housing development that has been...

1

M E M O R A N D U M

DATE: May 15, 2012 SUBJECT: 10 YEAR CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN

Public Hearing (Impact Fee Facilities Plan/CFP and Impact Fee Ordinances and Related Schedules) – April 24, 2012

Follow-up Briefing – April 3, 2012 – Final Decisions Follow-up Briefing – March 27, 2012 – Review CFP and Impact

Fee Options – Original, B, and C Briefing – February 21, 2012 – Finalize Impact Fee Eligible

Projects Briefing – January 31, 2012 – Review of Detailed List Briefing – January 10, 2012 – Review of Detailed List Briefing – October 25, 2011 – Debt Policies and Policy

Question Discussion Briefing – October 4, 2011 – Capital Management Policies

Discussion Retreat – September 9, 2011 – Council Priorities Discussion Briefing – September 6, 2011 Initial Briefing – May 31, 2011

COUNCIL PHILOSOPHY STATEMENTS: ▪ Economic Health of the City ▪ Arts and Culture ▪ Neighborhood Quality of Life ▪ Transportation and Mobility ▪ Parks and Open Space ▪ Sustainability ▪ Education STAFF REPORT BY: KAREN HALLADAY, BUDGET AND POLICY ANALYST AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: ALL

Council Actions Needed - After a year of discussions related to the City’s ten-year capital needs, the Council will addressing the following items:

Work Session

1. Review a slight change to the Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails (Parks) Impact Fee – During the April 3rd briefing, the Council indicated its desire to go with the Full Parks Option (Option B), which would increase the Parks impact fee to $4,180. Since that discussion, the Consultant has confirmed that the impact fee for Parks should not exceed the amount of the current investment per unit, which is $3,999 – a difference of $181 (See Attachment C). Note: Per the consultant’s report, “Fees calculated in this study can be updated as the City monitors the future development patterns. Fees can be updated on an annual basis using an inflation factor for building material from a reputable source such as McGraw Hill’s Engineering News Record.”

2. Discuss concerns raised by the City Attorney with regard to changing the current process when low-income housing waivers are granted for development projects. During the impact fee discussions, the Council discussed whether or not to grant housing waivers, the Mayor recommended that housing waivers not be granted. The Council wanted to continue to consider housing waivers and they discussed being included in the decision-making process. Since that discussion, the City and Council Attorneys who provide impact fee counsel expressed concerns about changing the current process to allow the Council to serve in a decision-making capacity while also serving as the

2

Appellate body. Because of the concerns raised by the Attorneys, the process for granting waivers will remain as it currently exists. ►Does the Council wish to discuss this further with the Administration?

3. Review ordinance amendments (See Attachment B), including one to determine whether or not the Council wants the General Fund to pay impact fees when a housing waiver is granted. Upon further review of the current State Statute, it was determined the General Fund is not required to pay the impact fees when housing waivers are granted. The related proposed ordinance amendment removes the clause stating that the General Fund will pay impact fees for exempted development activity.

4. Consider accepting the Capital and Debt Management Policies (See Attachment D). These policy sections have been updated based on the Council’s direction in Work Session briefings. Historically, the Council has not taken a formal vote on Policy Manual updates, but instead have reviewed them in a briefing and provided an informal show of support for the changes. If the Council is supportive of the sections as drafted, staff will update the Policy Manual.

5. Discuss future housekeeping changes to Chapter 18.98 of the City Code in order to reflect changes made to Utah law related to impact fees.

6. Consider adding a legislative intent to the existing list (See Attachment E). This legislative intent would be to research and study the criteria other cities use when evaluating requests to grant low income housing impact fee waivers. Once determined, these criteria could be added to the City’s existing process for determining when waivers should be granted for project developments. ►The Council may wish to discuss concerns raised by the City Attorney with regard to changing the current process to include the Council as a decision-maker, while also serving as the Appellate body.

Formal Meeting (Potential Motion Sheet will be provided on Tuesday)

1. Adopt an ordinance which includes: Adoption of the Impact Fees Facilities Plan (IFFP) and Impact Fee Study - final plan

prepared by Galena Consulting using Option B – Full Parks Plan. (See Attachment A ) Impact Fee Text Amendments (See Attachment B):

1. Amend – 18.98.060 E – Eliminate language that requires the City to use General Fund monies to pay impact fees for low income housing development that has been granted for an impact fee exemption.

2. Amend – 18.98.030 B – Eliminate language that requires roadway facilities impact fees only for development activity which makes improvements to and in the northwest quadrant or the Westside industrial area of the City. The proposed change would require roadway facilities impact fees for eligible impact fee projects located anywhere with the City.

2. Adopt an ordinance to: Amend the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule to reflect impact fee changes adopted

with the Impact Fees Facilities Plan (See Attachment C). 3. Adopting legislative intents related to the City’s short and long-term Capital Asset Programs,

including the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), Ten-Year Capital Facilities Plan, and reviewing and recommending other cities criteria for granting low-income housing waivers for development projects. (See Attachment E)

3

Attachments

Attachment A - Impact Fee Facilities Plan and Impact Fee Study Attachment B – Ordinance – Impact Fee Amendments and Adoption of Impact Fee Facilities Plan

Amend – 18.98.060 E – Eliminate language that requires the City to use General Fund monies to pay impact fees for low income housing development that has been granted for an impact fee exemption.

Amend – 18.98.030 B – Eliminate language that requires roadway facilities impact fees only for development activity which makes improvements to and in the northwest quadrant or the Westside industrial area of the City. The proposed change would require roadway facilities impact fees for eligible impact fee projects located anywhere with the City.

Attachment C – Ordinance – Consolidated Fee Schedule Amendment Attachment D – Capital and Debt Management Policies Attachment E – Legislative Intents

Salt Lake City

Impact Fees Facilities Plan and Impact Fee Study

Final Report April 9, 2012

Prepared by: Anne Wescott Galena Consulting

2 FINAL REPORT

Section I. Introduction

This report regarding updated impact fees for Salt Lake City includes the following:

An overview of the report’s background and objectives;

A definition of impact fees and a discussion of their appropriate use;

An overview of land use and demographics;

A description of the City’s 10-Year Fiscally Constrained Impact Fees Facilities Plan (IFFP);1

A step-by-step calculation of impact fees;

A list of implementation recommendations; and

A brief summary of conclusions.

Background and Objectives

Salt Lake City hired Galena Consulting to complete an update of the City’s police, fire, parks, and roadway impact fees. The scope of work included an analysis of current conditions, service areas, levels of service, and capital infrastructure; an analysis of current and future land uses and growth projections; the development of an updated, fiscally-constrained Impact Fees Facilities Plan (IFFP); a calculation of impact fees required to finance capital facilities necessitated by growth to continue the current levels of service; and recommendations on the implementation and administration of proposed fees.

This document presents impact fees based on the City’s demographic data and infrastructure costs; calculates the City’s monetary participation; and outlines specific fee implementation recommendations. Credits can be granted on a case-by-case basis; these credits are assessed when each individual building permit is pulled.

Definition of Impact Fees

Impact fees are one-time assessments established by local governments to assist with the provision of capital improvements necessitated by new growth and development. Impact fees are governed by principles established in Title 11, Chapter 36a, Utah Code, known as the Impact Fee Act, which specifically gives local political subdivision the authority to levy impact fees. The Impact Fees Act defines an impact fee as “… a payment of money imposed upon new

1 The Utah Impact Fee Act was amended in May 2011 to require the development of an Impact Fees Facilities Plan (IFFP). This reference is interchangeable with what the City has been required to refer to in the past as a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and Capital Facilities Plan (CFP).

3 FINAL REPORT

development activity as a condition of development approval to mitigate the impact of the new development on public infrastructure.”

The Impact Fees Act defines “development activity” as any construction or expansion of a building, structure, or use, and change in use of a building or structure, or any changes in the use of land that creates additional demand and need for public facilities.2 “Development approval” means any written authorization from a local political subdivision that authorizes the commencement of development activity. “Public facilities” means only the following impact fee facilities that have a life expectancy of 10 or more years and are owned or operated on behalf of a local political subdivision or private entity: water rights and water supply, treatment, and distribution facilities; wastewater collection and treatment facilities; storm water, drainage, and flood control facilities; municipal power facilities; roadway facilities; parks, recreation, open space and trails; and public safety facilities.

“Roadway facilities” means streets or roads that have been designated on an officially adopted subdivision plat, roadway plan, or general plan of a political subdivision, together with all necessary appurtenances. "Roadway facilities" also includes associated facilities to federal or state roadways only when the associated facilities: (i) are necessitated by the new development; and (ii) are not funded by the state or federal government. “Public safety facility” means a building constructed or leased to house police, fire, or other public safety entities; or a fire suppression vehicle costing in excess of $500,000. “Parks, recreation, open space and trails” is not specifically defined.

Utah fee restrictions and requirements. The Impact Fee Act places numerous restrictions on the calculation and use of impact fees, all of which help ensure that local governments adopt impact fees that are consistent with federal law. Some of those restrictions include:

Impact fees may not cure deficiencies in a public facility serving existing development;3

Impact fees may not raise the established level of service of a public facility serving existing development;4

Impact fees cannot include an expense for overhead, such as any cost for operation and maintenance of public facilities;5 and

Impact fees cannot require residential development to pay for a fire suppression vehicle; 6

2 See Section 11-36a-102 (3), Utah Code.

3 See Section 11-36a-202 (1)(a)(i), Utah Code

4 See Section 11-36a-202 (1)(a)(ii), Utah Code 5 See Section 11-36a-202 (1)(a)(iv), Utah Code

6 See Section 11-36a-202 (2)(a)(i), Utah Code

4 FINAL REPORT

In addition, the Impact Fee Act requires the following:

The City must consider all revenue sources, including impact fees and the anticipated dedication of system facilities, to finance the impacts on system facilities;7

The City must prepare and adopt a Impact Fees Facilities Plan to determine the public facilities required to serve development resulting from new development activity;8

Impact fees must be maintained in one or more interest-bearing accounts;9

The City must file an annual report identifying all impact fees collected and revenues expended;10 and

Impact fees must be incurred or encumbered within 6 years from the date they are collected. Fees may be held in certain circumstances beyond the 6-year time limit if the governmental entity can identify an extraordinary and compelling reason;11

How should fees be calculated? State law requires the City to implement the Impact Fees Facilities Plan (IFFP) methodology to calculate impact fees. The City can implement fees of any amount not to exceed the fees as calculated by the IFFP approach. This methodology requires the City to describe its service areas, forecast the land uses, densities and population that are expected to occur in those service areas over the 10-year IFFP time horizon, and identify the capital facilities that will be needed to serve the forecasted growth at the planned levels of service, assuming the planned levels of service do not exceed the current levels of service. Only those items identified as growth-related on the IFFP are eligible to be funded by impact fees.

Once the essential facilities planning has taken place, impact fees can be calculated. The Impact Fee Act places many restrictions on the way impact fees are calculated and spent, particularly via the principal that local governments cannot charge new development more than a “proportionate share” of the cost of public facilities to serve that new growth. The proportionate share concept is designed to ensure that impact fees are calculated by measuring the needs created for capital facilities by development being charged the impact fee; do not exceed the cost of such facilities; and are “earmarked” to fund growth-related capital facilities to benefit those that pay the impact fees.





11 See Section 11-36a-602 (2)(a), Utah Code.

5 FINAL REPORT

Impact fees should take into account the following:

Any appropriate credit, offset or contribution of money, dedication of land, or construction of system facilities;

Payments reasonably anticipated to be made by or as a result of a new development in the form of user fees and debt service payments;

That portion of general tax and other revenues allocated by the City to growth-related system facilities; and

All other available sources of funding such system facilities.

Through data analysis and interviews with the City, Galena Consulting identified the share of each capital facility needed to serve growth. The total projected capital facilities needed to serve growth were then allocated to new residential and non-residential development with the resulting amounts divided by the appropriate growth projections from 2012 to 2021. Among the advantages of the IFFP approach is its establishment of a spending plan to give developers and new residents more certainty about the use of the particular impact fee revenues.

Other fee calculation considerations. The basic IFFP methodology used in the fee calculations is presented above. However, implementing this methodology requires a number of decisions. The considerations accounted for in the fee calculations include the following:

Allocation of costs is made using a service unit which is a standard measure of consumption, use, generation or discharge attributable to an individual unit..” The service units chosen by the study team for every fee calculation in this study are linked directly to residential dwelling units and non-residential square feet.

A second consideration involves refinement of cost allocations to different land uses. In this analysis, the study team has chosen to use the highest level of detail supportable by available data. As a result, in this study all impact fees are allocated among residential and non-residential development, with the exception of streets impact fees. Streets fees are allocated to specific land uses according to trip generation data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual. These land uses include single and multi-family residential; and retail, office, and industrial land uses.

Current Assets and Capital Improvement Plans

The IFFP approach estimates future capital facility investments required to serve growth over a fixed period of time. The impact fee study team has used a 10-year time period.

The types of costs eligible for inclusion in this calculation include contract construction prices; the costs of acquiring land, improvements, materials and fixtures; the cost for planning, surveying and engineering fees for service provided for and directly related to the construction of system improvements; and debt service on obligations issued to finance the costs of system

6 FINAL REPORT

improvements.12 Fire suppression vehicles with a value over $500,000 are also eligible.13 The total cost of facilities over the 10 years is referred to as the “IFFP Value” throughout this report. The cost of this impact fee study is also impact fee eligible for all impact fee categories. Each fee category was charged its pro-rated percentage of the cost of the impact fee study.

The forward-looking 10-Year IFFP includes some facilities that are only partially necessitated by growth (e.g., facility expansion partially due to upgrade and partially in order to add capacity for service provision). The study team met with the City to determine a defensible metric for including a portion of these facilities in the impact fee calculations. A general methodology used to determine this metric is discussed below. In some cases, a more specific metric was used to identify the growth-related portion of such facilities. In these cases, notations were made in the applicable section.

Fee Calculation

In accordance with the IFFP approach described above, we calculated impact fees by answering the following seven questions:

1. Who is currently served by the City Police, Fire, Parks, and Streets/ Transportation Departments? This includes the number of residential units and non-residential square feet.

2. What is the current level of service provided by the City? Since an important purpose of impact fees is to fund the capital facility necessary to maintain the current service level, it is necessary to know the levels of service it is currently providing to the community.

3. What current assets allow the City to provide this level of service? This provides a current inventory of assets used by the City, such as facilities, land and equipment (where eligible). In addition, each asset’s replacement value was calculated and summed to determine the total value of the Departments’ current assets.

4. What is the current investment per residential household and non-residential square foot? In other words, how much have current residential and non-residential land uses “paid into” the total value of current departmental assets?

5. What future growth is expected in the City? How many new residential households and non-residential square feet will the City serve over the IFFP period? How many more people will be demanding a continuation of the current level of service enjoyed by City residents?

6. What new infrastructure is required to serve future growth? For example, how many new parks or fire stations will be needed by the City within the next ten years to maintain the current service level?

12 See Section 11-36a-201 (16)(a)(ii). 13

See Section 11-36a-102 (14).

7 FINAL REPORT

7. What impact fee is required to pay for the new infrastructure? We calculated an apportionment of new infrastructure costs to future residential and nonresidential land-uses for the City. Then, using this distribution, the impact fees were determined.

Addressing these seven questions, in order, provides the most effective and logical way to calculate impact fees for the City. In addition, these seven steps satisfy and follow the regulations set forth earlier in this section.

Not all capital costs are associated with growth. Some capital costs are for repair and replacement of aging facilities (e.g., standard periodic investment in existing facilities such as roofing or HVAC repairs). These costs are not impact fee eligible. Some capital costs are for betterment of facilities, or implementation of new services (e.g., an upgraded training facility). These costs are generally not entirely impact fee eligible. Some costs are for expansion of facilities to accommodate new development at the current level of service (e.g., acquisition and construction of a fire station to serve new growth). These costs are impact fee eligible.

Because there are different reasons why the City invests in capital projects, the study team conducted an analysis on all projects listed in each IFFP:

Growth. To determine if a project is solely related to growth, we ask “Is this project designed to maintain the current level of service as growth occurs?” and “Would the City still need this capital project if it weren’t growing at all?” Growth projects are only necessary to maintain the City’s current level of service as growth occurs. It is thus appropriate to include 100 percent of their cost in the impact fee calculations. An example of a purely growth related project would be additional park acreage to continue the current ratio of acreage to population.

Repair & Replacement. We ask, “Is this project related only to fixing existing infrastructure?” and “Would the City still need it if it weren’t growing at all?” Repair and replacement projects have nothing to do with growth. It is thus not appropriate to include any of their cost in the impact fee calculations. One example of this type of project would be a playground replacement.

Upgrade. We ask, “Would this project improve the City’s current level of service?” and “Would the City still do it even if it weren’t growing at all?” Upgrade projects have nothing to do with growth. It is thus not appropriate to include any of their cost in the impact fee calculations. One example of this type of project would be the parking pay station major capital asset project.

Mixed. Some capital projects are partially necessitated by growth, but also include an element of repair, replacement and/or upgrade. In this instance, a cost amount between 0 and 100 percent should be included in the fee calculations. Although the project might be an upgrade of or replacement to an existing facility, its scope will create capacity necessary to serve projected growth. A specific example of this within this study is the new Evidence/Crime Lab facility. While this project can be considered an upgrade to the current facility, which is not generally impact fee

8 FINAL REPORT

eligible, part of the purpose of the new facility is to add space to process and house additional evidence associated with growth.

It should be understood that growth is expected to pay only the portion of the cost of capital facilities that are growth-related. The City will need to plan to fund the pro rata share of partially growth-related capital facilities with revenue sources other than impact fees within the time frame that impact fees must be spent. These values will be calculated and discussed in Section VII of this report.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the following for their cooperation in the development of this report:

• LuAnn Clark and Michael Akerlow, Housing and Neighborhood Development Division, for service as the project managers and City liaisons.

• Deputy Chief Tim Doubt, Sergeant Scott Teerlink, Deputy Chief Brian Dale, Battalion Chief Robert McMicken, John Vuyk, Rick Graham, Emy Maloutas, Lee Bollwinkel, Dell Cook, John Naser, Lynn Jarman, Tim Harpst, Kevin Young, Dan Bergenthal, Alden Breinholt, Paul Nielson, Marilyn Lewis, Gina Chamness, Randy Hillier, Sherrie Collins, Dan Mulé and Marina Scott for their significant attention to the development of the updated Impact Fees Facilities Plan.

9 FINAL REPORT

Section II. Land Uses

City services are measured in terms of number of population served, physical structures to be protected, and trips generated. Knowing how much the population, residential households and non-residential square feet are projected to increase assists city staff in determining how many and what type of new capital facilities will be needed within the planning period.

As noted in Section I, it is necessary to allocate impact fee facilities plan (IFFP) costs to residential and non-residential development when calculating impact fees. The study team performed this allocation based on the number of new households, non-residential square footage, and new trips projected to be added over the ten-year period.

The following Exhibit II-1 presents the current and future population projections for the Salt Lake City.

Exhibit II-1. Current and Future Population for Salt Lake City 2010-2020

Population 186,440 195,263 8,823 5%

Percent Increase2010 2020 Net Increase

Source: 2010 U.S. Census, the Wasatch Front Regional Council Transportation Plan 2011-2040, and the 2009

American Community Survey.

Salt Lake City currently serves 186,440 persons. By 2020, the population is projected to increase by 8,823 persons to 195,263 persons, a 5% increase. The City must plan for the necessary capital facilities to serve these additional residents.

In order to apportion the costs of the capital facilities necessitated by growth over the ten-year planning period, it is necessary to determine the number of new units of development among residential and non-residential development, and then convert both land uses to square feet. The following Exhibit II-2 presents the current and future number of residential households and non-residential square feet, and their distribution as a total of all new development.

10 FINAL REPORT

Exhibit II-2. Land Use Distribution, Salt Lake City, Utah, 2010-2020

Net Increase Net Increase in in Units Square Feet

Residential (in units) 80,362 84,165 3,803 5,667,781 59% Single-Family 42,270 53% 44,271 2,000 3,704,717 Multi-Family 38,092 47% 39,894 1,803 1,963,064

Nonresidential (in square feet) 82,909,311 86,832,873 3,923,562 41%

Total 9,591,343 100%

Units or Square Feet Percent of 2010 2020 Total Growth

Notes:

Number of residential units was based on 2005-2009 American Community Survey data and U.S. Census housing characteristics data from 1973-2009.

Non-residential square footage of 1,031 square feet per residential unit was obtained by CB Richard Ellis Real Estate 2010 Year-End Report.

Salt Lake City currently has 80,362 residential units. 53% of these (42,270) are single-family, while 47% (38,092) are multi-family. There are currently 82,909,311 square feet of non-residential square footage (office, retail, and industrial). Based on square foot conversion, residential development represents 59% of current land use, while non-residential development represents 41%.

Growth projections provided by the Wasatch Front Regional Council indicate Salt Lake City is expected to grow by approximately 3,803 residential units by 2020. 2,000 of these are anticipated to be single-family units, while 1,803 are anticipated to be multi-family units. An additional 3,923,562 square feet of non-residential square footage is expected to be added by 2020.

Demographic and land-use projections are some of the most variable and potentially debatable components of an impact fee study, and in all likelihood the projections used in our study will not prove to be 100 percent correct. As each IFFP is tied to the City’s land use growth, the IFFP and resulting fees can be revised based on actual growth as it occurs.

11 FINAL REPORT

Section III. Fire Impact Fees

In this section, we calculate impact fees for the Salt Lake City Fire Department following the seven question method outlined in Section I of this report.

1. Who is currently served by the Salt Lake City Fire Department?

As outlined in Section II, the Salt Lake City Fire Department currently serves 186,440 residents in 80,362 residential units, and 82,909,311 square feet of non-residential square footage (office, retail, industrial and institutional).

2. What is the current level of service provided by the Salt Lake City Fire Department?

Salt Lake City’s Fire Department currently provides a level of service of an average response time of 4 minutes 28 seconds.

3. What current assets allow the Salt Lake City Fire Department to provide this level of service?

The following Exhibit III-1 summarizes the current capital assets of the Salt Lake City Fire Department.

12 FINAL REPORT

Exhibit III-1. Current Assets – Salt Lake City Fire Department

Replacement Amount to

Type of Capital Facility Address Value Include in FeeComparison

FacilitiesNew Public Safety Complex 25,000,000$ $25,000,000Existing Public Safety Building 315 East 200 South 5,487,200$ $5,487,200Fire Station #1 211 South 500 East 4,756,500$ $4,756,500Fire Station #2 270 West 300 North 2,305,500$ $2,305,500Fire Station #3 1085 East Simpson 2,835,000$ $2,835,000Fire Station #4 830 East 11th Avenue 2,405,700$ $2,405,700Fire Station #5 1023 East 900 South 2,520,000$ $2,520,000Fire Station #6 948 West 800 South 2,197,800$ $2,197,800Fire Station #7 273 North 1000 West 2,405,700$ $2,405,700Fire Station #8 15 West 1300 South 3,000,000$ $3,000,000Fire Station #9 5822 West Amelia Earhart Drive 3,303,000$ $3,303,000Fire Station #10 785 Arapeen Drive 2,929,500$ $2,929,500Fire Station #11 581 North 2360 West 2,813,281$ $2,813,281Fire Station #12 1085 North 4030 West 2,700,000$ $2,700,000Fire Station #13 2360 East Parleys Way 1,944,000$ $1,944,000Fire Station #14 1560 South Industrial Road 1,440,000$ $1,440,000Fire Station #15 - land only 790,000$ $790,000Fire Training Tower 1600 South Industrial Road 5,085,000$ $5,085,000Fleet Facility 3,937,500$ $3,937,500Land for Fire Training Center 650,000$ $650,000

Apparatus25 Engines 12,500,000$ $12,500,0005 Ladder Trucks 4,250,000$ $4,250,000

Total Infrastructure 95,255,681$ $95,255,681

Plus Cost of Fee-Related ResearchImpact Fee Study Update 11,150$ $11,150

Plus Impact Fee Fund Balance 2,396,845$ $2,396,845

Grand Total 97,663,676$ $97,663,676

Source: Salt Lake City Fire Department and Impact Fee Study Team. Notes: Replacement cost assumption is $300 per square foot. All cost assumptions based on replacement cost in 2011 dollars. Impact Fee fund balance as of 3/31/11.

As shown above, the Salt Lake City Fire Department currently owns approximately $97.6 million of capital assets14. These assets are used to provide the Department’s current level of service of an average response time of 4 minutes 28 seconds.

4. What is the current investment per unit?

By dividing the total replacement value of the current capital assets of the Salt Lake City Fire Department by the number of current households and non-residential square feet whose owners have invested in these assets, we can determine that the Department has invested $718 per existing residential unit and $0.48 per non-residential square foot. We will compare our final impact fee with this figure to determine if the two results will be similar; this represents a “check” to see if future City residents will be paying for infrastructure at a level commensurate with what existing City residents have invested in infrastructure.

14 Current impact fee fund balance is added into the value of the current assets to reflect revenues already paid into the City for capital infrastructure necessary to address the service needs of recent growth.

13 FINAL REPORT

5. What future growth is expected for the Salt Lake City Fire Department?

As shown in Exhibit II-1, the resident population of the Salt Lake City is projected to increase by 8,823 people over the ten-year planning period. As indicated in Exhibit II-2, this equates to approximately 3,803 new residential units and 3,923,562 new square feet of non-residential square footage.

6. What new infrastructure is required to serve future growth?

The Salt Lake City Fire Department has developed an Impact Fees Facilities Plan (IFFP) that identifies the capital facilities the City will need to build within the next ten years. Because City residents approved a bond to construct a $125 million Public Safety Building which will be completed in 2013, no future capacity for additional growth-related administrative staff is required. However, the Fire Department must relocate and expand Fire Station #3 in order to continue providing the current service level to projected growth. In addition, it must construct and outfit Fire Station #14 to accommodate the service needs of projected growth.

The following Exhibit III-2 summarizes the investment the Salt Lake City Fire Department plans to make in capital facilities over the next ten years to continue its current level of service.

Exhibit III-2. Salt Lake City Fire Department Impact Fees Facilities Plan – 2012-2021

Square Land Estimated Other

Type of Capital Facility Feet Acreage Cost Funding

to Growth Sources

Facilities

2013 Fire Station #3 - Relocation and Expansion; Land Acquisition 1,500,000$ 33% 495,000$ $ 1,005,000

2015 Fire Station #3 - Relocation and Expansion; Construction 15,000 1.00 6,000,000$ 33% 1,980,000$ $ 4,020,000

2021 Fire Station #14 15,000 5.00 5,100,000$ 33% 1,683,000$ $ 3,417,000

Apparatus

2021 Truck for Fire Station #14 to serve Southwest growth 950,000$ 100% 950,000$ $ -

Total Infrastructure 13,550,000$ 5,108,000$ 8,442,000$

Plus Cost of Fee-Related Research

Impact Fee Study 11,150$ 100% 11,150$ $ -

Standards of Cover Study 50,000$ 50% 25,000$ $ 25,000

Minus Impact Fee Fund Balance 3,427,416$ 3,427,416$

Grand Total 10,183,734$ 1,716,734$ 8,467,000$

Portion Impact FeeAttributable Eligible

Source: Salt Lake City Fire Department and Impact Fee Study Team. Notes: Replacement cost assumption is $300 per square foot. All cost assumptions based on replacement cost in 2011 dollars. The Standards of Cover study will assist the Department in determining the location of future stations. Fund balance as of 3/31/12.

As shown above, the Salt Lake City Fire Department plans to invest approximately $10 million in capital facilities over the next ten years, $1.7 million of which is impact fee eligible. The impact fee eligible portion includes a proportional share of the cost to plan for and construct the relocated Fire Station #3 and the new Fire Station #14, and to provide Fire Station #14 with a fire suppression vehicle. The remaining $8.5 million is the result of correcting an existing deficiency

14 FINAL REPORT

and is not impact fee eligible. This amount must be funded with revenue sources other than impact fees.

7. What impact fee is required to pay for the new capital facilities?

The following Exhibit III-3 takes the projected future growth from Exhibits II-1 and II-2, and the impact fee eligible costs from Exhibit III-2 to calculate impact fees for the Salt Lake City Fire Department.

If the cost of the infrastructure necessary to continue the level of service currently enjoyed by City residents to an additional 8,823 new residents (growth-related IFFP cost of $1.7 million15), was divided by the number of households and non-residential square footage correlated to the new residents (3,803 households and 3.9 million square feet), every new household and non-residential square foot’s proportional share of the IFFP cost would be as follows:

Exhibit III-3. Salt Lake City Fire Department Impact Fee Calculation

Note:

(1) From Exhibit III-2.

