Loading...
079 of 2016 - Impact fees amendments, consolidated fee schedule amendment, and adoption of impact fees facilities 0 16-1 T 12-3 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. 79 of 2016 Impact fees amendments, consolidated fee schedule amendment, and adoption of impact fees facilities plan (An ordinance amending certain sections of 18.98 of the Salt Lake City Code relating to impact fees, adopting an impact fees facilities plan, and providing for corresponding changes to the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule.) WHEREAS, chapter 18.98 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, the City Council desires to adopt a new impact fees facilities plan; and WHEREAS, it is necessary and desirable to delete the suspension of collection provisions in Section 18.98.005, and to revise certain sections of 18.98 with respect to the service areas for the impact fees; and WHEREAS, on May 17, 2011 the City Council adopted Ordinances 2011-23, 2011-24 and 201 1-25 to authorize and create the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule; and WHEREAS, in connection with the adoption of the new impact fees facilities plan, it is now proposed that the Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule be amended to modify the City's impact fees as shown in the attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing, 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; and (ii) adoption of this 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. Amending Salt Lake City Code section 18.98.020, Definitions. Section 18.98.020 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 18.98.020: DEFINITIONS: The following definitions shall apply for purposes of this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise. Terms otherwise not defined herein shall be defined by their usual and customary meanings. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE: A subordinate building or structure, located on the same lot with the main building, occupied by or devoted to an accessory use. When an accessory structure is attached to the main building in a substantial manner, as by a wall or roof, such accessory structure shall be considered part of the main building. ACCESSORY USE: A use that: A. Is subordinate in area, extent and purpose to, and serves a principal use; B. Is customarily found as an incident to such principal use; C. Contributes to the comfort, convenience or necessity of those occupying, working at or being serviced by such principal use; D. Is located on the same zoning lot as such principal use; and E. Is under the same ownership or control as the principal use. ACT: The Utah impact fees act, Utah code title 11, chapter 36a, as in existence on the effective date hereof or as hereafter amended. BUILDING PERMIT: An official document or certification which is issued by the building official of the city and which authorizes the construction, alteration, enlargement, conversion, reconstruction, remodeling, rehabilitation, erection, demolition, moving or repair of a building or structure. CHANGE IN USE: A change from commercial use to residential use. CITY: Salt Lake City, Utah. 2 CITY ENGINEER: The duly appointed and acting city engineer for the city. COUNCIL: The municipal council of the city. DEPARTMENT: The department of community and neighborhoods of the city. DEVELOPER: An individual, group of individuals, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, association, municipal corporation, state agency, or other person undertaking development activity, and their successors and assigns. DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY: Any construction or expansion of a building, structure or use; any change in use of a building or structure; the subdivision of land; the seeking of plat approval, planned development approval, site plan approval, lot line adjustment, or conditional use permit approval; or any other change in use of land that creates additional demand and need for public streets and roads, publicly owned parks, open space recreational facilities and trails, police or fire facilities. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL: Any written authorization from the city, other than a building permit, which authorizes the commencement of a development activity, including, but not limited to, plat approval, planned development approval, site plan approval, lot line adjustment, and a conditional use permit. DIRECTOR: The director of the department of community and neighborhoods of the city. ENCUMBERED: To reserve. set aside, or otherwise earmark impact fees in order to pay for commitments, contractual obligations, or other liabilities incurred for planned facilities. FEE PAYER: A person, corporation, partnership, incorporated association, or any other similar entity, or a department or bureau of any governmental entity or municipal corporation commencing a development activity which creates the demand for planned facilities and which requires the issuance of a building permit. "Fee payer" includes an applicant for an impact fee credit. FIRE IMPACT FEE: The impact fee designated to pay for fire public safety facilities. HUD: The United States department of housing and urban development. IMPACT FEE: A payment of money imposed by the city on development activity pursuant to this chapter as a condition of granting a building permit in order to pay for the planned facilities needed to serve new growth and development activity. "Impact fee" does not include a tax, a special assessment, a hookup fee, a fee for project improvements, a reasonable permit or application fee, the administrative fee for collecting and handling impact fees, the cost of reviewing independent impact fee calculations, or the administrative fee required for an appeal. 3 IMPACT FEE ACCOUNT OR ACCOUNT: The account or accounts established for the planned facilities for which impact fees are collected. IMPACT FEE FACILITIES PLAN: The plan adopted by the City to determine the public facilities required to serve development resulting from a new development activity, as required under Utah Code 11-36a-301. INDEPENDENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION: The impact calculation or economic documentation prepared by a fee payer to support the assessment of an impact fee other than the fees established in the city's consolidated fee schedule. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT: Shall have the same meaning as set forth in title 20, chapter 20.24 of this code. NET POSITIVE FISCAL IMPACT: New revenue to the city in excess of the cost of the necessary infrastructure and municipal services attributable to a development activity. OWNER: The owner of record of real property, or a person with an unrestricted written option to purchase property; provided, that if the real property is being purchased under a recorded real estate contract, the purchaser shall be considered the owner of the real property. PARK IMPACT FEES: The impact fee designated to pay for publicly owned parks, open space, recreational facilities and trails. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OR PD: Has the same meaning as set forth in section 21A.62.040 of this code. PLANNED FACILITIES: Roadway facilities, parks, open space and recreational facilities and trails, public safety facilities included in the capital improvements plan of the city. POLICE IMPACT FEE: The impact fee designated to pay for police public safety facilities. PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES: 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. Public safety facility does not mean a jail, prison, or other place of involuntary incarceration. QUALIFYING IMPROVEMENT: Any portion of the infrastructure listed in the impact fee facilities plan. RESIDENTIAL UNIT: Any building or portion thereof which contains living facilities including provisions for sleeping, cooking, eating, and sanitation, as required by the city, for not more than one family, and including site built buildings, manufactured homes and modular homes. 4 ROADWAY FACILITIES: A street or road that has been designated on an officially adopted subdivision plat, roadway plan, or general plan of a political subdivision, together with all necessary appurtenances. Roadway facilities includes associated improvements to a federal or state roadway only when the associated improvements are necessitated by the new development and are not funded by the state or federal government. Roadway facilities does not mean federal or state roadways. ROADWAY FACILITIES IMPACT FEE: The impact fee designated to pay for roadway facilities. STANDARD OF SERVICE: The quantity and quality of service which the director has determined to be appropriate and desirable for the city. A measure of the standard of service may include, but is in no way limited to, maximum levels of congestion on city streets and roads, maximum commute times, maximum wait at stops, minimum police service capabilities, minimum fire suppression capabilities, minimum park space per capita for a variety of types of parks, minimum distance from residences to parks, and any other factors the director may deem appropriate. STATE: The state of Utah. SECTION 2. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code Section 18.98.040, Service Areas. That Section 18.98.040, Service Areas, of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 18.98.040: SERVICE AREAS: A. The following impact fee service areas are hereby established: 1. For the purpose of park impact fees, the service area shall be all of the incorporated area of the city, including future annexed area. 2. For the purpose of fire impact fees, the service area shall be all of the incorporated area of the city, including future annexed area. 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.4. For the purpose of police impact fees, the service area shall be all of the incorporated area of the city, including future annexed area. B. Impact fees shall be assessed only on development activity within the service area. C. Impact fees collected within a service area shall be spent within that service area. 5 D. The appropriateness of the designation and boundaries of the service areas shall be reviewed periodically by the city as part of the impact fee revision process. Following such review and a public hearing, the service areas may be amended. SECTION 3. Amending text of Salt Lake City Code subsections 18.98.050.A. and B. That subsections 18.98.050.A and B of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and are hereby amended to read as follows: A. Unless an applicant requests an independent impact fee calculation as set forth in section 18.98.160 of this chapter, the impact fees shall be calculated for the proposed development activity based on the permit allowing the use, according to the fee schedule in the city's consolidated fee schedule, less any applicable offsets under section 18.98.070 of this chapter. B. The impact fee schedule in the city's consolidated fee schedule is hereby adopted and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 4. Deleting Salt Lake City' Code subsection 18.98.060.C. Subsection 18.98.060.0 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby deleted in its entirety. SECTION 5. Deleting Salt Lake City Code Section 18.98.150, Adjustments. Section 18.98.150, Adjustments, of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby deleted in its entirety. SECTION 6. Adopting the Impact Fees Facilities Plan. The City Council hereby adopts the Impact Fees Facilities Plan dated December 13, 2016, which plan was prepared by Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham. Inc. and which is available on the city's website or upon request at the office of the Salt Lake City Division of Housing and Neighborhood Development. SECTION 7. Consolidated Fee Schedule. The Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule shall be, and hereby is, amended, in pertinent part, to reflect the modified impact fees and corresponding fee information set forth in the attached Exhibit A, and that a copy of the amended Salt Lake City Consolidated Fee Schedule shall be published on the official Salt Lake City website. 6 SECTION 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication, provided, however, that any change in impact fees will not take effect until 90 days after the adoption of this Ordinance. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah,this 13 day of December , 2016. Ja es Rogers, Chairman ATT:' C Transmitted to the Mayor on January 10, 2017 • Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. ,,s 6%,,,,..147,44,4„,„ _ YOR -� ��, t ,7o t 7 ATT-Esi/ .-.TT- / .„, ... . CITY RECORDER (SEAL) /' .� APPROVED AS TO FORM ' Salt Lake City Attomey's Office i *'_ 3 4P % I Date: I2f 13/I(- e• 64 ti y' By4 441URATB . Katherine N.Lewis,Senior City Attorney Bill No. 79 _of 2016 ,,,,y,�,_- Published: January 21 , 2017 HB_ATTY-#56414-v3-Impact_Fee_Ord inance_(Text_Amendment).doc 7 "EXHIBIT A" IMPACT FEES For questions regarding Impact fees contact: 801.535.7712 Service Fee Additional Information Section Appeals Process $50 18.98.090 Developers Independent $150 Could be refunded or increased based upon 18.98.160 Calculation Deposit actual total costs. Impact Fees Single Family Multi-Family Office Industrial Commerical/Retail Residential(per Unit) (per 1,000 SF) Fire $171 $171 $53 $25 $250 18.98.160 Parks $5,173 $3,078 $0 $0 $0 18.98.090 Police $59 $59 $20 $10 $86 18.98.160 Transportation $330 $231 $429 $297 $1,650 18.98.090 Storm Water $374 Per 1/4 acre 17.81.400 GENERAL FUND IMPACT FEE FACILITIES PLAN (IFFP) AND IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS (IFA) PARKS & PUBLIC LANDS, PUBLIC SAFETY AND TRANSPORTATION SALT LAKE CITY, UT , • i. rir 111� , I-� , • j4,, � ' t • Y. •- ' A k:r . 7 .s-: -7-___„-.,. .-\''''., • . . 1 . , , . , Ay ,..'.4' •''r % • Y _era. 1 f_. -.y" ' ;- i : MEMBER 13, 201 1:,; _ • 14' • �yrf,�,�.�,tiF. C! 3 `' • . t�.. ,:; ' ws't f T'1• f'�•'.1.1:tit, .r 7 I', t . ~7•ri. 14, j[1,-, ,,• .. ,- ,c- .t r, `~t0 y M• •11 /� r tom• • - ►,. iii„ ,.. ti. 44 I Sr - r 'f will • i. .• ' �:.r=' 7 -• T ► ?.'-5f 'Os (., ti• - . ,sia 1 - GENERAL FUND IFFP AND IFA SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH DECEMBER 13,2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS IMPACT FEE CERTIFICATION 3 SECTION 1:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED GENERAL FUND IMPACT FEES 5 SECTION 2:GENERAL IMPACT FEE METHODOLOGY 6 SECTION 3:OVERVIEW OF SERVICE AREA AND GENERAL DEMAND FIGURES 8 SERVICE AREAS 8 DEMAND ANALYSIS:EXISTING CONDITIONS 8 DEMAND ANALYSIS:PROJECTED GROWTH 9 SECTION 4:PARK AND PUBLIC LAND IFFP AND IFA 10 DEMAND ANALYSIS 10 EXISTING FACILITY INVENTORY AND EXCESS CAPACITY 11 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS 12 EXCESS CAPACITY 12 FUTURE CAPITAL FACILITIES ANALYSIS 12 SYSTEM VS.PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS 12 FINANCING STRATEGY&CONSIDERATION OF ALL REVENUE RESOURCES 13 PROPOSED PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS IMPACT FEE 13 SECTION 5:FIRE IFFP AND IFA 15 DEMAND ANALYSIS 15 EXISTING FACILITY INVENTORY 16 LEVEL OF SERVICE(LOS)ANALYSIS 16 EXCESS CAPACITY 17 FUTURE CAPITAL FACILITIES ANALYSIS 17 SYSTEM VS.PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS 17 FINANCING STRATEGY&CONSIDERATION OF ALL REVENUE RESOURCES 18 PROPOSED FIRE IMPACT FEE 18 SECTION 6:POLICE IFFP AND IFA 20 DEMAND ANALYSIS 20 EXISTING FACILITY INVENTORY 21 LEVEL OF SERVICE(LOS)ANALYSIS 21 EXCESS CAPACITY 21 FUTURE CAPITAL FACILITIES ANALYSIS 21 SYSTEM VS.PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS 22 FINANCING STRATEGY AND CONSIDERATION OF ALL REVENUE RESOURCES 22 PROPOSED POLICE IMPACT FEE 23 SECTION 7:TRANSPORTATION IFFP AND IFA 24 TRANSPORTATION METHODOLOGY 24 DEMAND ANALYSIS 25 EXISTING FACILITY INVENTORY 27 LEVEL OF SERVICE(LOS)ANALYSIS 27 EXCESS CAPACITY 28 FUTURE CAPITAL FACILITIES ANALYSIS 28 SYSTEM VS.PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS 29 FINANCING STRATEGY AND CONSIDERATION OF ALL REVENUE SOURCES 29 PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE 29 SECTION 8:IMPACT FEE CONSIDERATIONS 31 EQUITY OF IMPACT FEES 31 NECESSITY OF IMPACT FEES 31 CONSIDERATION OF ALL REVENUE SOURCES 31 EXPENDITURE OF IMPACT FEES 31 GROWTH-DRIVEN EXTRAORDINARY COSTS 31 SUMMARY OF TIME PRICE DIFFERENTIAL 31 APPENDIX A:COMPARABLE DEVELOPMENT DATA 32 APPENDIX B:PARK AND PUBLIC LANDS INVENTORY 33 APPENDIX C:LAND VALUATION REPORT 47 APPENDIX D:TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 48 APPENDIX E:SUMMARY OF TRAVEL MODEL ANALYSIS 51 Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham , Inc . Page2 GENERAL FUND IFFP AND IFA SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH DECEMBER 13,2016 IMPACT FEE CERTIFICATION IFFP CERTIFICATION Lewis Young Robertson&Burningham, Inc.and Salt Lake City jointly certify that the Impact Fee Facilities Plan("IFFP")prepared for parks and public lands,police,fire,and transportation services: 1. includes only the costs of public facilities that are: a. allowed under the Impact Fees Act;and b. actually incurred;or c. projected to be incurred or encumbered within six years after the day on which each impact fee is paid; 2. does not include: a. costs of operation and maintenance of public facilities; b. 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; c. 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 3. complies in each and every relevant respect with the Impact Fees Act. LEWIS YOUNG ROBERTSON&BURNINGHAM, INC. SALT LAKE CITY IFA CERTIFICATION Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham, Inc. certifies that the Impact Fee Analysis ("IFA") prepared for parks and public lands, police,fire,and transportation services: 1. includes only the costs of public facilities that are: a. allowed under the Impact Fees Act;and b. actually incurred;or c. projected to be incurred or encumbered within six years after the day on which each impact fee is paid; 2. does not include: a. costs of operation and maintenance of public facilities; b. 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; c. 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; d. offsets costs with grants or other alternate sources of payment;and 3. complies in each and every relevant respect with the Impact Fees Act. Lewis Young Robertson&Burningham,Inc.makes this certification with the following caveats: 1. All of the recommendations for implementation of the IFFP made in the IFFP documents or in the IFA documents are followed by City Staff and elected officials. 