(2) From Exhibit II-2.

Source:

Salt Lake City Fire Department and Impact Fee Study Team.

Amount to Include in Impact Fees1

Facilities and Fee-Related Research (apportioned to all growth) 766,734$ Fire Supression Vehicle (apportioned to non-residential growth only) 950,000$

Percent of Future GrowthResidential 59%Nonresidential 41%

Amount Attributable to Future Land UseResidential 453,084$ Nonresidential 1,263,650$

Future Growth by Land Use2

Residential (housing units) 3,803 Nonresidential (square feet) 3,923,562

Calculated Impact FeeResidential (housing units) 119$ Nonresidential (square feet) 0.32$

The amount per household is less than the current $712 investment per household and $0.48 investment per non-residential square foot we calculated based on Exhibit III-I of this report. This confirms that new growth is not being asked to contribute more to continue the current service level than existing residents have already invested in the current system.

The Department cannot assess fees greater than the amounts shown above. The Department may assess fees lower than these amounts, but would then experience a decline in service levels unless the Department used other revenues to make up the difference.

A comparison of current investment, current impact fees and 2012 calculated fire impact fees is as follows:

15 The impact fee-eligible costs associated with Fire Station #3, Fire Station #14, the impact fee study, and standards of cover study are allocated to residential and non-residential growth according to their relative percentage of total growth based on total square footage. The fire suppression vehicle is allocated to non-residential development as it is this development in the southwest area of the City that will require a specialized vehicle to address rescue and hazmat activities associated primarily with non-residential uses.

15 FINAL REPORT

Residential Unit

Current Investment per Unit $718

Current Fire Impact Fee $485

Proposed Fire Impact Fee - 2012 $119

Non-Residential Square Foot

Current Investment per Square Foot $0.48

Current Fire Impact Fee $0.32

Proposed Fire Impact Fee - 2012 $0.32

16 FINAL REPORT

Section IV. Police Impact Fees

In this section, we calculate impact fees for the Salt Lake City Police Department following the seven question method outlined in Section I of this report.

1. Who is currently served by the Salt Lake City Police Department?

As outlined in Section II, the Salt Lake City Police Department currently serves 186,440 residents in 80,362 residential units, and 82,909,311 square feet of non-residential square footage (office, retail, industrial and institutional).

2. What is the current level of service provided by the Salt Lake City Police Department?

Salt Lake City’s Police Department currently provides a level of service of 2.35 sworn officers per every 1,000 residents.

3. What current assets allow the Salt Lake City Police Department to provide this level of service?

These officers are currently housed in 202,604 square feet of physical space16. The following Exhibit IV-1 summarizes the current capital assets of the Salt Lake City Police Department. Exhibit IV-1. Current Assets – Salt Lake City Police Department

Square Land Replacement Equity Amount to

Type of Capital Facility Feet Acreage Value times Percentage equals Include in FeeComparison

FacilitiesNew Public Safety Building 146,160 3.49 100,000,000$ 100% 100,000,000$ Existing Public Safety Building 72,800 2.18 21,948,800$ 100% 21,948,800$ Pioneer Police Precinct 27,183 3.76 5,624,600$ 100% 5,624,600$ Motor Shed/Evidence Warehouse 12,300 0.38 1,864,000$ 100% 1,864,000$ Fleet Facility 16,961 3,937,500$ 100% 3,937,500$

Total Infrastructure 275,404 9.81 133,374,900$ 133,374,900$

Plus Cost of Fee-Related ResearchImpact Fee Study Update 11,150$ 100% 11,150$

Plus Impact Fee Fund Balance -$ 100% -$

Grand Total 133,386,050$ 133,386,050$

Source: Salt Lake City Police Department and Impact Fee Study Team. Notes: Replacement cost assumptions were $300 per square foot for the Public Safety Building, $200 per square foot for the Pioneer Police Precinct, $100 per square foot for the Motor Shed/Evidence Warehouse, and $232 per square foot for the Fleet Facility. All cost assumptions based on replacement cost in 2011 dollars.

16 For the sake of a forward-looking IFFP, current square footage includes the new Public Safety Building, not the current facility.

17 FINAL REPORT

As shown above, the Salt Lake City Police Department currently owns approximately $133.4 million of capital assets. These assets are used to provide the Department’s current level of service of 2.35 sworn officers per 1,000 population.


By dividing the total replacement value of the current capital assets of the Salt Lake City Police Department by the number of current households and non-residential square feet whose owners have invested in these assets, we can determine that the Department has invested $981 per existing residential unit and $0.66 per non-residential square foot. We will compare our final impact fee with this figure to determine if the two results will be similar; this represents a “check” to see if future City residents will be paying for infrastructure at a level commensurate with what existing City residents have invested in infrastructure.

5. What future growth is expected for the Salt Lake City Police Department?



The Salt Lake City Police Department has developed an Impact Fees Facilities Plan (IFFP) that identifies the capital facilities the City will need to build within the next ten years. Because City residents approved a bond to construct a $125 million Public Safety Building which will be completed in 2013, no future capacity for additional growth-related officers is needed. However, the Police Department must replace its current Police Evidence and Crime Lab in order to provide its desired level of service. This facility will be larger than the existing facility that is being replaced in order to provide capacity for processing and housing evidence associated with the projected growth in population.

The following Exhibit IV-2 summarizes the investment the Salt Lake City Police Department plans to make in capital facilities over the next ten years to continue its current level of service.

Exhibit IV-2. Salt Lake City Police Department Impact Fees Facilities Plan – 2012-2021

Square Acreage Estimated Other Funding

Type of Capital Facility Feet Cost Sourcesto Growth

Facilities

2014 Police Evidence and Crime Lab Facility 100,000 2.00 9,000,000$ 25% 2,250,000$ $ 6,750,000



Impact Fee Study 11,150$ 100% 11,150$ $ -


Grand Total 7,012,501$ 262,501$ 6,750,000$


Source: Salt Lake City Police Department and Impact Fee Study Team.

18 FINAL REPORT

As shown above, the Salt Lake City Police Department plans to invest approximately $7.0 million in capital facilities over the next ten years, $262,501 of which is impact fee eligible. The impact fee eligible portion includes a proportional share of the police evidence and crime lab facility. The remaining $6.8 million is the result of correcting an existing deficiency in available space and investing in improved service levels, and is not impact fee eligible. This amount must be funded with revenue sources other than impact fees.


The following Exhibit IV-3 takes the projected future growth from Exhibits II-1 and II-2, and the impact fee eligible costs from Exhibit IV-2 to calculate impact fees for the Salt Lake City Police Department.

If the cost of the infrastructure necessary to continue the level of service currently enjoyed by City residents to an additional 8,823 new residents (growth-related IFFP cost of $262,501), was divided by the number of households and non-residential square footage correlated to the new residents (3,803 households and 3.9 million square feet), every new household and non-residential square foot’s proportional share of the IFFP cost would be as follows:

Exhibit IV-3. Salt Lake City Police Department Impact Fee Calculation

Note:

(1) From Exhibit IV-2.


Source:

Salt Lake City Police Department and Impact Fee Study Team.

Amount to Include in Impact Fees1 262,501$

Percent of Future GrowthResidential 59%Nonresidential 41%

Amount Attributable to Future Land UseResidential 155,119$ Nonresidential 107,382$


Residential (housing units) 3,803 Nonresidential (square feet) 3,923,562

Calculated Impact FeeResidential (housing units) 41$ Nonresidential (square feet) 0.03$

The amount per household is less than the current $981 investment per household and $0.66 investment per non-residential square foot we calculated based on Exhibit IV-I of this report. This confirms that new growth is not being asked to contribute more to continue the current service level than existing residents have already invested in the current system.

The Department cannot assess fees greater than the amounts shown above. The Department may assess fees lower than these amounts, but would then experience a decline in service levels unless the Department used other revenues to make up the difference.

19 FINAL REPORT

A comparison of current investment, current impact fees and 2012 calculated police impact fees is as follows:

Residential Unit

Current Investment per Unit $981

Current Police Impact Fee $452

Proposed Police Impact Fee - 2012 $41


Current Investment per Square Foot $0.66

Current Police Impact Fee $0.30

Proposed Police Impact Fee - 2012 $0.03

20 FINAL REPORT

Section V. Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Impact Fees

In this section, we calculate impact fees for the Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands Division following the seven question method outlined in Section I of this report.

1. Who is currently served by the Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands Division?

As outlined in Section II, the Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands Division currently serves 186,440 residents in 80,362 residential units. Parks impact fees are not assessed on non-residential development.

2. What is the current level of service provided by the Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands Division?

Salt Lake City’s Parks and Public Lands Division currently provides a level of service of 5.05 acres of developed park land and trails and 6.15 acres of open space per every 1,000 residents. Total level of service is 11.2 acres per 1,000 population.

3. What current assets allow the Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands Division to provide this level of service?

The following Exhibit V-1 summarizes the current capital assets of the Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands Division. Exhibit V-1. Current Assets – Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands Division

Land Replacement Equity Amount to

Type of Capital Facility Acreage/ Value times Percentage equals Include in FeeMiles Comparison

Regional Parks 375.00 112,500,000$ 100% 112,500,000$ Community Parks 263.60 79,080,000$ 100% 79,080,000$ Neighborhood Parks 236.20 70,860,000$ 100% 70,860,000$ Special Use Parks 33.05 9,915,000$ 100% 9,915,000$ Community Gardens 2.25 337,396$ 100% 337,396$ Mini Parks 18.18 2,726,908$ 100% 2,726,908$ Greenbelt/Shared Use Pathways 32 miles 33,390,000$ 100% 33,390,000$ Open Space/Trails 1,147.48 11,474,751$ 100% 11,474,751$

Total Infrastructure 2,075.75 320,284,055$ 320,284,055$

Plus Cost of Fee-Related ResearchImpact Fee Study Update 11,150$ 100% 11,150$

Plus Impact Fee Fund Balance 1,040,221$ 100% 1,040,221$

Grand Total 321,335,426$ 321,335,426$

Source: Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands Division and Impact Fee Study Team. Notes: Replacement cost assumptions range from $10,000 to $300,000 per acre; based on current value.

21 FINAL REPORT

As shown above, the Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands Division currently owns approximately $321.3 million of capital assets. These assets are used to provide the Division’s current level of service of 5.05 acres of developed park land and trails and 6.15 acres of open space per every 1,000 residents.


By dividing the total replacement value of the current capital assets of the Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands Division by the number of current households whose owners have invested in these assets, we can determine that the Division has invested $3,999 per existing residential unit. We will compare our final impact fee with this figure to determine if the two results will be similar; this represents a “check” to see if future City residents will be paying for infrastructure at a level commensurate with what existing City residents have invested in infrastructure.

5. What future growth is expected for the Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands Division?

As shown in Exhibit II-1, the resident population of the Salt Lake City is projected to increase by 8,823 people over the ten-year planning period. As indicated in Exhibit II-2, this equates to approximately 3,803 new residential units.


The Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands Division has developed an Impact Fees Facilities Plan (IFFP) that identifies the capital facilities the City will need to build within the next ten years.

The following Exhibit V-2 summarizes the investment the Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands Division plans to make in capital facilities over the next ten years to continue its current level of service:

22 FINAL REPORT

Exhibit V-2. Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands Division Impact Fees Facilities Plan – 2012-2021

Acres/ Estimated Portion Impact Fee Other FundingType of Capital Facility Miles Cost times Attributable equals Eligible Sources

to Growth

Parks/Open Space Acquisition and Development Additional acres of developed parks to continue current level of service for growth 44.58 15,603,000$ 100% $ 15,603,000 -$ Additional acres of open space to continue current level of service for growth 54.30 543,000$ 100% $ 543,000 Additional non growth-related open space acquisition TBD 2,100,000$ 0% $ - 2,100,000$

Trail/Shared Use Pathway DevelopmentJordan and Salt Lake (McClelland) Canal Shared Use Pathway 4,000,000$ 10% $ 400,000 3,600,000$ City Creek Trail 1,200,000$ 10% $ 120,000 1,080,000$

Improvements to Existing Parks - Specific projects to be determined on an annual basis Includes playgrounds, restrooms, fields, courts, paths, pavilions, plazas, off-leash dog parksskate parks, BMX/bike parks, irrigation and landscaping, and other miscellaneous improvements

Playground Improvements 1,816,200$ 0% $ - 1,816,200$

Restroom Improvements 3,000,000$ 11% $ 300,000 2,700,000$

Multipurpose Field Improvements 950,000$ 0% $ - 950,000$

Basketball Improvements 150,000$ 0% $ - 150,000$

Tennis Court Improvements 4,613,400$ 0% $ - 4,613,400$

Volleyball Court Improvements 70,000$ 0% $ - 70,000$

Softball Field Improvements 400,000$ 0% $ - 400,000$

Baseball Field Improvements 1,400,000$ 0% $ - 1,400,000$

Jogging/Walking Path Improvements 501,608$ 3% $ 16,000 485,608$

Pavilion Improvements 1,200,000$ 0% $ - 1,200,000$

Plaza Improvements 1,200,000$ 4% $ 50,000 1,150,000$

Off-Leash Dog Park Improvements 500,000$ 3% $ 12,500 487,500$

Skate Park Improvements 700,000$ 0% $ - 700,000$

BMX/Bike Park Improvements 300,000$ 5% $ 15,000 285,000$

Miscellaneous AmenitiesDrinking Fountains 70,000$ 0% $ - 70,000$ Picnic Tables 240,000$ 0% $ - 240,000$ Horseshoes 15,000$ 0% $ - 15,000$ Water Features 250,000$ 0% $ - 250,000$ Bridges 250,000$ 0% $ - 250,000$ Bleachers 112,000$ 0% $ - 112,000$ Benches 90,000$ 0% $ - 90,000$ Earthen Trails 375,223$ 0% $ - 375,223$ Concessions 500,000$ 0% $ - 500,000$

Other ImprovementsLandscaping 2,305,000$ 0% $ - 2,305,000$ Lighting 694,770$ 0% $ - 694,770$ Irrigation 2,394,220$ 0% $ - 2,394,220$ Fencing 350,000$ 0% $ - 350,000$ Asphalt 1,182,020$ 0% $ - 1,182,020$ Signage 312,093$ 0% $ - 312,093$

Cemetery 2,000,000$ 0% $ - 2,000,000$

Total Improvements to Existing Parks 27,941,534$ 393,500$ 27,548,034$

Percent for Art 500,000$ 0% $ - 500,000$

Cost Overruns 300,000$ 0% $ - 300,000$


Plus Cost of CIP/Fee-Related Research

Impact Fee Study 11,150$ 100% $ 11,150 -$ Parks Recovery Plan 50,000$ 0% $ - 50,000$ Parks, Open Space and Trails Master Plan 75,000$ 5% $ 3,750 71,250$ Jordan River Master Plan 100,000$ 5% $ 5,000 95,000$ Foothills Recreation and Management Plan 75,000$ 5% $ 3,750 71,250$

Total Infrastructure Plus CIP/Fee-Related Research 52,498,684$ 17,083,150$ 35,415,534$

Minus Impact Fee Balance 1,184,928$ 100% $ 1,184,928 -$

Grand Total 51,313,756$ 15,898,222$ 35,415,534$

Source: Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands Division and Impact Fee Study Team.

As shown above, the Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands Division plans to invest approximately $51.3 million in capital facilities over the next ten years, $15.9 million of which is impact fee eligible. The remaining $35.4 million is the result of correcting existing deficiencies in facilities and investing in improved service levels, and is not impact fee eligible. This amount must be funded with revenue sources other than impact fees.

To continue the current level of service of 11.2 acres per 1,000, the Division will need to add 98.88 acres of growth-related parks and open space acreage. These acres will be acquired and

23 FINAL REPORT

developed according to the speed and geographic pattern of anticipated growth. The City desires to further increase the level of service for open space. As this is an upgrade or improvement to the current level of service, it cannot be financed with impact fees. Instead, the Division intends to allocate the remaining balance from the Open Space bond ($2.1 million) to achieve this goal.

To continue the current level of service for trails and pathways, which are measured in miles instead of acres, the City intends to construct two shared use pathways – the Jordan and Salt Lake Canal, and the City Creek Trail. Only a small portion of these projects (10%) is impact fee eligible. This percentage is tied to the historical increase in multi-modal trip generation (i.e., bike traffic) on greenbelts and shared use pathways. The other 90% of the projects will need to be funded with sources other than impact fees.

The Division intends to expend approximately $27.9 million over the next ten years to make improvements to existing City parks and facilities. A very small percentage ($393,500 or 1%) of these improvements relate to adding capacity to existing amenities to support anticipated growth. The remainder of the costs for these improvements must come from sources other than impact fees.

Improvements to the City’s Cemeteries, allocations to the Percent for Art program, cost overruns for repair and replacement projects, and the Parks Recovery Plan are not impact fee eligible. A small percentage (5%) of the Parks, Open Space, and Trails Master Plan, the Jordan River Parkway Master Plan, and the Foothills Recreation and Management Plan is impact fee eligible, as these studies will facilitate Impact Fees Facilities Planning.


The following Exhibit V-3 takes the projected future growth from Exhibits II-1 and II-2, and the impact fee eligible costs from Exhibit V-2 to calculate impact fees for the Division’s Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails.

If the cost of the infrastructure necessary to continue the level of service currently enjoyed by City residents to an additional 8,823 new residents (growth-related IFFP cost of $15.9 million), was divided by the number of households correlated to the new residents (3,803 households), every new household’s proportional share of the IFFP cost would be as follows:

Exhibit V-3. Salt Lake City Parks , Recreation, Open Space and Trails Impact Fee Calculation

Note:

(1) From Exhibit V-2.


Source:

Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands Division and Impact Fee Study Team.

Amount to Include in Impact Fees1 15,898,222$

Percent of Future GrowthResidential 100%

Amount Attributable to Future Land UseResidential 15,898,222$


Residential (housing units) 3,803

Calculated Impact FeeResidential (housing units) 4,180$

24 FINAL REPORT

The amount per household is close to the current $3,999 investment per household we calculated based on Exhibit V-I of this report.

The Division cannot assess fees greater than the amounts shown above. The Division may assess fees lower than these amounts, but would then experience a decline in service levels unless the Division used other revenues to make up the difference.

A comparison of current investment, current impact fees and 2012 calculated parks and recreation impact fees is as follows:

Residential Unit

Current Investment per Unit $3,999

Current Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Impact Fee $ 681

Proposed Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Impact Fee- 2012 $4,180

25 FINAL REPORT

Section VI. Roadway (Streets and Transportation) Impact Fees

In this section, we calculate impact fees for the Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions following the seven question method outlined in Section I of this report.

1. Who is currently served by the Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions?

As outlined in Section II, the Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions currently serve 186,440 residents in 80,362 residential units, and 82,909,311 square feet of non-residential square footage (office, retail, industrial and institutional).

Unlike police, fire, and parks fee calculations in which fees are calculated for residential units and nonresidential square feet, roadway fees are calculated for residential and nonresidential land uses based on street and facility usages generated by each land use type. Exhibit VI-1 below shows the specific allocation of existing and projected square feet for Salt Lake City by land use type over the next ten years.

Exhibit VI-1. Salt Lake City Growth Projections by Square Feet and Land Use – 2012-2021

Land Net Increase in Use Square Feet

Residential 119,766,645 125,434,426 5,667,781 59% Single-Family 78,284,870 81,989,587 3,704,717 39% Multi-Family 41,481,775 43,444,839 1,963,064 20%

Nonresidential 82,909,311 86,832,873 3,923,562 41% Retail 5,019,924 5,255,860 235,936 3% Office 15,050,719 15,758,103 707,384 7% Industrial 62,838,668 65,818,909 2,980,241 31%

Total 202,675,956 212,267,299 9,591,343 100%

Percent of 2010 2020 Total Growth

Square Feet

Source: Salt Lake City and Impact Fee Study Team.

Based on this distribution, we calculate trip generation based on figures from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual. The trip generation figures estimate the number of p.m. peak hour trips generated by particular land uses. Peak hour trips are appropriate for this calculation because street infrastructure is sized according to the expected peak. Since peak hour trips will be used to distribute infrastructure costs, peak hour estimates should be employed.

Exhibit VI-2 below presents trip generation rates for land uses in Salt Lake City.

26 FINAL REPORT

Exhibit VI-2. Trip Generation Rates by Land Use Category

Notes:

(1) Reflects weekday traffic generation patterns, weekday p.m. peak hour trip rate formula.

(2) Reflects average of office, commercial, retail and industrial land uses, weekday p.m. peak hour trip rate formula.

Source:

International Transportation Engineering Trip Generation Manual.

Trip GenerationLand Use Category Relative Weighting 1

Single Family Units 1.0

Multi Family Units 0.7

1,000 retail square feet 5.0

1,000 office square feet 1.3

1,000 industrial square feet 0.9

2. What is the current level of service provided by the Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Division?

Salt Lake City’s Streets and Transportation Divisions currently provide an average level of service of “C” within the City roadway network.17

3. What current assets allow the Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Division to provide this level of service?

The following Exhibit VI-3 summarizes the current capital assets of the Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions18.

17 Level-of- Service C describes at or near free-flow operations. Ability to maneuver through lanes is noticeably restricted and lane changes require more driver awareness. Minimum vehicle spacing is about 220ft(67m) or 11 car lengths. At LOS C most experienced drivers are comfortable, roads remain safely below but efficiently close to capacity, and posted speed is maintained. Minor incidents may still have no affect but localized service will have noticeable affects and traffic delays will form behind the incident. This is the targeted LOS for some urban and most rural highways. 18 As vehicles and equipment are not eligible to be purchased with impact fees, these capital items are not included in the above capital facilities inventory.

27 FINAL REPORT

Exhibit VI-3. Current Assets – Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions

Amount toReplacement Equity Include in Fee

Type of Capital Facility Value times % equals Comparison

Roadways1,843 lane miles of roadway 1,105,800,000$ 100% $ 1,105,800,000

Bridges23 bridges 23,000,000$ 100% $ 23,000,000

Curb and Gutter4,750,000 lineal feet of curb and gutter 199,500,000$ 100% $ 199,500,000

Sidewalks

20,000,000 sf of sidewalk 200,000,000$ 100% $ 200,000,000 12,000 accessible ramps 45,600,000$ 100% $ 45,600,000

Drive Approaches

7,680,000 sf of concrete drive approaches 99,840,000$ 100% $ 99,840,000

Bike Facilities

83 linear miles of bike lanes incl. in roadway cost 100% $ -

Traffic Signals200 Traffic Signals 32,000,000$ 100% $ 32,000,000

Crosswalk Lights31 flashing crosswalk lights 1,860,000$ 100% $ 1,860,000 79 flashing school crosswalk lights 1,975,000$ 100% $ 1,975,000

Driver Feedback Signs44 driver feedback signs 352,000$ 100% $ 352,000

FacilitiesStreets Facility 9,250,000$ 100% $ 9,250,000 Fleet Facility 2,520,000$ 100% $ 2,520,000 Salt Storage 1,017,405$ 100% $ 1,017,405

Total Infrastructure $1,722,714,405 $1,722,714,405

Plus Cost of Fee-Related ResearchImpact Fee Study Update $11,150 100% $ 11,150

Plus Impact Fee Fund Balance $6,529,700 100% $ 6,529,700

Grand Total $1,729,255,255 $1,729,255,255

Source: Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions and Impact Fee Study Team.

As shown above, the Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions currently own approximately $1.7 billion of capital assets. These assets are used to provide the Divisions’ current level of service of “C.”


By dividing the total replacement value of the current capital assets of the Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions by the number of current households and non-residential square feet whose owners have invested in these assets, we can determine that the Divisions have invested $10,161 per existing single-family residential unit; $7,113 per existing multi-family residential unit; $50.81 per existing square foot of retail development; $13.21 per existing square foot of office development; and $9.15 per existing square foot of industrial development. We will compare our final impact fee with this figure to determine if the two results will be similar; this represents a “check” to see if future City residents will be paying for infrastructure at a level commensurate with what existing City residents have invested in infrastructure.

28 FINAL REPORT

5. What future growth is expected for the Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions?



The Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions have developed an Impact Fees Facilities Plan (IFFP) that identifies the capital facilities the City will need to build within the next ten years.

The following Exhibit VI-4 summarizes the investment the Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions plan to make in capital facilities over the next ten years to continue its current level of service:

Exhibit VI-4. Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions Impact Fees Facilities Plan – 2012-2021

Estimated Portion Impact Fee Other FundingType of Capital Facility Cost times Attributable equals Eligible Sources

to Growth

Roadway Projects1300 South Viaduct Rehabilitation 10,000,000$ 0% $ - 10,000,000$ 500/700 South - 2800 West to 5600 West 14,760,000$ 57% $ 8,413,200 6,346,800$ ADA Accessible Ramps 1,300,000$ 0% $ - 1,300,000$ Sidewalk Rehabilitation/Sawcutting 700,000$ 0% $ - 700,000$ Deteriorated Sidewalk Replacement 1,300,000$ 0% $ - 1,300,000$ Indiana Avenue/900 South from Redwood to 3600 West 3,640,000$ 57% $ 2,074,800 1,565,200$ Gladiola Street - 1650 South to 2100 South 4,000,000$ 57% $ 2,280,000 1,720,000$ 4400 West from 700 South to 850 South 1,600,000$ 57% $ 912,000 688,000$ Street Pavement Overlay and Preservation 7,000,000$ 0% $ - 7,000,000$ Local Street Reconstruction 6,500,000$ 0% $ - 6,500,000$ Major Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of City Streets 8,360,000$ 0% $ - 8,360,000$ Concrete Street Rehabilitation 2,000,000$ 0% $ - 2,000,000$ Bridge Rehabilitation 180,000$ 0% $ - 180,000$ Percent for Art 500,000$ 0% $ - 500,000$ Cost Overruns 300,000$ 0% $ - 300,000$

62,140,000$ 13,680,000$ 48,460,000$ Transportation Projects

Replacement Traffic Signals 2,400,000$ 0% -$ 2,400,000$ Pedestrian Safety Devices 250,000$ 10% $ 25,000 225,000$ Bike Lane/Pedestrian Improvements - Citywide 7,020,000$ 10% $ 702,000 6,318,000$ New Traffic Signals 1,440,000$ 100% $ 1,440,000 -$ 1300 East Traffic Safety - Phase 2 500,000$ 0% $ - 500,000$ Street Lighting Replacement 200,000$ 0% $ - 200,000$

11,810,000$ $ 2,167,000 $ 9,643,000

Total Infrastructure $73,950,000 15,847,000$ 58,103,000$


Impact Fee Study 11,150$ 100% $ 11,150 -$ Transportation Master Plan 200,000$ 10% $ 20,000 180,000$

Minus Impact Fee Balance 5,441,542$ 100% $ 5,441,542 -$

Grand Total $68,719,608 10,436,608$ 58,283,000$

Source: Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions and Impact Fee Study Team.

29 FINAL REPORT

As shown above, the Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions plan to invest approximately $68.7 million in capital facilities over the next ten years, $10.4 million of which is impact fee eligible. The remaining $58.3 million is the result of correcting an existing deficiency in available space and investing in improved service levels, and is not impact fee eligible. This amount must be funded with revenue sources other than impact fees.

The only major roadway projects that are impact fee eligible are four projects within the Westside Industrial Area – 500/700 South from 2800 West to 5600 West; Indiana Avenue/900 South from Redwood to 3600 West; Gladiola from 1650 South to 2100 South; and 4400 West from 700 South to 850 South. 57% of each of these projects is impact fee eligible, as this is the percent of each project related to the widening and expansion of each roadway for projected growth. The remainder of these projects costs must be funded from sources other than impact fees.

100% of new traffic signals are impact fee eligible, as these facilities would not be installed were it not for growth-related congestion at various intersections. The growth-related portion of facilities such as pedestrian safety devices and bike lane installations are impact fee eligible as well.

As indicated in Exhibit VI-1, 59% of new growth over the next ten years is anticipated to be residential development, while the remaining 41% is anticipated to be non-residential development. As indicated in Exhibit VI-5 below, of the $9.5 million in impact fee eligible projects, approximately $1.4 million is associated with growth-related demand citywide from residential uses. This represents 59% of the growth-related costs of all transportation projects, including the Transportation Master Plan and Impact Fee Study. No part of the four Westside roadway projects is attributed to residential growth.

The remaining $8.1 million represents growth-related demand citywide from non-residential uses. This includes 41% of the growth-related costs of all transportation projects, including the Transportation Master Plan and Impact Fee Study, as well as 100% of the growth-related costs of the four Westside roadway projects. The four Westside roadway projects primarily benefit non-residential uses by providing infrastructure to connect products, employees, and freight to other parts of the City.

Exhibit VI-5. Distribution of IFFP Costs by Development Type

Impact Fee Project AllocationResidential Non-Residential

1,296,909$ 9,139,700$

Total 10,436,608$

Exhibits VI-7 and VI-8 identify how these costs can be most appropriately recovered through separate residential and non-residential roadway impact fees.

30 FINAL REPORT

7. What impact fee is required to pay for the new capital facilities? As noted above, the calculation of roadway impact fees is based on the projected number of trips each land-use type will generate in the next ten years. Using the current land use by square foot within Salt Lake City found in Exhibit VI-1, and the trip generation figures from Exhibit VI-2, total current trips can be distributed to each land use. Exhibit VI-6 below displays the projected trip generation distribution.

Exhibit VI-6. Salt Lake City Distribution by Weighted Trip Generation – 2010-2020

Current Weighted Trip New Weighted TripLand Use Development Generation Factors Percent Development Generation Factors Percent

Single Family Units (*1.0) 42,270 42,270 25% 2,000 2,000 25%

Multi Family Units (*0.7) 38,092 26,664 16% 1,803 1,262 16%

Retail Square Feet (*5.0/1,000 sf) 5,019,924 25,100 15% 235,896 1,179 15%

Office Square Feet (*1.3/1,000 sf) 15,050,719 19,566 11% 707,184 919 11%

Industrial Square Feet (*0.9/1,000 sf) 62,868,338 56,582 33% 2,950,812 2,656 33%

Total 170,182 8,017 100%

Source: Salt Lake City and Impact Fee Study Team.

As shown above, the number of daily trips in Salt Lake City is expected to increase by approximately 8,017 trips by 2021. 25% of those trips will be for single-family residential uses; 16% will be for multi-family residential uses; 15% will be for retail uses; 11% will be for office uses; and 33% will be for industrial uses.

Exhibits VI-7 and VI-8 below use the distribution of the IFFP by weighted trip generation figures from Exhibit VI-6 and the growth-related IFFP from Exhibit VI-4 to calculate roadway impact fees for the Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions.

Exhibit VI-7 relates to the portion of the IFFP that represents the trip demand generated by new residential development citywide.

31 FINAL REPORT

Exhibit VI-7. Salt Lake City Residential Roadway Fee Calculation

Note:

(1) From Exhibit VI-4; 59% of the growth-related costs of all transportation projects and studies.


Source:

Impact Fee Study Team.

Amount to Include in Impact Fees1 $1,296,909

Percent of Future Trips Residential Single Family 65% Multi Family 35%

Allocated Value by Land Use CategoryResidential Single Family 847,718$ Multi Family 449,191$

Future Land Uses2

Residential (total dwelling units) Single Family 2,000 Multi Family 1,803

Calculated Impact FeeResidential (per dwelling unit) Single Family 424$ Multi Family 249$

The amount per household is less than the current $10,161 per single family residential unit and $7,113 per multi-family residential unit investment per household we calculated based on Exhibit VI-3 of this report. This confirms that new residential growth is not being asked to contribute more to continue the current service level than existing residents have already invested in the current system.

Exhibit VI-8 relates to the portion of the IFFP that represents the trip demand generated by new non-residential development citywide.

32 FINAL REPORT

Exhibit VI-8. Salt Lake City Non-Residential Roadway Fee Calculation

Note:

(1) From Exhibit VI-4; 100% of roadway projects in Westside Industrial Area, plus 41% of all transportation projects. Credited 100% of impact fee fund balance as these revenues was paid into the City by non-residential development.


Source:

Impact Fee Study Team.

Amount to Include in Impact Fees1 $9,139,700

Percent of Future Trips Nonresidential Retail 8% Office 18% Industrial 74%

Allocated Value by Land Use CategoryNonresidential Retail 773,024$ Office 1,647,808$ Industrial 6,740,554$

Future Land Uses2

Nonresidential (in square feet) Retail 235,936 Office 707,384 Industrial 2,980,241

Calculated Impact FeeNon-Residential (per square foot) Retail 3.28$ Office 2.33$ Industrial 2.26$

The amount per square foot is less than the current $50.81 per square foot investment for retail development, $13.21 per square foot investment for office development, and $9.15 per square foot investment for industrial development we calculated based on Exhibit VI-I of this report. This confirms that new non-residential growth is not being asked to contribute more to continue the current service level than existing residents have already invested in the current system.

The Divisions cannot assess fees greater than the amounts shown above. The Divisions may assess fees lower than these amounts, but would then experience a decline in service levels unless the Division used other revenues to make up the difference.

A comparison of current investment, current impact fees and 2012 calculated roadways impact fees is as follows:

Residential Unit

Current Investment per Single Family Unit $10,161

Current Investment per Multi Family Unit $ 7,113

Current Roadways Impact Fee no fee is currently in effect

Proposed Residential Roadways Impact Fee - 2012 $ 424

Proposed Residential Roadways Impact Fee - 2012 $ 249

33 FINAL REPORT


Current Retail Investment per Square Foot $50.81

Current Office Investment per Square Foot $13.21

Current Industrial Investment per Square Foot $9.15

Current Retail Roadway Fee per Square Foot $8.62

Current Office Roadway Fee per Square Foot $4.20

Current Industrial Roadway Fee Square Foot $2.00

Proposed Retail Roadways Impact Fee - 2012 $3.28

Proposed Office Roadways Impact Fee - 2012 $2.33

Proposed Industrial Roadways Impact Fee - 2012 $2.26

The significant decrease in non-residential impact fee is related to the changing nature of the Streets and Transportation Division’s growth-related Impact Fees Facilities Plans. As the City addresses future congestion created by growth, it has few options to widen or extend existing roads. Instead, it must consider the incremental modal shift by residents and commuters from vehicles to bikes, and create capacity for these alternative transportation forms as well.

These capacity-creating capital facilities benefit all land uses, residential and non-residential alike. Therefore, the City has determined it is appropriate to spread the cost of these facility improvements among all land uses. Residential uses will be assessed a modest fee to recover their proportional share of the growth-related portion of the Impact Fees Facilities Plan, and non-residential roadway fees will be reduces as the total cost is spread over more users.

34 FINAL REPORT

Section VII. Summary

The following Exhibit VII-1 summarizes the Fire, Police, Parks and Roadways Impact Fees for Salt Lake City.

Exhibit VII-1. Salt Lake City Impact Fee Summary

Fire

Residential (per dwelling unit) 119$ Nonresidential (per square foot) 0.32$

Police


Parks

Residential (total dwelling units) 4,180$ Nonresidential (per square foot) -$

Roadways

Residential (per dwelling unit) Single Family 424$ Multi Family 249$ Commercial (per square foot) Retail 3.28$ Office 2.33$ Industrial 2.26$

TOTAL FEES

Residential (per dwelling unit) Single Family 4,764$ Multi Family 4,589$ Commercial (per square foot) Retail 3.63$ Office 2.68$ Industrial 2.61$

The current impact fees being assessed by Salt Lake City to new development are identified in Exhibit VII-2 below:

35 FINAL REPORT

Exhibit VII-2. Salt Lake City Current Impact Fee Summary

Fire


Police


Parks

Residential (total dwelling units) 681$ Nonresidential (per square foot) -$

Roadways

Residential (per dwelling unit) Single Family -$ Multi Family -$ Commercial (per square foot) Retail 8.62$ Office 4.20$ Industrial 2.00$

TOTAL FEESResidential (per dwelling unit) Single Family 1,618$ Multi Family 1,618$ Commercial (per square foot) Retail 9.24$ Office 4.82$ Industrial 2.62$

City Participation

Not all of the capital facilities listed in the IFFPs are 100 percent growth-related. Many projects are not growth related at all, and a few projects are only partially growth-related. The City would assume the responsibility of paying for the non-growth portions of these capital facilities. These payments would come from other sources of revenue such as general funds, state revenue-sharing, federal grants, user fees, bond proceeds, etc.

To arrive at this participation amount, the expected impact fee revenue and any shared facility amount needs to be subtracted from the total IFFP value. Exhibit VII-3 divides the City’s participation amount into two categories:

• Required – the non-growth portion of partially impact fee eligible projects. This amount must be funded in order to maintain the integrity of the impact fee program.

• Discretionary – strictly non-growth related facilities. The City is not under any obligation to fund these capital facilities within a certain timeframe (although this could result in a decrease in the level of service over time).

36 FINAL REPORT

Exhibit VII-3. Salt Lake City IFFP Participation Summary, 2012-2021

Source:

Salt Lake City and Impact Fee Study Team.

Required Discretionary Total

Fire 8,467,000$ $0 8,467,000$

Police 6,750,000$ $0 6,750,000$

Parks $4,967,500 $31,495,200 36,462,700$

Roadways 17,043,000$ 41,240,000$ 58,283,000$

Total 22,010,500$ 72,735,200$ 94,745,700$

The total amount the City would be required to contribute over 10 years, should the City adopt impact fees at the calculated amount, will be approximately $22.0 million. The remaining $72.8 million will be necessary for the City to fund in order to complete the 10-Year IFFP, but can be considered discretionary.

Implementation Recommendations

As City Council evaluates whether or not to adopt the Impact Fees Facilities Plans and impact fees presented in this report, we also offer the following information for your consideration. Please note that this information will be included in the amended impact fee enabling ordinance.

Specialized assessments. If permit applicants are concerned they would be paying more than their fair share of future infrastructure purchases, the applicant can request an individualized assessment to ensure they will only be paying their proportional share. The applicant would be required to prepare and pay for all costs related to such an assessment.

Donations. If the City receives donations for capital facilities listed on the IFFP, they must account for the donation in one of two ways. If the donation is for a non- or partially growth-related facility, the donation can contribute to the City’s General Fund participation along with more traditional forms, such as revenue transfers from the General Fund. If, however, the donation is for a growth-related project in the IFFP, the donor’s impact fees should be reduced dollar for dollar. This means that the City will either credit the donor or reimburse the donor for that portion of the impact fee.

Credit/reimbursement. If a developer constructs or contributes all or part of a growth-related project that would otherwise be financed with impact fees, that developer must receive a credit against the fees owed for this category. This prevents “double dipping” by the City.

The presumption would be that builders/developers owe the entirety of the impact fee amount until they make the City aware of the construction or contribution. If credit or reimbursement is due, the governmental entity must enter into an agreement with the fee payer that specifies the amount of the credit or the amount, time and form of reimbursement.

Impact fee accounting. The City should maintain Impact Fee Funds separate and apart from the General Fund. All current and future impact fee revenue should be immediately deposited into this account and withdrawn only to pay for growth-related capital facilities of the same category.

37 FINAL REPORT

General Funds should be reserved solely for the receipt of tax revenues, grants, user fees and associated interest earnings, and ongoing operational expenses including the repair and replacement of existing capital facilities not related to growth.

Spending policy. The City should establish and adhere to a policy governing their expenditure of monies from the Impact Fee Fund. The Fund should be prohibited from paying for any operational expenses and the repair and replacement or upgrade of existing infrastructure not necessitated by growth. In cases when growth-related capital facilities are constructed, impact fees are an allowable revenue source as long as only new growth is served. In cases when new capital facilities are expected to partially replace existing capacity and to partially serve new growth, cost sharing between the General Fund or other sources of revenue Impact Fee Fund should be allowed on a pro rata basis.

Update procedures. The fees calculated in this study can be updated as the City monitors the future development patterns. Fees can be updated on an annual basis using an inflation factor for building material from a reputable source such as McGraw Hill’s Engineering News Record.

Certification. As required by Utah Code 11-36a-306:

"I certify that the attached Impact Fee Facilities Plan includes only the costs of public facilities that are allowed under the Impact Fees Act and actually incurred or projected to be incurred or encumbered within six years after the day on which each impact fee is paid. The Impact Fee Facilities Plan does not include costs of operation and maintenance of public facilities; costs for qualifying public facilities that will raise the level of service for the facilities, through impact fees, above the level of service that is supported by existing residents; an expense for overhead, unless the expense is calculated pursuant to a methodology that is consistent with generally accepted cost accounting practices and the methodological standards set forth by the federal Office of Management and Budget for federal grant reimbursement; and complies in each and every relevant respect with the Impact Fees Act." "I certify that the attached impact fee analysis includes only the costs of public facilities that are allowed under the Impact Fees Act and actually incurred or projected to be incurred or encumbered within six years after the day on which each impact fee is paid. The Impact Fee Analysis does not include costs of operation and maintenance of public facilities; costs for qualifying public facilities that will raise the level of service for the facilities, through impact fees, above the level of service that is supported by existing residents; an expense for overhead, unless the expense is calculated pursuant to a methodology that is consistent with generally accepted cost accounting practices and the methodological standards set forth by the federal Office of Management and Budget for federal grant reimbursement; offsets costs with grants or other alternate sources of payment; and complies in each and every relevant respect with the Impact Fees Act."

Anne Wescott, President Galena Consulting

Exhibit B Option B Ordinance Adopting and Amending the Impact Fee Facilities Plan

SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of2012

(Impact fees amendments and adoption of impact fees facilities plan)

An ordinance amending sections 18.98.060.E and 18.98.060.F of the Salt Lake City

Code, relating to impact fees, and adopting an impact fees facilities plan. ,. "'-i< :'>!\~d

WHEREAS, chapter 18.98 ofthe Salt Lake City Code (Impact Fees) and.,chapter! 1-36a

of the Utah Code govern the preparation and adoption of impact fee facilitie~pJ~~1 and impact

fee analyses; and

WHEREAS, it is necessary and desirable to adjust the amounLofthe impact fees shown

in the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule, and to revise certailYsections of chapter -J-

18.98.060 (Buildings and Construction: Impact Fee)!) ofth~Salt Lake City Code to eliminate

language requiring that impact fee waivers forilff<)rdable.housing be reimbursed by the general

fund and to revise the service areas for roadway impact fees; and

WHEREAS, after a public hearing ori'this matter the city council has determined that

adopting this ordinance is in the'{city:;sbest interests. . .-

NOW, THERiEF9~,·bJJ'it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:

SECTION i.Amending text of Salt Lake City Code subsection 18.98.060.E. That

subsection 18~98.060:E of the Salt Lake City Code (Buildings and Construction: Impact Fees:

Exemptions), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows:

E The following housing ismay be exempt from the payment of impact fees, to the following extent:

I Under the revised version of the Utah Impact Fees Act, the term "capital facilities plan" has been replaced by "impact fee facilities plan", The use of'lcapitaJ facilities plan", "capital infrastructure plan" and "impact fee facilities plan'l generally refer to the same document.

1. A one hundred percent (100%) exemption shall be granted for rental housing for which the annualized rent per dwelling unit does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the annual income of a family whose annual income equals sixty percent (60%) of the median income for Salt Lake City, as determined by BUD;

2. A one hundred percent (100%) exemption shall be granted for nonrental housing for which the mlliualized mOligage payment does not exceed thirty percent (3 O%} of the annual income of a family whose annual income equals eighty percent (80%) or the median income for Salt Lake City, as determined by BUD; ...

. ..

3. A seventy five percent (75%) exemption shall be granted for nonr.(WtaLhousing for which the annualized mortgage payment does not exceed thirty p~rcdt:E30%}6f the annual income of a fan1ily whose aJillual income equals ninety percept{90%) of the median income for Salt Lake City, as determined by BUD; and, '0

4. A fifty percent (50%) exemption shall be granted for nonrental housing for which the annualized mortgage payment does not exceed thirtypercent (30%) of the annual income of a family whose annual income equals one hundred percent (100%) of the median income for Salt Lake City, as determined by HUD.

The sit)' shall use monies in-ils-general funtl,topay for the e}[empted developmenc ac--tiv-ity. .

SECTION 2. Amending text od&ltL~j(iCitv Code subsection 18.98.030. That

subsection 18.98.030 of the Salt L~I~e6ity Code (Buildings and Construction: Impact Fees:

Applicability), shall be, and hereby is,;amended to read as follows:

18.98.030: APPLICABILITY:· ',"::1

The coliectiQn of impact fees shall apply to all new development activity in the city unless otherwisy ptovlded herein. Until any impact fee required by this chapter has been paid in full, no 15uilding permit for any development activity shall be issued. A stop work ordei' shall helsslled on any development activity for which the applicable impact fee has not beell paid in full.

A Park impact fees shall apply only to new residential development activity.

B. Roadway faoilities impact fees shall apply cO any development astivity whish makes improvemenls to any lanB in the northwest quadrant or the westside industl~

G, The movement of a structure onto a lot shall be considered development activity and shall be subject to the impact fee provisions, unless otherwise provided herein.

2

SECTION 3. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code subsection IS.9S.040.A.3. That

subsection IS.9S.040.A.3 of the Salt Lake City Code (Buildings and Construction: Impact Fees:

Service Areas), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows:

3. For the purpose of roadway facilities impact fees, the service area shall be the .... westside industrial area alld the IlOfthwest quadrant all of the incorporated areaofthe city, including future annexed area. .' \h .

SECTION 4. Adopting the Impact Fees Facilities Plan. That the city council hereby

adopts the Impact Fees Facilities Plan dated April 9, 2012, which plan was prepared by Galena

Consulting and is which is available upon request at the office oftlie,~alt Lal(e City Division of

I-lousing and Neighborhood Development.

SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shillltal(e effect on September 1,2012.

Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ___ day of

______ , 2012.

CHAIRPERSON

ATTEST:

CITY RECORDER

Transmitteg,to)he Mayor on __________ _

Mayor's'Action: __ Approved. Vetoed.

MAYOR ATTEST:

3


(Impact fees amendments and adoption of impact fees facilities plan)

An ordinance amending sections IS.9S.060.E and IS.9S.060.F of the Salt Lake City

Code, relating to impact fees, and adopting an impact fees facilities plan.

WHEREAS, chapter IS.9S of the Salt Lake City Code (Impact Fees) and chapter 11-36a

of the Utah Code govern the preparation and adoption of impact fee facilities plans' and impact

fee analyses; and

WHEREAS, it is necessary and desirable to adjust the amount of the impact fees shown

in the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule, and to revise section IS.98.060 (Buildings and

Construction: Impact Fees: Exemptions) to eliminate language requiring that impact fee waivers

for affordable housing be reimbursed by the general fund; and

WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that

adopting this ordinance is in the city's best interests.

NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:

SECTION I. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code subsection IS.9S.060.E. That

subsection IS.9S.060.E of the Salt Lake City Code (Buildings and Construction: Impact Fees:

Exemptions), shall be, arid hereby is, amended to read as follows:

E. The following housing may be exempt from the payment of impact fees, to the following extent:

I Under the revised version of the Utah Impact Fees Act, the term "capital facilities plan" has been replaced by "impact fee facilities plan". The use of "capital facilities plan", "capital infrastructure plan" and "impact fee facilities plan" generally refer to the same document.

I. A one hundred percent (100%) exemption shall be granted for rental housing for which the annualized rent per dwelling unit does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the armual income of a family whose annual income equals sixty percent (60%) of the median income for Salt Lake City, as determined by BUD;

2. A one hundred percent (100%) exemption shall be granted for nomental housing for which the armualized mortgage payment does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the annual income of a family whose annual income equals eighty percent (80%) of the median income for Salt Lake City, as determined by BUD;

3. A seventy five percent (75%) exemption shall be granted for nomental housing for which the annualized mortgage payment does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the armual income ofa fanlily whose annual income equals ninety percent (90%) of the median income for Salt Lake City, as determined by BUD; and

4. A fifty percent (50%) exemption shall be granted for nomental housing for which the annualized mortgage payment does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the annual income ofa family whose annual income equals one hundred percent (100%) of the median income for Salt Lake City, as determined by BUD.

SECTION 2. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code subsection 18.98.030. That

subsection 18.98.030 of the Salt Lake City Code (Buildings and Construction: Impact Fees:

Applicability), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows:

18.98.030: APPLICABILITY:

The collection of impact fees shall apply to all new development activity in the city wlless otherwise provided herein. Until any impact fee required by this chapter has been paid in full, no building permit for any development activity shall be issued. A stop work order shall be issued on any development activity for which the applicable impact fee has not been paid in [,ill.

A. Park impact fees shall apply only to new residential development activity.

B. The movement of a structure onto a lot shall be considered development activity and shall be subject to the impact fee provisions, unless otherwise provided herein.

SECTION 3. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code subsection 18.98.040.A.3. That

subsection 18.98.040.A.3 of the Salt Lake City Code (Buildings and Construction: Impact Fees:

Service Areas), shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows:

2

3. For the purpose of roadway facilities impact fees, the service area shall be all of the incorporated area of the city, including future annexed area.

SECTION 4. Adopting the Impact Fees Facilities Plan. That the city council hereby

adopts the Impact Fees Facilities Plan dated April 9, 2012, which plan was prepared by Galena

Consulting and is which is available upon request at the office of the Salt Lake City Division of

Housing and Neighborhood Development.

SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on September 1,2012.

Passed by the City Council of Salt Lalce City, Utah, this ___ day of

______ ,2012.

CHAIRPERSON

ATTEST:

CITY RECORDER

Transmitted to the Mayor on __________ _

Mayor's Action: __ Approved. Vetoed.

MAYOR ATTEST:

CITY RECORDER

(SEAL)

3

APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney's Office

Date:_¥,,'1'-'-~7'"1-==--LL.<''---_

By: d~4'0J;.~?=---c--Paul

•

Bill No. ~ __ 0[2012 Published: _~ _____ _

4

Exhibit A Ordinance Adopting and Amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule


(Amending the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule to modify impact fees)

WHEREAS, on May 17,2011 the Salt Lake City Council ("city council") adopted

Ordinances 2011-23, 2011-24 and 2011-25 to authorize and create the Salt Lake City 'r ','

Consolidated Fee Schedule; and

WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule is propaseqi(i::bt<lopiiended to .e"":'- .. -

modify impact fees as shown in the attached Exhibit "A"; and

WHEREAS, the city council finds (i) the fees set forth in Eihibit"A" are necessary,

reasonable, and equitable in relation to regulatory and service co'sts incurred by the City; (ii) that

such fees are in accordance with Utah Code chapteLl1-36a {Utah Impact Fees Act); and (iii)

,.~.~,\_ "v

adoption of this ordinance reasonably furthers.the'h(;)'alth,'Bafety, and general welfare of the , '-.: <

citizens of Salt Lake City.

NOW, THEREFORE, be it ortlaine~'bythe City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: . '

SECTION 1. The Salt LalceCity Consolidated Fee Schedule dated .Tune 14,2011 shall

be, and hereby is, amegde\l, in pertihent part, to reflect the fees set forth in the attached Exhibit

"A" relating to impa~ife\;'s~ ;;" <'."

SECTION 2, ~ne official copy of the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule shall be

revised 10' include the fees set forth in the attached Exhibit "A" and a copy of thereof shall be

published on the official Salt Lake City website.

SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective September 1, 2012.


______ , 2012.

CHAIRPERSON

ATTEST:

CITY RECORDER

Transmitted to the Mayor on ____________ '

Mayor's Action: __ Approved. __ Vetoed.

ATTEST:

CITY RECORDER

(SEAL)

Bill No. ~ __ 00012 Published: ,--;::c=~::::":':;~""';-;-.,;;;' -=;;; HE ~ A TTY -#23024-v3-lmpacUee ~ on:!,.., ~mendlllent_20J 2 _ AIt~ 2. DOC

-;,

MAYOR

2

EXHIBIT "A"

IMPACT FEES For questions regarding Impact fees contact: 801.535.7228',

Service Fee Additiollal ' Section Information

Residential Commercial I Impact Fees (Per dwelling unit, Industrial

single or multi" (Per square foot, family) retaill office and ',,,.

industrial) ,'" ,. , Fire $485 119 $0.32 "

, 18.98.190 Park _$6&1 3 999 No ch'Lrge "foe" ,\, 18.98.190 Police $4241 $Ode,.,03 'S

,·br- A "so' 18.98.190

Roadway i . ,,'

Residential Ne-ffiar'!)e ", Ajo~lies te siAgle-ami 18.98.190 $424 $249 flWIti-fnAAily-8weHffig-Hflits

sinale familv multi-famllv Per dwellina unit Retail $8-3.28 Per square foot 18.98.190 Office $3.S$. 2.:33 Per square foot 18.98.190 Industrial $882.26 Per square foot 18.98.190

Storm Water /f', '$374 - Per V. acre 17.81.400

, '\:i;\,,:':':>

3


(Amending the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule to modify impact fees)

WHEREAS, on May 17, 2011 the Salt Lake City Council ("city council") adopted

Ordinances 2011-23, 2011-24 and 2011-25 to authorize and create the Salt Lake City

Consolidated Fee Schedule; and

WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule is proposed to be amended to

modify impact fees as shown in the attached Exhibit "A"; and

WHEREAS, the city council finds (i) the fees set forth in Exhibit "A" are necessary,

reasonable, and equitable in relation to regulatory and service costs incurred by the City; (ii) that

such fees are in accordance with Utah Code chapter 11-36a (Utah Impact Fees Act); and (iii)

adoption ofthi~ ordinance reasonably furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the

citizens of Salt Lake City.

NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:

SECTION 1. The Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule dated .Tune 14, 2011 shall

be, and hereby is, amended, in pertinent part, to reflect the fees set forth in the attached Exhibit

"A" relating to impact fees.

SECTION 2. The official copy of the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule shall be

revised to include the fees set forth in the attached Exhibit "A" and a copy of thereof shall be

published on the official Salt Lake City website.

SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective September 1,2012.


~ _____ , 2012.

CHAIRPERSON

ATTEST:

CITY RECORDER

Transmitted to the Mayor on ___________ _

Mayor's Action: __ Approved. __ Vetoed.

MAYOR ATTEST:

CITY RECORDER

(SEAL)

Bill No. ___ of2012 Published: HB_ATTY-#23024_v6"".I-l1\p-,,"'t_'''",,-_o-C'd_-"m-'~"d-m'-"t_~20~12""_A~h-_""2.D=OC

2

APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney's Office

Date:'_-¥,¥-J+~I¥~,-,2-= __ _

EXHIBIT "A"

IMPACT FEES For questions regarding Impact fees contact: 801.535.7228

Service Fee Additional Section Information

Residential Commercial I Impact Fees (Per dwelling unit, Industrial

single or multl- (Per square footl family) retail, office and industrial)

Fire $119 $0.32 18.98.190 Park $3999 No charge 18.98.190 Police $41 $0.03 18.98.190

Roadway Residential $424 $249 Per dwelling unit 18.98.190

single family multi-family Retail $3.28 Per square foot 18.98.190 Office $2.33 Per square foot 18.98.190 Industrial $2.26 Per square foot 18.98.190

Storm Water $374 Per 1/4 acre 17.81.400

3

Attachment D

Salt Lake City Council Capital and Debt Management Policies

Pages 22 - 24 – Salt Lake City Council Policy Manual A.25 GENERAL BUDGET POLICY a. When possible, Capital Improvement Projects are not delayed nor eliminated in order to balance the budget. The Council also avoids using one time revenues to balance the budget. A.26 CAPITAL AND DEBT MANAGEMENT (1/04) On December 14, 1999, the Council adopted a resolution relating to capital and debt management policies. The resolution states: THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: That the City Council has determined that the following capital and debt management policies shall guide the Council as they continue to address the deferred and long-term infrastructure needs within Salt Lake City: Capital Policies 1. The Council intends to define a capital project as follows: “Capital improvements involve the construction,

purchase or renovation of buildings, parks, streets or other physical structures. A capital improvement must have a useful life of five or more years. A capital project must also have a cost of $50,000 or more unless its significant functionality can be demonstrated to warrant its inclusion as a capital project. A capital improvement is not a recurring capital outlay item (such as a motor vehicle or a fire engine (unless the fire apparatus is Impact Fee eligible) or a maintenance expense (such as fixing a leaking roof or painting park benches). Acquisition of equipment is not a capital project unless it is an integral part of the cost of a capital project.”

2. The Council requests that the Mayor’s Recommended Annual Capital Budget be developed based upon the current

10-Year Capital Facilities Plan and be submitted to the City Council for tentative approval no later than April 30 of each fiscal year.

3. The Council requests that the Administration prepare multi-year revenue and expenditure forecasts which correspond to the capital program period as well as an analysis of the City’s financial condition and capacity to finance future capital projects, and present this information to the Council with the presentation of each budget.

4. The Council intends to dedicate that no less than nine percent of ongoing General Fund revenues be invested

annually in the Capital Improvement Fund. NOTE: Does the Council wish to change this policy since the plan being considered by the Council does not meet this policy? Would the Council like to change this to an aspirational statement, such as: It is the Council’s long-term goal to dedicate no less than nine percent of ongoing General Fund revenues annually in the Capital Improvement Fund. It is the Council’s intent to increase the investment by X until that goal is reached.