2. If all or a portion of the IFFP or IFA are modified or amended,this certification is no longer valid. 3. All information provided to LYRB is assumed to be correct,complete,and accurate.This includes information provided by the City as well as outside sources. LEWIS YOUNG ROBERTSON&BURNINGHAM, INC. Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham , Inc. Page3 GENERAL FUND IFFP AND IFA SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH DECEMBER 13,2016 SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this Impact Fee Facilities Plan (IFFP), with supporting Impact Fee Analysis (IFA), is to fulfill the requirements established in Utah Code Title 11 Chapter 36a,the"Impact Fees Act,"and help Salt Lake City(the"City")fund necessary capital improvements for future growth. This document will address the future parks and public lands, police, fire, and transportation infrastructure needed to serve the City through the next ten years,as well as the appropriate impact fees the City may charge to new growth to maintain the level of service(LOS). ri Impact Fee Service Area:The Service Area for the parks and public lands, police,fire, and transportation impact fees includes all areas within the City. FIGURE 3.1 illustrates the proposed Service Area. This document identifies the necessary future system improvements for the Service Area that will maintain the existing LOS into the future. W Demand Analysis: The demand units utilized in this analysis include population, calls for service, trip generation, households, and development square feet (SF). As new development and redevelopment occurs within the City, it generates increased demand on City infrastructure. The system improvements identified in this study are designed to maintain the existing LOS for any new or redeveloped property within the City. ri Level of Service: The existing LOS is defined throughout each section of this document. Through the inventory of existing facilities, combined with the growth assumptions, this analysis identifies the LOS, which is provided to a community's existing residents and ensures that future facilities maintain these standards.Any excess capacity identified within existing facilities can be apportioned to new development. W Excess Capacity:The demand analysis,existing facility inventory and LOS analysis allow for the development of a list of capital facilities necessary to serve new growth and to maintain the existing system. This list includes any excess capacity of existing facilities, as well as future system improvements necessary to maintain the LOS. The inclusion of excess capacity is known as a "buy-in."Any demand generated from new development that overburdens the existing system beyond the existing capacity justifies the construction of new facilities.This analysis includes a buy-in component for public safety services only. W Outstanding Debt:The City issued the Series 2013B bonds to fund the construction of a soccer complex and the Series 2009A and 2013C bonds to finance open space. These bonds were refunded by the Series 2015A and Series 2015E bonds.The facilities funded by these bonds are not included in the calculation of LOS,therefore a credit is not necessary. The Series 2010A, 2010B and 2011 General Obligation Bonds were issued to fund the Public Safety Administration Building.The Series 2011 Bonds were refunded by the Series 2015E Bonds. Since the City levies a property tax on the assessed value of existing and future development to pay the principal and interest on these bonds, the impact fee analysis has excluded these facilities from the determination of the buy-in calculation. It is anticipated that new development will contribute to the repayment of these facilities through the property tax levy. W Capital Facilities Analysis:Due to the projected redevelopment within the City,additional capital improvements will be necessary as they relate to parks and public lands,public safety and transportation infrastructure. ' Funding of Future Facilities:This analysis assumes future growth related facilities will be funded through a combination of General Fund revenues, bond financing, other governmental revenues and impact fee revenues. Where applicable, interest costs are included in the total cost to fund proposed system improvements. Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham , Inc . Page4 GENERAL FUND IFFP AND IFA SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH DECEMBER 13,2016 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED GENERAL FUND IMPACT FEES The impact fees proposed in this analysis will be assessed within the Service Area. The table below illustrates the calculated impact fee for parks and public lands,public safety and transportation. TABLE 1.1:IMPACT FEE PER UNIT Single Family Multi-Family Indulge!. Residential(per Unit) Residential(per Unit) (per 1,000 SF) Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Parks 5,173 i 2,875 3,078 2,875 - - - - - - Fire 171 l 119 171 119 250 320 ` 53 320 25 320 Police 59 41 59 41 86 30 20 30 10 30 Transportation 330 424 231 249 1,650 3,280 i 429 2,330 I 297 2,260 Total $3,459 $3,538 , $3,284 Percent Change 66% 8% 1 (45%) (81%) (87%) It is important to note that the above fees exclude a buy-in fee as it relates to transportation. If a buy-in fee were included, the proposed fee could be increased from what is shown in the table above. NON-STANDARD IMPACT FEES The City reserves the right under the Impact Fees Act to assess an adjusted fee that more closely matches the true impact that the land use will have upon public facilities. This adjustment could result in a different impact fee if the City determines that a particular user may create a different impact than what is standard for its land use. The City may also decrease the impact fee if the developer can provide documentation,evidence,or other credible analysis that the proposed impact will be lower than what is proposed in this analysis. 1 11-36a-402(1)(c) Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham , Inc . Page5 GENERAL FUND IFFP AND IFA SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH DECEMBER 13,2016 SECTION 2: GENERAL IMPACT FEE METHODOLOGY The purpose of this study is to fulfill the requirements of the Impact Fees Act regarding the establishment of an IFFP and IFA.The IFFP identifies the demands placed upon the City's FIGURE 2.1:IMPACT FEE METHODOLOGY existing facilities by future development and evaluate how these demands will be met by the City.The IFFP is also intended to outline the improvements,which are intended to be DEMAND ANALYSIS funded by impact fees.The purpose of IFA is to allocate the cost of the new facilities and any excess capacity to new development,while ensuring that all methods of financing are considered.The Impact Fee Act requires that the IFFP and IFA consider the historic LOS provided to existing development and ensure that the proposed impact fees maintain the existing LOS. The following elements are important considerations when completing an EXISTING FACILITIES IFFP and IFA. ANALYSIS DEMAND ANALYSIS The demand analysis serves as the foundation for the IFFP. This element focuses on a specific demand unit related to each public service — the existing demand on public LOS ANALYSIS facilities and the future demand as a result of new development that will affect system facilities. EXISTING FACILITY INVENTORY FACILITIES In order to quantify the demands placed upon existing public facilities by new development ANALYSIS activity,to the extent possible the IFFP provides an inventory of the City's existing system facilities. The inventory valuation should include the original construction cost and estimated useful life of each facility. The inventory of existing facilities is important to determine the excess capacity of existing facilities and the utilization of excess capacity by FINANCING STRATEGY new development. LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS "Level of service" means the defined performance standard or unit of demand for each PROPORTIONATE SHARE capital component of a public facility within a service area. Through the inventory of ANALYSIS existing facilities, combined with the growth assumptions, this analysis identifies the existing LOS that is provided to a community's existing residents and ensures that future facilities maintain these standards. EXCESS CAPACITY AND FUTURE CAPITAL FACILITIES ANALYSIS The demand analysis,existing facility inventory and LOS analysis allow for the development of a list of capital projects necessary to serve new growth and to maintain the existing system. This list includes any excess capacity of existing facilities as well as future system improvements necessary to maintain the LOS. Any excess capacity identified within existing facilities can be apportioned to new development. Any demand generated from new development that overburdens the existing system beyond the existing capacity justifies the construction of new facilities. FINANCING STRATEGY This analysis must also include a consideration of all revenue sources,including impact fees,future debt costs,alternative funding sources and the dedication of system improvements, which may be used to finance system improvements.2 In conjunction with this revenue analysis,there must be a determination that impact fees are necessary to achieve an equitable allocation of the costs of the new facilities between the new and existing users.3 PROPORTIONATE SHARE ANALYSIS The written impact fee analysis is required under the Impact Fees Act and must identify the impacts placed on the facilities by development activity and how these impacts are reasonably related to the new development.The written impact fee analysis must include a proportionate share analysis,clearly detailing each cost component and the methodology used to calculate each impact fee.A local political subdivision or private entity may only impose impact fees on development activities when its plan for financing 2 11-36a-302(2) 3 11-36a-302(3) Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham , Inc . Page6 GENERAL FUND IFFP AND IFA SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH DECEMBER 13,2016 system improvements establishes that impact fees are necessary to achieve an equitable allocation of the costs borne in the past and to be borne in the future(UCA 11-36a-302). IMPACT FEE METHODOLOGIES There are two methods employed in this analysis to determine the maximum allowable impact fees:the Growth-Driven Approach or the Plan Based Approach. GROWTH-DRIVEN(PERPETUATION OF EXISTING LOS) The growth-driven method utilizes the existing level of service and perpetuates that level of service into the future.Impact fees are then calculated to provide sufficient funds for the entity to expand or provide additional facilities, as growth occurs within the community. Under this methodology, impact fees are calculated to ensure new development provides sufficient investment to maintain the current LOS standards in the community. This approach is often used for public facilities that are not governed by specific capacity limitations and do not need to be built before development occurs(i.e.park facilities). NEW FACILITY—PLAN BASED(FEE BASED ON DEFINED CIP) Impact fees can be calculated based on a defined set of capital costs specified for future development. The improvements are identified in a capital plan or impact fee facilities plan as growth-related system improvements.The total cost is divided by the total demand units the improvements are designed to serve. Under this methodology, it is important to identify the existing level of service and determine any excess capacity in existing facilities that could serve new growth.Impact fees are then calculated based on many variables centered on proportionality and level of service. Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham , Inc . Page7 GENERAL FUND IFFP AND IFA SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH DECEMBER 13,2016 SECTION 3: OVERVIEW OF SERVICE AREA AND GENERAL DEMAND FIGURES SERVICE AREAS Utah Code requires the impact fee enactment to establish one or more service areas within which impact fees will be imposed.4 The Service Area for the parks and public lands, police,fire, and transportation impact fees includes all areas within the current municipal boundaries of the City,as shown in FIGURE 3.1.This document identifies the necessary future system improvements for the Service Area that will maintain the existing LOS into the future. FIGURE 3.1:SERVICE AREA ._14) ELL) 7, r�.-,� �QII _7 ra. ...r .141 0 Q IMPACT FEE SERVICE AREA BOUNDARIES L� J TABLE 3.1:EXISTING LAND USE DATA TYPE SQUARE FEET ACRES MARKET VALUE ASSESSED VALUE DEMAND ANALYSIS: Residential 121,897,971 9,451 $14,599,716,300 $7,919,357,601 EXISTING CONDITIONS Commercial 32,479,668 2,196 $2,813,184,000 $2,553,190,842 Office 32,772,006 858 $3,157,181,900 $2,638,638,740 The demand units utilized in this Industrial 64,050,245 5,343 $3,004,289,600 $2,869,018,318 analysis include population, Vacant 769,963 6,626 $524,832,100 $343,411,242 households, and development Agricultural/Forest/Mining 44,904 8,484 $98,074,300 $4,711,950 square feet (SF). As new ----- development and redevelopment Other 22,596,481 20,121 $5,864,418,600 l $232,448,542 occurs within the City, it generates Total ] 274,611,238 53,079 $30,061,696,800 L $16,560,777,235 increased demand on City infrastructure. The system improvements identified in this study are designed to maintain the existing LOS for any new or redeveloped property within the UC 11-36a 402(1)(a) Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham , Inc . Page8 GENERAL FUND IFFP AND IFA SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH DECEMBER 13,2016 City. TABLES 3.1-3.4 identify the existing development conditions within the City, as well as the anticipated new development forecasted to occur within the IFFP planning horizon. Existing parcel data indicates the majority of assessed value and building square footage is attributed to residential development. A total of 274,611,238 building square feet and$30,061,696,800 of assessed value exist within the City as shown in TABLE 3.1. The 2010 Census population figure for the City was 186,522.The current population is estimated using building permit data(TABLE 3.2)from 2000 to 2015.The existing population is estimated at 192,285. TABLE 3.2:BUILDING PERMIT DATA YEAR SINGLE- MOBILE/MANUFN DUPLEX/TWIN MULTI- TOTAL DWELLING INCREMENTAL CUMULATIVE %GROWTH FAMILY CABIN _ HOME FAMILY/CONDO UNITS 1 POPULATION TOTAL POPULATION 2010 19 - - _ 92 111 ' 233 186,755 2011 24 - 4 319 347 683 187,438 0.37% 2012 33 - - 150 183 386 187,824 0.21% 2013 14 - - 24 38 - 89 187,914 0.05% 2014 30 - - 888 918 1,764 189,678 0.94% 2015 39 2 1,319 1,360 2,607 192,285 1.37% Source:LYRB,BEBR-Utah Construction Information Database(Table 3"Year-to-Date Dwelling Units by Type for State,Cities and Counties). Analysis assumes an average household size of 3.16 persons for single-family dwellings and 1.88 persons for multifamily dwellings,based on 2013 American Community Survey estimates. DEMAND ANALYSIS: PROJECTED GROWTH For purposes of this analysis, population is anticipated to reach 220,492 within the 10-year planning horizon.This represents an increase of 28,208 people.The population projections are based on several sources including Census data,Governor's Office of Management and Budget(GOMB)estimates, City data and other development data.The total change in population from 2000 to 2010 was 2.58 percent,or 4,697 persons. GOMB projects population within the City will reach approximately 210,000 by 2020. In the same time period, general commercial square footage is anticipated to increase by 2,361,365 square feet, with office and industrial development increasing by 1,266,687 and 12,506,950 respectively(See TABLE 3.4). TABLE 3.3:PROJECTED GROWTH IN POPULATION,RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SQUARE FEET AAGR AAGR(YR. TYPE UNITS/SF (YR.1.3) 4.10) ExiSTING YEAR1 YEAR2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 Population 192,285 196,243 200,293 204,439 208,683 210,613 Single Family Units 0.10% 0.15% 41,711 41,753 41,795 41,837 41,878 41,941 Multifamily Units Units 2.50% 0.95% 41,988 43,037 44,113 45,216 46,347 46,787 Residential Total 83,699 84,790 85,908 87,053 88,225 88,728 Commercial SF 0.90% 0.57% 32,479,668 32,771,985 33,066,933 33,364,535 33,664,816 33,858,058 Office SF 0.50% 0.30% 32,772,006 32,935,866 33,100,545 33,266,048 33,432,378 33,532,675 Industrial SF 2.10% 1.60% 64,050,245 65,395,300 66,768,601 68,170,742 I 69,602,328 70,715,965 Source:LYRB,SF=Square Feet Analysis assumes an average household size of 3.16 persons for single-family dwellings and 1.88 persons for multifamily dwellings,based on 2013 American Community Survey estimates. These projections were also compared to development data provided by Newmark Grubb Acres.See APPENDIX A. TABLE 3.4:PROJECTED GROWTH IN POPULATION,RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SQUARE FEET(CONT.) TYPE YEAR 6 YEAR 7 YEAR B YEAR 9 YEAR 10 YR.1.3 NEW YR.3.10 NEW TOTAL IFFP GROWTH GROWTH NEW GROWTH Population 212,557 214,518 216,493 218,485 220,492 12,155 16,053 28,208 Single Family 42,004 I 42,067 42,130 42,193 42,257 125 420 545 Multifamily Units 47,231 47,680 48,133 48,590 49,052 3,228 _ 3,836 7,064 Residential Total 89,235 89,747 90,263 90,784 91,309 L 3,354 T 4,256 7,610 Retail 34,052,409 34,247,875 ! 