5. The Council requests that the Administration review the progress of the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan every two

years, to coincide with the City Council election cycle, and update the CFP as needed. This review would be in conjunction with the submittal and approval of the annual Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Approval of the yearly CIP plan would be in conjunction with the annual budget process. NOTE: The 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is the long term plan, for Salt Lake City it is planned for ten years. Generally, and depending on circumstances, it is updated every five years. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a short term plan. Currently, the CIP plan/budget is approved by the Council each year.

6. The Council intends that the City will maintain its physical assets at a level adequate to protect the City’s capital

investment and to minimize future maintenance and replacement costs. Higher consideration will be given to projects that show and result in greater efficiency or larger savings for the City.

7. The Council intends to give priority consideration to projects which preserve and protect the health and safety of

the community are mandated by the state and/or federal government; provide for the renovation of existing facilities, resulting in a preservation of the community’s prior investment;, result in decreased operating costs or other significant cost savings;, improve the environmental quality of the City and its neighborhoods;, or have a positive contribution to the City’s economy

8. The Council intends to give fair consideration to projects where there is an opportunity to coordinate with other

agencies, establish a public/private partnership, or secure grant funding, all other considerations being equal. 9. The Council intends to follow a guideline of approving construction funding for a capital project in the fiscal year

immediately following the project’s design wherever possible. 10. The Council intends that all proposed large capital projects be evaluated and prioritized by the CDCIP Citizen

Advisory Board. 11. The Council does not intend to fund any project that has not been included in the Ten-Year Capital Facilities Plan

for at least one year prior to proposed funding, unless extenuating circumstances are adequately identified. 12. The Council requests that any change order to any capital improvement project which equals or exceeds twenty

percent of the approved project budget be brought to the Council for review in a formal budget amendment. 13. The Council requests that the Administration submit a budget amendment request to the Council during the

second budget amendment in the Fall each year identifying those Capital Improvement Program Fund accounts where the project has been completed and a project balance remains. It is the Council’s intent that all account balances from closed projects be recaptured and placed in the CIP Contingency Account for the remainder of the fiscal year, at which point any remaining amounts will be transferred to augment the following fiscal year’s General Fund ongoing allocation.

Debt Management Policies 1. The Council intends to utilize long-term borrowing only for capital improvement projects that are included in the

City’s 10-Year Capital Program, or in order to take advantage of opportunities to restructure or refund current debt. Additionally, the plan will be reviewed and adjusted as projects are completed.

2. The Council requests that the Administration provide an analysis of the City’s debt capacity, and how each proposal meets the Council’s debt policies, prior to proposing any projects for debt financing. This analysis should include the effect of the bond issue on the City’s debt ratios.

3. The Council requests that, when borrowing is recommended by the Administration, the source of funds to cover

the debt service requirements be identified. 4. The Council requests that the Administration provide an analysis of the effect of any proposed bond issue on the

City’s ability to finance future projects of equal or higher priority. 5. The Council requests that the Administration analyze the impact of debt-financed capital projects on the City’s

operating budget and coordinate this analysis with the budget development process. 6. The Council requests that the Administration provide a statement from the City’s financial advisor that each

proposed bond issue appears feasible for bond financing as proposed, including an indication of requirements or circumstances that the Council should be aware of when considering the proposed bond issue.

7. The Council does not intend to issue debt that would cause the City’s debt ratio benchmarks to exceed moderate

ranges as indicated by the municipal bond rating industry.

8. The Council does not intend to issue debt if such debt will damage the City’s current AAA general obligation bond

rating or cause the City’s lease revenue bond ratings to fall below current ratings. 9. The Council requests that the Administration fully outline and the Council intends to consider the impact of all

debt funded projects that have a net negative fiscal impact on the City’s operating budget.

10. The Council requests that the Administration structure debt service payments in level amounts over the useful life of the issue unless anticipated revenues dictate otherwise or if the useful life of the financed project(s) suggests a different maturity schedule.

Attachment E Legislative Intents - Capital Assets Programs

The items below have been discussed by the Council during the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) briefings. They could be adopted as Legislative Intents.

1. Given the economic challenges over the past several years, it is the intent of the Council to

review, discuss, and possibly amend the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) with the Administration within the next three years. The Council intends to dedicate no less than nine percent of ongoing General Fund revenues annually in the Capital Improvement Fund. It is the intent of the Council to increase the CIP allocation from the current allocation of seven percent (7%). The Council indicated their desire to increase the allocation in the third year of the CFP plan to eight percent (8%) and to nine percent (9%) in the fifth year of the CPF.

2. It is the intent of the Council to study existing, desired, and current best practices for

appropriate levels of service for all City services before the Council reviews the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan again in the next two to three years. It is also the intent of the Council to continue to use all tools available, including Bonding, Community Development Areas, Special Assessment Areas, and the 50/50 program, to repair, maintain, and replace City assets, including streets, sidewalks, and curb and gutter. The Administration should continue to study and improve its processes to ensure strong public involvement and competitive pricing.

2.3. This information could be used to support and communicate City needs if a General

Obligation Bond is one of the solutions to help fund needs for new and/or existing City assets.

3.4. It is the intent of the Council to approve annual operating budgets which include funds to

catch up on deferred repair and maintenance needs of City assets, rather than have deferred maintenance and repair annual expenses become part of the CIP program. (NOTE: As defined in the Capital and Debt Management Policy – “Capital improvements involve the construction, purchase or renovation of buildings, parks, streets or other physical structures. A capital improvement must have a useful life of five or more years. A capital project must also have a cost of $50,000 or more unless its significant functionality can be demonstrated to warrant its inclusion as a capital project. A capital improvement is not a recurring capital outlay item (such as a motor vehicle or a fire engine (unless the fire apparatus is Impact Fee eligible) or a maintenance expense (such as fixing a leaking roof or painting park benches). Acquisition of equipment is not a capital project unless it is an integral part of the cost of a capital project.”)

4.5. It is the intent of the Council to allocate one-time funds for deferred/catch-up improvement

and maintenance needs of the City that do not fit the definition of capital improvements. Items include repairs to existing facilities and equipment. (NOTE: If desired, the Council could specify an amount per year, such as ‘at least $250,000 per year’ in order to give the Administration an idea of what the Council would like to see.)

5. It is the intent of the Council to continue to use all tools available, including Special Assessment Areas and the 50/50 program, to repair, maintain, and replace City concrete infrastructure, including streets, sidewalks, and curb and gutter. The Administration should continue to improve its processes to ensure strong public involvement and competitive pricing.

6. It is the intent of the Council that the Administration include in its transmittals information

on annual operating and maintenance costs any time new assets are proposed to be added to the City’s capital asset inventory.

7. It is the intent of the Council to work with the Administration in identifying streets needing

pedestrian safety devices, including adding Hawk signals throughout the City. 8. It is the intent of the Council to place a high priority on projects that relate to the Council’s

indentified priorities. The Council’s priorities are: Arts and Culture Economic Health of the City Local/Neighborhood Business Neighborhood Schools Parks and Open Space Sustainability Transportation and Mobility

1

M E M O R A N D U M DATE: April 3, 2012 SUBJECT: 10 YEAR CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN

Follow-up Briefing – March 27, 2012 – Review CFP and Impact Fee Options – Original, B, and C

Briefing – February 21, 2012 – Finalize Impact Fee Eligible Projects

Briefing – January 31, 2012 – Review of Detailed List Briefing – January 10, 2012 – Review of Detailed List Briefing – October 25, 2011 – Debt Policies and Policy

Question Discussion Briefing – October 4, 2011 – Capital Management Policies

Discussion Retreat – September 9, 2011 – Council Priorities Discussion Briefing – September 6, 2011 Initial Briefing – May 31, 2011

COUNCIL PHILOSOPHY STATEMENTS: ▪ Economic Health of the City ▪ Arts and Culture ▪ Neighborhood Quality of Life ▪ Transportation and Mobility ▪ Parks and Open Space ▪ Sustainability ▪ Education STAFF REPORT BY: KAREN HALLADAY, BUDGET AND POLICY ANALYST AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: ALL

During the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) and Impact Fee review of Options A, B, and C on March 27, 2012, additional information was requested. Staff has prepared a comparison of the 10-Year CFP Sources and Uses for the various options prepared by Galena Consulting, the City’s consultant. The purpose of the summary is to compare the three options by line item to see how they differ. The Administration provided the explanations for the differences. In addition, percentages of total revenue and total expenditures are presented for each option. This information allows the reader to see, by percentage, the portion of revenue provided by each revenue source and also, by percentage, how the funds are allocated to the City departments, including debt service needs.

Additional Information

Amount

% of Total

Revenue Amount

% of Total

Revenue Amount

% of Total

Revenue

SOURCES (10 Year Totals)General Fund Revenue

not including GO or FB revenue, or Judgment Levy

% of GF revenues = GF CIP allocation

On-Going General Fund Contribution - 7% 152,742,970$ 62.5% 152,962,971$ 60.5% 152,962,971$ 62.0% Updated with actual amount of 11/12 budget

Other Sources - bond refinance/refund -$

CIP Recapture/Reserve -$

Ongoing General Fund Revenues 152,742,970$ 152,962,971$ 152,962,971$

One-Time Property Tax Allocation -$

CCB Debt Service - SL County -$

Impact Fees (including current fund balances) 30,762,100$ 12.6% 40,366,600$ 16.0% 34,221,600$ 13.9% Cash balance estimates updated.

Open Space Bond Fund Balance 2,100,000$ 0.9% 2,100,000$ 0.8% 2,100,000$ 0.9%

Class C CIP Funds 24,000,000$ 9.8% 24,000,000$ 9.5% 24,000,000$ 9.7%

CDBG CIP Funds 11,000,000$ 4.5% 11,204,175$ 4.4% 11,204,175$ 4.5% Updated with actual amount of funds awarded in 11/12.

Facilities - Fleet Bond Revenue 1,900,000$ 0.8% 1,264,291$ 0.5% 1,264,291$ 0.5% Portion of fund awarded to Plaza 349 in BA.

Grants for Shared Use Pathways -$ 0.0% 250,000$ 0.1% 250,000$ 0.1%

Streets Viaduct Match-already in CIP account 200,000$ 0.1% 200,000$ 0.1% 200,000$ 0.1%FY2011 Budget Amendment #4 - Transportation projects 1,250,000$ 0.5% -$ 0.0% -$ 0.0%

BA for 900 South Corridor Trail and Bike Lane was funded. The 200

South Bicycle Lane Pilot Project was not funded during this BA.

Federal Grant - FHWA 9,320,000$ 3.8% 9,320,000$ 3.7% 9,320,000$ 3.8%

700 South Special Assessment Area -$ 0.0% -$ 0.0% -$ 0.0%

Sale of Public Safety/Evidence Property 11,000,000$ 4.5% 11,000,000$ 4.4% 11,000,000$ 4.5%

Total General Fund Revenues 244,275,070$ 100.0% 252,668,037$ 100.0% 246,523,037$ 100.0%

Salt Lake City - Capital Facilities Plan 2012-2021 (Fiscally Constrained)Sources and Uses - Comparison of Options A, B, and C

Original Plan Full Parks Reduced Parks

Prepared for the CFP and Impact Fees follow-up briefing on April 3, 2012

Option A Option B Option C






Amount% of Total

Expenditures Amount% of Total

Expenditures Amount% of Total

Expenditures

USES (10 Year Totals)Debt Service

City and County Building - SLC portion -$

Sales Tax Bonds 68,815,766$ 28.1% 68,815,766$ 27.2% 68,815,766$ 27.9%

CAM Bond Issuance - estimated/placeholder: -$

Parking Pay Stations - 12/11 4,660,460$ 4,660,460$ 4,660,460$ Streetcar Debt Service - 12/11 (Estimated 20 Year Bond Pmt) 2,250,000$ 2,250,000$ 2,250,000$

Pay Station Test 291,777$ 291,777$ 291,777$

Debt Service - UPAC BAN 524,000$ 524,000$ 524,000$

Available CAM Placeholder 17,473,763$ 17,473,763$ 17,473,763$

CAM Bond Issuance - estimated/placeholder 25,200,000$ 10.3% 25,200,000$ 10.0% 25,200,000$ 10.2%

Ongoing Debt Service 94,015,766$ 38.5% 94,015,766$ 37.2% 94,015,766$ 38.1%

Capital Projects by Department

Fire 12,400,000$ 5.1% 13,600,000$ 5.4% 13,600,000$ 5.5% Updated cost estimates.

Police 9,140,000$ 3.7% 9,000,000$ 3.6% 9,000,000$ 3.7% Police awarded Facility Study funds in BA.

Parks and Open Space 43,356,200$ 17.7% 51,687,534$ 20.5% 45,542,535$ 18.5% Addition of new impact fee eligible projects.

Streets 61,860,000$ 25.3% 61,340,000$ 24.3% 61,340,000$ 24.9% Updated with actual amount of funds awarded in 11/12.

Transportation 12,860,000$ 5.3% 12,010,000$ 4.8% 12,010,000$ 4.9% Updated with actual amount of funds awarded in 11/12.

Facilities - ongoing 3,900,000$ 1.6% 4,000,000$ 1.6% 4,000,000$ 1.6% Updated with actual amount of funds awarded in 11/12.

Facilities - discretionary 5,298,504$ 2.2% 5,367,548$ 2.1% 5,367,549$ 2.2% Updated with actual amount of funds awarded in 11/12.

CIP/Impact Fee Update 44,600$ 0.0% 44,600$ 0.0% 44,600$ 0.0%

Percent for Art 1,000,000$ 0.4% 1,030,000$ 0.4% 1,030,000$ 0.4% Updated with actual amount of funds awarded in 11/12.

Overruns 600,000$ 0.2% 572,587$ 0.2% 572,587$ 0.2% Updated with actual amount of funds awarded in 11/12.

Ongoing General Fund Expenditures 150,459,304$ 61.5% 158,652,269$ 62.8% 152,507,271$ 61.9%

Total General Fund Capital Expenditures 244,475,070$ 252,668,035$ 100.0% 246,523,037$ 100.0%

difference (200,000)$ 2$ -$






NOTE: The following projects are not included in the above calculations.

Potential CAM Bond Issuance Projects - in priority order ($2.5M debt service placeholder for General Fund portion of these projects is above)

SugarHouse Streetcar

Utah Performing Arts Center

Salt Lake City Public Market

Salt Lake City Convention Hotel

Downtown Streetcar

Central Plant Upgrade/Hydrogen Cell Co-Generation

Regional Sports Complex - Phase 2

Projects with other financing

Parking Pay Station

Projects Deferred until other revenue sources available

Jordan River Trail and 100 South Railroad Crossing

Parleys (PRATT) Shared Use Pathway

Surplus Canal Shared Use Pathway

Note regarding Attachments 1 and 2

The consultant noted several cautionary statements in the Impact Fee Comparisons report regarding the use of the survey information. Staff has

included these statements for the reader’s use when comparing Salt Lake City’s proposed total impact fees to other cities and averages.

There are challenges inherent in making definitive conclusions about the appropriate level of an impact fee based on these comparisons,

however:

The list of cities included in the comparison is not exhaustive, nor is it statistically sampled. While attempts were made to include a

variety of different comparisons, some cities may have been included that may not be considered by the City to be comparable, and

some may have been omitted that are.

Some cities have complex impact fee schedules, assigning specific fee levels for each land use type, and/or different service areas. In

order to include fee data from these cities, estimations were made in order to aggregate the data.

Impact fee statutes change from state to state. Some states may allow impact fees to fund capital items that others do not, which may

affect the level of the impact fee. Many jurisdictions used in this comparison have impact fees in categories other than roads, parks,

police and fire (i.e., government buildings, schools, arts and culture facilities, etc.). The total impact fee on a unit of development in

these cases would be higher than is shown in this comparison.

Impact fees are based on continuing the current level of service. Every city has a different level of service (i.e., faster or slower fire

response, more or less police officers, more or less park acres, better or worse roadway congestion), which affects the level of the

impact fee.

Some jurisdictions address the cost of growth in ways other than impact fees. For example, instead of assessing impact fees, a city

may choose to exact the improvement as a condition of development approval, or to subsidize the cost of growth from other revenue

sources such as General Funds.

Growth patterns are different. For example, some cities are experiencing more infill growth, which can be less capital-intensive, while

other cities are experiencing growth in annexed and/or previously undeveloped areas that will require a great deal of capital

investment. The degree of capital required to meet the demands of growth will differ, and will affect the level of the impact fee.

Attachment 1

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

Do

llars

SLC Proposed Total Impact Fee Options and Surveyed Cities and Averages, Listed Alphabetically

Salt Lake City Corporation Comparison of SLC Proposed Impact Fees (Residential) to Surveyed Cities

Data Provided By: Galena Consulting - March 15, 2012

Single

Multi-Family

Attachment 2

$-

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

$8.00

$9.00

$10.00

Do

llars

SLC Proposed Total Impact Fee Options and Surveyed Cities and Averages, Listed Alphabetically

Salt Lake City Corporation Comparison of SLC Proposed Total Impact Fees (Commercial) to Surveyed Cities

Data Provided By: Galena Consulting - March 15, 2012

Retail/sf

Office/sf

Industrial/sf

Attachment 3

Single Family Multi-Family Retail/sf Office/sf Industrial/sf

Salt Lake City - Current -$ -$ 8.62$ 4.20$ 2.00$

Salt Lake City - Original Proposal 450$ 264$ 2.91$ 2.07$ 2.01$

Salt Lake City - Full Parks Option 424$ 249$ 3.28$ 2.33$ 2.26$

Salt Lake City - Reduced Parks Option 424$ 249$ 3.28$ 2.33$ 2.26$

National Average 3,227$ 2,179$ 5.95$ 3.36$ 2.06$

Western States - Highest Surveyed 6,499$ 4,322$ 11.51$ 9.28$ 3.96$

Western States - Lowest Surveyed 1,140$ 1,073$ 2.03$ 1.04$ 0.63$

Utah Cities - Highest Surveyed 2,399$ 4,340$ 4.85$ 2.94$ 2.55$

Utah Cities - Lowest Surveyed 315$ 290$ 0.30$ 0.14$ 0.05$


Salt Lake City - Current 681$ 681$ n/a n/a n/a

Salt Lake City - Original Proposal 1,752$ 1,752$ n/a n/a n/a

Salt Lake City - Full Parks Option 4,180$ 4,180$ n/a n/a n/a

Salt Lake City - Reduced Parks Option 2,565$ 2,565$ n/a n/a n/a

National Average 2,955$ 2,254$ n/a n/a n/a

Western States - Highest Surveyed 8,622$ 6,681$ n/a n/a n/a

Western States - Lowest Surveyed 738$ 738$ n/a n/a n/a

Utah Cities - Highest Surveyed 4,346$ 3,445$ n/a n/a n/a

Utah Cities - Lowest Surveyed 1,633$ 469$ n/a n/a n/a


Salt Lake City - Current 452$ 452$ 0.30$ 0.30$ 0.30$




National Average 385$ 303$ 4.30$ 0.26$ 0.18$

Western States - Highest Surveyed 802$ 635$ 0.68$ 0.52$ 0.40$

Western States - Lowest Surveyed 161$ 123$ 0.12$ 0.06$ 0.06$

Utah Cities - Highest Surveyed 605$ 495$ 0.56$ 0.56$ 0.45$



Salt Lake City - Current 485$ 485$ 0.32$ 0.32$ 0.32$




National Average 512$ 381$ 4.19$ 0.38$ 0.26$


Western States - Lowest Surveyed 159$ 119$ 0.16$ 0.14$ 0.05$

Utah Cities - Highest Surveyed 576$ 576$ 0.65$ 0.54$ 0.25$



Salt Lake City - Current 1,618$ 1,618$ 8.62$ 4.20$ 2.00$

Salt Lake City - Original Proposal 2,777$ 2,591$ 3.54$ 2.70$ 2.64$

Salt Lake City - Full Parks Option 4,764$ 4,590$ 3.63$ 2.68$ 2.61$

Salt Lake City - Reduced Parks Option 3,148$ 2,974$ 3.63$ 2.68$ 2.61$

National Average 7,079$ 5,617$ 6.29$ 4.04$ 2.69$


Western States - Lowest Surveyed 4,061$ 2,772$ 2.05$ 1.22$ 0.73$

Utah Cities - Highest Surveyed 6,549$ 5,627$ 4.74$ 2.94$ 2.62$


Roads Impact Fees

Parks Impact Fees

Police Impact Fees

Fire Impact Fees

Total Impact Fees

Attachment 4

Current Option A Option B Option C

Original Proposal Full Parks Option Reduced Parks Option

Project Examples

Residential:

Single Family 1,618$ 2,777$ 4,764$ 3,149$

Multi-Family 1,618$ 2,591$ 4,590$ 2,974$

10 units 16,180$ 25,910$ 45,900$ 29,740$

100 units 161,800$ 259,100$ 459,000$ 297,400$

1,000 units 1,618,000$ 2,591,000$ 4,590,000$ 2,974,000$

Commercial:

10,000 sf project

Infill Development (Note 1) 6,200$

Retail 6,200$ 35,400$ 36,300$ 36,300$

Office 6,200$ 27,000$ 26,800$ 26,800$

Industrial 6,200$ 26,400$ 26,100$ 26,100$

West Side Development (Note 2)

Retail 86,200$ 35,400$ 36,300$ 36,300$

Office 42,000$ 27,000$ 26,800$ 26,800$

Industrial 20,000$ 26,400$ 26,100$ 26,100$

Note 1: NWQ impact fees are similar to infill development.

Note 2: The proposed impact fees are the same for Westside and Infill development.

Comparison of Impact Fee Proposals for Salt Lake City

F.RANK 8. GRAY

DIRECTt:lR DEPARTMENT OF' GOMMUNITY & EGONCIMIG DEVEI..OPMENT

DF'F'IC:E OF' THE DIRECTOR

RAI..PH 8EGKER

MAYOR

MARY DE LA MARE-SCHAEFER

DEPUTY DIRECTOR

R08ERT F'ARRINGTON, .JR. CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL DEPUTY DIREClTDR

Date Received: ________ _ David Everitt, Chief of Staff

TO:

FROM:

RE:

Date Sent to City Council: _______ _

Salt Lake City Council DATE: March 19,2012 Soren Simonsen, Chair

Frank Gray, Community & E'::~:'-" "-'"-.--'--'.-~~~ Development Department DirectQ~ __ . J Revised 10 Year Fiscally Constrained CapitatFacIiities Plan (CFP) and Impact Fee comparisons

STAFF CONTACT: LuAnn Clark, Director, Housing and Neighborhood Development Division, at 801-535-6136, or [email protected]

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council schedule a briefing for final review of the proposed 10-Y ear Fiscally Constrained CFP including Impact Fees

BUDGET IMPACT: General Fund Capital Improvement Program Funds

DISCUSSION: As part of the process to update the City's current impact fee program, the City must update its 10-Year CFP. The Council held several work sessions evaluating the proposed CFP and setting priorities for funding. The 10-Year CFP and Impact Fee comparisons to other jurisdictions have been updated by the Consultant to reflect the Council's direction and are presented now for final review (see attached Exhibits).

PUBLIC PROCESS: Once the Council has preliminarily approved the revised CFP and determined how impact fees should be structured, these documents can be finalized for public review. The Council can then set hearings for the adoption of the CFP and amendment of the impact fee ordinance.

451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404

P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114'5486

TELEPHONE: 801-535-6230 FAX: 801-535-6005

WWW.SLCGtlV.CCM/CED

To: LuAnn Clark, Salt Lake City HAND

From: Anne Wescott, Galena Consulting

Date: March 19, 2012

Re: Revised 10-Year Fiscally Constrained Capital Facilities Plan

As part of the process to update the City’s current impact fee program, the City must update

its 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan (CFP).1

The addition or revision of capital project priorities required changes to the funding years

or amount projected for other projects. The following should be noted about this final

version of the CFP:

A fiscally-constrained CFP was presented to

Council in May 2011 for consideration. The Council held several work sessions evaluating

the CFP and setting priorities for funding. The 10-Year CFP has been updated to reflect the

Council’s direction and is presented now for final review (see Exhibits attached). Once the

Council has reviewed this final CFP, a hearing to adopt the CFP and consider amending the

impact fees can be set.

• Because of the spike in debt service in the later part of the 10 year period, some larger projects had to be funded in phases. In essence, the City would be setting aside money over several years in advance of construction. If the City decides to bond for some of these improvements (i.e., Fire Stations #3 and #14, the Police Crime Lab and Evidence Facility, the Jordan/McClelland and City Creek Trail Shared Use Pathways, Bike Lane/Pedestrian Improvements, etc.) this strategy can be abandoned. Alternatively, the City could fund an entire project in one year by not funding other scheduled improvements.

• In order to balance revenues and expenditures planned for FY19-20, Fire Station

#14 could not be fully funded for construction until FY20-21, a year later than

1 Formerly referred to as a Capital Improvement Plan or CIP

previously planned. The City can make changes to this funding strategy at its discretion.

• In most cases, placeholders for ongoing improvements like restrooms and

sidewalks are just spread evenly over the 10 year period. In order to balance annual revenues and expenditures, however, some adjustments had to be made, resulting in some assumptions about certain projects being funded in a particular year. For example, tennis court improvements are “front loaded” in the first four years of the 10-Year CFP as increased debt service reduces available funding in future years.

• It is important for the Council to note that they do not need to stick to these

priorities in the future. Although the expenditures for each year are based on Council priorities, on an annual basis the Council can fund any capital projects it chooses. These projects can be taken from the list of priorities (i.e., parks identified by the Administration as needing repairs or replacements within the next ten years); or other priorities identified by Council Members during recent briefings. Council members can also identify new priorities in future years and the CFP can be adjusted. The CFP is a guide for future capital funding, and can be adjusted at any time.

This CFP is the basis for the City’s impact fee program. If adopted, it will trigger an update in the City’s impact fee schedule. Several changes to the impact fee program are being recommended in this update:

1. Currently, only non-residential development is being assessed streets/ transportation impact fees, and only in the Westside Industrial service area. Because of capacity-increasing capital improvements including citywide bike lane projects, the Administration has proposed assessing a proportional share of these improvements to residential development as well. In addition, major road improvements will now be spread among all commercial development citywide. This change will significantly reduce fees for retail and office development in the western area of the City (industrial will stay the same), and introduce a relatively low but new streets/transportation fee to residential development, as well as to commercial development in infill areas of the City.

2. Another impact to the fee structure is a result of existing fund balances. Because

previous development has already paid into the impact fee fund for future improvements, this fund balance is subtracted from the total amount of growth-related capital improvements. This has contributed to a significant decrease in fire and police impact fees (over 90%), and a further reduction to streets/ transportation fees.

3. These reductions are offset by increases in parks impact fees. In the last CFP, the

City had few parks or open space projects planned to address the needs of new growth, so the parks impact fee was relatively low in comparison to other

jurisdictions. The City has now developed several projects that will meet the service needs of new growth, including the linear park project associated with the Sugar House streetcar line. The City would also like to take advantage of lower land costs and start “banking” land for future parks to serve new growth. These projects are impact fee eligible. Depending on the amount and type of park development desired by the City in the next ten years, parks impact fees would need to increase significantly over current levels.

Three options have been prepared for Council consideration related to impact fee-funded parks projects: • The first option (presented in the draft impact fee report of May 2011, but not

included in these revised CFPs) was designed to keep parks fees under $1,500, and assumed approximately 20 acres of new parks would be traditionally developed, with another 70 acres being acquired as open space. The 10-Year budget for growth-related park development under this scenario was approximately $7.2 million.

• The second option assumes that the City would collect all of the parks impact

fees they were eligible to collect (approximately $16.7 million in growth-related improvements over ten years). This is based on the full development of almost 45 acres of traditionally-designed new parks (which could include the development of the Sugar House streetcar-related linear park); a portion of the Jordan and Salt Lake Canal, and City Creek Trail Shared-Use Pathways; and over 50 acres of open space acquisition. This would cause the parks fee to increase from $681 to $4,180, a fee that is significantly higher than the national and regional averages of approximately $2,700.

• The third option assumes that the City develops 45 acres of parks, but focuses

more on linear parks and open space (which could include the development of the Sugar House streetcar-related linear park) than traditional new parks. The City would also be able to use impact fees for a portion of the Jordan and Salt Lake Canal and City Creek Trail Shared-Use Pathways. Because of the lower cost of this type of park development (a total of approximately $10.5 versus $16 million) the resulting fee would increase from the current $681 to $2,565. This would be more in line with national and regional averages.