34,444,464 34,642,181 t 34,841,033 884,867 1,476,497 2,361,365 Office 33,633,273 33,734,173 33,835,376 33,936,882 f 34,038,693 494,042 772,645 1,266,687 Industrial 71,847,420 72,996,979 74,164,931 75,351,570 76,557,195 4,120,497 L 8,386,453 12,506,950 Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham , Inc . Page9 GENERAL FUND IFFP AND IFA SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH DECEMBER 13,2016 SECTION 4: PARK AND PUBLIC LAND IFFP AND IFA DEMAND ANALYSIS The specific demand unit used for the Park and Public Lands IFFP and IFA is population.The population projections are based on several sources including Census data,Governor's Office of Management and Budget(GOMB)estimates,and City data.The total change in population from 2000 to 2010 was 2.58 percent,or 4,697 persons.GOMB projects population within the City will reach approximately 210,000 by 2020. This analysis assumes the population within the 10-year window will reach 220,492. This is an increase of approximately 28,208 residents within in the impact fee horizon.Because of this growth,the City will need to construct additional park and public land facilities to maintain the existing LOS. TABLE 4.1:POPULATION PROJECTIONS GOVERNOR'S OFFICE The future population in the City is used to YEAR —1 POPULATION %CHANGE OF MANAGEMENT determine the additional park and public land 2000 Census ANDBUDGET --- - needs.The LOS standards for each of these types 181,743 181,743 of improvements has been calculated, with a 2010 Census 186,440 2.58% 186,440 blended LOS determined for the future population, 2010(July 1) 186,522 giving the City flexibility to provide future residents 2011 188,158 0.88% the types of improvements that are desired. If 2012 189,448 0.69% growth projections and land use change 2013 191,282 0.97% significantly in the future, the City will need to update the demand projections,the IFFP,and the 2014 190,884 -0.21% impact fees. 2015 192,285 0.73% 2016 196,243 2.06% 2017 200,293 2.06% 2018 204,439 2.07% 2019 208,683 2.08% 2020 210,613 0.92% 210,592 2021 212,557 0.92% 2022 214,518 0.92% 2023 216,493 0.92% 2024 218,485 0.92% 2025 220,492 0.92% 2026 222,518 0.92% f 2027 224,563 0.92% 2028 226,626 0.92% 2029 228,709 0.92% 2030 230,810 0.92% 227,824 Source:US Census Data(2010-2014);2015 Estimate based on BEBR-Utah Construction Information Database(Table 3"Year-to-Date Dwelling Units by Type for State,Cities and Counties).Analysis assumes an average household size of 3.16 persons for single-family dwellings and 1.88 persons for multifamily dwellings,based on 2013 American Community Survey estimates. Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham , Inc. Page10 GENERAL FUND IFFP AND IFA SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH DECEMBER 13,2016 EXISTING FACILITY INVENTORY AND EXCESS CAPACITY The City's existing inventory for parks and public land is shown in TABLE 4.2. See APPENDIX B for a detailed list of facilities and amenities.The city-owned acreage and estimated total improvement value illustrated below will be the basis for the LOS analysis discussed later in this section. TABLE 4.2:EXISTING FACILITY INVENTORY I EXISTING PARK& INCLUDED IN TOTAL LAND LAND VALUE TOTAL IMPROVEMENT TOTAL VALUE PUBLIC LAND ACRES IFFP' VALUE PER CAPTA IMPROVEMENT VALUE PER PER CAPITA VALUE CAPITA All Parks 8 2,378 1,401 $210,134,805 $1,093 $96,351,475 $501 $1,594 Public Lands *Excludes the following:cemetery,Ensign North Open Space,Foothill Open Space,Victory Road Natural Area,greenbelt areas with acreage less than.25 acres,and facilities funded through grants,donations or other contributions,as well as facilities paid through alternative funding mechanisms(e.g.General Obligation Bonds). Source:LYRB,Salt Lake City Based on a baseline population of 192,285 LAND VALUATION Current costs are used to determine the actual cost,in today's dollars,of duplicating the current LOS for future development in the City, and does not reflect the value of the existing improvements within the City. For the purposes of this analysis, the cost to acquire new land is approximately$150,000 per acre. This is much lower than the average cost shown below,which is based on recent real estate data and City land valuation data.5 The cost of land will vary across the City depending on parcel location and characteristics. In order to account for this variability and to develop a conservative fee estimate,the impact fee is based on the reduced cost per acre. TABLE 4.3:LAND VALUE ASSUMPTIONS MLS# COST ACRE COST/ACRE COST PER SF 1300342 $59,900 0.07 $855,714 1309382 $59,900 0.13 $460,769 $10.58 1309384 $59,900 0.15 $399,333 $9.17 1309378 $80,000 0.16 $500,000 $11.48 1311241 $85,000 0.11 $772,727 $17.74 1274028 $89,900 0.24 $374,583 $8.60 1289611 $129,900 0.09 $1,443,333 $33.13 1257986 $140,000 0.38 $368,421 $8.46 1300719 $165,000 0.07 $2,357,143 $54.11 1300696 $269,000 0.61 $440,984 $10.12 1296998 $275,000 0.12 $2,291,667 $52.61 1314214 $299,900 0.21 $1,428,095 $32.78 1277472 $300,000 0.2 $1,500,000 $34.44 1297206 $300,000 0.46 $652,174 $14.97 1278773 $375,000 0.19 $1,973,684 $45.31 1296725 $450,000 0.25 $1,800,000 $41.32 1245804 $500,000 0.36 $1,388,889 $31.88 Average $1,118,089 $25.67 Recent SLC Land Valuation Report $46.45470.27 Source:Utah Multiple Listing Service(MLS);Salt Lake City See APPENDIX C MANNER OF FINANCING EXISTING PUBLIC FACILITIES The City's existing parks and public lands infrastructure has been funded through a combination of General Fund revenues,grants, other governmental funds and donations. General Fund revenues include a mix of property taxes, sales taxes,federal and state grants, and any other available General Fund revenues. While the City has received some donations to fund parks and trails facilities, all park land and improvements funded through donations have been excluded in the impact fee calculations. See APPENDIX B for a detailed list of the land and improvements that have been included in the calculation of the impact fee. 5 See Appendix B Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham , Inc . Page 11 GENERAL FUND IFFP AND IFA SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH DECEMBER 13,2016 The City issued the Series 2013B bonds to fund the construction of a soccer complex and the Series 2009A and 2013C bonds to finance open space. These bonds were refunded by the Series 2015A and Series 2015E bonds. The facilities funded by these bonds are not included in the calculation of LOS,therefore a credit is not necessary. LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS The LOS for this analysis is based on maintaining the existing level of investment in current parks and public lands. The LOS consists of two components—the land value per capita and the improvement value per capita funded by the City(or the cost to purchase the land and make improvements in today's dollars),resulting in a total value per capita for parks and public lands.This approach uses current construction costs to determine the current value and allows the City to maintain the current LOS standard through the collection and expenditure of impact fees.TABLE 4.4 below shows the LOS for parks and public lands within the Service Area. It is important to note that the existing level of service analysis excludes large areas of foothill open space and natural lands. While this could be included in the LOS analysis,the City has opted to exclude it at this time. TABLE 4.4:EXISTING PARK ACREAGE LOS TOTAL IMPROVEMENT EXISTING PARK& INCLUDED IN TOTAL LAND LAND VALUE IMPROVEMENT VALUE PER TOTAL VALUE PUBLIC LAND ACRES IFFP' VALUE PER CAPITA PER CAPITA VALUE CAPITA All Parks& 2,378 1,401 $210,134,805 $1,093 $96,351,475 $501 $1,594 Public Lands *Excludes the following:cemetery,Ensign North Open Space,Foothill Open Space,Victory Road Natural Area,greenbelt areas with acreage less than.25 acres,and facilities funded through grants,donations or other contributions,as well as facilities paid through alternative funding mechanisms(e.g.General Obligation Bonds). Source:LYRB,Salt Lake City Based on a baseline population of 192,285 The calculation of impact fees relies upon the information contained in this analysis.The timing of construction for growth-related park facilities will depend on the rate of development and the availability of funding. For purposes of this analysis, a specific construction schedule is not required.The construction of park facilities can lag behind development without impeding continued development activity.This analysis assumes that construction of needed park facilities will proceed on a pay-as-you-go basis. EXCESS CAPACITY Based on the methodology used in this analysis,there is no excess capacity available for new growth. FUTURE CAPITAL FACILITIES ANALYSIS Future planning for parks and public lands is an ongoing process based on the changes in population and community preference. The City will purchase and improve parks and public lands to maintain the LOS defined in this document. Actual future improvements will be determined as development occurs and the opportunity to acquire and improve park land arises.Impact fees will only be assessed to maintain the existing LOS. Based on the expected changes in population over the planning horizon,the City will need to invest approximately$45 million in parks and public lands, including amenities, to maintain the existing LOS as shown in Table 4.5. This assumes the City will prow by 28,208 persons through 2025.The City may invest in parks and public lands at a higher level; however, impact fees cannot be used to increase the existing LOS. TABLE 4.5:ILLUSTRATION OF PARKS AND PUBLIC LAND INVESTMENT NEEDED TO MAINTAIN LOS LAND VALUE PER IMPROVEMENT VALUE TOTAL VALUE POPULATION INCREASE COST TO PARKS&PUBLIC CAPITA PER CAPITA PER CAPITA IFFP HORIZON LANDS OVER IFFP HORIZON All Parks&Public Lands $1,093 $501 $1,594 28,208 $44,960,937 SYSTEM VS. PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS System improvements are defined as existing and future public facilities designed to provide services to the community at large.6 Project improvements are improvements and facilities that are planned and designed to provide service for a specific development (resulting from a development activity)and considered necessary for the use and convenience of the occupants or users of that development.'The Impact Fee Analysis may only include the costs of impacts on system improvements related to new growth 511-36a-102(20) 11-36a102(13) Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham , Inc. Page12 GENERAL FUND IFFP AND IFA SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH DECEMBER 13,2016 within the proportionate share analysis.Only park facilities that serve the entire community are included in the LOS.The following park facility types are considered system improvements: �s Open Space,Trails,Greenbelt and Natural Lands; W Mini,Neighborhood and Community Parks; W Undeveloped Park Space; W Special-Use Areas;and, W Park Improvements and Amenities. FINANCING STRATEGY & CONSIDERATION OF ALL REVENUE RESOURCES This analysis assumes that construction of needed park facilities will proceed on a pay-as-you-go basis,and assumes a standard annual dollar amount the City should anticipate collecting and plan to expend on park improvements. The IFFP must also include a consideration of all revenue sources, including impact fees and developer dedications of system improvements,which may be used to finance system improvements.8 In conjunction with this revenue analysis,there must be a determination that impact fees are necessary to achieve an equitable allocation of the costs of the new facilities between the new and existing users.9 PROPERTY TAX REVENUES It is anticipated that the City will continue to utilize property tax revenues, as part of the total General Fund revenues,to maintain existing park facilities. Impact fee revenues will be a continual source of revenue to fund growth related improvements. GRANTS AND DONATIONS The City does not anticipate any donations from new development for future system-wide capital improvements related to park facilities. A donor will be entitled to a reimbursement for the negotiated value of system improvements funded through impact fees if donations are made by new development. The City may receive grant monies to assist with park construction and improvements. This analysis has removed all funding that has come from federal grants and donations to ensure that none of those infrastructure items are included in the LOS. Therefore, the City's existing LOS standards have been funded by the City's existing residents. Funding the future improvements through impact fees places a similar burden upon future users as that which has been placed upon existing users through impact fees, property taxes,user fees,and other revenue sources. IMPACT FEE REVENUES Impact fees are an ideal mechanism for funding growth-related infrastructure. Impact fees are currently charged to ensure that new growth pays its proportionate share of the costs for the development of public infrastructure. Impact fee revenues can also be attributed to the future expansion of public infrastructure if the revenues are used to maintain an existing LOS. Increases to an existing LOS cannot be funded with impact fee revenues. An impact fee analysis is required to accurately assess the true impact of a particular user upon the City infrastructure and to prevent existing users from subsidizing new growth. DEBT FINANCING In the event the City has not amassed sufficient impact fees in the future to pay for the construction of time sensitive or urgent capital projects needed to accommodate new growth, the City must look to revenue sources other than impact fees for funding. The Impact Fees Act allows for the costs related to the financing of future capital projects to be legally included in the impact fee. This allows the City to finance and quickly construct infrastructure for new development and reimburse itself later from impact fee revenues for the costs of issuing debt(i.e. interest costs). Debt financing has not been considered in the calculation of the parks and public land impact fee. PROPOSED PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS IMPACT FEE The calculation of impact fees relies upon the information contained in this analysis. Impact fees are calculated based on many variables centered on proportionality and LOS. 8 11-36a-302(2) 9 11-36a-302(3) Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham , Inc . Page13 GENERAL FUND IFFP AND IFA SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH DECEMBER 13,2016 The calculation of the park impact fee is based on the Growth-Driven Approach, which is based on the increase, or growth, in residential demand. The growth-driven methodology utilizes the existing LOS and perpetuates that LOS into the future. Impact fees are then calculated to provide sufficient funds for the entity to expand or provide additional facilities,as growth occurs within the community. Under this methodology, impact fees are calculated to ensure new development provides sufficient investment to maintain the current LOS standards in the community. This approach is often used for public facilities that are not governed by specific capacity limitations and do not need to be built before development occurs(i.e.park facilities). PARKS AND PUBLIC LAND IMPACT FEE CALCULATION Utilizing the estimated value per capita by park type and the value per capita to provide the same level of improvements,with the addition of the professional expense and the impact fee fund balance,the total fee per capita is shown in TABLE 4.6 below. TABLE 4.6: ESTIMATE OF IMPACT FEE VALUE PER CAPITA LAND VALUE PER CAPITA VALUE OF IMPROVEMENTS PER CAPITA TOTAL VALUE PER CAPITA All Parks and Public Lands $1,093 $501 $1,594 ADDITIONAL VALUE ADDITIONAL VALUE PER CAPITA Fund Balance $8,055,602 $42 Professional Services Expense $10,107 $1 Value Per Capita $1,637 Based on the per capita fee,the proposed impact fee per household is summarized in TABLE 4.7. TABLE 4.7: PARK IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE IMPACT FEE PER UNIT PERSONS PER UNIT FEE PER UNIT EXISTING FEE PER UNIT %CHANGE Single Family 3.16 $5,173 $2,875 80% Multi-Family(Including Mobile Homes) 1.88 $3,078 $2,875 7% NON-STANDARD IMPACT FEE The proposed fees are based upon population growth. The City reserves the right under the Impact Fees Act to assess an adjusted fee that more closely matches the true impact that the land use will have upon park facilities.10 This adjustment could result in a different impact fee if the City determines that a particular user may create a different impact than what is standard for its land use. The City may also decrease the impact fee if the developer can provide documentation,evidence,or other credible analysis that the proposed impact will be lower than what is proposed in this analysis.The formula for determining a non-standard impact fee is found below. FORMULA FOR NON-STANDARD PARK IMPACT FEES: Estimate Population per Unit x$1,637=Impact Fee per Unit t0 11-36a-402(1)(c) Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham , Inc . Page14 GENERAL FUND IFFP AND IFA SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH DECEMBER 13,2016 SECTION 5: FIRE IFFP AND IFA The purpose of this section is to address the Fire IFFP, with supporting IFA and to help the City plan for the necessary capital improvements for future growth. This section will address the future fire infrastructure needed to serve the City through the next ten years,as well as address the appropriate fire impact fees the City may charge to new growth to maintain the existing LOS. DEMAND ANALYSIS This element focuses on the specific demand unit related to fire services-calls for service.11 The demand analysis identifies the existing demand on public facilities and the future demand generated from new development.The demand analysis also provides projected annual growth in demand units over the planning horizon of the IFFP. Call data used to determine the average calls for residential and non-residential development is from 2013 through 2015. The annual average call volume for the City for 2013-2015 was 80,071 calls for service. TABLE 5.1 illustrates the call ratio per developed unit. The call ratio analysis establishes the existing LOS for residential and non-residential land-uses. A review of existing businesses in the City shows a mix of business types.This suggests the call data is based on a variety of businesses that reflect a cross-section of the types of business that will likely continue to develop in the City. TABLE 5.1: HISTORIC FIRE CALL DATA BY LAND USE CATEGORY PRIVATE CALL ANALYSIS UNIT DEVELOPED UNITS HISTORIC CALLS EXISTING LOS(CALL RATIO PER DEVELOPED UNIT) Residential per Housing Unit 83,699 32,571 0.39 Commercial per 1,000 sf 32,480 18,513 0.57 Office per 1,000 sf 32,772 3,955 0.12 Industrial per 1,000 sf 64,050 3,607 0.06 Public 21,425 i Total 80,071 Total Private 58,646 In order to determine the demand placed upon existing public facilities by new development,this analysis projects the additional call volume that undeveloped land-uses will generate. An in-depth analysis has been prepared to determine the number of developed units or acres of land in each zoning category, and the number of calls per unit or acre of land has been assigned to each land-use category. TABLE 5.2 illustrates the projected future fire calls based upon the number of historic calls within each land-use category. TABLE 5.2: FIRE CALL PROJECTIONS UNIT UNDEVELOPED UNITS ADDED CALLS TO TOTAL DEVELOPED TOTAL CALLS TO BUILD-OUT BUILD-OUT AND UNDEVELOPED AT BUILD-OUT Residential Residential per Housing 30,726 11,952 114,425 44,523 Unit Non-Residential Commercial per 1,000 sf 11,923 6,796 i 44,403 25,309 Office per 1,000 sf 12,031 1,456 44,803 5,411 Industrial per 1,000 sf 23,513 1,317 I 87,563 4,924 Subtotal Non-Residential: 47,467 9,569 176,768 35,644 - Public 7,862 29,288 Total 29,383 109,454 Total Private 21,521 80,167 As shown in TABLE 5.2,the City anticipates an additional 29,383 annual calls through build-out,of which 21,521 are projected to calls to private development.12 The total annual calls at build-out are expected to be approximately 109,454.TABLE 5.3 shows a forecast of calls through build-out. The private development calls for service represent approximately 20 percent of the buildout calls for service.This percentage will be used to determine the proportionate allocation of existing and new facilities. 