The Council can choose to adopt any level of parks impact fee, up to the full cost fee identified above. NEXT STEPS Once the Council has preliminarily approved the revised CFP, and determined how impact fees should be structured, these documents can be finalized for public review. The Council can then set hearings for the adoption of the CFP and amendment of the impact fee ordinance.

4

REVISED CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN EXHIBITS

All Exhibits reflect full parks impact fees

5

Salt Lake City - Sources and UsesCapital Improvement Plan 2012-2021 - Fiscally Constrained Assuming Full Cost Parks Impact Fees

SOURCES FY11-12 FY12-13 FY13-14 FY14-15 FY15-16 FY16-17 FY17-18 FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21 10 year totals

On-Going General Fund Contribution - 7% 13,543,847$ 13,723,562$ 14,135,269$ 14,559,327$ 14,996,107$ 15,445,990$ 15,909,370$ 16,386,651$ 16,878,250$ 17,384,598$ 152,962,971$ Ongoing General Fund Revenues 13,543,847$ 13,723,562$ 14,135,269$ 14,559,327$ 14,996,107$ 15,445,990$ 15,909,370$ 16,386,651$ 16,878,250$ 17,384,598$ 152,962,971$

Impact Fees (including current fund balances) 3,420,000$ 8,060,589$ 4,477,389$ 4,207,389$ 2,271,989$ 2,939,289$ 3,059,289$ 5,824,889$ 3,191,889$ 2,913,889$ 40,366,600$ Open Space Bond Fund Balance -$ 750,000$ 750,000$ 600,000$ 2,100,000$ Class C CIP Funds 2,400,000$ 2,400,000$ 2,400,000$ 2,400,000$ 2,400,000$ 2,400,000$ 2,400,000$ 2,400,000$ 2,400,000$ 2,400,000$ 24,000,000$ CDBG CIP Funds 1,304,175$ 1,100,000$ 1,100,000$ 1,100,000$ 1,100,000$ 1,100,000$ 1,100,000$ 1,100,000$ 1,100,000$ 1,100,000$ 11,204,175$ Facilities - Fleet Bond Revenue -$ 1,264,291$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,264,291$ Grants for Shared Use Pathways -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 250,000$ -$ -$ 250,000$ Streets Viaduct Match-already in CIP account -$ 200,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 200,000$ Federal Grant - FHWA -$ 9,320,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 9,320,000$ Sale of Public Safety/Evidence Property 6,000,000$ 5,000,000$ 11,000,000$

Total General Fund Revenues 20,668,022$ 36,818,442$ 28,862,658$ 27,866,716$ 20,768,096$ 21,885,279$ 22,468,659$ 25,961,540$ 23,570,139$ 23,798,487$ 252,668,037$

USES FY11-12 FY12-13 FY13-14 FY14-15 FY15-16 FY16-17 FY17-18 FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21 10 year totalsDebt Service

Sales Tax Bonds 3,757,013$ 4,161,854$ 4,401,174$ 2,930,705$ 6,864,511$ 9,354,071$ 9,342,669$ 9,333,578$ 9,332,520$ 9,337,671$ 68,815,766$ CAM Bond Issuance - estimated/placeholder Parking Pay Stations 665,780$ 665,780$ 665,780$ 665,780$ 665,780$ 665,780$ 665,780$ -$ -$ 4,660,460$ Streetcar 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 2,250,000$ Pay Station Test 291,777$ 291,777$ UPAC BAN 262,000$ 262,000$ 524,000$ Remainder of CAM Bond Issuance Placeholder 2,408,223$ 1,322,220$ 1,322,220$ 1,584,220$ 1,584,220$ 1,584,220$ 1,584,220$ 1,584,220$ 2,250,000$ 2,250,000$ 17,473,763$

Ongoing Debt Service 6,457,013$ 6,661,854$ 6,901,174$ 5,430,705$ 9,364,511$ 11,854,071$ 11,842,669$ 11,833,578$ 11,832,520$ 11,837,671$ 94,015,766$

Capital ProjectsFire -$ 550,000$ $1,000,000 6,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ 2,500,000$ 2,000,000$ 1,550,000$ 13,600,000$ Police -$ 5,000,000$ 4,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 9,000,000$ Parks and Open Space 2,159,174$ 5,759,849$ 7,086,389$ 7,679,589$ 4,829,589$ 4,904,589$ 5,229,589$ 4,529,589$ 5,629,589$ 3,879,589$ 51,687,534$ Streets 8,981,709$ 14,888,300$ 5,753,850$ 4,980,229$ 4,797,029$ 3,741,479$ 4,468,379$ 5,912,729$ 3,109,729$ 4,706,570$ 61,340,000$ Transportation 1,190,000$ 2,785,000$ 2,965,000$ 2,615,000$ 345,000$ 510,000$ 320,000$ 480,000$ 320,000$ 480,000$ 12,010,000$ Facilities - ongoing 490,000$ 390,000$ 390,000$ 390,000$ 390,000$ 390,000$ 390,000$ 390,000$ 390,000$ 390,000$ 4,000,000$ Facilities - discretionary 1,227,539$ 623,439$ 606,245$ 611,193$ 837,367$ 325,140$ 58,022$ 155,644$ 128,302$ 794,657$ 5,367,548$ CIP/Impact Fee Update -$ -$ -$ -$ 44,600$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 44,600$ Percent for Art 130,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 1,030,000$ Overruns 32,587$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 572,587$

Ongoing General Fund Expenditures 14,211,009$ 30,156,588$ 21,961,484$ 22,436,010$ 11,403,584$ 10,031,207$ 10,625,989$ 14,127,961$ 11,737,619$ 11,960,815$ 158,652,269$

Total General Fund Capital Expenditures 20,668,022$ 36,818,442$ 28,862,658$ 27,866,715$ 20,768,095$ 21,885,278$ 22,468,658$ 25,961,539$ 23,570,139$ 23,798,486$ 252,668,035$

difference (0)$ 0$ (0)$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ (0)$ 0$ 1$

Salt Lake City - All DepartmentsCapital Facilities Plan 2012-2021 - Fiscally Constrained Assuming Full Parks Impact Fees

CIP ApprovedValue FY11-12 FY12-13 FY13-14 FY14-15 FY15-16 FY16-17 FY17-18 FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21 10 year total

Fire 13,600,000$ -$ 550,000$ 1,000,000$ 6,000,000$ 2,500,000$ 2,000,000$ 1,550,000$ 13,600,000$

Police 9,000,000$ -$ 5,000,000$ 4,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 9,000,000$

Parks and Open Space 51,687,534$ 2,159,174$ 5,759,849$ 7,086,389$ 7,679,589$ 4,829,589$ 4,904,589$ 5,229,589$ 4,529,589$ 5,629,589$ 3,879,589$ 51,687,534$

Streets 61,340,000$ 8,981,709$ 14,888,300$ 5,753,850$ 4,980,229$ 4,797,029$ 3,741,479$ 4,468,379$ 5,912,729$ 3,109,729$ 4,706,570$ 61,340,000$

Transportation 12,010,000$ 1,190,000$ 2,785,000$ 2,965,000$ 2,615,000$ 345,000$ 510,000$ 320,000$ 480,000$ 320,000$ 480,000$ 12,010,000$

Facilities 9,367,549$ 1,717,539$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,227,367$ 715,140$ 448,022$ 545,644$ 518,302$ 1,195,535$ 9,367,549$

CIP/Impact Fee Update 44,600$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 44,600$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 44,600$

Percent for Art 1,000,000$ 130,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 1,030,000$

Overruns 600,000$ 32,587$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 572,587$

Sub-Total 158,649,683$ 14,211,009$ 30,143,149$ 21,965,239$ 22,434,817$ 11,403,584$ 10,031,207$ 10,625,989$ 14,127,961$ 11,737,619$ 11,971,693$ 158,652,270$

Major Capital Items TBD -$

158,649,683$ 14,211,009$ 30,143,149$ 21,965,239$ 22,434,817$ 11,403,584$ 10,031,207$ 10,625,989$ 14,127,961$ 11,737,619$ 11,971,693$ 158,652,270$

Salt Lake City - All DepartmentsCapital Facilities Plan 2012-2021 - Fiscally Constrained

CIP Impact Fee Other FundingValue Eligible Sources General Fund Class C CDBG Impact Fees FHWA Other Total

7%

Fire 13,600,000$ $ 5,133,000 8,467,000$ 3,467,000$ -$ -$ $ 5,133,000 -$ 5,000,000$ 13,600,000$

Police 9,000,000$ $ 2,250,000 6,750,000$ 750,000$ -$ -$ $ 2,250,000 -$ 6,000,000$ 9,000,000$

Parks and Open Space 51,687,534$ $ 17,072,000 $ 34,615,534 26,965,534$ -$ 5,300,000$ $ 17,072,000 -$ 2,350,000$ 51,687,534$

Streets 61,340,000$ $ 13,680,000 47,660,000$ 9,335,825$ 24,000,000$ 4,804,175$ 13,680,000$ 9,320,000$ 200,000$ 61,340,000$

Transportation 12,010,000$ $ 2,187,000 9,823,000$ 9,823,000$ -$ -$ $ 2,187,000 -$ 12,010,000$

Facilities 9,367,549$ $ - 9,367,549$ 8,103,258$ -$ -$ $ - -$ 1,264,291$ 9,367,549$

CIP/Impact Fee Update 44,600$ $ 44,600 -$ -$ -$ -$ $ 44,600 -$ -$ 44,600$

Percent for Art 1,000,000$ $ - 1,030,000$ 400,000$ -$ 630,000$ $ - -$ -$ 1,030,000$

Overruns 600,000$ $ - 572,587$ 102,587$ -$ 470,000$ $ - -$ -$ 572,587$

Sub-Total 158,649,683$ 40,366,600$ 118,285,670$ 58,947,204$ 24,000,000$ 11,204,175$ 40,366,600$ 9,320,000$ 14,814,291$ 158,652,270$

Major Capital Items TBD

158,649,683$ 40,366,600$ 118,285,670$ 58,947,204$ 24,000,000$ 11,204,175$ 40,366,600$ 9,320,000$ 14,814,291$ 158,652,270$

This summary does not include existing Debt Service: See Sources and Uses tab General Fund Class C CDBG Impact Fees FHWA Other Total

available after debt service 58,947,204$ 24,000,000$ 11,204,175$ $40,366,600 9,320,000$ 14,814,291$ 158,652,270$

difference 0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0$

Funding Sources - Detail

Salt Lake City Fire DepartmentCapital Improvement Plan, 2012-2021 - Fiscally Constrained

Square Land Estimated Other

Type of Capital Facility Feet Acreage Cost Funding

to Growth Sources

Facilities

2013 Fire Station #3 - Relocation and Expansion; Land Acquisition 1,500,000$ 33% 495,000$ $ 1,005,000

2015 Fire Station #3 - Relocation and Expansion; Construction 15,000 1.00 6,000,000$ 33% 1,980,000$ $ 4,020,000

2021 Fire Station #14 15,000 5.00 5,100,000$ 33% 1,683,000$ $ 3,417,000

Apparatus

2021 Truck for Fire Station #14 to serve Southwest growth 950,000$ 100% 950,000$ $ -



Impact Fee Study 11,150$ 100% 11,150$ $ -

Standards of Cover Study 50,000$ 50% 25,000$ $ 25,000


Grand Total 10,183,734$ 1,716,734$ 8,467,000$

Notes: Impact Fee Fund Balance as of 3/1/12


Salt Lake City Police DepartmentCapital Improvement Plan, 2012-2021 - Fiscally Constrained

Square Acreage Estimated Other Funding

Type of Capital Facility Feet Cost Sourcesto Growth

Facilities 2014 Police Evidence and Crime Lab Facility 100,000 2.00 9,000,000$ 25% 2,250,000$ $ 6,750,000



Impact Fee Study 11,150$ 100% 11,150$ $ -


Grand Total 7,012,501$ 262,501$ 6,750,000$

Notes:


Salt Lake City Parks DivisionCapital Improvement Plan 2012-2021 - Fiscally Constrained Assumes Full Cost Parks Impact Fees

Acres/ Estimated Approved Portion Impact Fee Other FundingType of Capital Facility Miles Cost FY11-12 FY12-13 FY13-14 FY14-15 FY15-16 FY16-17 FY17-18 FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21 10 year total times Attributable equals Eligible Sources

to Growth

Parks/Open Space Acquisition and Development Additional acres of developed parks to continue current level of service for growth 44.58 15,603,000$ -$ 1,733,667$ 1,733,667$ 1,733,667$ 1,733,667$ 1,733,667$ 1,733,667$ 1,733,667$ 1,733,667$ 1,733,667$ 15,603,000$ 100% $ 15,603,000 -$ Additional acres of open space to continue current level of service for growth 54.30 543,000$ -$ 60,333$ 60,333$ 60,333$ 60,333$ 60,333$ 60,333$ 60,333$ 60,333$ 60,333$ 543,000$ 100% $ 543,000 Additional non growth-related open space acquisition TBD 2,100,000$ -$ 750,000$ 750,000$ 600,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,100,000$ 0% $ - 2,100,000$

Trail/Shared Use Pathway DevelopmentJordan and Salt Lake (McClelland) Canal Shared Use Pathway 4,000,000$ -$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ -$ 4,000,000$ 10% $ 400,000 3,600,000$ City Creek Trail 1,200,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 750,000$ 450,000$ -$ -$ 1,200,000$ 10% $ 120,000 1,080,000$


Playground Improvements 1,816,200$ 116,200$ 150,000$ 193,750$ 193,750$ 193,750$ 193,750$ 193,750$ 193,750$ 193,750$ 193,750$ 1,816,200$ 0% $ - 1,816,200$

Restroom Improvements 3,000,000$ 25,000$ 275,000$ 375,000$ 375,000$ 375,000$ 375,000$ 375,000$ 325,000$ 375,000$ 125,000$ 3,000,000$ 11% $ 300,000 2,700,000$

Multipurpose Field Improvements 950,000$ -$ -$ 118,750$ 118,750$ 118,750$ 118,750$ 118,750$ 118,750$ 118,750$ 118,750$ 950,000$ 0% $ - 950,000$

Basketball Improvements 150,000$ -$ 16,667$ 16,667$ 16,667$ 16,667$ 16,667$ 16,667$ 16,667$ 16,667$ 16,667$ 150,000$ 0% $ - 150,000$

Tennis Court Improvements 4,613,400$ 130,500$ 457,900$ 875,000$ 1,400,000$ 700,000$ 700,000$ 350,000$ 4,613,400$ 0% $ - 4,613,400$

Volleyball Court Improvements 70,000$ -$ 7,778$ 7,778$ 7,778$ 7,778$ 7,778$ 7,778$ 7,778$ 7,778$ 7,778$ 70,000$ 0% $ - 70,000$

Softball Field Improvements 400,000$ -$ 44,444$ 44,444$ 44,444$ 44,444$ 44,444$ 44,444$ 44,444$ 44,444$ 44,444$ 400,000$ 0% $ - 400,000$

Baseball Field Improvements 1,400,000$ -$ 155,556$ 155,556$ 155,556$ 155,556$ 155,556$ 155,556$ 155,556$ 155,556$ 155,556$ 1,400,000$ 0% $ - 1,400,000$

Jogging/Walking Path Improvements 501,608$ 410,608$ 91,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 501,608$ 3% $ 16,000 485,608$

Pavilion Improvements 1,200,000$ -$ 133,333$ 133,333$ 133,333$ 133,333$ 133,333$ 133,333$ 133,333$ 133,333$ 133,333$ 1,200,000$ 0% $ - 1,200,000$

Plaza Improvements 1,200,000$ -$ 133,333$ 133,333$ 133,333$ 133,333$ 133,333$ 133,333$ 133,333$ 133,333$ 133,333$ 1,200,000$ 4% $ 50,000 1,150,000$

Off-Leash Dog Park Improvements 500,000$ -$ -$ 250,000$ 35,714$ 35,714$ 35,714$ 35,714$ 35,714$ 35,714$ 35,714$ 500,000$ 3% $ 12,500 487,500$

Skate Park Improvements 700,000$ -$ 77,778$ 77,778$ 77,778$ 77,778$ 77,778$ 77,778$ 77,778$ 77,778$ 77,778$ 700,000$ 0% $ - 700,000$

BMX/Bike Park Improvements 300,000$ -$ 33,333$ 33,333$ 33,333$ 33,333$ 33,333$ 33,333$ 33,333$ 33,333$ 33,333$ 300,000$ 5% $ 15,000 285,000$

Miscellaneous AmenitiesDrinking Fountains 70,000$ -$ 7,778$ 7,778$ 7,778$ 7,778$ 7,778$ 7,778$ 7,778$ 7,778$ 7,778$ 70,000$ 0% $ - 70,000$ Picnic Tables 240,000$ -$ 26,667$ 26,667$ 26,667$ 26,667$ 26,667$ 26,667$ 26,667$ 26,667$ 26,667$ 240,000$ 0% $ - 240,000$ Horseshoes 15,000$ -$ 1,667$ 1,667$ 1,667$ 1,667$ 1,667$ 1,667$ 1,667$ 1,667$ 1,667$ 15,000$ 0% $ - 15,000$ Water Features 250,000$ -$ 27,778$ 27,778$ 27,778$ 27,778$ 27,778$ 27,778$ 27,778$ 27,778$ 27,778$ 250,000$ 0% $ - 250,000$ Bridges 250,000$ -$ -$ 250,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 250,000$ 0% $ - 250,000$ Bleachers 112,000$ -$ 12,444$ 12,444$ 12,444$ 12,444$ 12,444$ 12,444$ 12,444$ 12,444$ 12,444$ 112,000$ 0% $ - 112,000$ Benches 90,000$ -$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 90,000$ 0% $ - 90,000$ Earthen Trails 375,223$ 150,223$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 375,223$ 0% $ - 375,223$ Concessions 500,000$ -$ 55,556$ 55,556$ 55,556$ 55,556$ 55,556$ 55,556$ 55,556$ 55,556$ 55,556$ 500,000$ 0% $ - 500,000$

Other ImprovementsLandscaping 2,305,000$ -$ 256,111$ 256,111$ 256,111$ 256,111$ 256,111$ 256,111$ 256,111$ 256,111$ 256,111$ 2,305,000$ 0% $ - 2,305,000$ Lighting 694,770$ 102,710$ 232,060$ 45,000$ 45,000$ 45,000$ 45,000$ 45,000$ 45,000$ 45,000$ 45,000$ 694,770$ 0% $ - 694,770$ Irrigation 2,394,220$ 616,820$ -$ 500,000$ 182,486$ 182,486$ 182,486$ 182,486$ 182,486$ 182,486$ 182,486$ 2,394,220$ 0% $ - 2,394,220$ Fencing 350,000$ -$ 38,889$ 38,889$ 38,889$ 38,889$ 38,889$ 38,889$ 38,889$ 38,889$ 38,889$ 350,000$ 0% $ - 350,000$ Asphalt 1,182,020$ 295,020$ 98,556$ 98,556$ 98,556$ 98,556$ 98,556$ 98,556$ 98,556$ 98,556$ 98,556$ 1,182,020$ 0% $ - 1,182,020$ Signage 312,093$ 312,093$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 312,093$ 0% $ - 312,093$

Cemetery 2,000,000$ -$ 222,222$ 222,222$ 222,222$ 222,222$ 222,222$ 222,222$ 222,222$ 222,222$ 222,222$ 2,000,000$ 0% $ - 2,000,000$

Total Improvements to Existing Parks 27,941,534$ 2,159,174$ 2,590,849$ 3,992,389$ 3,735,589$ 3,035,589$ 3,035,589$ 2,685,589$ 2,285,589$ 2,335,589$ 2,085,589$ 27,941,534$ 393,500$ 27,548,034$

Percent for Art 500,000$ 65,000$ 48,333$ 48,333$ 48,333$ 48,333$ 48,333$ 48,333$ 48,333$ 48,333$ 48,333$ 500,000$ 0% $ - 500,000$

Cost Overruns 300,000$ 16,294$ 31,523$ 31,523$ 31,523$ 31,523$ 31,523$ 31,523$ 31,523$ 31,523$ 31,523$ 300,000$ 0% $ - 300,000$

Total Infrastructure 52,187,534$ 2,240,468$ 5,714,705$ 7,116,245$ 7,709,445$ 4,909,445$ 4,909,445$ 5,309,445$ 4,609,445$ 5,709,445$ 3,959,445$ 52,187,534$ 17,059,500$ 35,128,034$


Impact Fee Study 11,150$ $11,150 11,150$ 100% $ 11,150 -$ Parks Recovery Plan 50,000$ $50,000 50,000$ 0% $ - 50,000$ Parks, Open Space and Trails Master Plan 75,000$ $75,000 75,000$ 5% $ 3,750 71,250$ Jordan River Master Plan 100,000$ $50,000 $50,000 100,000$ 5% $ 5,000 95,000$ Foothills Recreation and Management Plan 75,000$ $75,000 75,000$ 5% $ 3,750 71,250$

Total Infrastructure Plus CIP/Fee-Related Research 52,498,684$ 2,240,468$ 5,839,705$ 7,166,245$ 7,759,445$ 4,920,595$ 4,984,445$ 5,309,445$ 4,609,445$ 5,709,445$ 3,959,445$ 52,498,684$ 17,083,150$ 35,415,534$

Minus Impact Fee Balance 1,184,928$ $1,184,928 1,184,928$ 100% $ 1,184,928 -$

Grand Total 51,313,756$ 2,240,468$ 4,654,777$ 7,166,245$ 7,759,445$ 4,920,595$ 4,984,445$ 5,309,445$ 4,609,445$ 5,709,445$ 3,959,445$ $51,313,756 15,898,222$ 35,415,534$

Funded FY11-12 Unit Cost Total Cost Growth Growth Cost

Replacement/ Repair R&R Cost Impact Fees

General Fund/ CDBG

Playgrounds TOTAL COSTGF 1 Herman Franks 1 116,200$ 116,200$ 1 116,200$

2013? 2 Lindsey Gardens 1 150,000$ 150,000$ 1 150,000$ 3 Fairmont 1 200,000$ 200,000$ 1 200,000$ 4 Swede Town 1 150,000$ 150,000$ 1 150,000$ 5 Poplar Grove 1 150,000$ 150,000$ 1 150,000$ 6 Popperton 1 150,000$ 150,000$ 1 150,000$ 7 Cotton 1 150,000$ 150,000$ 1 150,000$ 8 Stratford 1 150,000$ 150,000$ 1 150,000$ 9 Sunnyside 1 200,000$ 200,000$ 1 200,000$

10 Jordan 1 200,000$ 200,000$ 1 200,000$ 11 Riverside 1 200,000$ 200,000$ 1 200,000$

1,816,200$ -$ 1,816,200$ -$ 1,816,200$ 1,816,200$

Other Priorities12 Jefferson 1 150,000$ 150,000$ 1 150,000$ 13 Pugsley Ouray 1 150,000$ 150,000$ 1 150,000$ 14 Jordan 1 200,000$ 200,000$ 1 200,000$ 15 Wasatch Hollow 1 200,000$ 200,000$ 1 200,000$ 16 Fairmont 1 200,000$ 200,000$ 1 200,000$ 17 Taufer 1 150,000$ 150,000$ 1 150,000$ 18 Jordan 1 200,000$ 200,000$ 1 200,000$ 19 Laird Park 1 150,000$ 150,000$ 1 150,000$ 20 Liberty 1 200,000$ 200,000$ 1 200,000$ 21 6th East 1 150,000$ 150,000$ 1 150,000$ 22 Sorenson 1 200,000$ 200,000$ 1 200,000$ 23 Post Street Tot Lot 1 150,000$ 150,000$ 1 150,000$ 24 Redwood Meadows 1 150,000$ 150,000$ 1 150,000$ 25 Richmond 1 150,000$ 150,000$ 1 150,000$ 27 Inglewood 1 150,000$ 150,000$ 1 150,000$ 28 Westpointe 1 150,000$ 150,000$ 1 150,000$ 29 Galagher Tot Lot 1 150,000$ 150,000$ 1 150,000$ 30 Peoples Freeway Park 1 150,000$ 150,000$ 1 150,000$ 31 Kletting 1 150,000$ 150,000$ 1 150,000$

RestroomsGF 1 Rotary Glen-design 1 25,000$ 1 25,000$

2013? 1 Rotary Glen 1 275,000$ 1 275,000$ 2 Warm Springs 1 300,000$ 300,000$ 1 300,000$ 3 Parley's Historic Nature 1 300,000$ 300,000$ 1 300,000$ 4 Glendale Park 1 300,000$ 300,000$ 1 300,000$ 5 Poplar Grove 1 300,000$ 300,000$ 1 300,000$ 6 Wasatch Hollow 1 300,000$ 300,000$ 1 300,000$ 7 Cottonwood 1 300,000$ 300,000$ 1 300,000$ 8 Pioneer 1 300,000$ 300,000$ 1 300,000$ 9 Herman Franks 1 300,000$ 300,000$ 1 300,000$

11 Memory Grove Pavillion 1 300,000$ 300,000$ 1 300,000$ 3,000,000$ 300,000$ 2,700,000$ 300,000$ 2,700,000$ 3,000,000$

Other Priorities10 Fairmont 1 300,000$ 300,000$ 1 300,000$ 12 Jordan 1 300,000$ 300,000$ 1 300,000$ 13 Lindsey Garden 1 300,000$ 300,000$ 1 300,000$ 14 9th South River 1 300,000$ 300,000$ 1 300,000$ 15 Sherwood Park 1 300,000$ 300,000$ 1 300,000$ 16 Riverside 1 300,000$ 300,000$ 1 300,000$ 17 Herman Franks 1 300,000$ 300,000$ 1 300,000$ 18 Westpointe 1 300,000$ 300,000$ 1 300,000$ 19 Jordan 1 300,000$ 300,000$ 1 300,000$ 20 Riverside 1 300,000$ 300,000$ 1 300,000$ 22 Fairmont 1 300,000$ 300,000$ 1 300,000$ 23 Pioneer 1 300,000$ 300,000$ 1 300,000$ 24 Riverside 1 300,000$ 300,000$ 1 300,000$

Multipurpose Fields1 Fairmont 1 150,000$ 150,000$ 1 150,000$ 2 Fairmont 1 150,000$ 150,000$ 1 150,000$ 3 Fairmont 1 150,000$ 150,000$ 1 150,000$ 4 Fairmont 1 150,000$ 150,000$ 1 150,000$ 5 Jordan 2 100,000$ 200,000$ 2 200,000$ 6 Rosewood 1 150,000$ 150,000$ 1 150,000$

950,000$ -$ 950,000$ -$ 950,000$ 950,000$

Other Priorities7 Sorenson 1 100,000$ 100,000$ 1 100,000$ 8 Laird 1 100,000$ 100,000$ 1 100,000$ 9 Stratford 1 100,000$ 100,000$ 1 100,000$

10 Westpointe 1 150,000$ 150,000$ 1 150,000$ 11 Riverside 1 150,000$ 150,000$ 1 150,000$ 12 Dilworth 1 100,000$ 100,000$ 1 100,000$

Basketball Courts1 Swede Town 1 75,000$ 75,000$ 1 75,000$ 2 Madsen 1 75,000$ 75,000$ 1 75,000$

150,000$ -$ 150,000$ -$ 150,000$ 150,000$ Council wants to address indoor BB courts at Futsal and Steiner with ZAP Bond in 2016-17 (cost estimate needed)

Other Priorities3 Pioneer 40,000$ -$ 1 -$ 4 Poplar Grove 40,000$ -$ 1 -$

Tennis CourtsGF 1 Sunnyside/Pioneer/Reservoir - resurfacing 5 63,400$ 5 63,400$

CDBG 2 5th Ave & C Street -design 1 67,100$ 1 67,100$ 2013 3 5th Ave & C Street - reconstruction 1 107,900$ 1 107,900$ 2013 4 Lindsey Gardens 2 175,000$ 350,000$ 2 350,000$ 2014 5 Fairmont 5 175,000$ 875,000$ 5 875,000$ 2015 6 Dee Glen Smith 4 175,000$ 700,000$ 4 700,000$ 2015 7 Fire Station 2 175,000$ 350,000$ 2 350,000$ 2015 8 Warm Springs 2 175,000$ 350,000$ 2 350,000$ 2017 9 11th Avenue 8 175,000$ 1,400,000$ 8 1,400,000$ 2017 10 Victory Park 2 175,000$ 350,000$ 2 350,000$

4,613,400$ -$ 4,613,400$ -$ 4,613,400$ 4,613,400$

Other Priorities11 Riverside 4 175,000$ 700,000$ 4 700,000$ 12 Jordan 2 175,000$ 350,000$ 2 350,000$ 13 Poplar Grove 2 175,000$ 350,000$ 2 350,000$ 14 Westpointe 2 175,000$ 350,000$ 2 350,000$ 15 Ensign Downs 2 175,000$ 350,000$ 2 350,000$ 16 Dilworth 2 175,000$ 350,000$ 2 350,000$ 17 Reservior 2 175,000$ 350,000$ 2 350,000$

Volleyball Courts1 Sherwood 1 35,000$ 35,000$ 1 35,000$ 2 Richmond 1 35,000$ 35,000$ 1 35,000$

70,000$ -$ 70,000$ -$ 70,000$ 70,000$

Other Priorities3 Jordan 1 35,000$ 35,000$ 1 35,000$

Softball Fields1 Lindsey Gardens 1 200,000$ 200,000$ 1 200,000$ 2 Ensign Downs 1 200,000$ 200,000$ 1 200,000$

400,000$ -$ 400,000$ -$ 400,000$ 400,000$

Other Priorities3 Riverside 1 200,000$ 200,000$ 1 200,000$

Baseball Fields1 Lindsey Gardens 1 200,000$ 200,000$ 1 200,000$ 2 Herman Franks 3 200,000$ 600,000$ 3 600,000$ 3 Glendale 2 200,000$ 400,000$ 2 400,000$ 4 Rosewood 1 200,000$ 200,000$ 1 200,000$

1,400,000$ -$ 1,400,000$ -$ 1,400,000$ 1,400,000$

Other Priorities5 Sorenson 1 200,000$ 200,000$ 1 200,000$ 6 Poplar Grove 1 200,000$ 200,000$ 1 200,000$ 7 Westpointe 1 200,000$ 200,000$ 1 200,000$ 8 Dilworth 1 200,000$ 200,000$ 1 200,000$

Jogging/Walking PathsGF 1 Memory Grove 299,078$ 1 299,078$ GF 2 Wasatch Hollow Open Space 111,530$ 1 111,530$

2013 4 Riverview 1 75,000$ 75,000$ 1 75,000$ 2013 5 17th S RiverPark 1 16,000$ 16,000$ 1 16,000$

501,608$ 16,000$ 485,608$ 16,000$ 485,608$ 501,608$

Other Priorities6 City Creek Park 1 50,000$ 50,000$ 1 50,000$ 7 Cottonwood 1 4,000$ 4,000$ 1 4,000$ 8 11th Avenue 1 4,000$ 4,000$ 1 4,000$ 9 Hidden Hollow 1 15,000$ 15,000$ 1 15,000$

10 Ensign

Pavilions1 Rotary Glen 1 400,000$ 400,000$ 1 400,000$ 2 Jordan 2 400,000$ 800,000$ 2 800,000$

1,200,000$ -$ 1,200,000$ -$ 1,200,000$ 1,200,000$

Other Priorities3 Riverside 1 400,000$ 400,000$ 1 400,000$ 4 Cottonwood 4 400,000$ 1,600,000$ 4 1,600,000$

Plazas1 Pioneer 1 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1 50,000$ 950,000$ 2 Artesian Well 1 200,000$ 200,000$ 1 200,000$

1,200,000$ 50,000$ 1,150,000$ 50,000$ 1,150,000$ 1,200,000$

Other Priorities3 City Creek 1 50,000$ 50,000$ 1 50,000$ 4 Nelli Jack 1 25,000$ 25,000$ 1 25,000$ 5 First Encampment 1 50,000$ 50,000$ 1 50,000$

Off-Leash Dog Area2014 1 New Dog Park - Fairmont (Council Request) 1 250,000$ 250,000$ 1 250,000$

2 Parley's Historic Nature Park 1 250,000$ 250,000$ 1 12,500$ 1 237,500$ 500,000$ 12,500$ 487,500$ 12,500$ 487,500$ 500,000$

Other Priorities3 Memory Grove 1 250,000$ 250,000$ 1 250,000$ 4 Lindsey Gardens 1 250,000$ 250,000$ 1 12,500$ 237,500$ 5 Herman Franks 1 400,000$ 400,000$ 1 400,000$ 6 Jordan 1 250,000$ 250,000$ 1 25,000$ 225,000$ 7 Rosewood 1 250,000$ 250,000$ 1 25,000$ 225,000$

Skate ParksFairmont or Jordan (not yet prioritized) 1 700,000$ 700,000$ 1 700,000$

700,000$ -$ 700,000$ -$ 700,000$ 700,000$

Other PrioritiesFairmont or Jordan 1 700,000$ 700,000$ 1 700,000$

BMX and Bike ParksParley's Historic Nature Park 1 300,000$ 300,000$ 1 15,000$ 285,000$

300,000$ 15,000$ 285,000$ 15,000$ 285,000$ 300,000$ Council wants to look at new areas/options for BMX users

Drinking Fountains20 drinking fountains-various parks 20 3,500$ 70,000$ 20 70,000$ -$ 70,000$ 70,000$

70,000$ -$ 70,000$

Other Priorities20 drinking fountains - various parks 20 3,500$ 70,000$ 20 70,000$ Cottonwood 1Fairmont 2Herman Franks 2Int'l Peace Gardens 1Jordan 2Riverside 1Warm Springs 1Washington Square 211th Avenue 19th South 1City Creek 1Donner Trail 1Ensign Downs 1Lindsey Gardens 1Pioneer Park 1Poplar Grove 2Popperton 1Reservoir 1Richmond 1Rotary Glen 1Stratford 1Victory 1Westpointe 2Artesian Well 1Cotton 1Curtis 1Davis 1Faultline 1Inglewood 1Post Street Tot Lot 1Puglsey Ouray 1Taufer 1Glendale 2

Picnic Tables120 tables - various parks 120 2,000$ 240,000$ 120 240,000$

240,000$ -$ 240,000$ -$ 240,000$ 240,000$

Other Priorities120 tables - various parks 120 2,000$ 240,000$ 1 240,000$ LibertyWashington ParkCottonwoodFairmontJordanMemory GroveRiversideRosewoodSunnysideWarm Springs11th Avenue9th SouthDonner TrailLairdLindsey GardensMadsenPoplar GrovePoppertonReservoirRotary GlenRichmondSherwoodStratfordWestpointeCottonFaultlineGuadalupeJacksonTaufer

HorseshoesJordan or Riverside (not yet prioritized) 1 15,000$ 15,000$ 1 15,000$

15,000$ -$ 15,000$ -$ -$ -$

Other PrioritiesJordan or Riverside (not yet prioritized) 1 15,000$ 15,000$ 1 15,000$

Water FeaturesFairmont/Library Square/Memory Grove 1 250,000$ 250,000$ 1 250,000$ (not yet prioritized) 250,000$ -$ 250,000$ -$ -$ -$

Other PrioritiesFairmont/Library Square/Memory Grove 1 250,000$ 250,000$ 1 250,000$ Fairmont/Library Square/Memory Grove 1 250,000$ 250,000$ 1 250,000$ Council suggested Jordan Park 1 250,000$ 250,000$ 1 250,000$

Bridges1 Wasatch Hollow Open Space 1 250,000$ 250,000$ 1 250,000$

250,000$ -$ 250,000$ -$ -$ -$

Other Priorities1 Council Requested - Line Bridge need cost estimate2 Council Requested - Jordan River at Indiana3 Riverview 1 750,000$ 750,000$ 1 750,000$ 4 Parley's Historic Nature Park 1 250,000$ 250,000$ 1 250,000$ 5 Fairmont 2 5,000$ 10,000$ 2 10,000$

Bleachers1 Oak Hills Ball Diamonds 2 8,000$ 16,000$ 2 16,000$ 2 Sunnyside 2 8,000$ 16,000$ 2 16,000$ 3 Sherwood 6 8,000$ 48,000$ 6 48,000$ 4 Herman Franks 4 8,000$ 32,000$ 4 32,000$

112,000$ -$ 112,000$ -$ 48,000$ 48,000$

Other Priorities5 Lindsey Gardens 8,000$ -$ 2 -$ 6 Riverside 8,000$ -$ 4 -$ 7 Rosewood 8,000$ -$ 4 -$ 8 Ensign Downs 8,000$ -$ 1 -$ 9 Westpointe 8,000$ -$ 3 -$

Benches-no priority order30 benches - various parks 30 3,000$ 90,000$ 30 90,000$

90,000$ -$ 90,000$ -$ 90,000$ 90,000$ Sorenson 4Wasatch Hollow 3Washington Square 25Dilworth 2Jefferson 2Madsen 3Pioneer 2Richmond 5Galagher Tot Lot 1Post Street Tot Lot 3Redwood Meadows 3Swede Town 3Nelli Jack 2

Other Priorities30 benches - various parks 30 3,000$ 90,000$ 1 90,000$

Earthen TrailsGF 1 Parley's Historic Nature Park 1 150,223$ 1 150,223$

2 Miller Bird Refuge 1 75,000$ 75,000$ 1 75,000$ 3 Ensign Peak 1 75,000$ 75,000$ 1 75,000$ 4 Wasatch Hollow Open Space 1 75,000$ 75,000$ 1 75,000$

375,223$ -$ 375,223$ -$ 375,223$ 375,223$

Other Priorities5 Bonneville Shoreline Preserve 1 4,000$ 4,000$ 1 4,000$ 6 H-Rock 1 4,000$ 4,000$ 1 4,000$ 7 Riverview 1 5,000$ 5,000$ 1 5,000$ 8 Rotary Park 1 1,500$ 1,500$ 1 1,500$ 9 Bend-In-The-River 1 1,000$ 1,000$ 1 1,000$

10 Twin Peaks 1 1,500$ 1,500$ 1 1,500$

Concessions1 Riverside 1 250,000$ 250,000$ 1 250,000$ 2 Poplar Grove 1 125,000$ 125,000$ 1 125,000$ 3 Oak Hills Ball Diamonds 1 125,000$ 125,000$ 1 125,000$

500,000$ -$ 500,000$ -$ 500,000$ 500,000$

Other Priorities4 Sunnyside 1 125,000$ 125,000$ 1 125,000$ 5 Herman Franks 2 250,000$ 500,000$ 2 500,000$ 6 Dee Glen Smith Tennis 1 500,000$ 500,000$ 1 500,000$

Landscaping1 11th Avenue 1 30,000$ 30,000$ 1 30,000$ 2 Wasatch Hollow Open Space 1 675,000$ 675,000$ 1 675,000$ 3 Parley's Historic Nature Park 1 1,275,000$ 1,275,000$ 1 1,275,000$ 4 Faultline 1 15,000$ 15,000$ 1 15,000$ 5 Miller Bird Refuge 1 250,000$ 250,000$ 1 250,000$ 6 Fairmont 1 15,000$ 15,000$ 1 15,000$ 7 Sorenson 1 7,000$ 7,000$ 1 7,000$ 8 Sunnyside 1 30,000$ 30,000$ 1 30,000$ 9 Wasatch Hollow Park 1 8,000$ 8,000$ 1 8,000$

2,305,000$ -$ 2,305,000$ -$ 2,305,000$ 2,305,000$

Other PrioritiesCity Creek 1 250,000$ 250,000$ 1 250,000$ Dilworth 1 5,000$ 5,000$ 1 5,000$ Gilgal 1 3,000$ 3,000$ 1 3,000$ Oak Hills Ball Diamonds 1 500$ 500$ 1 500$ Poplar Grove 1 2,000$ 2,000$ 1 2,000$ Reservoir 1 5,000$ 5,000$ 1 5,000$ Richmond 1 3,000$ 3,000$ 1 3,000$ Rotary Glen 1 150,000$ 150,000$ 1 150,000$ Stratford 1 500$ 500$ 1 500$ Victory Park 1 3,000$ 3,000$ 1 3,000$ 10th E Senior 1 5,000$ 5,000$ 1 5,000$ 6th East 1 1,000$ 1,000$ 1 1,000$ Artesian Well 1 5,000$ 5,000$ 1 5,000$ Curtis 1 2,000$ 2,000$ 1 2,000$ Davis 1 1,000$ 1,000$ 1 1,000$ First Encampment 1 1,000$ 1,000$ 1 1,000$ 10th East Islands 1 3,000$ 3,000$ 1 3,000$ 12th East/South Temple 1 500$ 500$ 1 500$ 13th Avenue and J 1 500$ 500$ 1 500$ 4th Avenue Stairs 1 1,000$ 1,000$ 1 1,000$ Foothill Islands 1 500$ 500$ 1 500$ Glendale 1 5,000$ 5,000$ 1 5,000$ Research Parks Islands 1 500$ 500$ 1 500$ 8th West 1 500$ 500$ 1 500$ Bend-In-The-River 1 1,000$ 1,000$ 1 1,000$ Bonneville Shoreline Preserve 1 20,000$ 20,000$ 1 20,000$ Ensign Peak Nature Park 1 10,000$ 10,000$ 1 10,000$ Ensign Peak Nature Park and Trailhead 1 3,000$ 3,000$ 1 3,000$ Hidden Hollow Natural Area 1 5,000$ 5,000$ 1 5,000$ H-Rock 1 5,000$ 5,000$ 1 5,000$ Jordan River Parkway 1 30,000$ 30,000$ 1 30,000$ Modesto Park 1 5,000$ 5,000$ 1 5,000$ Riverview 1 750,000$ 750,000$ 1 750,000$

LightingGF 1 Faultline 1 45,650$ 1 45,650$ GF 2 Jordan River Trail - 500 North to 1000 North 1 57,060$ 1 57,060$

2013 3 Council Requested - Jordan River Trail 200 to 7 1 57,060$ 1 57,060$ 2013 4 Council Requested - Herman Franks Park 1 75,000$ 1 75,000$ 2013 5 Fairmont Park 1 100,000$ 100,000$ 1 100,000$

6 First Encampment 1 20,000$ 20,000$ 1 20,000$ 7 Donner Trail 1 30,000$ 30,000$ 1 30,000$ 8 Artesian Well 1 20,000$ 20,000$ 1 20,000$ 9 Elizabeth Sherman 1 20,000$ 20,000$ 1 20,000$

10 Library Square 1 145,000$ 145,000$ 1 145,000$ 11 North Gateway Park 1 50,000$ 50,000$ 1 50,000$ 12 Riverside Park 1 75,000$ 75,000$ 1 75,000$

694,770$ -$ 694,770$ -$ 694,770$ 694,770$

Other PrioritiesRosewood Park 1 60,000$ 60,000$ 1 60,000$ Warm Springs Park 1 50,000$ 50,000$ 1 50,000$ Wasatch Hollow Park 1 20,000$ 20,000$ 1 20,000$ 9th South 1 50,000$ 50,000$ 1 50,000$ Madsen 1 5,000$ 5,000$ 1 5,000$ Richmond 1 30,000$ 30,000$ 1 30,000$ Stratford 1 5,000$ 5,000$ 1 5,000$ Westpointe 1 75,000$ 75,000$ 1 75,000$ Cotton 1 5,000$ 5,000$ 1 5,000$ Galagher Tot Lot 1 15,000$ 15,000$ 1 15,000$ Jackson 1 20,000$ 20,000$ 1 20,000$ Miami 1 5,000$ 5,000$ 1 5,000$ Pugsley Ouray 1 10,000$ 10,000$ 1 10,000$ Redwood 1 40,000$ 40,000$ 1 40,000$ Silver 1 20,000$ 20,000$ 1 20,000$ Steenblik 1 30,000$ 30,000$ 1 30,000$ Swede Town 1 20,000$ 20,000$ 1 20,000$ Taufer 1 25,000$ 25,000$ 1 25,000$ Westminster 1 15,000$ 15,000$ 1 15,000$ Glendale 1 5,000$ 5,000$ 1 5,000$ Roberta Laconia 1 5,000$ 5,000$ 1 5,000$

Irrigation acresGF 1 10th E Senior 11,920$ 1 11,920$

CDBG 2 Cottonwood 25.00 400,000$ 1 400,000$ CDBG 3 6th East (S Temple-6th S) 2.80 204,900$ 1 204,900$ 2014 4 Parley's Historic Nature Park 25.00 20,000$ 500,000$ 1 500,000$

5 12 East (S Temple-5S) 2.46 20,000$ 49,200$ 1 49,200$ 6 Rosewood 22.25 20,000$ 445,000$ 1 445,000$ 7 Popperton 29.16 20,000$ 583,200$ 1 583,200$ 8 Wasatch Hollow Open Space 10.00 20,000$ 200,000$ 1 200,000$

2,394,220$ -$ 2,394,220$ -$ 2,394,220$ 2,394,220$

Other PrioritiesJordan 33.50 20,000$ 670,000$ 1 670,000$ Pioneer 10.00 20,000$ 200,000$ 1 200,000$ Washington Square 11.00 20,000$ 220,000$ 1 220,000$ Bend-In-The-River 4.25 20,000$ 85,000$ 1 85,000$ Dee Glen Smith 2.75 20,000$ 55,000$ 1 55,000$ Hillcrest 0.75 20,000$ 15,000$ 1 15,000$ Memory Grove 8.75 20,000$ 175,000$ 1 175,000$ Sunnyside 25.50 20,000$ 510,000$ 1 510,000$ Warm Springs 9.00 20,000$ 180,000$ 1 180,000$ Wasatch Hollow 3.55 20,000$ 71,000$ 1 71,000$ 11th Avenue 25.00 20,000$ 500,000$ 1 500,000$ 5th Ave. & "C" Street 0.37 20,000$ 7,400$ 1 7,400$ City Creek 4.00 20,000$ 80,000$ 1 80,000$ Dilworth 4.50 20,000$ 90,000$ 1 90,000$ Donner Trail 17.00 20,000$ 340,000$ 1 340,000$ Glendale Park 0.75 20,000$ 15,000$ 1 15,000$ Gilgal 0.95 20,000$ 19,000$ 1 19,000$ Kay Rees Park 5.35 20,000$ 107,000$ 1 107,000$ Madsen 2.00 20,000$ 40,000$ 1 40,000$ Parley's Way 3.37 20,000$ 67,400$ 1 67,400$ Poplar Grove 6.75 20,000$ 135,000$ 1 135,000$ Reservoir 6.50 20,000$ 130,000$ 1 130,000$ Rotary Glen 24.50 20,000$ 490,000$ 1 490,000$ Stratford 2.00 20,000$ 40,000$ 1 40,000$ Westside Senior 2.00 20,000$ 40,000$ 1 40,000$ 6th East Park 0.25 20,000$ 5,000$ 1 5,000$ Artesian Well 0.25 20,000$ 5,000$ 1 5,000$ Beatrice Evans Park 0.25 20,000$ 5,000$ 1 5,000$ Cotton Park 0.25 20,000$ 5,000$ 1 5,000$ Curtis Park 1.25 20,000$ 25,000$ 1 25,000$ Davis Park 0.50 20,000$ 10,000$ 1 10,000$

Faultline 1.00 20,000$ 20,000$ 1 20,000$ Guadalupe Park 1.00 20,000$ 20,000$ 1 20,000$ Jackson Park 1.00 20,000$ 20,000$ 1 20,000$ Kletting 0.50 20,000$ 10,000$ 1 10,000$ Post Street Tot Lot 0.50 20,000$ 10,000$ 1 10,000$ Redwood Meadows 1.25 20,000$ 25,000$ 1 25,000$ Silver Park 0.25 20,000$ 5,000$ 1 5,000$ Steenblik Park 2.00 20,000$ 40,000$ 1 40,000$ Swede Town 0.75 20,000$ 15,000$ 1 15,000$ City Creek 5.00 20,000$ 100,000$ 1 100,000$ Ensign Peak Nature Park 126.99 20,000$ 2,539,800$ 1 2,539,800$ Ensign Peak Nature Park and Trailhead 0.25 20,000$ 5,000$ 1 5,000$ Hidden Hollow Natural Area 3.19 20,000$ 63,800$ 1 63,800$ H-Rock 50.20 20,000$ 1,004,000$ 1 1,004,000$ Jordan River Parkway 74.44 20,000$ 1,488,800$ 1 1,488,800$ Miller Bird Refuge 8.68 20,000$ 173,600$ 1 173,600$ Modesto Park 4.70 20,000$ 94,000$ 1 94,000$ Regional Athletic Complex 26.85 20,000$ 537,000$ 1 537,000$ Riverview 10.51 20,000$ 210,200$ 1 210,200$ 10th E. Islands 0.86 20,000$ 17,200$ 1 17,200$ 1300 East Parking 1.75 20,000$ 35,000$ 1 35,000$ 1300 South 1500 East 0.25 20,000$ 5,000$ 1 5,000$ 13th Ave. & J 0.06 20,000$ 1,200$ 1 1,200$ 13th East 0.25 20,000$ 5,000$ 1 5,000$ 13th South Island 1.03 20,000$ 20,600$ 1 20,600$ 2 West (6N-Wall) 1.60 20,000$ 32,000$ 1 32,000$ 2nd South Islands 0.18 20,000$ 3,600$ 1 3,600$ 200 West (N Temple -4N) 0.17 20,000$ 3,400$ 1 3,400$ 8th West Islands (100 S-300 N) 1.50 20,000$ 30,000$ 1 30,000$ 7th East (13S-21S) 3.50 20,000$ 70,000$ 1 70,000$ 8th West (6-9s) 4.50 20,000$ 90,000$ 1 90,000$ Elizabeth Sherman 1.50 20,000$ 30,000$ 1 30,000$ Federal Heights Islands 0.63 20,000$ 12,600$ 1 12,600$ Foothills Islands 0.67 20,000$ 13,400$ 1 13,400$ Harvard Islands 0.37 20,000$ 7,400$ 1 7,400$ Jefferson Circle 2.00 20,000$ 40,000$ 1 40,000$ Laird Circle 0.25 20,000$ 5,000$ 1 5,000$ Normandy 0.04 20,000$ 800$ 1 800$ Oneida 0.75 20,000$ 15,000$ 1 15,000$ Prison Island 0.50 20,000$ 10,000$ 1 10,000$ Research Park Islands 8.47 20,000$ 169,400$ 1 169,400$ Skyline Island 0.25 20,000$ 5,000$ 1 5,000$ 17th South Retention 0.75 20,000$ 15,000$ 1 15,000$ 349 Plaza 0.25 20,000$ 5,000$ 1 5,000$ Almond Park 0.10 20,000$ 2,000$ 1 2,000$ Court Building 0.25 20,000$ 5,000$ 1 5,000$ Weseman 0.25 20,000$ 5,000$ 1 5,000$ Nelli Jack Park 0.25 20,000$ 5,000$ 1 5,000$ Roberta LaConia 0.25 20,000$ 5,000$ 1 5,000$ Stanton 0.25 20,000$ 5,000$ 1 5,000$ Washington Park Parleys 10.00 20,000$ 200,000$ 1 200,000$ Mountain Dell 10.00 20,000$ 200,000$ 1 200,000$

Fencing1 Parley's Historic Nature Park 1 265,000$ 265,000$ 1 265,000$ 2 Ensign Peak Nature Park 1 20,000$ 20,000$ 1 20,000$ 3 Wasatch Hollow Open Space 1 25,000$ 25,000$ 1 25,000$ 4 Miller Bird Refuge 1 15,000$ 15,000$ 1 15,000$ 5 Riverview 1 25,000$ 25,000$ 1 25,000$

350,000$ -$ 350,000$ -$ 350,000$ 350,000$

Other PrioritiesJordan River Parkway 1 800,000$ 800,000$ 1 800,000$ Riverside 1 5,000$ 5,000$ 1 5,000$ Sorensen 1 5,000$ 5,000$ 1 5,000$ Sunnyside 1 10,000$ 10,000$ 1 10,000$ Rotary Glen 1 15,000$ 15,000$ 1 15,000$ Sherwood 1 5,000$ 5,000$ 1 5,000$ Victory 1 2,500$ 2,500$ 1 2,500$ Hidden Hollow Natural Area 1 8,000$ 8,000$ 1 8,000$ H-Rock 1 8,000$ 8,000$ 1 8,000$ Modesto Park 1 5,000$ 5,000$ 1 5,000$

AsphaltGF 1 Jordan River Trail Repaving 1 295,020$ 295,020$ 1 295,020$

1 Rosewood 1 91,000$ 91,000$ 1 91,000$ 2 Lindsey Gardens 1 52,000$ 52,000$ 1 52,000$ 3 Rotary Glen 1 76,000$ 76,000$ 1 76,000$ 4 10th E Senior 1 105,000$ 105,000$ 1 105,000$ 5 Sunnyside 1 183,000$ 183,000$ 1 183,000$ 6 Memory Grove 1 380,000$ 380,000$ 1 380,000$

1,182,020$ -$ 1,182,020$ -$ 1,182,020$ 1,182,020$

Other PrioritiesSherwood 1 94,000$ 94,000$ 1 94,000$ Silver 1 11,000$ 11,000$ 1 11,000$ Almond 1 11,000$ 11,000$ 1 11,000$ 11th Avenue 1 35,000$ 35,000$ 1 35,000$ 9th South 1 26,000$ 26,000$ 1 26,000$ Popperton 1 22,000$ 22,000$ 1 22,000$ Steiner Aquatics 1 352,000$ 352,000$ 1 352,000$

SignageGF Open Space Signage Citywide: 312,093$ 312,093$

Parley's Historic Nature ParkEnsign Peak Nature Park and TrailheadWasatch Hollow Open SpaceJordan River Parkway Miller Bird RefugeBonneville Shoreline TrailH-RockHidden Hollow

312,093$ -$ 312,093$ -$ 312,093$ 312,093$

Other PrioritiesModesto Park 1 3,000$ 3,000$ 1 3,000$ Bend-In-The-River 4 3,000$ 12,000$ 1 12,000$ Alan Parsons-BST 1 3,000$ 3,000$ 1 3,000$ City Creek 1 11,000$ 11,000$ 1 11,000$ Popperton Park 1 3,000$ 3,000$ 1 3,000$ Riverview 1 6,000$ 6,000$ 1 6,000$ Rotary Park 1 3,000$ 3,000$ 1 3,000$ Twin Peaks 1 3,000$ 3,000$ 1 3,000$

Cemetery 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ -$ 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$

27,941,534$ 393,500$ 27,548,034$ 393,500$ 27,548,034$ 27,941,534$

Salt Lake City Streets/Transportation DivisionsCapital Improvement Plan 2012-2021 - Fiscally Constrained

Estimated ApprovedType of Capital Facility Cost FY11-12 FY12-13 FY13-14 FY14-15 FY15-16 FY16-17 FY17-18 FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21 10 year total

Roadway Projects1300 South Viaduct Rehabilitation 10,000,000$ 200,000$ 9,520,000$ 280,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 10,000,000$ 500/700 South - 2800 West to 5600 West 14,760,000$ 4,070,000$ 3,160,000$ 2,810,000$ 2,400,000$ 2,320,000$ -$ -$ -$ 14,760,000$ ADA Accessible Ramps 1,300,000$ 506,175$ 88,000$ 88,000$ 88,000$ 88,000$ 88,000$ 88,000$ 88,000$ 88,000$ 89,825$ 1,300,000$ Sidewalk Rehabilitation/Sawcutting 700,000$ 200,000$ 100,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 700,000$ Deteriorated Sidewalk Replacement 1,300,000$ 402,700$ 99,700$ 250,000$ 78,229$ 78,229$ 78,229$ 78,229$ 78,229$ 78,229$ 78,229$ 1,300,000$ Indiana Avenue/900 South from Redwood to 3600 West 3,640,000$ 300,000$ -$ -$ -$ 1,000,000$ 1,800,000$ 540,000$ -$ -$ 3,640,000$ Gladiola Street - 1650 South to 2100 South 4,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,900,000$ -$ 1,100,000$ 4,000,000$ 4400 West from 700 South to 850 South 1,600,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 250000 1,350,000$ 1,600,000$ Street Pavement Overlay and Preservation 7,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 700,000$ 700,000$ 700,000$ 700,000$ 700,000$ 700,000$ 700,000$ 700,000$ 400,000$ 7,000,000$ Local Street Reconstruction 6,500,000$ 950,034$ 620,000$ 620,000$ 620,000$ 620,000$ 620,000$ 620,000$ 620,000$ 620,000$ 589,966$ 6,500,000$ Major Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of City Streets 8,360,000$ 596,000$ 440,600$ 795,850$ 884,000$ 780,800$ 1,045,250$ 972,150$ 776,500$ 1,163,500$ 905,350$ 8,360,000$ Concrete Street Rehabilitation 2,000,000$ 756,800$ 140,000$ 140,000$ 140,000$ 140,000$ 140,000$ 140,000$ 140,000$ 140,000$ 123,200$ 2,000,000$ Bridge Rehabilitation 180,000$ -$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 20,000$ 180,000$ Percent for Art 500,000$ 65,000$ 48,333$ 48,333$ 48,333$ 48,333$ 48,333$ 48,333$ 48,333$ 48,333$ 48,333$ 500,000$ Cost Overruns 300,000$ 16,294$ 31,523$ 31,523$ 31,523$ 31,523$ 31,523$ 31,523$ 31,523$ 31,523$ 31,523$ 300,000$