11 Fire call means a call that initiates the deployment of a fire apparatus and firefighters to a location within the City.Each responding unit is counted as one call. For example,a call that requires two units to respond would be counted as two calls for service. 12 For the purposes of this analysis,build-out is estimated through 2050.It is likely that the City will continue to grow beyond 2050 through new development and redevelopment initiatives.The IFFP and IFA should be updated regularly to account for changes in growth assumptions. Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham , Inc. Page15 GENERAL FUND IFFP AND IFA SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH DECEMBER 13,2016 EXISTING FACILITY INVENTORY In order to quantify the demands placed upon existing public facilities by new development activity,the IFFP provides an inventory of the City's existing facilities. The inventory of existing facilities is important to properly determine the excess capacity of existing facilities and the utilization of excess capacity by new development. As shown in TABLE 5.3,there is a total of 244,075 building square feet,with 128,830 square feet related to fire stations and 115,245 square feet related to other types of buildings.The Fire Department also utilizes the City's Public Safety Administration Building.However,this facility is not included in the determination of excess capacity as this facility was funded through general obligation bonds,which is paid through a property tax assessment to existing and future development.The City's depreciation statements include a total original value of$13,248,019 of existing fire facilities.However,the City has indicated these records are incomplete.Therefore,this analysis calculates an approximate historic cost of construction based on the known year of construction,for a total original value of$24,142,414. TABLE 5.3:EXISTING FIRE FACILITIES DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES SF %TO FIRE TOTAL FIRE SF REPLACEMENT VALUE ESTIMATED ORIGINAL VALUE Public Safety Building 167,000 Not Included Fire Station#1 28,135 100% 28,135 $9,847,250 $5,139,206 Fire Station#2 12,460 100% 12,460 $4,361,000 $1,153,217 Fire Station#3 7,016 100% 7,016 $2,455,600 $709,568 Fire Station#4 5,800 100% 5,800 $2,030,000 $913,884 Fire Station#5 14,304 100% 14,304 $5,006,400 $1,677,059 Fire Station#6 9,904 100% 9,904 $3,466,400 $1,127,364 Fire Station#7 5,610 100% 5,610 $1,963,500 $937,779 Fire Station#8 10,942 100% 10,942 $3,829,700 $1,443,897 Fire Station#9 9,365 , 100% 9,365 $3,277,750 $1,390,901 Fire Station#10 5,610 100% 5,610 $1,963,500 $965,912 Fire Station#11 8,717 100% 8,717 $3,050,950 $1,845,875 Fire Station#13 3,525 100% 3,525 $1,233,750 $625,131 Fire Station#14 7,442 100% 7,442 _ $2,604,700 $752,652 Fire Training Center 26,124 100% 26,124 $9,143,400 $1,026,014 Fleet Management Facility 89,121 100% 89,121 $31,192,350 $4,433,955 Subtotal Facilities 411,075 100% 244,075 $85,426,250 $24,142,414 Fire Station SF 128,830 Other Facilities SF 115,245 _ Original value based on a cost per square foot of$350 depreciated based on the original construction year. MANNER OF FINANCING EXISTING PUBLIC FACILITIES The Series 2010A,2010E and 2011 General Obligation Bonds were issued to fund the Public Safety Administration Building.The Series 2011 Bonds were refunded by the Series 2015B Bonds. Since the City levies a property tax on the assessed value of existing and future development to pay the principal and interest on these bonds, the impact fee analysis has excluded these facilities from the determination of the buy-in calculation.It is anticipated that new development will contribute to the repayment of these facilities through the property tax levy. LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) ANALYSIS The LOS for purposes of this analysis is the current building square feet per call and response time. Impact fees cannot be used to finance an increase in the LOS to current or future users of the infrastructure. Based on the historic call data shown above,there are approximately 80,071 calls annually. This equates to 1.61 square feet of fire station facilities per call and 1.44 square feet of other facility space per call. TABLE 5.4:FIRE FACILITIES LOS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT FIRE STATIONS OTHER FACILITIES TOTAL Total Current SF 128,830 115,245 244,075 Average Annual Calls 80,071 80,071 80,071 SF/Call(LOS) 1.61 1.44 3.05 Future Private Calls In IFFP 5,159 5,159 ' 5,159 Additional Square Feet Needed 8,301 7,425 15,726 Additional Square Feet Needed to Build-out 34,626 30,975 65,601 Planned New Square Feet 18,492 27,300 45,792 Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham , Inc. Page16 GENERAL FUND IFFP AND IFA SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH DECEMBER 13,2016 Based on the historic LOS,a total of 15,726 new square feet would be necessary to serve new development in the IFFP planning horizon.At build-out,a total of 65,601 square feet would be needed to maintain the same proportionality of square footage. LEVEL OF SERVICE(RESPONSE TIME) The Fire Department has a 3.81 minute response time to fires with imminent life threat.The geographic location of new facilities is designed to maintain the City's existing response time LOS.As traffic congestion increases and new developed areas require fire protection services,the fire department will need to construct new facilities to ensure the existing response times and service levels remain the same.While the LOS calculated above(based on square feet per call)is intended to ensure that facilities similar to the existing facilities are built for future development,the location and timing of the new facilities should be based on response times. EXCESS CAPACITY Fire facilities are not governed by traditional excess capacity analyses such as water and sewer systems. Instead,fire relies on response time coverage and the geographic location of fire stations.Because of changes in response time coverage,new facilities are required. It is anticipated that the capital facilities planned in this document will allow the City to maintain the current LOS for response times. At this time the proposed new facilities, along with the existing facilities, will be sufficient to serve all fire calls through build-out and do not plan to maintain the current square footage LOS in the future.Thus,the impact fees in this analysis are calculated based on an equitable distribution of the existing and proposed facilities that will serve development.It is anticipated that the combined existing and future facilities will be used to respond to calls for service from new development activity. FUTURE CAPITAL FACILITIES ANALYSIS The following tables identify the needed system improvements to maintain the stated LOS. Fire Station 14 and Fire Station 3 will be relocated and expanded. In addition, the City will construct an additional fire-training center and large equipment garage to accommodate for new growth. Impact fees in this analysis are calculated based on a fair share approach, which provides an equitable distribution of the existing and proposed facilities that will serve development. It is anticipated that the new fire training center will be funded using a general obligation bond;therefore,the cost for this facility is excluded from the calculation of impact fees. TABLE 5.5:FIRE STATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS CONST.YR. LESS IMPACT FEE ADJUSTED INCLUDED IN FACILITIES OR ENGINES TOTAL SF NEW SF COST FUND BALANCE COST IMPACT FEE Fire Station#14-Relocation and Expansion 16,450 9,008 $10,984,874 _ ($3,969,597) $7,015,277 $7,015,277 Fire Station#3-Relocation and Expansion 16,500 9,484 $12,032,645 ($2,054,109) $9,978,536 $9,978,536 Interest Expensep $6,959,052 ($306,516) $6,652,536 $6,652,536 Total 1 32,950 ) 18,492 I $29,976,571 ($6,330,222)L$23,646,349 L $23,646,349 TABLE 5.6:OTHER FACILITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS LESS IMPACT ADJUSTED INCLUDED IN FACILrIIESOR ENGINES I TOTAL SF NEW SF CONST.YR.COST FEE FUND COST IMPACT FEE BALANCE Fire Training Center-Renovation of old#14 j 7,300 7,300 ; $500,000 ($500,000) - - Fire Training Center-Large Equipment Garage 1 20,000 20,000 ! $2,500,000 - $2,500,000 - Total 27,300 27,300 $3,000,000 ($500,000) $2,500,000 • SYSTEM VS. PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS System improvements are defined as existing and future public facilities that are intended to provide services to service areas within the community at large.13 Project improvements are improvements and facilities that are planned and designed to provide service for a specific development(resulting from a development activity)and considered necessary for the use and convenience of the occupants or users of that development.14 The Impact Fee Analysis may only include the costs of impacts on system improvements related to new growth within the proportionate share analysis. Since fire services serve the entire community,the construction of fire safety buildings are considered system improvements. 13 UC 11-36a-102(20) ^UC 11-36a102(13) Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham , Inc . Page17 GENERAL FUND IFFP AND IFA SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH DECEMBER 13,2016 FINANCING STRATEGY & CONSIDERATION OF ALL REVENUE RESOURCES The IFFP must also include a consideration of all revenue sources,including impact fees and the dedication(developer donated) of system improvements,which may be used to finance system improvements.15 In conjunction with this revenue analysis,there must be a determination that impact fees are necessary to achieve an equitable allocation of the costs of the new facilities between the new and existing users.16 PROPERTY TAX REVENUES A specific property tax is not specifically identified in this analysis as a funding source for fire capital projects,but inter-fund loans can be made from the General Fund, which will ultimately include some property tax revenues. Inter-fund loans may be repaid once sufficient impact fee revenues have been collected. GRANTS AND DONATIONS Should the City receive grant money to fund fire facilities,the impact fees will need to be adjusted accordingly to reflect the grant monies received. A donor will be entitled to a reimbursement for the value of the improvements funded through impact fees if donations are made by new development. IMPACT FEE REVENUES Impact fees are a valid mechanism for funding growth-related infrastructure. Impact fees are charged to ensure that new growth pays its proportionate share of the costs for the development of public infrastructure. Impact fee revenues can also be attributed to the future expansion of public infrastructure if the revenues are used to maintain an existing LOS. Increases to an existing LOS cannot be funded with impact fee revenues.An impact fee analysis is required to accurately assess the true impact of a particular user upon the City infrastructure and to prevent existing users from subsidizing new growth. DEBT FINANCING The Impact Fees Act allows for the costs related to the financing of future capital projects to be legally included in the impact fee. This allows the City to finance and quickly construct infrastructure for new development and reimburse itself later from impact fee revenues for the costs of issuing debt. It is anticipated that the future facilities will be funded through the issue of Building Authority bonds,from current impact fee fund balances,future impact fee revenues and from General Fund revenues.The proposed debt service interest expense of$6,959,052 has been included in this analysis. PROPOSED FIRE IMPACT FEE The fire impact fees proposed in this analysis will be assessed within all areas of the City. The fire impact fee utilizes the New Facility— Plan Based Approach, which is based on a defined set of capital costs specified for future development. The City's existing and proposed future facilities are proportionately allocated to the new development calls for service,providing an equitable distribution of the existing and proposed facilities that will serve development.It is anticipated that the combined existing and future facilities will be used to respond to calls for service from new development activity.The cost per call based on the existing facilities buy-in and the proposed new facilities is the basis for the maximum impact fees per land use category, as shown in TABLE 5.7. Projected private development calls for service represent approximately 20 percent of the buildout calls for service.This percentage is used to determine the proportionate allocation of existing and new facilities. TABLE 5.7:ESTIMATE OF IMPACT FEE COST PER CALL IMPACT FEE %IN IFFP PLANNING COST TO IMPACT FIRE CALLS COST PER CALL RELATED COST HORIZON FEES Existing Facilities Buy-In $24,142,414 20% $4,746,899 ! 21,521 $221 Future Stations $23,646,349 20% $4,649,363 21,521 $216 Future Facilities - 20% - 21,521 - Professional Expense $10,107 100% $10,107 5,159 $2 Impact Fee Cost $47,798,871 $9,406,369 r $439 Professional expense includes the cost to update the IFFP and IFA.This cost is spread over the calls for service anticipated within the next 10 years. ` UC 11-36a-302(2) UC 11-36a-302(3) Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham , Inc . Page18 GENERAL FUND IFFP AND IFA SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH DECEMBER 13,2016 The cost per call is then multiplied by the actual demand unit of measurement, or calls per unit for each development type as shown in TABLE 5.8. The total cost per call includes the cost per call for facilities and professional expense. TABLE 5.8:RECOMMENDED FIRE IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE COST PER CALL CALLS PER UNIT TOTAL IMPACT FEE PER UNIT ' EXISTING IMPACT FEE j %CHANGE Residential(Single&Multi-Family)Unit $439 $171 $119 0.39 44% Commercial(per 1,000 SF) $439 $250 $320 0.57 (22%) Office(per 1,000 SF) $439 $53 $320 0.12 (83%) Industrial(per 1,000 SF) $439 $25 $320 0.06 (92%) NON-STANDARD FIRE IMPACT FEES The City reserves the right under the Impact Fees Act to assess an adjusted fee that more closely matches the true impact that the land use will have upon fire facilities." This adjustment could result in a different impact fee if the City determines that a particular user may create a different impact than what is standard for its land use.The City may also decrease the impact fee if the developer can provide documentation,evidence,or other credible analysis that the proposed impact will be lower than what is proposed in this analysis.The formula for determining a non-standard impact fee is found below. FORMULA FOR NON-STANDARD FIRE IMPACT FEES: Estimate of Annual Call Volume per Unit x$439=Impact Fee per Unit "UC 11-36a-402(1)(c) Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham , Inc . Page19 GENERAL FUND IFFP AND IFA SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH DECEMBER 13,2016 SECTION 6: POLICE IFFP AND IFA The purpose of this section is to address the Police IFFP,with supporting IFA,and to help the City plan for the necessary capital improvements for future growth.This section will address the future police infrastructure needed to serve the City through the next ten years,as well as address the appropriate police impact fees the City may charge to new growth to maintain the existing LOS. DEMAND ANALYSIS This element focuses on the specific demand unit related to police services-calls for service.t8 The demand analysis identifies the existing demand on public facilities and the future demand generated from new development. The demand analysis also provides projected annual growth in demand units over the planning horizon of the IFFP. Call data used to determine the average calls for residential and non-residential development is from 2012 through 2014. The annual average call volume for the City for 2012-2014 was 120,605 calls for service. TABLE 6.1 illustrates the call ratio per developed unit. The call ratio analysis establishes the existing LOS for residential and non-residential land-uses. A review of existing businesses in the City shows a mix of business types.This suggests the call data is based on a variety of businesses that reflect a cross-section of the types of business that will likely continue to develop in the City. TABLE 6.1: HISTORIC POLICE CALL DATA BY LAND USE CATEGORY PRIVATE CALL ANALYSIS UNIT DEVELOPED UNITS HISTORIC CALLS EXISTING LOS(CALL RATIO PER DEVELOPED UNIT) Residential per Housing Unit 83,699 55,688 0.67 Commercial per 1,000 sf 32,480 I 31,698 0.98 Office per 1,000 sf 32,772 7,270 0.22 Industrial per 1,000 sf 64,050 7,368 0.12 Public 18,581 - Total 120,605 Total Private ! 102,024 In order to determine the demand placed upon existing public facilities by new development,this analysis projects the additional call volume that undeveloped land-uses will generate. An in-depth analysis has been prepared to determine the number of developed units or acres of land in each zoning category, and the number of calls per unit or acre of land has been assigned to each land-use category. Table 6.2 illustrates the projected future police calls based upon the number of historic calls within each land-use category. TABLE 6.2: POLICE CALL PROJECTIONS UNIT UNDEVELOPED UNITS ADDED CALLS TO TOTAL DEVELOPED AND TOTAL CALLS TO BUILD-OUT ` BUILD-OUT UNDEVELOPED AT BUILD-OUT Residential Residential per Housing Unit 30,726 20,433 114,425 76,121 Non-Residential Commercial per 1,000 sf 11,923 11,637 44,403 43,335 Office per 1,000 sf 12,031 2,671 44,803 9,941 Industrial per 1,000 sf 23,513 2,704 87,563 10,072 Subtotal Non-Residential: 47,467 17,012 176,768 63,349 Public 6,820 25,401 Total 44,265 164,870 Total Private 37,445 139,469 As shown in Table 6.2,the City anticipates an additional 44,265 annual calls through build-out,of which 37,445 are projected to calls to private development.19 The total annual calls at build-out are expected to be approximately 164,870.TABLE 6.3 shows a forecast of calls through build-out. The private development calls for service represent approximately 23 percent of the buildout calls for service.This percentage will be used to determine the proportionate allocation of existing and new facilities. ',Police call means a call that initiates the deployment of an officer to a location within the City. 19 For the purposes of this analysis,build-out is estimated through 2050.It is likely that the City will continue to grow beyond 2050 through new development and redevelopment initiatives.The IFFP and IFA should be updated regularly to account for changes in growth assumptions. Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham , Inc . Page20 GENERAL FUND IFFP AND IFA SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH DECEMBER 13,2016 EXISTING FACILITY INVENTORY In order to quantify the demands placed upon existing public facilities by new development activity,the IFFP provides an inventory of the City's existing facilities. The inventory of existing facilities is important to properly determine the excess capacity of existing facilities and the utilization of excess capacity by new development.As shown in TABLE 6.3, there is a total of 316,582 building square feet, with 149,582 square feet excluding the Public Safety Administration Building. The Fire Department and the Police Department utilize this facility for public safety administration. However,this facility is not included in the determination of excess capacity as this facility was funded through general obligation bonds,which is paid through a property tax assessment to existing and future development. According to the City's depreciation statements, the total original value of existing police facilities is $8,359,046,excluding the value of the Public Safety Administration Building. TABLE 6.3:EXISTING POLICE FACILITIES DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES TOTAL SF MANNER OF FINANCING EXISTING PUBLIC FACILITIES Pioneer Precinct of SLPD 37,385 The Series 2010A, 2010E and 2011 General Obligation Bonds Police Operations 97,000 were issued to fund the Public Safety Administration Building. Public Safety Building-New �( 167,000 The Series 2011 Bonds were refunded by the Series 2015E Public Safety Warehouse 10,500 Bonds. Since the City levies a property tax on the assessed Police Oversize Vehicle Garage ' 4,697 value of existing and future development to pay the principal and Total Existing Improvements 316,582 interest on these bonds, the impact fee analysis has excluded Excluding Public Safety Building 149,582 these facilities from the determination of the buy-in calculation. It is anticipated that new development will contribute to the repayment of these facilities through the property tax levy. LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) ANALYSIS The LOS for purposes of this analysis is the current building square feet per call and per officer. Impact fees cannot be used to finance an increase in the LOS to current or future users of the infrastructure. Based on the historic call data of 120,605 annual calls and 417 sworn officers,the existing LOS is 3.46 square feet of police station facilities per officer. New development will result in the need for an additional 11,267 square feet of building space to maintain this LOS. TABLE 6.4:POLICE FACILITIES LOS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT POLICE EXCESS CAPACITY Other Facility Square Feet 149,582 Police facilities are not governed by traditional excess Average Total Calls 120,605 capacity analyses such as water and sewer systems.Instead, Sworn Officers(2015) 417 police relies on response time coverage and police officers Officers per 1K Calls 3.46 per call. It is anticipated that the capital facilities planned in SF per Officer 359 this document will allow the City to maintain the current LOS. Future Private Calls to 2025 9,084 The City believes the proposed new facilities, along with the New Officers Needed 31 existing facilities,will be sufficient to serve all future calls for Additional Square Feet Needed 11,267 service through build-out. Thus, the impact fees in this analysis are calculated based on an equitable distribution of the existing and proposed facilities that will serve development. It is anticipated that the combined existing and future facilities will be used to respond to calls for service from new development activity. FUTURE CAPITAL FACILITIES ANALYSIS The following tables identify the needed system improvements to maintain the stated LOS.According to the City.The impact fee analysis only includes the growth related cost to determine the impact fees. TABLE 6.5:PROPOSED POLICE IMPROVEMENTS Construction Const.Yr. Less Impact Fee Adjusted Included in Facilities Total SF Year Cost Fund Balance Cost Impact Fee Sugarhouse Precinct,Land and New Construction 2019 39,256 i $9,834,543 ($3,893,924) $5,940,619 $5,940,619 Total 39,256 $9,834,543 ($3,893,924) $5,940,619 $5,940,619 Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham , Inc. Page21 GENERAL FUND IFFP AND IFA SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH DECEMBER 13,2016 SYSTEM VS. PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS System improvements are defined as existing and future public facilities that are intended to provide services to service areas within the community at large.20 Project improvements are improvements and facilities that are planned and designed to provide service for a specific development(resulting from a development activity)and considered necessary for the use and convenience of the occupants or users of that development.21 The Impact Fee Analysis may only include the costs of impacts on system improvements related to new growth within the proportionate share analysis.Since police services serve the entire community,the construction of police buildings are considered system improvements. FINANCING STRATEGY AND CONSIDERATION OF ALL REVENUE RESOURCES The IFFP must also include a consideration of all revenue sources, including impact fees and the dedication(developer donated) of system improvements,which may be used to finance system improvements.22 In conjunction with this revenue analysis,there must be a determination that impact fees are necessary to achieve an equitable allocation of the costs of the new facilities between the new and existing users.23 PROPERTY TAX REVENUES A specific property tax is not specifically identified in this analysis as a funding source for police capital projects, but inter-fund loans can be made from the General Fund, which will ultimately include some property tax revenues. Inter-fund loans may be repaid once sufficient impact fee revenues have been collected. GRANTS AND DONATIONS Should the City receive grant money to fund police facilities,the impact fees will need to be adjusted accordingly to reflect the grant monies received. A donor will be entitled to a reimbursement for the value of the improvements funded through impact fees if donations are made by new development. IMPACT FEE REVENUES Impact fees are a valid mechanism for funding growth-related infrastructure. Impact fees are charged to ensure that new growth pays its proportionate share of the costs for the development of public infrastructure. Impact fee revenues can also be attributed to the future expansion of public infrastructure if the revenues are used to maintain an existing LOS. Increases to an existing LOS cannot be funded with impact fee revenues. Analysis is required to accurately assess the true impact of a particular user upon the City infrastructure and to prevent existing users from subsidizing new growth. DEBT FINANCING The Impact Fees Act allows for the costs related to the financing of future capital projects to be legally included in the impact fee. This allows the City to finance and quickly construct infrastructure for new development and reimburse itself later from impact fee revenues for the costs of issuing debt. At this time, this analysis assumes the City will not utilize bonds to fund the proposed improvements. UC 11-36a-102(20) ='UC 11-36a102(13) UC 11-36a-302(2) UC 11-36a-302(3) Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham , Inc . Page22 GENERAL FUND IFFP AND IFA SALT LAKE CITY.UTAH DECEMBER 13,2016 PROPOSED POLICE IMPACT FEE The police impact fee utilizes the New Facility—Plan Based Approach,which is based on a defined set of capital costs specified for future development.The City's existing and proposed future facilities are proportionately allocated to the new development calls for service, providing an equitable distribution of the existing and proposed facilities that will serve development. It is anticipated that the combined existing and future facilities will be used to respond to calls for service from new development activity.The cost per call based on the existing facilities buy-in and the proposed new facilities is the basis for the maximum impact fees per land use category,as shown in TABLE 6.6. TABLE 6.6:ESTIMATE OF IMPACT FEE COST PER CALL ESTIMATED GROWTH %IN IFFP PLANNING COST TO IMPACT FEES POLICE CALLS COST PER CALL RELATED COST HORIZON Existing Facilities $8,359,046 23/0 $1,898,497 37,445 $51 New Facilities $5,940,619 23% $1,349,227 37,445 $36 p Professional Expense $10,107 100% $10,107 9,084 $1 Impact Fee Cost $14,309,772 $3,257,831 $88 Professional expense includes the cost to update the IFFP and IFA.This cost is spread over the calls for service anticipated within the next 10 years. The cost per call is then multiplied by the actual demand unit of measurement, or calls per unit for each development type as shown in TABLE 6.7. The total cost per call includes the cost per call for facilities and professional expense. TABLE 6.7:RECOMMENDED POLICE IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE COST PER CALL CALLS PER UNIT %CHANGE TOTAL IMPACT EXISTING IMPACT FEE PER UNIT FEE Residential(Single&Multi-Family)Unit $88 _ _ 0.67 $59 i $41 43% Commercial(per 1,000 SF $88 0.98 $86 $30 186% Office(per 1,000 SF) $88 0.22 $20 ! $30 ° Industrial(per 1,000 SF) $88 0.12 $10 j $30 % (66%) NON-STANDARD POLICE IMPACT FEES The City reserves the right under the Impact Fees Act to assess an adjusted fee that more closely matches the true impact that the land use will have upon police facilities.24 This adjustment could result in a different fee if the City determines that a particular user may create different impact than what is standard for its land use.The City may also decrease the impact fee if the developer can provide documentation,evidence,or other credible analysis that the proposed impact will be lower than what is proposed in this analysis.The formula for determining a non-standard impact fee,assuming the fair share approach,is found below. FORMULA FOR NON-STANDARD POLICE IMPACT FEES: Estimate of Annual Call Volume per Unit x$88=Impact Fee per Unit UC 11-36a-402(1)(c) Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham , Inc . Page23 GENERAL FUND IFFP AND IFA SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH DECEMBER 13,2016 SECTION 7: TRANSPORTATION IFFP AND IFA TRANSPORTATION METHODOLOGY The impact fee methodology for transportation is designed to address the multi-modal needs of the City. Key elements of this methodology include: W An organizational principal that uses trip generation as a basis for determining impact to the transportation system; W Use of the Metropolitan Planning Organization(MPO)regional travel demand model to determine the anticipated growth of trips over time,as well as an existing and projected LOS; W Use of the MPO regional travel demand model to determine trips by mode, including auto and non-auto;and, W Use of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual to calibrate regional projections with trips by development type. These elements represent an industry standard for determining impacts to the transportation system, and subsequent fee determination based on trip types(i.e.walking,driving,etc.)and development types(i.e.multi-family, industrial,etc.). Using these industry standards, a new methodology was prepared to assess the impacts of development on the transportation system. In simple terms,future development will add trips to the existing transportation network,whether they be walking, biking, transit, or car trips. In Salt Lake City, trips are made between every district of the City, with origins and destinations spread throughout each district. These future trips made citywide will degrade the City's ability to manage congestion, and investments are necessary to keep transportation conditions at an acceptable level. Different types of future development will add varying levels of trips to the transportation network.For example,a single family home will generate approximately 10 trips,whereas 1,000 square feet of office space will generate 13 trips daily. Impact fees are customized to each development type and fees are developed proportionally to the addition of trips to the transportation network. Steps to determine impact fees are as follows: 1) Travel Demand Projection and Level of Service Analysis a. Determine the current and future trips by mode that will be made within Salt Lake City,as well as trips by mode that have at least one"trip-end"within Salt Lake City.Trips that simply pass through the area but are generally reflected in model projections have been removed in order to isolate travel patterns in Salt Lake City. b. Analyze trip patterns between areas of the City to determine whether trips are evenly distributed,or grouped in particular sub-areas. Trips are generally distributed throughout Salt Lake City, with "trip-ends"present in each district of the City.Translated,this means that people are traveling consistently between different districts of the City, rather than staying within a district. c. Using the MPO model applied to Salt Lake City determine the existing LOS for Salt Lake City. The current LOS is C(LOS ranges from A to F). d. Using the MPO model applied to Salt Lake City,determine the future LOS based on the growth of the number of trips between now and 2026.The future LOS is projected to be D. e. Determine the number of trips that are added to the system that leads to the degradation of LOS. 2) Determine the need for future infrastructure investments to manage the growth of trips and maintain LOS C a. Determine capacity improvements to roadways and traffic signals. b. Determine capacity improvements that reduce single occupant vehicle travel, including transit, walking and bicycling. c. Determine the percentage of each project that is attributed to the growth of trips. d. Account for external funding sources and remove those costs. e. Summarize the cost of infrastructure improvements to maintain LOS C. 3) Calibrate growth of trips to the ITE Trip Generation rates associated with various types of development a. Prepare and average daily and peak hour trip generation rate per development type. Development types include single family,multi-family,commercial,office, industrial,etc. FIGURE 7.1 illustrates the proposed impact fee methodology for this analysis. Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham , Inc. Page24 GENERAL FUND IFFP AND IFA SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH DECEMBER 13,2016 FIGURE 7.1:ILLUSTRATION OF IMPACT FEE METHODOLOGY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT LIST ALLOCATE COSTS BY MODE I 1 1 NON-MOTORIZED MOTORIZED COSTS TRANSIT COSTS COSTS I I I REMOVE COST RELATED TO CURING DEFICIENCIES NON-IMPACT FEE ELIGIBLE ALLOCATION OF THROUGH TRIPS GROWTH RELATED I GROWTH RELATED GROWTH RELATED '•. NON-MOTORIZED MOTORIZED COSTS i TRANSIT COSTS i COSTS MOTORIZED TRIP NON-MOTORIZED ENDS TRANSIT TRIP ENDS TRIP ENDS i MOTORIZED COST TRANSIT COST PER NON-MOTORIZED PER TRIP END TRIP END COST PER TRIP END MOTORIZED TRIP NON-MOTORIZED RATE TRANSIT TRIP RATE TRIP RATE I MOTORIZED IMPACT I TRANSIT IMPACT NON-MOTORIZED FEE FEE IMPACT FEE TOTAL IMPACT FEE I I DEMAND ANALYSIS The demand units utilized in this analysis are based on undeveloped residential and commercial land and the new trips generated from these land-use types.As residential and commercial growth occurs within the City, additional trips will be generated within the transportation system. The transportation capital improvements identified in this study are based on maintaining the current LOS as defined by the City.The proposed impact fees are based upon the projected growth in demand units which are used as a means to quantify the impact that future users will have upon the City's system. The demand unit used in the calculation of the transportation impact fee is based upon each land use category's impact expressed in the number of trips generated.The existing and future trip statistics used in this analysis were prepared by the City and its engineers based on existing modeling software. Based on the growth in trips,the City will need to expand its current facilities to accommodate new growth. New development will create an additional 302,001 trips in the next ten years,as show in TABLE 7.1. It is important to note that future trips will consist of auto,transit and non-motorized trips. Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham , Inc . Page25 GENERAL FUND IFFP AND IFA SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH DECEMBER 13,2016 TABLE 7.1:TRIP PROJECTIONS 2011 2016 2026 2050 GEOGRAPHIC AREA DAILY TRIPS DAILY TRIPS %GROWTH DAILYTRJPS XGRONmI DAILY %GRowrH FROM 2011 FROM 2011 TRIPS FROM 2011 District 1 Rose Park 166,764 175,358 5% 192,547 15% 233,801 40% District 2 Glendale/Poplar I 237,039 258,216 9% 300,552 27% 402,224 70% Grove District 3 Downtown 445,408 481,740 8% 554,405 24% 728,799 64% District4SugarHouse/East 443,792 455,110 3% 477,746 8% 532,072 20% Bench District 5 Airport 68,401 73,871 8% 84,812 24% 111,069 62% District 6 U of U 126,371 132,410 5% 144,488 14% 173,475 37% District 7 U of U 208,575 212,201 2% 219,453 5% 236,857 14% Surrounding Area l District 8 Capitol 136,344 141,385 4% 151,467 11% 175,663 29% Hill/Avenues District 9 External Zones* 813,542 866,954 7% 973,776 20% 1,230,150 51% City Total Trips 2,646,236 2,797,245 6% 3,099,246 17% i 3,824,110 45% New Trips I 302,001 1,026,865 1 In City Boundaries I 195,179 i *Only trips have at least one trip end in Salt Lake City are included. Source:Summary of Travel Model Analysis,Fehr&Peers Technical Memorandum,April 19.2016.See Appendix E. In order to determine the allocation of trips by land-use type,the following trip statistics where applied. TABLE 7.2:TRIP STATISTICS BY LAND-USE TYPE USED IN IMPACT FEE STUDY PM PEAK TRIPS AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS AUTO TRANSIT NON•MOTORIZED Single Family Units j 1.00 1.00 10.00 8.77 0.60 0.64 Multi•Family Units Apartment 0.62 Low Rise Apartment 0.58 Rental Condo/Townhouse 0.72 Multi-Family Combined Average 0.64 7.00 6.14 0.42 0.45 1,000 Commercial/Retail SF Free Standing Discount Super Store 4.35 Variety Store 6.82 Hardware/Paint 5.05 _ Nursery(Garden Center) 6.94 Nursery(Wholesale) 5.17 Shopping Center 3.71 Drive-in Bank 5.42 _ Specialty Retail Center 2.71 General Commercial/Retail Combined Average 5.02 50.00 43.83 2.98 3.20 1,000 Office SF General Office _ 1.49 Corp.HQ 1.41 Office Park 1.48 Business Park 1.26 Government Building 1.21 Office Combined Average 1.37 13.00 11.40 0.77 0.83 1,000 Industrial SF General Light Industrial 0.97 General Heavy Industrial 0.88 Industrial Park I 0.85 Industrial Combined Average 0.90 9.00 7.89 0.54 0.58 Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham , Inc. Page26 GENERAL FUND IFFP AND IFA SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH DECEMBER 13,2016 TABLE 7.3:SUMMARY OF TOTAL TRIPS BY LAND USE TYPE TYPE UNITSISF TRIP WEIGHTING EXISTING DEMAND EXISTING TRIPS TGRONTHP NEW TRIPS Single Family Units 10.00 41,711 417,113 545 5,454 Multifamily Units Units 7.00 41,988 293,914 7,064 49,449 Residential Total Units 83,699 711,027 7,610 54,903 Commercial SF 50.00 32,480 1,623,983 2,361 118,068 Office SF 13.00 32,772 426,036 1,267 16,467 Industrial SF 9.00 64,050 576,452 12,507 112,563 Commercial Total 1 129,302 2,626,472 247,098 Combined Total j 3,337,499 302,001 EXISTING FACILITY INVENTORY According to the City,the existing system consists of the following amenities: W Roadways(Lane Miles) W Bridges W Curb and Gutter W Sidewalks W Accessible Ramps W Drive Approaches Bike Facilities(Linear Miles) W Traffic Signals W Crosswalk Lights 14 Driver Feedback Signs Streets Facilities • Fleet Facilities • Salt Storage Facilities The total value of these improvements,based on the City's existing depreciation statements,equals$338,585,715. MANNER OF FINANCING EXISTING PUBLIC FACILITIES The City's existing infrastructure has been funded through a combination of General Fund revenues, impact fees, bonds, other governmental revenue, grants and donations. General Fund revenues include a mix of property taxes,sales taxes, federal and state grants, and any other available General Fund revenues. There are no General Obligation Bonds outstanding related to transportation system improvements.Therefore a credit is not required for this component of the impact fee analysis. LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) ANALYSIS LOS assesses the level of congestion on a roadway segment or intersection. LOS is measured using a letter grade A through F, where A represents free flowing traffic with absolutely no congestion and F represents grid lock. The following description from Fehr and Peers is provided from the Travel Model Analysis Technical Memorandum dated April 19, 2016: Using the roadway volume forecasts from the travel demand model(and interpolated years),Fehr&Peers estimated planning-level roadway PM peak period LOS for the City.LOS is a measure used to relate the quality of traffic service, estimated by comparing the traffic volume to the capacity(referred to as volume-to-capacity ratio, or simply"V/C"). WFRC continues to support the actual design of facilities to meet a LOS D in urban areas when reasonably possible (Wasatch Front Regional Council,2015). TABLE 7.4:ILLUSTRATION OF LOS CHANGE PM VOLUME 1 PM CAPACITY PM VIC AVERAGE LOS REMAINING CAPACITY 2011 4,585,826 8,041,658 0.57 C or better 3,455,832 2016 4,803,785 8,068,598 0.6 C or Better 3,264,813 2026 5,239,703 8,122,478 0.65 D 2,882,775 2050 6,285,906 1 8,251,790 0.76 E 1,965,884 Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham , Inc . Page27 GENERAL FUND IFFP AND IFA SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH DECEMBER 13,2016 EXCESS CAPACITY Transportation impact fees are justified when trips are added to the transportation system that are at or nearing capacity or when new system-wide roadways are needed to meet the demands of growth. TABLE 7.5:CALCULATION OF EXCESS CAPACITY IN TOTAL TRIPS PM VOLUME PM CAPACITY PM VIC AVERAGE LOS REMAINING CAPACITY 2011 4,585,826 8,041,658 0.57 C or better 3,455,832 2016 4,803,785 8,068,598 0.6 C or Better 3,264,813 2026 5,239,703 8,122,478 0.65 D 2,882,775 2050 6,285,906 8,251,790 0.76 E 1,965,884 TABLE 7.5 illustrates the remaining system capacity in the IFFP horizon.This analysis suggests the expected increase in trips will outpace existing capacity, contributing to increasing peak-period traffic congestion and resulting in the need for additional facility improvements. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM BUY-IN The determination of a buy-in component related to existing infrastructure is based on proportionate trips generated within the IFFP planning horizon.According to City records,the transportation system is valued at$338,585,715,which is used to determine the appropriate buy-in fee. It is anticipated that new development will benefit from the existing transportation network constructed within the Service Area.Approximately 7.9 percent of the total demand on the system will occur within the IFFP planning horizon. As a result, $26,739,091 of the total original system cost could be included in this analysis, based on the original cost of system improvements as identified in the City's financial records. However,the City has chosen not to include a buy-in fee at this time. FUTURE CAPITAL FACILITIES ANALYSIS The City has identified the growth related projects needed within the next ten years. Capital projects related to curing existing deficiencies were not included in the calculation of the impact fees.Total future projects applicable to new development are shown below. TABLE 7.6 illustrates the estimated cost of future capital improvements within the Service Area,as identified in the IFFP.The total cost related to growth is$41,805,960.The City's impact fee fund balance is applied to the growth-related improvements,resulting in a remaining cost of$34,566,500.A detail of the proposed capital improvements can be found in Appendix D. TABLE 7.6:SUMMARY OF FUTURE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN IFFP PLANNING HORIZON Project# Estimated Cost Const.Year Cost %Other %City Growth Related Cost Total $303,200,600 $327,733,353 $30,863,684 $296,869,669 $41,805,960 Less Impact Fee Fund Balance (7,239,460) Remaining �� $34,566,500 However, the City has indicated that a portion of the Folsom Trail Phases 1 and 2 and the 9-Line/Trans Valley Trail- Phase 1 projects will be funded through the parks and public lands component. Thus 50 percent of these costs are removed from the calculation of the impact fee. In addition, a comparison of historic spending illustrates that the City has spent approximately$11 million annually on roadway improvements(excluding bond funds).As a result, the proposed CIP may exceed the City's historic funding trend.Therefore,the City has included for the purposes of this analysis,50 percent of the proposed CIP projects.The City will evaluate alternative funding mechanisms to maintain the existing LOS. TABLE 7.7:REVISED FUTURE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN IFFP PLANNING HORIZON Project# Estimated Cost Const.Year Cost %Other %City Growth Related Cost Total $145,600,300 $156,552,710 $15,431,842 ; $141120,868 I $17,245,997 Less Impact Fee Fund Balance . i (7,239,460) Remaining $10,006,537 Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham , Inc . Page28 GENERAL FUND IFFP AND IFA SALT LAKE CITY.UTAH DECEMBER 13,2016 SYSTEM VS. PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS System improvements are defined as existing and future public facilities designed to provide services to service areas within the community at large.25 Project improvements are improvements and facilities that are planned and designed to provide service for a specific development (resulting from a development activity) and considered necessary for the use and convenience of the occupants or users of that development.26 To the extent possible,this analysis only includes the costs of system improvements related to new growth within the proportionate share analysis. For the purposes of this analysis, system improvements are defined as arterial and collector streets, new and upgrades to traffic signalization, alternative modes of transportation including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, and related appurtenances. Each of these facilities are designed to manage new trips(auto, transit and non-motorized trips)within the Service Area and to maintain the existing level of service. FINANCING STRATEGY AND CONSIDERATION OF ALL REVENUE SOURCES The IFFP must also include a consideration of all revenue sources, including impact fees and the dedication of system improvements,which may be used to finance system improvements.27 In conjunction with this revenue analysis,there must be a determination that impact fees are necessary to achieve an equitable allocation of the costs of the new facilities between the new and existing users.28 In considering the funding of future facilities,the IFFP has identified the portion of each project that is intended to be funded by the City, as well as funding sources from other government agencies. The cost applied to the City includes growth and non-growth related projects.The capital projects that will be constructed to cure the existing system deficiencies will be funded through General Fund revenues.All other capital projects within the next ten years,which are intended to serve new growth,will be funded through impact fees or on a pay-as-you-go approach.Where these revenues are not sufficient,the City may need to issue bonds or issue inter-fund loans to construct the proposed projects. Other revenues such as grants can be used to fund these types of expenditures. The impact fees should be adjusted if grant monies are received. New development may be entitled to a reimbursement for any grants or donations received by the City for growth related projects or for developer funded IFFP projects. It is anticipated that future project improvements will be funded by the developer.These costs have been excluded from the calculation of the impact fee. PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE The transportation impact fee utilizes the New Facility—Plan Based Approach, which is based on a defined set of capital costs specified for future development. The proportionate share analysis determines the proportionate cost assignable to new development based on the proposed capital projects and the new growth served by the proposed projects.The total growth-related capital cost is$41,805,960.When the City's impact fee fund balance is applied to the growth-related improvements,the total cost is reduced to$34,566,500. In addition to the proposed new facilities, new development benefits from the existing transportation infrastructure already constructed.The inclusion of this buy-in,plus new facilities,would result in a maximum impact fee cost per trip as shown below. TABLE 7.8:MAXIMUM IMPACT FEE COST PER TRIP VALUATION %TO GROWTH IMPACT FEE ALLOCATION TRIPS COST PER TRIP Buy-In $338,585,715 8% $26,739,091 302,001 $89 Future Facilities $327,733,353 13% $41,805,960 302,001 $138 p ($7,239,460) 100%Impact Fee Fund Balance '� ($7,239,460) 302,001 ($24) p Professional Ex ense $10,107 100% $10,107 302,001 $0 Total $659,089,7161.- i $61,315,698 $203 As stated above, the City has indicated that a portion of the CIP will be funded through the parks and public lands component. Additionally,this analysis has adjusted the CIP to include 50 percent of the proposed costs based on historic funding levels.The City will evaluate alternative funding mechanisms to maintain the existing LOS.The proposed impact fee per trip is shown in TABLE 7.9. =�11-36a-102(21) '11-36a-102(14) z'11-36a-302(2) 11-36a-302(3) Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham , Inc . Page29 GENERAL FUND IFFP AND IFA SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH DECEMBER 13,2016 TABLE 7.9:PROPOSED IMPACT FEE COST PER TRIP VALUATION % GROWTH IMPACT FEE ALLOCATION TRIPS COST PER TRIP Buy-In $338,585,715 - - 302,001 - Future Facilities $156,552,710 11% $17,245,997 302,001 $57 Impact Fee Fund Balance ($7,239,460) 100% ($7,239,460) 302,001 ($24) Professional Expense $10,107 100% $10,107 302,001 - Total $487,909,073 J $10,016,644 $33 Professional expense includes the cost to update the IFFP and IFA.This cost is spread over the calls for service anticipated within the next 10 years. The cost per trip above reflects the City's intent not to include a buy-in fee at this time. If a buy-in fee were included,the proposed fee could be increased from what is shown in the table above. IMPACT FEE SUMMARY BY LAND USE TYPE The impact fee by land use type is illustrated in TABLE 7.10 and 7.11. TABLE 7.10:IMPACT FEE SUMMARY BY MODE AND LAND USE TYPE AUTO TRANSIT NON-MOTORIZED TOTAL Percent Impact 79% 13% 8% 100% Allocation of CIP $7,877,794 $1,311,634 $827,217 $10,016,644 Total New Trips 237,515 39,546 24,941 302,001 Fee Per Trip $33 $33 $33 $33 Single Family Trips _ 8.77 0.60 0.64 10.00 Fee(Per Unit) $289 $20 $21 $330 Multi-Family Units — 6.14 I 0.42 0.45 7.00 Fee(Per Unit) $202 $14 ! $15 $231 1,000 Commercial/Retail SF 43.83 2.98 3.20 50.00 Fee(Per Unit) $1,446 $98 $105 $1,650 1,000 Office SF 11.40 0.77 0.83 13.00 Fee(Per Unit) $376 $26 $27 $429 1,000 Industrial SF 7.89 0.54 0.58 9.00 Fee(PerUnit) $260 $18 $19 $297 TABLE 7.11:IMPACT FEE SUMMARY BY LAND USE TYPE TYPE TOTAL IFFP GROWTH TRIP WEIGHTING PROPOSED FEE EXISTING FEE %CHANGE Single Family Unit 545 10.00 $330 $424 (22%) Multifamily Unit 7,064 7.00 $231 $249 (7%) CommercialRetail (per 1,000 SF) 2,361 50.00 S1,650 r $3,280 (50%) Office(per 1,000 SF) 1,267 13.00 $429 $2,330 (82%) Industrial(per 1,000 SF) 12,507 9.00 $297 , $2,260 (87%) NON-STANDARD IMPACT FEES The City reserves the right under the Impact Fees Act29 to assess an adjusted fee that more closely matches the true impact that a specific land use will have upon the City's transportation system.This adjustment could result in a different impact fee if evidence suggests a particular user will create a different impact than what is standard for its category. The City may also decrease the impact fee if the developer can provide documentation,evidence,or other credible analysis that the proposed impact will be lower than what is proposed in this analysis. FORMULA FOR NON-STANDARD TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES: Estimate of Trips per Unit x$33=Impact Fee per Unit Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham , Inc . Page30 GENERAL FUND IFFP AND IFA SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH DECEMBER 13,2016 SECTION 8: IMPACT FEE CONSIDERATIONS EQUITY OF IMPACT FEES Impact fees are intended to recover the costs of capital infrastructure that relate to future growth.The impact fee calculations are structured for impact fees to fund 100 percent of the growth-related facilities identified in the proportionate share analysis as presented in the impact fee analysis. Even so, there may be years that impact fee revenues cannot cover the annual growth- related expenses. In those years,other revenues,such as General Fund revenues,will be used to make up any annual deficits. Any borrowed funds are to be repaid in their entirety through impact fees. NECESSITY OF IMPACT FEES An entity may only impose impact fees on development activity if the entity's plan for financing system improvements establishes that impact fees are necessary to achieve parity between existing and new development. This analysis has identified the improvements to public facilities and the funding mechanisms to complete the suggested improvements. Impact fees are identified as a necessary funding mechanism to help offset the costs of new capital improvements related to new growth. In addition, alternative funding mechanisms are identified to help offset the cost of future capital improvements. CONSIDERATION OF ALL REVENUE SOURCES The Impact Fees Act requires the proportionate share analysis to demonstrate that impact fees paid by new development are the most equitable method of funding growth-related infrastructure. EXPENDITURE OF IMPACT FEES Legislation requires that impact fees should be spent or encumbered within six years after each impact fee is paid. Impact fees collected in the next six years should be spent on those projects outlined in the IFFP as growth related costs to maintain the LOS. Impact fees collected as a buy-in to existing facilities can be allocated to the General Fund to repay the City for historic investment. GROWTH-DRIVEN EXTRAORDINARY COSTS The City does not anticipate any extraordinary costs necessary to provide services to future development. SUMMARY OF TIME PRICE DIFFERENTIAL The Impact Fees Act allows for the inclusion of a time price differential to ensure that the future value of costs incurred at a later date are accurately calculated to include the costs of construction inflation.This analysis includes an inflation component to reflect the future cost of facilities. The impact fee analysis should be updated regularly to account for changes in costs estimates over time. Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham , Inc . Page31 GENERAL FUND IFFP AND IFA SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH DECEMBER 13,2016 APPENDIX A: COMPARABLE DEVELOPMENT DATA i ACTUAL SF GROWTH 2010- PROJECTED SF GROWTH JULY TOTAL SFGROwIH(AcruAL+ 20101NVENTORY JaLY2015 2015-2019 PROJECTED)2010.2019 Commercial SF Industrial 64,780,664 6,652,098 5,442,626 12,094,724 Office 28,625,973 540,914 442,566 983,480 Retail 20,848,878 1,057,321 865,081 1,922,402 Total Commercial SF 114,255,515 8,250,333 6,750,272 15,000,605 Residential SF Single Family 78,284,040 388,920 318,207 707,127 Multifamily 41,482,188 2,462,229 4,479,057 6,941,286 Total Residential SF 119,766,228 2,851,149 4,797,264 7,648,413 Residential Units Single Family 42,270 210 172 382 Multifamily 38,092 2,261 4,113 6,374 Total Residential Units 80,362 2,471 4,285 6,756 Source:Newmark Grubb Acres Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham , Inc . Page32 • Q 2 t0 LL=t4 7=N ft U m LL w m 4 93w W F U Q O g 8 of � G.$naL� 8 2 � �' a' 81 to I 8a $ • • • • ,• gW 2 gago ASI ..s2s � , �� gj � � O � oo tr - o - t oaio < o o oa I i i — i • {W ( j I • • • • • • • ! i I I • • e x ae x x x aR x x x x e x •x!xix x x*l x ae x el, x e x ae xx :e . ex x x x x x x e 'e , a -e e e e o s s s s 8 a s a s a S h a a s 818 s 8 8 8.0 o s.18 s s s s o s s s s o a s • II I • • • • • I i • • • eeae xxxe a ae.exaexx' a ee ex ..* aee e ee _ sssass ss888881osa 8888g ss o oio • • • • • • oe x x x x x x x x e e e x x x x x xe e e e:e x x x x x x x x!x x xix xlx x yyee yyee U 8 0 8 8 8 8 8 8 S 8;8 8 8 8 S 8.8 0 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8',,8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8ass sis s 8!8 8;8 s a a x • I i • „ j0s_s� s � � 8 RI g o- � m � _ o 0000o < � oo 00 l � • 0 ! ! I I I I. Z i j I ! I w > j Z r r.2'.2.Z-D 2-D 2.-Z Z r r 2r 2!r r i.2-9 414 9 9 9 9 J '^ 0 9 9r 9 9'9 9 .9!. .! ..1 f E E•E E E E E E E F E • v I - • m iI m n a o I Z ! 0 a ce $ I m u� o. LL '`a i' 3` g � � s ". = :_-, 5 . :::::: , - - M � . 9 . sa` - Z H o " a §a r E` G •y " € w § g ti58IIII• r 4.Ill m �RR > s p5 !:::::,„,-5i:. - €, �:s s' ¢ a Q asE $ 1° wt9i.RI 355', a9wli9�¢IQ ,- ; .ci 3 LL _ $ 3,,,3 3i ^ ' N:,, - - - c, �, F S 8 �: m'. U,� oLL!t�l m Q p mto o N 4 > a U K 2 LL w LL w s 2_ G Ow w 0 w $• - w w w w w w w w 'NH w t�i w w w w w w w w w w I 1 3 I t iil1ll f 000 om , • . . . 6o6o6 ii il =, a00000 S 00000000eee _ ggg . Beef 0000aoo Eo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E E se a �e 2 e e e tii o S 8 % 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 0 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 S 8 8 8 8 o S g 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 5 8 8 8 8 8 I ( j I • oQ o• o o o o o _ o o oo o g. o A. o 2. PI gi :8'. S, 000 � oo ` o .., H o 0 _o IN ` 1 lo. 1 jo Iw. I • E 1000000CJQ � 000 � 00000000009 oOOOOOOC) CSOOOOCDCJO005CDO � ; ; 2E r r • it 0 j j - 0. "g - - ` _ 2 " - mmosrEmcg3 - y a " a _,• F a 2 x8 3 3 _ 2 „ _ u3 a a - yH. . @3 - g1L '2 m LL $ w 0 0 ix _ z z o a a a - a o re w > 8 R, n 8 m 2 m w w 8 a mmc) L'g'S M fl. .... 0-0E6 0_ LI_ LL —. . 28 , gw A viE,FE -r,-7,F, zRIgiic- vo.noREFI ' tz:i- § iv.,9pna,71 ,941m §rak,nint:FJ,,Lf_ii„,72-.'A . -- „,..„ - -. - - .,..,:-.7. r, : .- 1 I 1 , 1 , I. , . . > . • . . • • . : , : . I . : i .••• i 1 : , •. . . . . • . : • : . 1i: 'i 011 : 1 .• .• : 1 ; : . . . 1 : , , , .•• • , ! : i I 8 P..' 7o 2 '4 ' 'A ',.c_' P., 8 , P-ite gi.rm• 8:g1 :-', ,,:', Ttsn2:,-LiN . t.- sw ,414, 6,, :2ms ,.2m -Js s!,T12z :2 ;; W.,9 S ,Z7AS S ig 1 . . : . . . . : . , . . •. . , : . ' . . : : • . : . .• .• . : . .. . -. . • • .• .• • • , . •' .• : : 1 1 i : . . : ... , •' . . .. I 1: I I • • .•• ..• . •! : I . . Li : . • . .i . ••• • • . : I i i .•, . , ! : , ' • . . :7.. . • ' : -,,, exa.1*_4 * ** * * at aceatexat eeeexix xxxxeateee eeeatate , eatx x x X-gggege .., • i : : „ • . . : . . • . . • .••• : . :. . 1 1 1 .•' • , .• • ••. . • o •. • ,. I , : .• : . . : •: • . . I •. : . 1 I , .• .• .• .• : .• :• ..• ' : ; ! , , . . , :•H , I . • . . , : . . : . : : ! . . . I . ! . . i ! .• , .i .• • .. !I , . i . . .• • • I .. ,. , . . , . , i •. ! . . ••. . ••,. , .- : . ! •' . . •• . . •• •. ' . . . Z . i ', . , , i E ,., , , e. e. . e- e. e ., ,,,,, -,x[x at ateee ,,,, eeee ,x,l$ xxx.exeateatat[at at at4 x ex * x x *lel* *i*iA ati 8 8,= = = =.= = = ='8 * 8 8 =:=:= = =:='8 818 8 8!8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8t818 8i8,8& - - - -,.....F. 9,F.;2 ..2 - . .- .,- :21.9-!:2,PPP!- - - ,-;- - - - - - - III ; . • : ,_1 • • •' , : . . : ie .••• . . I I , 1 1 : I ! : •i •.: .•• • : , . ., 4— : ! •. , . . i • ! , , : 1 1 , I •. • •. . 0 : • g , exeeat at e e eixxx x atateate eat ...,LHat xxxxxx e e eeeeee eatx x x x x e eatee x,8 8!8888888 8,888888.88E8888.8,8 8 8 8 8 81888888888888 8888 8'8 88.888 1 ! . : i , ; , " ' . ' : : ! , 1111 . I .•• . , : ! ! I , . . . I !. ! . .• : ! . : .. :. . . . . • . . . . • .' . I :•' ..• : , • . .. . •' I •••• : . ' I • ' .•• . : • 1 1 I , • • . : i -e -13-8,-aA -B1-8414 -g4,343 -8M -611 -8 -6 - 41, . '6 ! I .••• • ,. , . i , IlAig ',A ! 2 !% 52222222 %-' 2 ,% 22, - . • :', . ! I , • E ! . , - . , ' ; : , , 1 : VMY, ITITee '''! '"' mm " -° . m E , A . a-12I22,..1[4 . 4di.a .R .RA .R3 . . . ' i1121&12 21212i2 22 2 2 2 '212 2 2 ZZZ z . " t ' , , - : 7 t i •• -. .. . : .• I ••. 1 I ! • t ! ! ! = . ..• • .•• , • •• , , . . . . • 1 , . : . , : .• : ! ! .. . , • . •. : . Ili ! : . ! . • . , : •••': • : . . .I : . • • i : ! 'E : . : . . . , . 11 I I 2 ! 3 i •, • 0. . . , ' <•-y_ . 1 , . t I ,e. : .... .. .9 , 1 f16°_,g . 1, ,, ' .E 1 g f, , jkl m 7i -d 1 ', X ,1. .E. . 14i-61 % Wg' 2 -F, _„:-E .- .7,: t. /11 *& . :6 '' '7 5 4 „.0 2 , ° t . 1 ',LI' 411. -1311 ,13 -E .7, 8_ ,, 1 , V7j* it.gLt ! it§IA & -1-11111S4: 54VEill If 1l !litt. fi '7.1,-,1 % .12i 81I,L7H21,11A5iiillklUIEN,L0 > giN !' iAlAittANIALIIMIIIIItlf — . • 1 , . . _., xx m LL 0 n Ua LL W 11 W zog 11~ Qo z 0 »iul w » » » • , ' 1 I mI m o ry m `r N N m 6 6 6 6 6 of n m 6 ry I I • 1 1 ` I j I I e e e e e e e e x e e e e e e e e e e e E o 0 0 0 oio ` o 0 0 o g of o to Io'o Io I io _ _ • E 1 i • i i 1 I r —1-1 fi ! I l It . 1 1 ; � it E iii - 4e000mom000000000000vl 8:8'8,,8''oaomooSSoom0000SS800000 x. 15 3o ,, a o e o0 ° 8 8 0 8 8 8 AEA 8 8 AA S 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 S S 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 AA 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 S 8 8 8 8 8 8 V I i I } 1 11 I - l I }! I iilij E E E -E E .E -E E E E E E E E E E EIE E EIE E4 a a s s a a a a a a a a _ a a 2 - - BBSBBS V? .§ .? BBSBBssEB $I § I B ', � ' ' N mmm " mtiT �, ' m E .Q rn z z z z z z z z o u mi z z o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m . E ¢P O E - ED x c x m y a A3 vz ` 3 s " a a , gs o € S l e >oso c n. o ¢ _ g E 1l Ua a ,e3o " iE F $ T z giR.o eee a 7 S' ,c$-. Bx zz z T 3 3 o, o 8 E8> Fg1,g 4 o a aa2c rc ;13!= m o, o, o,' m m u u u w 10 I 3 j K i 6 w -i n o+ N 4. LL W It i O • LL • • _ j ;_ __. • • m • • • • g N • hH : • • • • • • • m s• I j rt_ - I I II • I . : • o o -e o u T ..-�. E� �. VJ E f i • • i c, 1 LL 7 I • of of ( I_ I- w I._.. N a H ry rv • ll x 1 It::o g m " o m fs-F 1 t - x'x x' ox x x x xix x' ,I 88 8 8 8 8 8 0 0 8 8 8 8 8 8 8;8 8 8 8 88 8 m x a 1 b n IH • msj om- -I'. ... .o a L w - R < M • '" Q8 .I ' ten; 01 01 - rn - - 01 0 !• • g I • i I I ! U $ • • • iMr;rrrr!rrxrarr'rlr zEgcg "6 E - '- Z E ggggg.gg gggggggE: !EEE EEI § sci U ci m uuuUU':UI. 0 U UU- G005 • • •F y.0 2 Eg U WI 2 • . - c ; $ o 3 �I � m Q ` � IyU N aE0 ; % pa H a3 - & 0_ss (& � ?. c= s .,- gQ . Bs ELL m a a E .oE k oI LLI TR g osi I I tm § to la W m it g 3 g.h 3I.a1 B 3H 83ti m I � � E l II i _, z co.w € 3Irlee'u a , ¢ wn - 7c i , Ha u - y u Ic> I DILL I . a 13 - , . c`n co LL ^O I n7 d v V a LL wQ w 5 � - I I _ �. I t-1 ...��-... i I aLT, I 1 • i .L,s.?.. U : • I I 1= I it : IL : 1 : : 1 '• Ill , , • • j • j II I j l 1 • w . . : : : .• . . mu : , : .„ „, :• : : : : . . i.--i, 1 . . ••• ..., . Il • ' I , w IL' j T f f ,w ill w • I t , - , . . -, • , : : : . 1 i 1 1 1 - 1 •1 , , ___ : .q , : . . • . . , , ... 1 , ...2 , IIIMIIM . . , , ,a ! ! , I I �- I: : : : : : : . . I ! '' '' MO iiir :' .l I , ,, , : ! ! i U 1ii1 liii IUIIII•IIIl i IiHiIIE I ' M 1 1 . ' ! I t- 0 V 0 0 0 0 g C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g (J O O C O O O O O 0, U' U'I U' U' U'. O O O O O O O O O C9 C O O O U' O (5 O Ls 3 g is - ss6sz _ � ngF2 2ss _ - 3 _ - - - " 45 " � mli4 qi -I >m 8 a $= a g � Pi m1 r . . 00 eu LqE Emomadmcr A MoLL ,1 „ LL 5 i - � oaaasa a a' o ¢ ¢�, 3 ® 7 ; I \ ,\) \ • c. y ! \� i § 1 � . 0. \|\� a. \\\ § \§ ./ : _ _ ' I ' i . I � . . . : i 1, : 88 ' ' . . . ; : I � . O�\ I ; , • � . � . � : :• i . • —� ; : I '{ --» a . r . . i : , }; : • -- ( ; ——— i : , -I I ,k� i � ; ! ; I ; i i I ' : : ; \7f • . ; ; i \ i §;, • ;: - ' . ==y ; . � : , ; / I . � ; 5- ƒ- ' - . I -_ . � . . is & i ; \\( " ' , . : i . i [ - , . � ; . . , ,,, . � � m . , m _ , \\ -` � . j , . ; ` ` )) � � i1 � \ ; I I1 I' ,I\\ : —\ . I ) \ : I k I ' i • . I E ' Fco ) I co - � ; III ' � i: ; � . , j � / . /| !! | ! {/; /{ƒ{{| | ! • � '• ' ) } ) § ) ) {. kk | !{(([t> ! ! , G \ j _ \ . _ - . . � . /. � . : � . / . : : m eae = : \\! / MMS f {/£!!f.f-§ 2///////y//2 111! : . . . ( «j . � . ! ill ! ! 1 . . � ; • � . . , . -g . ! kcc ` ` 11 $ , / II § : ¥ _ \ , {i = if� ƒ 7 . : � / ) {+t , j , ! ! ! ! { a �, � } j kƒ{# \ \}� kMili \\�\\ I {IJ «- ES ~! . ¥._f{, ; {{ Ia £-: , ±+l m, _! ! ! � f/\ ; 2 » \ ; ) \{\ )) g \{ ~ , �� § ± LGmlme ; lKae »I= ! ! ! a : : „ ! zl , , , • t= }ƒ\ $| ! If \\«� m- - Es / t®� w© {{efaa3 = {<y, � _ �, �� , , = %w= � �� _, LL �� I LLawaw 3 1 I Z J U I S 1- —_-_- r __ --i i . --.-1r _I I 1 ! 6 I ! i I ; — ! ! L, I j I ;—I s j { __;________1 W I I 1 TI _ I ji j � I I • i I 3� I ' i t 1 I ' wa ! -I - _�_ -!. I- I - . I II . I 1 , { j -1 i ' I - I I 62 --I_ I-I- I , I- I I I 4 ( ! --fi 1 I ] — + 4: i ! ' i I If • t I ' I`i' ^I t : I^ • i f I I I I I I I c _ i i f I II e t I I c. 8 I - JJ BSBsssssss2BSBss § 1 l 'c -c _ 'c 'c _ c 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 270700, 77 4'4'Q Q rn L'm Q'4'4':' F i f f E f z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z i a ' cb 9'g g , x _ ; a m m i a x V o a m en " = a 45 3 s > a 2 Ha ' 4n. 0 -6 s _ " ti $m t o v � r o = r - m N ' 0Sa = $ o_ z ' 3: r a - B m aE m8a s m ; oo _ m mag , N m a zqa m u g y > m m m m m w w. LL ". x E a rc a - o, o o w w E o ai. \\§ I • li ! ' ! j : ( ; • a� : � . : ' : : \ })) . . � .. � { j � \�� g- : . . . . . • e _ • . � � , . _ ' � ' I . ! I ,� I . � � , 2 _ , - , j 1:,1Ii i ; I _ i \ � • / - ' � i : . ' • � , - > j ' ; \ � ' : . . : ' I j ` I 1 ' i . . • }2 ' � • Ii ----2 | , • : _ _ , , §; • � { ii lf — ! .� , i -� )' : : - . \� :• i ; ; � \\ ` i I ` • • I `; : : . : : . . : : : , : ` � w/ - : : P. ' r§! % � ' . .' — { i � ' : ' 5!E \! , � % ( — , � ' \ \ / . ., } , � • 1 � : 2� ' . r . : ( . . ' • :-1 I - ; i • _ : , - ' ' \ � ` • ' � � , � \ - - f \ , . , . . : , Cr'' '\/7 ; ; ; t/}er// (}/et/. . e.1/ e�m Si ' , es ) ! ; ! ! ! s ±! ! ! =! r ! r ! : ! ! i©l2 ±� i! !$$//$iti$$$}i$co!S- € €.-1 a , _ KK , : _ _ _ „ saa ,v101co . . ▪ : : \ \ If\\\\\\\$$\{\\$\f\$\i$!${{$£$! \\!$\$£$i _ ; i. , \C� \ � i � � � ^ ! � »f ! - f{ ! � _ ` ! » ! ) / ) ! ! \° \ � :CSk $f ! ®® - ) ; !! \/, ! \) /{ / ! / ' . 1 ! l �il113211 \( l .\ i � 33 # ! if� ` f £�! ! , 6ƒ \ f7 � � f�� . | ; � ƒ« \%! \ _ I Li.-15G , o0.1 V I r : •E ' § § A ' 'ci c8, § § E ,8, rii 8 ' L'.--?, LccS1 La'.'i E E 8 8 8. • ,.!•_:,--i g (.,I ft -c.3 G .m i .:= ..-.-,- .."- :11-r.115 .• i< ,..; v- .- .-- .... .t- ill ,----1- : Pn . 1 1 [ l'g ggggggg•ggggg'gggggggggggggggg[ggggggg•g•ggg — ct [ I [ I . . : • [ I XI • i a i 8 " '. ' ' " ' E El H . RI'P ! 8FiF,Ag Eg216 ,7T-, Erir , 1 ,. - E EMI Eli 1 I .-i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1• 1 . i ' •1 , , , , r 1 r • : : r i rFr • ' 4 ! § gil. RI'l 1 ...., . , M.-J. :,gREE FRI2151i1VA•',9-: i'- i5.E.,; ',.; a : , p;g; al 1 i . . . 1 .,[ : .4 1 1 . . : • • • ' 1 , ° .: • ; , i Z ; : 11 : i ' i i ,• i ,• ---.- ---i-t- .WI !' . ; 1 E E !'I 'I'['1 ' ' E El ' Ei'1 , , E :E. MEEN I,9- ';-JEIAE -7 4, FMiI - k !-- :" ‘•",1 "; 1 4 • I ,••4.r...--,:•• :.:,-.-; ,,5,..-:- ..,,, --- 1 . . • 16 1 I ! 1 : . : - . . 1- : : : : : • • • : • : ; g • ,, . : . . •. iI . . ' ; : ; 1 ; ; :• . . . . . : : , ..• . . 1 1 .•• : : i1i . : ' 1 igi I I : 1 : ' • 1 :Fi - I 1 , : . , t t i I . , . . . . . . ..• , X 1 I . . . . . . : •: i i • . . ' i• i ' i I • - : In' I I ' , : : • • 1 0 :,t,, i i I : iiii • 1 . 1_1_ • • . . . .I . . 1 1 [_ .. . . • . 1 ! -1 -T - . :, . 1 r _. • 1 • . , . 4:-A--.-.. . 1 I 1 Sa 1 i . , 1 • ' • : ,•--4-4- 3 1 ; ; I . . . I L . . , . . — —.- —':- "- ' I -i-" [ : — • • „ .• : . , , , [ i .• , . , : , . - _ 111 : : .•• ! I 1 i 1 1 Hf 1 -ii : 4 4 4 1 i 1 li r 1 i ! 1 rf : ii 111 . . , ! ! ! I ! 1 ,___. 1 _ ! ! i . . • :! 1 ! ! i : : .• , . . , , ,• . , , „ , . . . A 1 ; . ! : i i ; • I ;. , i . 1 : 1 ; I • •., ,_ • • - 1 ' ,it , i-r T — -r t-- - -1- -i- . 1 ; i I----1--- r -, -- , , , Hs =, _,..„,-..„,-..„„..„,•.,,.?:.. 4".''4". 2 2 2:2 2 2 2 2 2 2.2 .2 2 2 2 2 2 2 i 2.2'2 2 ! I 2 2'2 2 2 2 2.2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii; I , i , H ' oEoEOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOEEEEEEE ..25122EEEEEEEEEEI Iff ' •. 0.0 0 0 00.0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0 o 0 000 0 00 0 0 0,0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 ;0 i : 1 : • . . . . : , o 1 i [11 . • • . . • „ . . . c „ „ , , , , .• . . . , , • • I E. I ,1 . ,I .. . . , . : • • • . . , . .•• , : : = m! u F . . . . , •: , , • • . . . . . - I . . : : .• : 151A . . : :• :• : : .• : . . ••• : . . • , ! ! , :• : . • • : ! . i ' . : : i , : • : . . . . . [ • • : : 31[AiA • • • • , , I [ : F IF : .•• . ; , , , • • [ : , [ 0. : ' • 8 .- 1 i , i ,iii 12 : 1 i I :7-'.. : , .0 , : 2 ' : 8 vl 0 , ' ' : -3 ' .2: '2 1$' `4 43, •g • 8 ! T2 :g „: : .E' 2 1'. F • ;- . (3 8•u ?ig ''''•'1' "d ' - -' 2 ' ' -", e % g :-V 42 =, 11 V 7, •E 2 e -tg i 8 i gng . 41. -0 • !A z-e2 A;T 1-1 Lis1.7.1.8S ,T, . 4'2 ;.-., 13:ziElSgStgg .g 'E, t188 'w, 'R,.'w: 'R. 8 8:8 9 8 81-E8 g:8,9 8,8! . • . .•.,. . .I.1. .1.1.1. . .1 .i. . . 8Hi. . .1. § IF1.1. .1.1.i.l. .i .i. ke._<ki " 'IP,J ' 1 ! = os ,.,,-,•-•iI I '§i • RI I I 1-;vi 1:•1 : a_ — I 1 : .• a_2 g • 1 : . 1 1 1 i••' 1••• I : , • , , 1 . , . ! , ..•-• r. . •• g' •, , , , -_,.. ee *--iIe ,f_ e , e eeeeeeeeeeeeegggggggg tt . ,1 2 q 1 i , : •• 1 . , ,1 1 : : , , •• , , : , . •• . ! 1! , . ,•• : , . i ! -a 1 I • :•. • . . . . : .•• R e : ; 1 I ••. :• • ..: : i „ . g 1 1 I I . .. • „ . . „ ' : : , , I •• . ' - ' ' '1 8 ' 8- ' § re'..' ,-. .r, i ... .... ... . . . ...... . . . . . . .. .... . . . . .1 .I. . 1. § ! ! .• : . . . , : . .• , .•• , , . ••• , , , , .•• , ..1 , I , •• •• .•• , • , , : , .• . .., 1 I 0 ..• : . . . . . w'. . .1-1 —:„.---4.1kt•. . . . . . . .i.i. ku..3 § . -H-.4-1-:. . . . . . . I ,.1. . . . . . .1.1. . .= ,,, g 1 .•; •••• : . , : .•• .: , . . : . . . . . ,L,6 .!- .••• : : ! , l•L ! E. '2 0 E : : .••• ..•• ...•• . E ,i : .•'l i i : i .• : 1 i E .•• . .. . •••' ••' ' ••• • . .•' : :: . . . . . . .E i. . . . . . . .H!. . : , : •• §N§ ' ' § § §o A! I i § § §ce ' 'I§1 i' ' R '1 : .• , .•• 518 • '1 1 1 ! I , , . . ,2,1 i .••1 . . .••• i . ..• : , r & , ••• :•: .:•' , .: r .•• :• .•••r ,• .••• .••' I • ' i . .••• .: i i . . ,• , . , .• k . . : . ..•-: .•, 1 . : , E , ..•• E , .• • . 1 : : E i . . 2 . . . . , ! . . , ! ,• ! . . , .••• ! . . o : : :: ,•• ! .••• .•••.•'! : .. . , ••• . , , ! ,:•• :•: , .•• tg : : ! . . ;• !• - - - - - - . . .coo 1 E . . .• .• 1 ! i , 1 ! i .•• i ! ; ; .: .•• l• .•, i E, , E i 1 1 •- •- , ..• i .•• .•• . . i E , .! ..•• .. : • • . •m : • • i .•• ..••-1 : 1- ' ' ! E ! — ; — —I—-1- . . . . . , :41 i .•• .. .• ..•' : 1 : 1 i . . i E E .. .• E i 1 E i .• , . . . . u, El : .• :• •i: i:•.i . . i E E : : .• : 1 i i E on 6 i ! a.g 80 : 1 ;• . ! ! : ! !7 . ! : , 1 1 • •. ...!..i.. . 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 414 41-1 iliiii141-11-tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisgss § iiiii (t0 011:1,0 0.18 HUI 11:1000 &slt iss.sl,sss s 6 6.6 g gggSggg,g,g 00,5,60i0 0 I •• i • • .. .•• „ ,. -, ,•, . . . . . .. , .; , „ .• ..•• .••• .••• .••, , ,• „ , : E:•• .. : .. : . , .• . : ! i • . • - ' .c: : ! .•. ce . , .: , ..•• 1 f • -.. . .:: ,•: ..' ; . . . . . • i .•• c . • ,. .• :: ..i ..• : : II .•••• :•' co . E . . . . .•• .: : . i I .••• .•'• ! i 0 i• 1 : : . . . . . I .••• I i1 .••• .•, ! i . i ,• .••, i i _. ..! ! ' l , 1 ! :E S ! ! , , , • , .3 I - :. i 1Fi -8 i• Imczi a 1 1 1 1 r: ! 1114714! il ,,,M111 -13p, f ,81111,0 ,,., -1-141 -c! iillif. e.,i1 -7; tIllitH1 Ts:zIEP,- >-. 'i- r, N F,, , 51 7, tt / ttgl 2 4_8:z -.g:k tIittilegi .@i;i.g . 8 1.'2 `L' Egie 1-618 SF,IEM § § @ 6 A . f:,-.: .. ‘1.51a16 6 8 d"fLi2 7! Lif c.7,.0 1,±" . •°' 2i2 z]oi. a.cia,E a aiLLIOMmono . W ,IS 1,.-..-.!..,- .- I Q 2.O Y.0 7Q N . . ' . . Z 8 8 8 8 8 >.+i g F N• r r, cr... <v .l ry ry ry cq E M. g ry n ,n c, N n <,, m r+• v n r. r, n a V LL n a ✓y• W rc o W z H U LL " \ 0 0 0 0 0 `e 8 8 8 8 8 8 a e c 8 8 8 8 e e 8 o e e Zo 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o U I j j , 1 1 I 1 I Ij 1 j ' I „, , I j 1 : L . Ij . I1 j ' 'Alr A g • 8 8 8 8 8'', R §. 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 e 8 . 8 8! igl ' ' • �' : , I� I i� Imo, '� 1�i� J�'� , I r ! I ' Iii , 1 _I- _ I r i t 1 1 1 1 '.8 eSSs8 88 • 8 88 88' S 8 n r n, c n n.• e r r I I I I ' I I I 1 U o : r_s 4 r < � � .., ter I S. In r I 1 , G--. - ->-, I I I 4 11 i I 1• , I I ;} I • 1 1 i t� j . . i i - _i r__ 1 L. I 1 • I �� : : : : I t ' I lI II I �� : H. — I ( — — 1 1 ! 1 I ' • 1 1 ! i i i :H 3t • f- SEES - - - - - - - - - - - - E - - - _ - _ - - 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 :(. UU U�' �.m m m m m m .2 m m m m m m m mz z z zz1• i jl c E - H 1 1 I '§, I I : I• I a i � F I I �I H _ m n m 8,-: _ot or! LL ¢$m o H>m c ro s N $ - v U }s aa o8E agY o 5 m N vE y a a m $ �- a8 _ N m.g 3 _ '- svzga 2 3 o m w u mQ ¢ m $ cUow ,� u 1A - xrEzaaaaN m n .- 3 �, o, o, ¢ mm - mtz6, ww m 7S.a !RIF- $tql§ § gF. FE �i FE, E. A F08I8E F El' ' O S S o '� �, I - ( fm I :m I ICI 2 see ° eeseo Leo ' gx'xQoeeeo � eo eggs ° 0 0 0 o a E o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8'8.� o o 8 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 . 88 8 0 0 8 I I E 1 m m El ry NC H. . ,--. ., I ,- I 1 i. I i s0 I 0 I� I 4 I • 11 I { i • • j I I ' l i r r 1 -- ---r — j m 1 — l 1 • i ! I • y I H 41 00 • . i io m_ I . • 111 -81I, 1 . 1,1 1E'§ 'i � - 00000 €LE 0 s1 0000 -§ 0 a 0 ml3 3aaa 'Rig s it:' as as as as aa Ill at°fV I:.4.44irV , rn E'1 § g1.'.@Q 21ma i §.gO ggIg;gg'.,z,z". zlz z z z z z!z z. .. . . z+z.z� . . z z zz, .zlzl� oIz �c .. . . z1g,000 f ? z 1 I I I 1 i t ! i E i j I I i m l m { ; ,. a 4 a o a , 1 8 c `�.� i' 1I i s a' I m39; l al¢ x %1a, @ �' a! 2 , a'0 • as % a % •E aEg Aa� 21 Io 0 H x s a� lx f � ' s x a 8 el c a . -E 'e. Zi I =1 - a % al 3 6 AI a r 5 S al g § a E'S t RT x S'' i. g Ia 8 $, ' 1s` & $ '.. g '' 2, m d g: iE E Y 2 B!xl $ S 0 mm PIg V Blo 8 8 F Mi5 a 0 Li 6:!0 ,..D1` x x $ fla aI¢ ¢,; _ 0 0 0-w 0 0 E 41R f E o1aa M a a m ¢ calm S 3j.