62,140,000$ 9,063,003$ 14,968,156$ 5,833,706$ 5,060,085$ 4,876,885$ 3,821,335$ 4,548,235$ 5,992,585$ 3,189,585$ 4,786,426$ 62,140,000$ Transportation Projects

Replacement Traffic Signals 2,400,000$ 480,000$ -$ 160,000$ 320,000$ 160,000$ 320,000$ 160,000$ 320,000$ 160,000$ 320,000$ 2,400,000$ Pedestrian Safety Devices 250,000$ 120,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 30,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 250,000$ Bike Lane/Pedestrian Improvements - Citywide 7,020,000$ 550,000$ 2,000,000$ 2,520,000$ 1,950,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 7,020,000$ New Traffic Signals 1,440,000$ -$ 160,000$ 160,000$ 160,000$ 160,000$ 160,000$ 160,000$ 160,000$ 160,000$ 160,000$ 1,440,000$ 1300 East Traffic Safety - Phase 2 500,000$ -$ 500,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 500,000$ Street Lighting Replacement 200,000$ 40,000$ 160,000$ 200,000$

11,810,000$ 1,190,000$ 2,685,000$ 2,865,000$ 2,615,000$ 345,000$ 510,000$ 320,000$ 480,000$ 320,000$ 480,000$ 11,810,000$

Total Infrastructure $73,950,000 $10,253,003 $17,653,156 $8,698,706 $7,675,085 $5,221,885 $4,331,335 $4,868,235 $6,472,585 $3,509,585 $5,266,426 $73,950,000


Impact Fee Study 11,150$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 11,150$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 11,150$ Transportation Master Plan 200,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 200,000$

Minus Impact Fee Balance 5,441,542$ 3,420,000$ 2,021,542$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5,441,542$

Grand Total $68,719,608 $6,833,003 $15,731,614 $8,798,706 $7,675,085 5,233,035$ 4,331,335$ 4,868,235$ 6,472,585$ 3,509,585$ 5,266,426$ $68,719,608

Salt Lake City Streets/Transportation DivisionsCapital Improvement Plan 2012-2021 - Fiscally Constrained

Estimated Portion Impact Fee Other FundingType of Capital Facility Cost times Attributable equals Eligible Sources General Fund Class C CDBG Impact Fees FHWA Other Total

to Growth 7% (including fund balance)

Roadway Projects1300 South Viaduct Rehabilitation 10,000,000$ 0% $ - 10,000,000$ -$ 480,000$ -$ -$ $9,320,000 200,000$ 10,000,000$ 500/700 South - 2800 West to 5600 West 14,760,000$ 57% $ 8,413,200 6,346,800$ 3,173,400$ 3,173,400$ -$ 8,413,200$ -$ -$ 14,760,000$ ADA Accessible Ramps 1,300,000$ 0% $ - 1,300,000$ -$ -$ 1,300,000$ -$ -$ -$ 1,300,000$ Sidewalk Rehabilitation/Sawcutting 700,000$ 0% $ - 700,000$ 700,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 700,000$ Deteriorated Sidewalk Replacement 1,300,000$ 0% $ - 1,300,000$ (204,175)$ -$ 1,504,175$ -$ -$ -$ 1,300,000$ Indiana Avenue/900 South from Redwood to 3600 West 3,640,000$ 57% $ 2,074,800 1,565,200$ 782,600$ 782,600$ -$ 2,074,800$ -$ -$ 3,640,000$ Gladiola Street - 1650 South to 2100 South 4,000,000$ 57% $ 2,280,000 1,720,000$ 860,000$ 860,000$ -$ 2,280,000$ -$ -$ 4,000,000$ 4400 West from 700 South to 850 South 1,600,000$ 57% $ 912,000 688,000$ 344,000$ 344,000$ -$ 912,000$ -$ -$ 1,600,000$ Street Pavement Overlay and Preservation 7,000,000$ 0% $ - 7,000,000$ -$ 7,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 7,000,000$ Local Street Reconstruction 6,500,000$ 0% $ - 6,500,000$ 3,500,000$ 3,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,500,000$ Major Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of City Streets 8,360,000$ 0% $ - 8,360,000$ -$ 6,360,000$ 2,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ 8,360,000$ Concrete Street Rehabilitation 2,000,000$ 0% $ - 2,000,000$ -$ 2,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,000,000$ Bridge Rehabilitation 180,000$ 0% $ - 180,000$ 180,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 180,000$ Percent for Art 500,000$ 0% $ - 500,000$ 350,000$ -$ 150,000$ -$ -$ -$ 500,000$ Cost Overruns 300,000$ 0% $ - 300,000$ 50,000$ -$ 250,000$ -$ -$ -$ 300,000$

62,140,000$ 13,680,000$ 48,460,000$ 9,735,825$ 24,000,000$ 5,204,175$ 13,680,000$ 9,320,000$ 200,000$ 62,140,000$ Transportation Projects

Replacement Traffic Signals 2,400,000$ 0% -$ 2,400,000$ 2,400,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,400,000$ Pedestrian Safety Devices 250,000$ 10% $ 25,000 225,000$ 225,000$ -$ -$ 25,000$ -$ -$ 250,000$ Bike Lane/Pedestrian Improvements - Citywide 7,020,000$ 10% $ 702,000 6,318,000$ 6,318,000$ -$ -$ 702,000$ -$ 7,020,000$ New Traffic Signals 1,440,000$ 100% $ 1,440,000 -$ -$ -$ 1,440,000$ -$ -$ 1,440,000$ 1300 East Traffic Safety - Phase 2 500,000$ 0% $ - 500,000$ 500,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 500,000$ Street Lighting Replacement 200,000$ 0% $ - 200,000$ 200,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 200,000$

11,810,000$ $ 2,167,000 $ 9,643,000 $ 9,643,000 $ - $ - $ 2,167,000 $0 $0 $11,810,000

Total Infrastructure $73,950,000 15,847,000$ 58,103,000$ 19,378,825$ 24,000,000$ 5,204,175$ 15,847,000$ 9,320,000$ 200,000$ 73,950,000$


Impact Fee Study 11,150$ 100% $ 11,150 -$ 11,150$ 11,150$ Transportation Master Plan 200,000$ 10% $ 20,000 180,000$ 180,000$ 20,000$ 200,000$

Minus Impact Fee Balance 5,441,542$ 100% $ 5,441,542 -$ -$

Grand Total $68,719,608 10,436,608$ 58,283,000$ 19,558,825$ 24,000,000$ 5,204,175$ 15,878,150$ 9,320,000$ 200,000$ 74,161,150$

Council wants to add: Impact Fee Project Allocation General Fund Class C CDBG Impact Fees FHWA Other TotalConcrete replacement study Residential Non-Residential proposed 19,558,825$ 24,000,000$ 5,204,175$ 15,878,150$ 9,320,000$ 200,000$ 74,161,150$ 50/50 program 1,296,909$ 9,139,700$ available funds 19,558,825$ 24,000,000$ 5,204,175$ 15,878,150$ 9,320,000$ 200,000$ 74,161,150$ 500 East from S Temple to 900 S difference -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1300 E from 1700 S/South of I-80 Total 10,436,608$ 1000 West and 700 West - concrete infrastructureIndiana Bridge?Hawk Signals - Chapman Library900 Line Trail ImprovementsParley's Shared Use PathwayJordan and SL Canal PathwaySurplus Canal PathwayTCC CamerasFoothill StudyWestminster College expansion to SouthBusiness District Needs

10 Year TotalsFunding Sources

Salt Lake City Facilities Division This list does not reflect the amount fo funding available each year. Instead, it prioritizes projects for application within each funding year. See Sources and Uses.Capital Facilities Plan 2011-2021

Priority Building Project Estimated Project FY11-12 FY12-13 FY13-14 FY14-15 FY15-16 FY16-17 FY17-18 FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21Cost

1 Pioneer Precinct HVAC System and Lighting Energy Conservation $493,790 $493,7902 Justice Courts HVAC System Upgrade and Energy Conservation $377,100 $377,100

3 CBD - Area 4 Downtown Irrigation Water Conservation and Asset Renewal Project – Design, Engineering and Development. $135,586 $135,586

4 Central Plant Centeral Plant Heating, cooling system and structural study $233,783 $233,783

5 Westside Senior Center Building Shell Retrofit including roofing, siding and gutters. $110,093 $110,093

6 SBD Sugarhouse Business District Irrigation Water Conservation and Asset Renewal Project – Design, Engineering and Development. $291,928 $291,928

7 Spring Mobile Field Energy efficiency project replacing HVAC , Controls, and Lighting systems $663,518 $663,5188 6th South Properties Replace single pane window with Thermal double pane Windows $60,119 $60,1199 City & County Building Fan Coil Unit Replacement 1st Floor South Half $170,292 $170,292

Admin Req City & County Building Washington Square Event Power, which provides in ground distributed connection points to elminiate the need for portable generators on the East side of the Square. $499,996 $499,996

Admin Req City&County Building Fifth Floor Renovation to office space $884,301 $884,30110 City&County Building Exterior Painting and Repair work at all wood window frames, $190,000 $190,000

11 City&County Building City & County Building, Stone Repairs, this is needed work to restore damage or broken Kyune sand stone and stone sculptures. Consultaing work pending for final scope of restorative and protective work $200,000 $200,000

12 City & County Bldg City & County Building, Stone Upkeep including testing, cleaning, stone hardner and water proofing $1,400,000 $1,400,000

13 CBD - Area 4 Downtown Irrigation Water Conservation and Asset Renewal Project – Construction Work $800,000 $800,00014 Fire Station 5 and 2 Replace single-pane window with Thermal double pane Windows $73,200 $73,200 15 Fire Stations 1,4,6,7 Upgrade Fire station with full DDC controls and intergated system interfaces 900,000 900,00016 City & County Building Design and Construction of New Base Isolator System $1,000,000 $1,000,00017 Fire Stations 9,10,13, Upgrade Fire station with full DDC controls and intergated system interfaces 900,000 900,000

18 Fire Stations 1,4,6,7,9,10,13, Replace heating and Air-conditioning add DDC controls to systems $244,200 $244,200

19 6th South Properties Replace heating and Air-conditioning add DDC controls to systems to remaining properties. $80,500 $80,500

20 Sugarhouse Business Dist

Sugarhouse Business District Irrigation Water Conservation and Asset Renewal Project – Design, Engineering and Development. $268,886 $268,886

21 Sugarhouse Business Dist Sugarhouse Business District Irrigation Water Conservation and Asset Renewal Project – Construction Work $1,200,000 $1,200,000

22 City & County Building Fan Coil Unit Replacement 3rd Floor South Half $194,620 $194,62023 City & County Building Fan Coil Unit Replacement 3rd Floor North Half $182,456 $182,45624 City & County Building Fan Coil Unit Replacement 1st Floor North Half $137,176 $137,17625 City & County Building Fan Coil Unit Replacement 4th Floor North Half $170,292 $170,29226 City & County Building Fan Coil Unit Replacement 2nd Floor North Half $158,129 $158,12927 City & County Building Fan Coil Unit Replacement 2nd Floor South Half $137,176 $137,17628 City & County Building Fan Coil Unit Replacement 4th Floor South Half $170,292 $170,29229 City & County Building Fan Coil Unit Replacement 5th Floor $206,784 $206,78430 City & County Building 3rd & 5th Floor Carpet, Access Flooring and Electrical Replacement $748,907 $748,90731 City & County Building 2nd Floor, Carpet, Access Flooring and Electrical Replacement $561,681 $561,68132 City & County Building 4th Floor Carpet, Access Flooring and Electrical Replacement $748,907 $748,907

33 Fire Station 4,5, and WSC Parking Lot Repairs and Replacements $338,192 $338,192

34 East Side Senior Center ESSC - Re-roofing of Senior Center $109,800 $109,800

35 City & County Building 1st Floor Carpet, Access Flooring and Electrical Replacement $748,907 $748,907

36 Library Parking Structure Waterproofing of Concrete Structure Joint/Expansion Joint Repairs $305,000 $305,000

37 Plaza 349 Plaza 349 - Parking Structure Repairs and Resurface $261,682 $261,682

38 Spring Mobile Field Spring Mobile Field Concourse “B” Level Waterproofing Project $368,915 $368,91539 Spring Mobile Field Spring Mobile Field – Building Steel and Roof-deck Painting Project $1,079,763 $1,079,763

Salt Lake City Facilities DivisionCapital Facilities Plan 2011-2021

Priority Building Project Estimated Project FY11-12 FY12-13 FY13-14 FY14-15 FY15-16 FY16-17 FY17-18 FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21Cost

40 City & County Building Refinish interior Wood Work, clean, sanding and applying new finhinsh coatings. $150,000 $150,000

41 Memorial House Replace single pane window with Thermal double pane Windows $73,200 $73,200

42 Central Plant Chiller replacment and controls upgrade $300,000 $300,00043 Stiener East HVAC replacment and controls upgrade $800,000 $800,000

Admin Req Fisher Mansion Renovate and Restore Historic Fisher Mansion $1,900,000 $1,900,00044 Fire Station 8 FS 8 Re-roofing of Station Built Up Roofing $61,000 $61,00044 Fire Station 9 FS 9 Re-roofing of Station Built Up Roofing $61,000 $61,000

45 Chase House Replace heating and Air-conditioning add DDC controls to systems $55,000 $55,000

46 Pioneer Precinct Re-roofing of Pioneer Precinct $109,800 $109,800

47 City and County Bldg Replace Main Air-handlers on each floor $1,220,000 $1,220,000

48 Chase House Exterior Painting and Repair work $100,000 $100,000 49 Art Barn Exterior Painting and Repair work $100,000 $100,000 50 SLC Cemetary Exterior Painting and Repair work $100,000 $100,000

51 City&County Building Generator and Fuel Tank Upgrade $250,000 $250,000

52 Various Buildings Upgrade and Replace Carpet and tile and other floor coverings $250,000 $250,000

53 Various Buildings Upgrade and Replace Life Safety Systems such as Fire Detection, Fire Suppression $250,000 $250,000

54 Various Buildings Upgrade and Replace HVAC and Control Systems $250,000 $250,00055 Various Buildings Upgrade and Replace Roofs and Insulation and decking $250,000 $250,00056 Various Buildings Upgrade and Replace Carpet and tile and other floor coverings $250,000 $250,000

57 Various Buildings Upgrade and Replace Windows and glazing to higher efficiency resistance to cold and heat $250,000 $250,000

58 Various Buildings Address structural and foundation issues identified $250,000 $250,00059 Various Buildings Replace and upgrade water proofing systems $250,000 $250,00060 Various Buildings Replace and upgrade CBD/SBD Pavers and Irrigations systems $250,000 $250,00061 Various Buildings Replace and upgrade Generators and Fuel Systems $250,000 $250,00062 Various Buildings Repaint Exterior of Buildings needing such action $250,000 $250,000


64 Various Buildings Upgrade and Replace HVAC and Control Systems $250,000 $250,00065 Various Buildings Upgrade and Replace Roofs and Insulation and decking $250,000 $250,00066 Various Buildings Upgrade and Replace Carpet and tile and other floor coverings $250,000 $250,000


68 Various Buildings Address structural and foundation issues identified $250,000 $250,00069 Various Buildings Replace and upgrade water proofing systems $250,000 $250,00070 Various Buildings Replace and upgrade CBD/SBD Pavers and Irrigations systems $250,000 $250,00071 Various Buildings Replace and upgrade Generators and Fuel Systems $250,000 $250,00072 Various Buildings Repaint Exterior of Buildings need such action $250,000 $250,000


74 Various Buildings Upgrade and Replace Energy/HVAC and Control Systems $250,000 $250,00075 Various Buildings Upgrade and Replace Roofs and Insulation and decking $250,000 $250,00076 Various Buildings Upgrade and Replace Carpet and tile and other floor coverings $250,000 $250,000


78 Various Buildings Address structural and foundation issues identified $250,000 $250,00079 Various Buildings Replace and upgrade water proofing systems $250,000 $250,00080 Various Buildings Replace and upgrade CBD/SBD Pavers and Irrigations systems $250,000 $250,00081 Various Buildings Replace and upgrade Generators and Fuel Systems $250,000 $250,00082 Various Buildings Repaint Exterior of Buildings needing such action $250,000 $250,000

Total $30,835,971 $3,920,506 $3,563,200 $3,693,586 $3,416,420 $3,212,259 $3,223,200 $2,306,800 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000

25

Salt Lake City Impact Fee Schedule - with full parks impact fees

Impact Fee Calculation

FireResidential (per dwelling unit) 119$ Nonresidential (per square foot) 0.32$

PoliceResidential (per dwelling unit) 41$ Nonresidential (per square foot) 0.03$

ParksResidential (total dwelling units) 4,180$ Nonresidential (per square foot) -$

RoadwaysResidential (per dwelling unit) Single Family 424$ Multi Family 249$ Commercial (per square foot) Retail 3.28$ Office 2.33$ Industrial 2.26$


Current FeesResidential (per dwelling unit) Single Family 1,618$ Multi Family 1,618$ Commercial (per square foot) Retail 9.24$ Office 4.82$ Industrial 2.62$

REVISED CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN EXHIBITS

Selected Exhibits reflecting modified parks impact fee

27

Salt Lake City - Sources and UsesCapital Improvement Plan 2012-2021 - Fiscally Constrained Assuming Reduced Parks Impact Fees

SOURCES FY11-12 FY12-13 FY13-14 FY14-15 FY15-16 FY16-17 FY17-18 FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21 10 year totals

On-Going General Fund Contribution - 7% 13,543,847$ 13,723,562$ 14,135,269$ 14,559,327$ 14,996,107$ 15,445,990$ 15,909,370$ 16,386,651$ 16,878,250$ 17,384,598$ 152,962,971$ Ongoing General Fund Revenues 13,543,847$ 13,723,562$ 14,135,269$ 14,559,327$ 14,996,107$ 15,445,990$ 15,909,370$ 16,386,651$ 16,878,250$ 17,384,598$ 152,962,971$

Impact Fees (including current fund balances) 3,420,000$ 7,377,811$ 3,794,611$ 3,524,611$ 1,589,211$ 2,256,511$ 2,376,511$ 5,142,111$ 2,509,111$ 2,231,111$ 34,221,600$ Open Space Bond Fund Balance -$ 750,000$ 750,000$ 600,000$ 2,100,000$ Class C CIP Funds 2,400,000$ 2,400,000$ 2,400,000$ 2,400,000$ 2,400,000$ 2,400,000$ 2,400,000$ 2,400,000$ 2,400,000$ 2,400,000$ 24,000,000$ CDBG CIP Funds 1,304,175$ 1,100,000$ 1,100,000$ 1,100,000$ 1,100,000$ 1,100,000$ 1,100,000$ 1,100,000$ 1,100,000$ 1,100,000$ 11,204,175$ Facilities - Fleet Bond Revenue -$ 1,264,291$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,264,291$ Grants for Shared Use Pathways -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 250,000$ -$ -$ 250,000$ Streets Viaduct Match-already in CIP account -$ 200,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 200,000$ Federal Grant - FHWA -$ 9,320,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 9,320,000$ Sale of Public Safety/Evidence Property 6,000,000$ 5,000,000$ 11,000,000$

Total General Fund Revenues 20,668,022$ 36,135,664$ 28,179,880$ 27,183,938$ 20,085,318$ 21,202,501$ 21,785,881$ 25,278,762$ 22,887,361$ 23,115,709$ 246,523,037$

USES FY11-12 FY12-13 FY13-14 FY14-15 FY15-16 FY16-17 FY17-18 FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21 10 year totalsDebt Service

Sales Tax Bonds 3,757,013$ 4,161,854$ 4,401,174$ 2,930,705$ 6,864,511$ 9,354,071$ 9,342,669$ 9,333,578$ 9,332,520$ 9,337,671$ 68,815,766$ CAM Bond Issuance - estimated/placeholder Parking Pay Stations 665,780$ 665,780$ 665,780$ 665,780$ 665,780$ 665,780$ 665,780$ -$ -$ 4,660,460$ Streetcar 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 2,250,000$ Pay Station Test 291,777$ 291,777$ UPAC BAN 262,000$ 262,000$ 524,000$ Remainder of CAM Bond Issuance Placeholder 2,408,223$ 1,322,220$ 1,322,220$ 1,584,220$ 1,584,220$ 1,584,220$ 1,584,220$ 1,584,220$ 2,250,000$ 2,250,000$ 17,473,763$

Ongoing Debt Service 6,457,013$ 6,661,854$ 6,901,174$ 5,430,705$ 9,364,511$ 11,854,071$ 11,842,669$ 11,833,578$ 11,832,520$ 11,837,671$ 94,015,766$

Capital ProjectsFire -$ 550,000$ $1,000,000 6,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ 2,500,000$ 2,000,000$ 1,550,000$ 13,600,000$ Police -$ 5,000,000$ 4,000,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 9,000,000$ Parks and Open Space 2,159,174$ 5,077,071$ 6,403,611$ 6,996,811$ 4,146,811$ 4,221,811$ 4,546,811$ 3,846,811$ 4,946,811$ 3,196,811$ 45,542,535$ Streets 8,981,709$ 14,888,300$ 5,753,850$ 4,980,229$ 4,797,029$ 3,741,479$ 4,468,379$ 5,912,729$ 3,109,729$ 4,706,570$ 61,340,000$ Transportation 1,190,000$ 2,785,000$ 2,965,000$ 2,615,000$ 345,000$ 510,000$ 320,000$ 480,000$ 320,000$ 480,000$ 12,010,000$ Facilities - ongoing 490,000$ 390,000$ 390,000$ 390,000$ 390,000$ 390,000$ 390,000$ 390,000$ 390,000$ 390,000$ 4,000,000$ Facilities - discretionary 1,227,539$ 623,439$ 606,245$ 611,193$ 837,367$ 325,140$ 58,022$ 155,644$ 128,302$ 794,657$ 5,367,549$ CIP/Impact Fee Update -$ -$ -$ -$ 44,600$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 44,600$ Percent for Art 130,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 1,030,000$ Overruns 32,587$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 60,000$ 572,587$

Ongoing General Fund Expenditures 14,211,009$ 29,473,810$ 21,278,706$ 21,753,233$ 10,720,807$ 9,348,430$ 9,943,212$ 13,445,184$ 11,054,842$ 11,278,038$ 152,507,271$

Total General Fund Capital Expenditures 20,668,022$ 36,135,664$ 28,179,880$ 27,183,938$ 20,085,318$ 21,202,501$ 21,785,881$ 25,278,762$ 22,887,362$ 23,115,709$ 246,523,037$

difference (0)$ 0$ (0)$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ (0)$ 0$ (1)$

Salt Lake City Parks DivisionCapital Improvement Plan 2012-2021 - Fiscally Constrained

Acres/ Estimated ApprovedType of Capital Facility Miles Cost FY11-12 FY12-13 FY13-14 FY14-15 FY15-16 FY16-17 FY17-18 FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21 10 year total

Parks/Open Space Acquisition and Development Additional acres of developed parks to continue current level of service for growth 44.58 9,458,000$ -$ 1,050,889$ 1,050,889$ 1,050,889$ 1,050,889$ 1,050,889$ 1,050,889$ 1,050,889$ 1,050,889$ 1,050,889$ 9,458,000$ Additional acres of open space to continue current level of service for growth 54.30 543,000$ -$ 60,333$ 60,333$ 60,333$ 60,333$ 60,333$ 60,333$ 60,333$ 60,333$ 60,333$ 543,000$ Additional non growth-related open space acquisition TBD 2,100,000$ -$ 750,000$ 750,000$ 600,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,100,000$

Trail/Shared Use Pathway DevelopmentJordan and Salt Lake (McClelland) Canal Shared Use Pathway 4,000,000$ -$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ -$ 4,000,000$ City Creek Trail 1,200,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 750,000$ 450,000$ -$ -$ 1,200,000$


Playground Improvements 1,816,200$ 116,200$ 150,000$ 193,750$ 193,750$ 193,750$ 193,750$ 193,750$ 193,750$ 193,750$ 193,750$ 1,816,200$

Restroom Improvements 3,000,000$ 25,000$ 275,000$ 375,000$ 375,000$ 375,000$ 375,000$ 375,000$ 325,000$ 375,000$ 125,000$ 3,000,000$

Multipurpose Field Improvements 950,000$ -$ -$ 118,750$ 118,750$ 118,750$ 118,750$ 118,750$ 118,750$ 118,750$ 118,750$ 950,000$

Basketball Improvements 150,000$ -$ 16,667$ 16,667$ 16,667$ 16,667$ 16,667$ 16,667$ 16,667$ 16,667$ 16,667$ 150,000$

Tennis Court Improvements 4,613,400$ 130,500$ 457,900$ 875,000$ 1,400,000$ 700,000$ 700,000$ 350,000$ 4,613,400$

Volleyball Court Improvements 70,000$ -$ 7,778$ 7,778$ 7,778$ 7,778$ 7,778$ 7,778$ 7,778$ 7,778$ 7,778$ 70,000$

Softball Field Improvements 400,000$ -$ 44,444$ 44,444$ 44,444$ 44,444$ 44,444$ 44,444$ 44,444$ 44,444$ 44,444$ 400,000$

Baseball Field Improvements 1,400,000$ -$ 155,556$ 155,556$ 155,556$ 155,556$ 155,556$ 155,556$ 155,556$ 155,556$ 155,556$ 1,400,000$

Jogging/Walking Path Improvements 501,608$ 410,608$ 91,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 501,608$

Pavilion Improvements 1,200,000$ -$ 133,333$ 133,333$ 133,333$ 133,333$ 133,333$ 133,333$ 133,333$ 133,333$ 133,333$ 1,200,000$

Plaza Improvements 1,200,000$ -$ 133,333$ 133,333$ 133,333$ 133,333$ 133,333$ 133,333$ 133,333$ 133,333$ 133,333$ 1,200,000$

Off-Leash Dog Park Improvements 500,000$ -$ -$ 250,000$ 35,714$ 35,714$ 35,714$ 35,714$ 35,714$ 35,714$ 35,714$ 500,000$

Skate Park Improvements 700,000$ -$ 77,778$ 77,778$ 77,778$ 77,778$ 77,778$ 77,778$ 77,778$ 77,778$ 77,778$ 700,000$

BMX/Bike Park Improvements 300,000$ -$ 33,333$ 33,333$ 33,333$ 33,333$ 33,333$ 33,333$ 33,333$ 33,333$ 33,333$ 300,000$

Miscellaneous AmenitiesDrinking Fountains 70,000$ -$ 7,778$ 7,778$ 7,778$ 7,778$ 7,778$ 7,778$ 7,778$ 7,778$ 7,778$ 70,000$ Picnic Tables 240,000$ -$ 26,667$ 26,667$ 26,667$ 26,667$ 26,667$ 26,667$ 26,667$ 26,667$ 26,667$ 240,000$ Horseshoes 15,000$ -$ 1,667$ 1,667$ 1,667$ 1,667$ 1,667$ 1,667$ 1,667$ 1,667$ 1,667$ 15,000$ Water Features 250,000$ -$ 27,778$ 27,778$ 27,778$ 27,778$ 27,778$ 27,778$ 27,778$ 27,778$ 27,778$ 250,000$ Bridges 250,000$ -$ -$ 250,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 250,000$ Bleachers 112,000$ -$ 12,444$ 12,444$ 12,444$ 12,444$ 12,444$ 12,444$ 12,444$ 12,444$ 12,444$ 112,000$ Benches 90,000$ -$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 90,000$ Earthen Trails 375,223$ 150,223$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 25,000$ 375,223$ Concessions 500,000$ -$ 55,556$ 55,556$ 55,556$ 55,556$ 55,556$ 55,556$ 55,556$ 55,556$ 55,556$ 500,000$

Other ImprovementsLandscaping 2,305,000$ -$ 256,111$ 256,111$ 256,111$ 256,111$ 256,111$ 256,111$ 256,111$ 256,111$ 256,111$ 2,305,000$ Lighting 694,770$ 102,710$ 232,060$ 45,000$ 45,000$ 45,000$ 45,000$ 45,000$ 45,000$ 45,000$ 45,000$ 694,770$ Irrigation 2,394,220$ 616,820$ -$ 500,000$ 182,486$ 182,486$ 182,486$ 182,486$ 182,486$ 182,486$ 182,486$ 2,394,220$ Fencing 350,000$ -$ 38,889$ 38,889$ 38,889$ 38,889$ 38,889$ 38,889$ 38,889$ 38,889$ 38,889$ 350,000$ Asphalt 1,182,020$ 295,020$ 98,556$ 98,556$ 98,556$ 98,556$ 98,556$ 98,556$ 98,556$ 98,556$ 98,556$ 1,182,020$ Signage 312,093$ 312,093$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 312,093$

Cemetery 2,000,000$ -$ 222,222$ 222,222$ 222,222$ 222,222$ 222,222$ 222,222$ 222,222$ 222,222$ 222,222$ 2,000,000$

Total Improvements to Existing Parks 27,941,534$ 2,159,174$ 2,590,849$ 3,992,389$ 3,735,589$ 3,035,589$ 3,035,589$ 2,685,589$ 2,285,589$ 2,335,589$ 2,085,589$ 27,941,534$

Percent for Art 500,000$ 65,000$ 48,333$ 48,333$ 48,333$ 48,333$ 48,333$ 48,333$ 48,333$ 48,333$ 48,333$ 500,000$

Cost Overruns 300,000$ 16,294$ 31,523$ 31,523$ 31,523$ 31,523$ 31,523$ 31,523$ 31,523$ 31,523$ 31,523$ 300,000$

Total Infrastructure 46,042,534$ 2,240,468$ 5,031,927$ 6,433,467$ 7,026,667$ 4,226,667$ 4,226,667$ 4,626,667$ 3,926,667$ 5,026,667$ 3,276,667$ 46,042,534$


Impact Fee Study 11,150$ $11,150 11,150$ Parks Recovery Plan 50,000$ $50,000 50,000$ Parks, Open Space and Trails Master Plan 75,000$ $75,000 75,000$ Jordan River Master Plan 100,000$ $50,000 $50,000 100,000$ Foothills Recreation and Management Plan 75,000$ $75,000 75,000$

Total Infrastructure Plus CIP/Fee-Related Research 46,353,684$ 2,240,468$ 5,156,927$ 6,483,467$ 7,076,667$ 4,237,817$ 4,301,667$ 4,626,667$ 3,926,667$ 5,026,667$ 3,276,667$ 46,353,684$

Minus Impact Fee Balance 1,184,928$ $1,184,928 1,184,928$

Grand Total 45,168,756$ 2,240,468$ 3,971,999$ 6,483,467$ 7,076,667$ 4,237,817$ 4,301,667$ 4,626,667$ 3,926,667$ 5,026,667$ 3,276,667$ $45,168,756

29

Salt Lake City Impact Fee Schedule - with reduced parks impact fees

Impact Fee Calculation

FireResidential (per dwelling unit) 119$ Nonresidential (per square foot) 0.32$

PoliceResidential (per dwelling unit) 41$ Nonresidential (per square foot) 0.03$

ParksResidential (total dwelling units) 2,565$ Nonresidential (per square foot) -$

RoadwaysResidential (per dwelling unit) Single Family 424$ Multi Family 249$ Commercial (per square foot) Retail 3.28$ Office 2.33$ Industrial 2.26$


Current FeesResidential (per dwelling unit) Single Family 1,618$ Multi Family 1,618$ Commercial (per square foot) Retail 9.24$ Office 4.82$ Industrial 2.62$

1 – Galena Consulting, 2011

To: LuAnn Clark and Michael Akerlow, Salt Lake City HAND

From: Anne Wescott, Galena Consulting

Date: March 19, 2012

Re: Impact Fee Comparisons

One of the tasks within our scope of work for the update of the City’s Impact Fee Program

was a comparison of fees to other jurisdictions.

In the following data you will see that we have compared Salt Lake City’s current impact

fees for roads, parks, police and fire to:

Salt Lake City’s preliminary updated impact fees for roads, parks, police and fire;

The national average of impact fees for roads, parks, police and fire;

The average impact fees of 143 cities in ten Western States;

The average impact fees of the capital cities of six Western States;

The average impact fees of seven other cities with a comparable population of

150,000 to 250,000;

The average impact fees of three other Western cities that have a central position in a

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) of the same size as the Salt Lake MSA; and

The average impact fees of 14 Utah cities that are comparable to Salt Lake City in

population and/or are geographically close to Salt Lake City.


single family multi family retail/sf office/sf industrial/sf

Salt Lake City - current -$ -$ 8.62$ 4.20$ 2.00$ Salt Lake City - draft update 450$ 264$ 2.91$ 2.07$ 2.01$

National Average Sample Size - 268 3,227$ 2,179$ 5.95$ 3.36$ 2.06$

Western States 1 Sample Size

Arizona 30 2,630$ 1,818$ 4.40$ 2.11$ 1.15$ California 37 6,499$ 4,322$ 10.06$ 6.76$ 3.96$ Colorado 17 2,691$ 1,897$ 11.51$ 3.14$ 1.93$ Idaho 1 3,456$ 1,950$ 8.86$ 9.28$ 2.13$ Montana 1 3,432$ 2,124$ 5.93$ 1.96$ 1.46$ New Mexico 8 2,932$ 1,815$ 3.80$ 3.18$ 2.32$ Nevada 5 2,151$ 1,676$ 3.21$ 1.94$ 1.48$ Oregon 11 3,573$ 2,482$ 7.90$ 4.23$ 2.88$ Utah 18 1,140$ 1,073$ 2.03$ 1.04$ 0.63$ Washington 15 1,889$ 1,198$ 4.72$ 3.26$ 2.15$

average 3,039$ 2,036$ 6.24$ 3.69$ 2.01$

Western Capital Cities Population

Phoenix AZ 1,445,632 650$ 449$ 0.99$ 0.68$ 0.41$ Sacramento CA 486,189 4,651$ 3,851$ 7.01$ 6.55$ 2.16$ Boise ID 211,720 3,456$ 1,950$ 8.86$ 9.28$ 2.13$ Santa Fe NM 75,764 2,100$ 1,554$ 4.60$ 2.42$ 1.61$ Salem OR 156,690 1,953$ 1,274$ 8.14$ 2.09$ 1.32$ Olympia WA 42,514 3,015$ 1,957$ 4.84$ 6.46$ 3.74$

average 2,638$ 1,839$ 5.74$ 4.58$ 1.90$

Similarly Sized-Cities 2

Chandler AZ 247,140 3,983$ 2,446$ 7.39$ 5.88$ 1.66$ Gilbert AZ 216,449 423$ 297$ 1.59$ 0.57$ 0.41$ Glendale AZ 251,522 1,160$ 591$ 4.13$ 2.17$ 1.23$ Boise ID 211,720 3,535$ 1,950$ 8.86$ 9.28$ 2.13$ Reno NV 218,000 4,177$ 2,845$ 7.61$ 4.00$ 2.53$ Salem OR 156,690 1,953$ 1,274$ 8.14$ 2.09$ 1.32$ Spokane WA 208,916 638$ 412$ 2.65$ 1.71$ 0.68$

average 2,267$ 1,402$ 5.77$ 3.67$ 1.42$

Primary cities in similary-sized MSAs 3

Tucson AZ 541,811 4,300$ 2,150$ 4.28$ 5.09$ 2.20$ Fresno CA 495,913 per acre per acre per acre per acre per acreAlbuquerque NM 528,497 3,662$ 1,520$ 3.61$ 3.42$ 3.35$

average 3,981$ 1,835$ 3.95$ 4.26$ 2.78$

Utah Cities 4 5

Draper UT 42,274 1,447$ 994$ 4.85$ 1.93 1.05$ Herriman UT 21,785 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Layton UT 67,311 2,399$ 1,508$ 3.73$ 2.19$ 2.55$ Lehi UT 47,407 1,513$ 1,513$ 1.04$ 1.04$ 0.21$ Logan UT 48,174 669$ 461$ 0.30$ 0.14$ 0.05$ Park City UT 7,558 315$ 290$ 0.41$ 0.41$ 0.32$ Provo UT 112,488 986$ 657$ 2.40$ 0.61$ 0.40$ Riverton UT 38,753 764$ 2,675$ 3.20$ 1.60$ 0.67$ St George UT 72,897 754$ 754$ unavailable unavailable unavailableSandy UT 87,461 986$ -$ -$ -$ -$ South Jordan UT 50,418 1,880$ 1,316$ 4.74$ 2.94$ 1.31$ Tooele UT 31,605 1,515$ -$ -$ -$ -$ West Jordan UT 103,712 1,891$ 4,340$ 4.34$ 1.47$ 0.77$ West Valley UT 129,480 846$ 514$ 1.34$ 1.25$ 0.81$

average 1,140$ 1,073$ 2.03$ 1.04$ 0.63$

Roads Impact Fees


single family multi family

Salt Lake City - current 681$ 681$ Salt Lake City - draft update 1,752$ 1,752$

National Average Sample Size - 268 2,955$ 2,254$


Arizona 30 2,385$ 1,801$ California 37 8,622$ 6,681$ Colorado 17 3,560$ 2,774$ Idaho 1 1,355$ 1,050$ Montana 1 738$ 738$ New Mexico 8 1,747$ 1,261$ Nevada 5 2,034$ 1,625$ Oregon 11 5,095$ 3,817$ Utah 18 2,781$ 1,811$ Washington 15 2,244$ 1,506$

average 3,056$ 2,306$


Phoenix AZ 1,445,632 4,018$ 1,876$ Sacramento CA 486,189 5,191$ 3,058$ Boise ID 211,720 1,355$ 1,050$ Santa Fe NM 75,764 1,214$ 971$ Salem OR 156,690 3,548$ 1,937$ Olympia WA 42,514 2,930$ 1,771$

average 3,043$ 1,777$


Chandler AZ 247,140 5,057$ 3,873$ Gilbert AZ 216,449 4,547$ 3,911$ Glendale AZ 251,522 2,072$ 1,555$ Boise ID 211,720 1,355$ 1,050$ Reno NV 218,000 1,000$ 1,000$ Salem OR 156,690 3,548$ 1,937$ Spokane WA 208,916 -$ -$

average 2,511$ 1,904$


Tucson AZ 541,811 1,720$ 860$ Fresno CA 495,913 3,398$ 2,764$ Albuquerque NM 528,497 3,990$ 2,463$

average 3,036$ 2,029$

Utah Cities 4 5

Draper UT 42,274 3,990$ 2,463$ Herriman UT 21,785 3,445$ 3,445$ Layton UT 67,311 1,873$ 1,381$ Lehi UT 47,407 3,819$ 3,198$ Logan UT 48,174 -$ -$ Park City UT 7,558 3,855$ 3,150$ Provo UT 112,488 3,088$ 2,391$ Riverton UT 38,753 2,675$ 469$ St George UT 72,897 2,730$ 2,730$ Sandy UT 87,461 3,316$ 1,841$ South Jordan UT 50,418 4,346$ 2,850$ Tooele UT 31,605 2,125$ -$ West Jordan UT 103,712 1,633$ -$ West Valley UT 129,480 2,032$ 1,429$

average 2,781$ 1,811$

Parks Impact Fees



Salt Lake City - current 452$ 452$ 0.30$ 0.30$ 0.30$ Salt Lake City - draft update 357$ 357$ 0.24$ 0.24$ 0.24$

National Average Sample Size - 268 385$ 303$ 4.30$ 0.26$ 0.18$


Arizona 30 467$ 368$ 0.59$ 0.28$ 0.20$ California 37 802$ 635$ 0.68$ 0.52$ 0.40$ Colorado 17 356$ 325$ 0.28$ 0.26$ 0.15$ Idaho 1 628$ 628$ -$ 0.08$ 0.08$ Montana 1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ New Mexico 8 231$ 123$ 0.21$ 0.06$ 0.06$ Nevada 5 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Oregon 11 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Utah 18 181$ 152$ 0.12$ 0.11$ 0.10$ Washington 15 161$ 134$ 0.79$ 0.11$ 0.11$

average 283$ 236$ 0.27$ 0.14$ 0.11$


Phoenix AZ 1,445,632 344$ 153$ 19.00$ 0.20$ 0.22$ Sacramento CA 486,189 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Boise ID 211,720 628$ 628$ -$ 0.08$ 0.08$ Santa Fe NM 75,764 48$ 39$ -$ 0.04$ 0.03$ Salem OR 156,690 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Olympia WA 42,514 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

average 170$ 137$ 3.17$ 0.05$ 0.06$


Chandler AZ 247,140 268$ 221$ 0.37$ 0.28$ 0.09$ Gilbert AZ 216,449 643$ 643$ 0.34$ 0.34$ 0.34$ Glendale AZ 251,522 395$ 297$ 0.58$ 0.30$ 0.17$ Boise ID 211,720 628$ 628$ 0.08$ 0.08$ Reno NV 218,000 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Salem OR 156,690 -$ -$ -$ -$ Spokane WA 208,916 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

average 276$ 256$ 0.26$ 0.14$ 0.10$


Tucson AZ 541,811 674$ 499$ 0.70$ 0.70$ 0.70$ Fresno CA 495,913 624$ 508$ 6.65$ 6.65$ 4.22$ Albuquerque NM 528,497 218$ 71$ 0.34$ 0.08$ 0.08$

average 505$ 359$ 2.56$ 2.48$ 1.67$

Utah Cities 4 5

Draper UT 42,274 218$ 71$ 0.27$ 0.11 0.04$ Herriman UT 21,785 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Layton UT 67,311 -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.07$ Lehi UT 47,407 340$ 340$ 0.07$ 0.07$ 0.07$ Logan UT 48,174 34$ 28$ 0.03$ 0.03$ 0.01$ Park City UT 7,558 605$ 495$ 0.56$ 0.56$ 0.45$ Provo UT 112,488 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Riverton UT 38,753 308$ 308$ 0.09$ 0.02$ 0.31$ St George UT 72,897 109$ 109$ 0.10$ 0.07$ 0.01$ Sandy UT 87,461 71$ 40$ -$ 0.21$ 0.06$ South Jordan UT 50,418 323$ 208$ -$ -$ -$ Tooele UT 31,605 350$ 320$ 0.32$ 0.32$ 0.32$ West Jordan UT 103,712 105$ 160$ 0.14$ 0.08$ 0.05$ West Valley UT 129,480 66$ 45$ 0.11$ 0.08$ 0.04$

average 181$ 152$ 0.12$ 0.11$ 0.10$

Police Impact Fees



Salt Lake City - current 485$ 485$ 0.32$ 0.32$ 0.32$ Salt Lake City - draft update 218$ 218$ 0.39$ 0.39$ 0.39$

National Average Sample Size - 268 512$ 381$ 4.19$ 0.38$ 0.26$


Arizona 30 634$ 511$ 0.46$ 0.53$ 0.36$ California 37 1,022$ 690$ 0.58$ 0.61$ 0.36$ Colorado 17 644$ 407$ 0.33$ 0.35$ 0.25$ Idaho 1 479$ 479$ -$ 0.25$ 0.25$ Montana 1 823$ 692$ 0.19$ 0.19$ 0.19$ New Mexico 8 477$ 308$ 0.57$ 0.37$ 0.36$ Nevada 5 1,780$ 1,180$ 0.80$ 0.14$ 0.57$ Oregon 11 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Utah 18 159$ 119$ 0.16$ 0.14$ 0.05$ Washington 15 634$ 670$ 0.38$ 0.26$ 0.26$

average 665$ 506$ 0.35$ 0.28$ 0.26$


Phoenix AZ 1,445,632 322$ 270$ 0.10$ 0.12$ 0.17$ Sacramento CA 486,189 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Boise ID 211,720 479$ 479$ -$ 0.25$ 0.25$ Santa Fe NM 75,764 136$ 110$ -$ 0.12$ 0.07$ Salem OR 156,690 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Olympia WA 42,514 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

average 156$ 143$ 0.02$ 0.08$ 0.08$


Chandler AZ 247,140 577$ 442$ 0.72$ 0.55$ 0.18$ Gilbert AZ 216,449 1,100$ 1,100$ 0.59$ 0.59$ 0.59$ Glendale AZ 251,522 409$ 307$ 0.30$ 0.45$ 0.28$ Boise ID 211,720 479$ 479$ -$ 0.25$ 0.25$ Reno NV 218,000 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Salem OR 156,690 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Spokane WA 208,916 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

average 366$ 333$ 0.23$ 0.26$ 0.19$


Tucson AZ 541,811 488$ 360$ 0.27$ 0.27$ 0.27$ Fresno CA 495,913 539$ 439$ 2.36$ 2.36$ 1.50$ Albuquerque NM 528,497 310$ 107$ -$ -$ -$

average 446$ 302$ 0.88$ 0.88$ 0.59$

Utah Cities 4 5

Draper UT 42,274 310$ 107$ 0.41$ 0.54$ 0.04$ Herriman UT 21,785 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Layton UT 67,311 501$ 391$ 0.65$ 0.47$ -$ Lehi UT 47,407 576$ 576$ 0.25$ 0.25$ 0.25$ Logan UT 48,174 118$ 85$ 0.09$ 0.10$ 0.02$ Park City UT 7,558 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Provo UT 112,488 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Riverton UT 38,753 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ St George UT 72,897 216$ 216$ 0.18$ 0.19$ 0.06$ Sandy UT 87,461 165$ 92$ 0.32$ 0.09$ 0.13$ South Jordan UT 50,418 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Tooele UT 31,605 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ West Jordan UT 103,712 247$ 140$ 0.16$ 0.20$ 0.13$ West Valley UT 129,480 91$ 62$ 0.16$ 0.11$ 0.05$

average 159$ 119$ 0.16$ 0.14$ 0.05$

Fire Impact Fees



Salt Lake City - current 1,618$ 1,618$ 9.24$ 4.82$ 2.62$ Salt Lake City - draft update 2,777$ 2,591$ 3.54$ 2.70$ 2.64$

National Average Sample Size - 268 7,079$ 5,617$ 6.29$ 4.04 2.69$


Arizona 30 6,116$ 4,640$ 5.22$ 3.08$ 1.89$ California 37 16,945$ 15,496$ 13.96$ 10.43$ 7.40$ Colorado 17 7,251$ 4,759$ 12.54$ 5.86$ 3.07$ Idaho 1 5,918$ 4,107$ 8.86$ 9.61$ 2.46$ Montana 1 4,993$ 2,816$ 6.12$ 2.15$ 1.65$ New Mexico 8 5,387$ 2,772$ 4.40$ 3.46$ 2.97$ Nevada 5 5,965$ 3,735$ 2.65$ 1.79$ 1.30$ Oregon 11 8,668$ 6,141$ 7.82$ 4.50$ 3.17$ Utah 18 4,061$ 3,154$ 2.05 1.22 0.73 Washington 15 4,928$ 4,120$ 4.57$ 3.19$ 2.29$

average 7,023$ 5,174$ 6.82$ 4.53$ 2.69$


Phoenix AZ 1,445,632 5,334$ 2,748$ 20.09$ 1.00$ 0.80$ Sacramento CA 486,189 9,842$ 6,909$ 7.01$ 6.55$ 2.16$ Boise ID 211,720 5,918$ 4,107$ 8.86$ 9.61$ 2.46$ Santa Fe NM 75,764 3,498$ 2,674$ 4.60$ 2.58$ 1.71$ Salem OR 156,690 5,501$ 3,211$ 8.14$ 2.09$ 1.32$ Olympia WA 42,514 5,945$ 3,728$ 4.84$ 6.46$ 3.74$

average 6,006$ 3,896$ 8.92$ 4.72$ 2.03$


Chandler AZ 247,140 9,885$ 6,982$ 8.48$ 6.71$ 1.93$ Gilbert AZ 216,449 6,713$ 5,951$ 2.52$ 1.50$ 1.34$ Glendale AZ 251,522 4,036$ 2,750$ 5.01$ 2.92$ 1.68$ Boise ID 211,720 5,997$ 4,107$ 8.86$ 9.61$ 2.46$ Reno NV 218,000 5,501$ 3,845$ 7.61$ 4.00$ 2.53$ Salem OR 156,690 5,501$ 3,211$ 8.14$ 2.09$ 1.32$ Spokane WA 208,916 638$ 412$ 2.65$ 1.71$ 0.68$

average 5,467$ 3,894$ 6.18$ 4.08$ 1.71$


Tucson AZ 541,811 7,182$ 3,869$ 5.25$ 6.06$ 3.17$ Fresno CA 495,913 4,561$ 3,711$ 9.01$ 9.01$ 5.72$ Albuquerque NM 528,497 8,180$ 4,161$ 3.95$ 3.50$ 3.43$

average 6,641$ 3,914$ 6.07$ 6.19$ 4.11$

Utah Cities 4 5

Draper UT 42,274 5,965$ 3,635$ 3.95$ 2.58$ 1.13$ Herriman UT 21,785 3,445$ 3,445$ -$ -$ -$ Layton UT 67,311 4,773$ 3,280$ 4.38$ 2.66$ 2.62$ Lehi UT 47,407 6,248$ 5,627$ 1.36$ 1.36$ 0.53$ Logan UT 48,174 821$ 574$ 0.42$ 0.27$ 0.08$ Park City UT 7,558 4,775$ 3,935$ 0.97$ 0.97$ 0.77$ Provo UT 112,488 4,074$ 3,048$ 2.40$ 0.61$ 0.40$ Riverton UT 38,753 3,747$ 3,452$ 3.29$ 1.62$ 0.98$ St George UT 72,897 3,809$ 3,809$ 0.28$ 0.26$ 0.07$ Sandy UT 87,461 4,538$ 1,973$ 0.32$ 0.30$ 0.19$ South Jordan UT 50,418 6,549$ 4,374$ 4.74$ 2.94$ 1.31$ Tooele UT 31,605 3,990$ 320$ 0.32$ 0.32$ 0.32$ West Jordan UT 103,712 1,089$ 4,640$ 4.64$ 1.75$ 0.95$ West Valley UT 129,480 3,035$ 2,050$ 1.61$ 1.44$ 0.90$

average 4,061$ 3,154$ 2.05$ 1.22$ 0.73$

Total Impact Fees (roads, parks, police and fire)


single family multi family retail/sf office/sf industrial/sf single family multi family single family multi family retail/sf office/sf industrial/sf single family multi family retail/sf office/sf industrial/sf single family multi family retail/sf office/sf industrial/sf

Salt Lake City - current -$ -$ 8.62$ 4.20$ 2.00$ 681$ 681$ 452$ 452$ 0.30$ 0.30$ 0.30$ 485$ 485$ 0.32$ 0.32$ 0.32$ 1,618$ 1,618$ 9.24$ 4.82$ 2.62$ Salt Lake City - draft update 450$ 264$ 2.91$ 2.07$ 2.01$ 1,752$ 1,752$ 357$ 357$ 0.24$ 0.24$ 0.24$ 218$ 218$ 0.39$ 0.39$ 0.39$ 2,777$ 2,591$ 3.54$ 2.70$ 2.64$

National Average 3,227$ 2,179$ 5.95$ 3.36$ 2.06$ 2,955$ 2,254$ 385$ 303$ 4.30$ 0.26$ 0.18$ 512$ 381$ 4.19$ 0.38$ 0.26$ 7,079$ 5,617$ 6.29$ 4.04 2.69$

Western States 1 3,039$ 2,036$ 6.24$ 3.69$ 2.01$ 3,056$ 2,306$ 283$ 236$ 0.27$ 0.14$ 0.11$ 665$ 506$ 0.35$ 0.28$ 0.26$ 7,023$ 5,174$ 6.82$ 4.53$ 2.69$

Western Capital Cities 2,638$ 1,839$ 5.74$ 4.58$ 1.90$ 3,043$ 1,777$ 170$ 137$ 3.17$ 0.05$ 0.06$ 156$ 143$ 0.02$ 0.08$ 0.08$ 6,006$ 3,896$ 8.92$ 4.72$ 2.03$

Similarly Sized-Cities 2 2,267$ 1,402$ 5.77$ 3.67$ 1.42$ 2,511$ 1,904$ 276$ 256$ 0.26$ 0.14$ 0.10$ 366$ 333$ 0.23$ 0.26$ 0.19$ 5,467$ 3,894$ 6.18$ 4.08$ 1.71$

Primary cities in similary-sized MSAs 3 3,981$ 1,835$ 3.95$ 4.26$ 2.78$ 3,036$ 2,029$ 505$ 359$ 2.56$ 2.48$ 1.67$ 446$ 302$ 0.88$ 0.88$ 0.59$ 6,641$ 3,914$ 6.07$ 6.19$ 4.11$

Utah Cities 4 5 1,140$ 1,073$ 2.03$ 1.04$ 0.63$ 2,781$ 1,811$ 181$ 152$ 0.12$ 0.11$ 0.10$ 159$ 119$ 0.16$ 0.14$ 0.05$ 4,061$ 3,154$ 2.05$ 1.22$ 0.73$

Total Impact Fees (roads, parks, police and fire) Roads Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Police Impact Fees Fire Impact Fees

Source: Galena Consulting Study Team; 2010 National Impact Fee Survey, Duncan Associates

Notes:1) State Average determined by 2010 National Impact Fee Survey, based on non-exhaustive sample of published fees. Average adjusted with the addition of other cities researched by Galena Consulting. Averages include cities that may not be comparable to Salt Lake City in size or circumstances.2) Between 150,000 and 250,000 population3) Approx. 1M population4) Utah cities of similar size, and/or geographic proximity to Salt Lake City5) Bountiful and Murray do not assess General Fund impact fees6) Information could not be obtained for Ogden and Orem, but Ogden is believed to have fees


Conclusions

Impact fees are calculated based on a set of variables that differ significantly from city to city.

As such, there is no “right amount” for an impact fee. We focus instead on ensuring that the

impact fee has been calculated properly according to the guidelines set forth in statute and

relative to the specific circumstances of the jurisdiction assessing the fee.

The data provided above can be useful as a casual comparison of fees between similar entities.

If city representatives are concerned that impact fees might affect their ability to compete for

desired development, it can be helpful to review the fees of neighboring jurisdictions as well as

those considered to be competing markets.

There are challenges inherent in making definitive conclusions about the appropriate level of an

impact fee based on these comparisons, however:

• The list of cities included in the comparison is not exhaustive, nor is it statistically

sampled. While attempts were made to include a variety of different comparisons, some

cities may have been included that may not be considered by the City to be comparable,

and some may have been omitted that are.

• Some cities have complex impact fee schedules, assigning specific fee levels for each

land use type, and/or different service areas. In order to include fee data from these

cities, estimations were made in order to aggregate the data.

• Impact fee statutes change from state to state. Some states may allow impact fees to

fund capital items that others do not, which may affect the level of the impact fee. Many

jurisdictions used in this comparison have impact fees in categories other than roads,

parks, police and fire (i.e., government buildings, schools, arts and culture facilities,

etc.). The total impact fee on a unit of development in these cases would be higher than

is shown in this comparison.

• Impact fees are based on continuing the current level of service. Every city has a

different level of service (i.e., faster or slower fire response, more or less police officers,

more or less park acres, better or worse roadway congestion), which affects the level of

the impact fee.


• Some jurisdictions address the cost of growth in ways other than impact fees. For

example, instead of assessing impact fees, a city may choose to exact the improvement

as a condition of development approval, or to subsidize the cost of growth from other

revenue sources such as General Funds.

• Growth patterns are different. For example, some cities are experiencing more infill

growth, which can be less capital-intensive, while other cities are experiencing growth in

annexed and/or previously undeveloped areas that will require a great deal of capital

investment. The degree of capital required to meet the demands of growth will differ,

and will affect the level of the impact fee.

When evaluating comparisons to proposed impact fees, the following questions may be most

useful as part of a comprehensive policy discussion:

1. Has the impact fee been calculated in compliance with State statute?

2. Has the impact fee been calculated based on reasonable growth projections?

3. Has the impact fee been calculated based on reasonable capital costs for providing the

capital necessary to continue the current level of service as the population grows?

4. Are the calculated impact fees significantly higher or lower than jurisdictions considered

comparable to Salt Lake City? If so, can these differences be explained?

5. What kind of development is the City hoping to attract?

6. Will the level of these impact fees be a significant factor in a developer’s decision to locate

in a location other than Salt Lake City?1

7. If the City is considering adopting a fee lower than what will fully recover the cost of

necessary capital infrastructure, can the City afford to fund the difference? Alternatively,

will it be acceptable to allow the level of service to decrease?

1 Business-location decisions are based on many factors other than government cost (e.g., demographics of customer base, access to skilled labor, quality of life for residents, transportation access/egress, suitability of retail/office/industrial space, prestige/status of mailing address etc.). If government cost is a factor, it also encompasses ongoing tax rates and the value perception of ongoing services received for taxes and fees.

CFP And Impact Fees...monies to pay impact fees for low income housing development that has been...

Documents

Transcript of CFP And Impact Fees...monies to pay impact fees for low income housing development that has been...