-1& < calm m mica o m Q S., I U w 2 2 0 n e 5 2 5W U 0a �Q 8 gg e g a g a a e o \ o o 'o Zo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U l I I ' : f L I : : , , ! j, t i bl i�li 1 jI 1 _ I i — o 3 I ; , F+ + I H .4 1i , ' I I --t- — - ' as as aaaa as $ a m o a- - - AA' 444444000000000000000000048—SEE NU E m . a ¢ Z -fs= 2 w of _ E U C = a' = z B 8 et - ? z , 3 Z a .8 < .. - G } 1 c og- E £ _- a m - 0 - E m - m A o _ L 3 ¢ :Om ' ; m ,St ' E o- . S LL o £ E . c, -o w GENERAL FUND IFFP AND IFA SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH DECEMBER 13,2016 APPENDIX C: LAND VALUATION REPORT Land Valuation S0 Utilities. Parcels with utilities readily available for development typically command higher prices. This is due to the costs necessary to provide these services to the land.In this case,all of the sales are similar,and no adjustments are necessary. Adjustments Summary The sales are compared to the subject and adjusted to account for material differences that affect value.The following table summarizes the adjustments we make to each sale. Land Sales Adjustment Grid-Main Parcel Subject Comparable l Comparable 2 Comparable 3 Comparable Comparable 5 Name Former Salt take Former Franz Confidential land'Multifamily Downtown Multi- 101 Tower Site Oly Public Safety Battey Site family Residential Building Land Address 315 East 200 South 734 E.4005. Confidential 143 S.200E. 306 E.S005. 101 S.200 East St Oty Saltlike Oty Salt Late Oty Confidential Salt Lake Oty Salt Lake Ow Salt lake Oty County Salt Lake Salt lake Salt Lake Salt Lake Salt Lake Salt tate State Utah In VT In UT UT Sale Date 0n.14 May14 Oct'13 May.13 Sep'12 Sale Status 0osdd Closed Closed Closed Closed Sale Pnce 57,500,000 54,500,000 $2.711.600 51,420,000 54.010.000 Price Adjustment Description of Adjustment Effective Sale Price 57,715,000 54590,000 52.711,600 S1,458.315 S4,010.000 Square Feet 45,864 138,085 63776 54,232 31.363 81.703 - Acres 1D5 3.17 131 1.25 0.72 188 Prix per Square Foot $55117 $69.78 550.00 $4650 $49.08 Proprty Rights Fee Simple Fee Si,mole Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple %Adjustment - - - -financing Terms Cashes seller Cashtoselir Cash to seller All cash All cash %Adjustment - - - - - Conditions of Salt %Adjustment - - - - - MarketConditons 7/8/2015 Oct44 May14 Oct'13 May13 Sep-12 %Adjustment Pnor to Jan 2013 0% - - - - - %Adjustnentto Jul 2015 5% 4% 6% 9% 11% 13% Cumulative Adjusted Prke $58.11 $7397 $0450 551.61 SS5A6 Location - - .5% - $% Sze - -5% .5% '10% - Functional Utility - - - _ - - Zoning - - - - Street Orientation - - 10% - - wlities - _ - - - Net Adjustment 50170 -53.70 $0.00 6 5 77 •i Het%Adjustment 0% .5% 0% .10% .% 10% 5% MY Adjusted Peke $5811 $70.27 $5450 $46A5 $52.69 Overall Adjustment 4% 1% 9% 0% 7% Range of Adjusted Pekes 546A5•$7037 A� _ �$56A0 Indicated Value S55D0 �nd Value Conclusion i ase�he preceding analysis and adjustments,the comparable land sales provide a range of value of$46.45-$70.27 per square foot. Typically,those sales considered most similar to the subject are given greatest emphasis. •i; 5 Former Salt Lake City Public Safety Building �� Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham , Inc . Page47 0 0 co 0 co 0 0 0 0 0 O r cn O N. Oa rA 69 69 69 69 69 CO 69 69 CO Q S CO ? -a0 N COa0 co CO i 0 0 O CO O O CD LL Q O N O CO O 37 act CO'.<D U " O co0 a N O = N 0 a 01 n v v v coo voi CO 1 Co w O O 69 N 'CI w J LL :CV C7 M N O N CT! CO U. V3 69 01 Q r Z 669 69 V! 669 6M% 669 4. 69 69! .- U 69 @ U_ 0 a 0 LL W 9_ m W W O CO 0) O CVO a W O .0 CV O eF 1V CO co 01 1� D 1- W r w 0 N O O 0) R N 0) M .. w 0 0 0 0 0 e e 0 e 0 e e e U... J < w 0 03 ^ ct O) CO O CO I. r w co N- O O O O O O O O O O J Q o w LL(.) N CO CO N O LO 69 an i 0, W a r W U m V) 69 69 69 69 FA 69','603 9 a 0 S Q Z f LO LL O f W 0 e�0'e o 0 0 0 e as! 0 0 e r O M O O O O co O co O CO O O ILA e o e e e e e e (j O v rn.a) o 0 0 0 0 o st o 0 W O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 Z LL^ O N O O O O 1� O O 5 Z 00 2 CD 0 0 e e e e e o 0 0 e 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O co O O O O S 0 0 o e e e e e O O O O O O O O O O O O Z r 'O 0 0 0 0 0 O O ` O co O LIDO O (Si uD E z ore 0 0 0 r o e a?. e ; e e e 1- o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U co 0 0 co co o O N _.... e o e e e o 0 0 o e e o 0 re O Co O o O O 0 , O j o O O 0 W a e e e e e o e e = 0 0 0 0 0 0 o �O) 0 r e I Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o f 0 ( 0 0 0 Q O O) a0 0) R (Si CO CV CO O O O O O O O O O O CVO O 00 O CO CA 330 a0 Z O O O O O O O co O O co O O _ N i� 0 CO 01 CO N O 1- 0 O O O O O O O CO CD - � O 1- aCO' O O US a0 is. us O 0) O O O O O O O f� V O O ^ 04 CO I..i r 0 N CO COV CO O O o O N. co V 69 O R 69 LO a0 CO CV K U 669 6699 669 669 N a 604 ,w !A NM- — 69 EA- EA- ER co 69 69 Z r19 64 69 69. 0 Q Z W 0} I W c,' U i W I I o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 co0 0 ( CD CD CO0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 wL o 0 0 0 0 0 o co o o 0 0 0 U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o ea o 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 Ce O v O O O O O O CO O ` O) 0 0 O O O O Lt1 O 01 O O ^ W 1- CO N CO O O CO N f� C V 9. O O EA �n i� M� N Li r (Si (Si C•') O <F O M L) ,...4. N M O M N • 69. C Q 69 69 CA 69 CD 69 69 CD W 69 Vi EA 69 64 EF? 0 G < r I C J W 0 Q N 0 0 N y E p as co r0 L E U @ Q m o b a EllE 7. ° 0 o E m co a a) U m U t N N Np, 6 U ,.0CV L OZ w N L co Cli cs O 0_ CVO [l Nj Q t. o C O E as 4.1 co E NO H D o o z E vs ow) y 0 �.. CN O UO CO EnDj00 w o ` UNC., t Z o WVO _ o O, 16 o E d 0 E- 'WE a) > m m wo .c m Ta CV E > Ec C as o COW O ah F, o H > a, = as .On ` 03 Cl CC aas as CO a 0- e CC £ Vs a x a co W a @ oY a E co .z.. a GO O. CD a) $ o To 75 0 E s3 > o ai > if, a O m To N — O a w oTsv y �onco - oN @Q .. o mc» o. f� Cr) b C 117. m e c O O E y M m o f v1 as o.2 o -B w F- 0 C. 3 o c ''� 0 Z 1 g m F m o a) w o Q'a) o a-<n Q 3 W -� Z a3i m �i x O J N 4j O 3 O O w- N U 2 :C N_ ' U a, as co Q 0 T� Q/ O CO O +`+- N C M O O +`� N O O CC w <� Z H C1 m LL O) F d I CY S aD . NCO 2'Cl m ,-Cn.e N CO K Cl-U` CD Q N CO CD {L O Q0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Q O O O cO O CO CO ^ ^ I 1 N W O O O O O O O O O O O O O X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O > CV CV CV (Si CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CVa a Q LL .-- (Siel �' O -co C coi I O Z (' o sa } CO r z W j w ; o w • n Q. .0) w ',I.o 3 .- CL S 0_ 0 z 0 (Si CO Q O I!CO0 CV CO V' O .....1� O Cr, QJ J co co co co co co 0) 00 cojo 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o in o 0 0 0 ..co 0 co < S CO 0 EA VI 49 EA EA EA N ill 00 b4 ifR EA fR fa ER a0 to fR EA EA M 69 44 EA !H 4t fR Oa CD — < O U co CO 0 ti N — N 4s 0 CO Cr) I La h EA 0 O 403. LL w 4 1 4, H F - U v u V IX w O. 0 LL I Z w D F w W o e e e e Zr-: e o e e �e o e e e oe e e e o e e e e e e e o � LL o 0 0 0 0 0 IA- o o .0 O o O o O o O o o o 0 o O O O CU CO i 0 ae _ .e e e e e e ate ae e v e e e e e e e .e e 0 e e- e- e e0 o 0) 0 0 0 CO v `V) 0 0 0 0 o O O can O o 0 o Cc, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A v a, 0) 0 0 0 0 0 o "Cr 0 co co co v co co co co co co co a- a- 2 e CL' 0 o e e a a 0 o e e e e e e a a o e e a e ee e e a e a -..P.O O O O O O N O 0 O O O O co o CC) CD co co co -0O O CI Ca Ca CaO O O O O O O 49 O CO O CD CD CD CD CIO O O O O O O O O O O O O a- a- a- a- a-- a- a- a- . . . . a- U e e e e. e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 0' e. CC o o Co 0 o Ca 0 0 CI CI CD CD 0 co 0 0 00 0 CO 0 0 0 0' CD CD CD CO CO O e. O O O O O O O CO CO O O 4cr CO CO CO CO 4) N O O N N CO 0) O CI o O O C C1 4) La CO CO C) 0) CO CO 00 co CO C) 4) N. Z O N O 0 0 c0 N C- O O N. C- CO M M N O 0) CO CO Off) O H 00 M 4) cc M O C- E+) N) CO CO Le vi 0) 0) 0) N N O CC) 00 4) 4) O N) H V) 4) CO 4) la 000 N CD � 4) 0) V) 0 4) 0 n CO CO CO CO co V CO CO 0) acto 0 N I C U O ) N- ^ O C) A CC) N CO 41 0 U EA 4, EA V9 fA GNA 0 a C) Ea EA H) N EA EA V. N EA EA ... .. EA 44 EA � c F w 49 iA .g. A- 49 43 EA EA 43 49 fa N O)- U I 0 0 0 0'0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 o O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 o C) O 0 O 0 O O O O C. 0 C) O O O O 0 O 0 0 O O O O o C) O O 0 0 O w C) O. C) 0 O o 0 o CO CI o o s O O 0 O o O O o O C) 0 o O O O C) Q N O O O O C) O O 00 C) O O O O O O O O O C) O O O O O co O C) co co )n 4) u7 O O C) O 0 _C) co CI 00 O O La la CD 41 La A O CDE 0 N O Ca C- cocococoCD CD47 0 cococoP.U' *a- EA Ea. VD EA NEf4 00 CCIa- 69 O 4a E9 M N 49 49 0 , N 49 49 N a 49 44 EA EC) N C/I • w EA 49 49 49 EN 49 43 � EA EA 69 49 O C 0 �. _ y Y Y CO . ) Y aC co N C N CO CO CO COto A CO E R co n i E y 0 _ NI CD 04 rn % ?i o r y <a 04 a S, m o m O o Z :d N o 4 o P o o Y! O 32 a No `9 o P N Y! s a CO Eo" c CV o >. v . C co N- 00) co Cl) v aa)) 0) Cl) ,c mod) c co aC) Cl) CO O C- O co, 0 CO 1U N o0 N CO O. O O N O O O G O N O O co N O O N N y Q c� N 04 CD CO E N O> CO 0) � E N 00 E (0 N O E CO N 0 N " N c" O Z ¢>1^ o ED CO a) co Y3 co- CO CO Y! co- co Y3 a CO co >C .4 O. ` U CV = N.0 CC g,O .co g N g N go N co N E N CD g,co Z a) • w •O C S R+ a N y m co $ O d N 5 0_ O m a) R d O N % d O CO a) d 03 K ,co O a)cc O °3 c N y ..rR_ y y d (/��j ,.R.. N O� ( ..R_. `i co 0- - a o -N Y C N Q Z C C C C1 C - Z C. C - o. C - M 0- 06 -. CC 0 ,..,co g c" h I) >0 o :6 R E CO C E45 cl a) .0 — E ()i C CO E 'O co COC C CD �) 0 a) c Y3 a) C a) 0 Y! m c a) 0 E _a) C CO 8 M m c R 0) 0 a0 Cl.0. CO CO_' Y /0 aa)) CO)00 R 0 Cn a°') 0 N R 0 co a) O N R S C %) O N O CO 3 CO f6 U a) c a2i 0 3 uRiw^; 0 �'3.� o N O CO UC m To= E N R CD m a) W .)-e > v as a '� o mt0E a) i3.a `. .,'r -0 a) 0_o `0 ).r) a d Rp.LZ:a= 0 aCicos, a 0 `0.O > 0 'coN ` 7_O R 7 C R C b a) d C. Cl C7 - N C o o c = a).o o -C o c N O o "C o c N R o 'C o;. a) Cn in d 0_U N Cl m CO W CL 0 (7 v a-CO CO CC CO J N CO Cn CY'4) J Q N al CO a' )c') J Q N CO Cn IX C. J Q N CC a n n co co 00 00 00 co COD7 CaO) CD CD CD CDN N N CV CV CV N N CV N CV CV CV N CVO O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O p O O CM >' N N N N N N CV N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C 0 O Z >- U W )n a - aC C' L0 CO N CO 0) O N CC) 41 47 CO )A- 00 C) o 0) CC) 4 f0) COEO 0) 0 C. L- a- •- a- N N N Cs! Cal CV CV CV CV OE CO CO COCO CO CO CO CO CO -C+) act V. a) J 0 EA H b C. E0A H0 O 0 9 CA N 6 *A C. A 60 A HOB c00 O Q 2 CO O "'o- In o = N w co a) Lc_ a ) Q >- CA v *+ CO d U a.a- 0_u w f 11 aY m Z W F. U w o o e 0 o e e o o e o 0 0 0 w O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 -I_,. U. J S • • • CV 0_ K • Z 2(7 • o • I ! > 0 0 o e e e e e e e o o e z 1- O 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 o O O V o 0 0 0 o CD o 0 0 Ca 0 o O z 0 z e 0 C, • 0 e e e D e D e e e D e e e e Ca Ca O O O O o CD C. C.1 O O O M L V a 69 1 e 0 o e o 0 0 e e 0 0 ;a( e o ti O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 W v 0) 0 0 e CV w i N N • - COcol CV O O cc) .0. O CCO ca. CO Z 0) Of 0) N M M if 3 CT 1,-I n N a- N N E N D i- c0 00 N v N N O) co co- O) O) i c0 00 CO •- cO co O) a N O .- In M H. . - o o fA hA V ^ A i (A EA In 4 '(A (A j gEH *A6A fR EA be- • f N V 1 j O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O CD0 1 O O O O O O O O O O O t 0 w O O O O O O O O :0 O 0 1 O O O i 00 1 i-'O O 0 o O O O o o co- 0 o O O 'O 2 0'`n `n o o 5- O 00 00 in 00 00 (n (- 001 1 H U`64 9 ,i 4A '69 9 E9 4) i O) N (n • W (A EH z. N) tR ( , !CV U C • (0 Y Y Y CO CO To a) N M V In r CO CV W O .0 N m CV a) N (0 O -0 N 0) O .- L N (/)) O c N (%) O C N Cl) co cc N co N .0) N _ 0) M V _ 0) R l)) m N N N E CV (.4 cc) E N N actE CV N C UI N 0 > N N O > N N co > N N N O N O N 2 10 N (0 O_ (EO N 2 0. 100�co .g- O. ((0 N ,_ N E N E ` N E ` N :j W 0.: O N y a O N d O a) N d O :i m K .�- mON OyOco 8 8 . E ° :N 0_ R 0. cRE c 0 ot o o .a o 6c .0 cdC m ' ) - cc .4 a) 2 ) c ) ca I CV CV d I � Np (0Q y m (N_p 0 y m � vi @ Q CU io :.� .0 0) U a)N ;0 d U O N 0) a N w O_I m N c J <N m (n a' J <N m Co Ct J <N m CA d"' CD 0 N N (") cc) c) (+) i• d' V u) U) (n in 1 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0) >- N N N 0 N 0 N N 0 N N N N N C 7 I 0 Z 1 ›.- I- U (1)w _ 3 Ix CV lc) .0- (n (O (0 O) 0 CV cc) V LC) i 0 Q. a v .r .0- sr v v v (n CO CO (r) (n (n i F J GENERAL FUND IFFP AND IFA SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH DECEMBER 13,2016 APPENDIX E: SUMMARY OF TRAVEL MODEL ANALYSIS, FEHR & PEERS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM, APRIL 19,2016 Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham , Inc . Page51 FEH R ' ' PEERS Technical Support to Update Salt Lake City Impact Fee Program TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To: Robin Hutcheson, Salt Lake City Transportation Division Date: April 19, 2016 (revised) From: Fehr& Peers Subject: Summary of Travel Model Analysis UT15-1098 The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize analysis conducted to support updating the Salt Lake City impact fee program. Fehr & Peers used the Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) regional travel demand model to analyze trip growth and roadway Level of Service (LOS) for the Salt Lake City municipal area and eight sub-districts within the City. Two model runs were completed including a baseline 2011 model run and a horizon model for 2050. Models were completed based on the regional transportation and land use assumptions from the 2015-2040 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The 2050 model used socio-economic projections for the Wasatch Central Corridor Study (WFCCS). Outputs from these models were used to interpolate interim years for 2016 and 2026. Trip Growth Analysis Using trip table outputs from the model, trip growth rates were estimated between the base year and each horizon year. Results are provided for city-wide trips (isolating those trips that either begin or end within the municipal boundary), as well as trips for eight sub-districts within the city (see Figure 1). These districts were provided by Salt Lake City to Fehr & Peers and are the same boundaries used for the 2012 Utah Statewide Household Travel Survey. All other geography in the regional travel model were summarized into a single "external" district to analyze trips going outside of Salt Lake City to the surrounding area and trips coming from these areas to the city. Table 1 provides a summary of total district trips for each horizon year. 2180 South,1300 East,Suite 220 Salt Lake City,Utah 84106 (801)463-7600 Fax(801)486-4638 www.fehrandpeers.com Technical Support to Update Salt Lake City Impact Fee Program April,2016 k �' A -se! 'Woods Cross �'. .�1. 1• fi . y;car Salt Lake t , Ag ''` ', k Y t 4;� tw. 4 J r s. � .. n 7 reed�.t1 7 — . ' tti l r, S.. ; , ram.- ," . .i 1 i 1 t i-• " . . 1 • M --. ° 10�y¢,Cy��fSC' •fig. Holladay 3 ! o Note Zone 9 is made up of au' i.es outside of the Salt Lake Municipal Boundary r ' ' Salt Lake City Impact Fee Analysis Districts - FEHR k'PEERS 2of5 UT15 1098 Technical Support to Update Salt Lake City Impact Fee Program April,2016 Table 1: Daily Trips&Relative Growth 2011 2016 2026 2050 %Growth from %Growth Daily %Growth Geographic Area Daily Trips Daily Trips 2011 Daily Trips from 2011 Trips from 2011 District 1 Rose Park 166,764 175,358 5% 192,547 15% 233.801 40% District 2 Glendale/Poplar Grove 237,039 258,217 9% 3001572 27% 402,224 70% District 3 Downtown 445,408 481,740 8% 554,405 24% 728,799 64% District 4 Sugar House/East Bench 443,792 455,110 3% 477,746 8% 532,072 20% District 5 Airport 68,401 73,871 8% 84,812 24% 111,069 62% District 6 U of U 126,371 132,410 5% 144,488 14% 173,475 37% District 7 U of U Surrounding Area 208,575 212,201 2% 219,453 5% 236,857 14% District 8 Capitol Hill/Avenues 136,344 141,385 4% 151,467 11% 175,663 29% District 9 External Zones* 813,542 866,954 7% 973,776 20% 1,230,150 51% City Total Trips 2,646,236 2,797,245 6% 3,099,246 17% 3,824,110 45% *Only trips have at least one trip end in Salt Lake City are included. This information provides the basis for the following observations: • Downtown (District 3) and Sugar House/East Bench (District 4) are by far the most significant trip generators in near term years and remain the largest trip generators through 2050. • Glendale/Poplar Grove (District 2) is also a significant district in terms of share of trips, and growth between current and future years. • The majority of total trips in City have trip ends outside the municipal boundary; this not surprising knowing that Salt Lake City is a major employment and commercial center that draws from the entire Wasatch Front. Also note that District 9 represents a relatively large geographic area-essentially the entire urbanized Wasatch Front. • Salt Lake City is expected to experience a 45% increase in travel between 2011-2050. FEHR A' PEERS 3of5 UT15-1098 i Technical Support to Update Salt Lake City Impact Fee Program April,2016 Trips were also analyzed based on travel mode. Results are provided in Table 2 for the entire City. Table 2:Trip Mode Growth Rate 2011 2016 2026 2050 %Growth %Growth %Growth Mode Daily Trips Daily Trips from 2011 Daily Trips from 2011 Daily Trips from 2011 Single Occupant Vehicle(SOV) 1,174,941 1,246,132 6% 1,388,513 18% 1,730,229 47% Carpool 1,185,518 1,233,092 4% 1,328,240 12% 1,556,595 31% Transit 125,111 144,885 16% 184,433 47% 279,347 123% Non- Motorized 160,665 173,136 8% 198,078 23% 257,939 61% City Total Trips 2,646,236 2,797,245 6% 3,099,264 17% 3,824,110 45% This information provides the basis for the following observations: • SOV and HOV modes represent the majority of travel, with between 86%-89% mode share in the scenarios. • SOV and Non-motorized mode share remains fairly stable throughout forecast years (approx.44% and 6%, respectively), whereas transit mode share grows from 5% to 7% at the expense of HOV mode share which declines from 45%to 41%. Level of Service Using the roadway volume forecasts from the travel demand model (and interpolated years), Fehr& Peers estimated planning-level roadway PM peak period LOS for the city. LOS is a measure used to relate the quality of traffic service, estimated by comparing the traffic volume to the capacity (referred to as volume- to-capacity ratio, or simply "V/C"). Figure 2 displays the LOS categories and a description of the associated traffic conditions. Table 3 contains LOS thresholds. WFRC continues to support the actual design of facilities to meet a LOS D in urban areas when reasonably possible (Wasatch Front Regional Council, 2015). FEHR 'PEERS 4 of 5 UT15-1098 Technical Support to Update Salt Lake City Impact Fee Program April,2016 Figure 2: Level of Service Capacity Analysis Descriptions PE A Ti • Light traffic N • Free flow speeds • .a • Slightly increased traffic g sio levels ° • Still free flow speeds a • Approaching moderate 1 congestion levels . A • Speeds near free flow L" 0 VI • Speeds reduced o al • Lane changes restricted -' 1 due to traffic C e • Congestion • Irregular traffic flow 1 in i gi Road at capacity u os m; • Gridlock with frequent — -'1 -i. stops i 1 Table 3: LOS Thresholds LOS Threshold A-C D E Upper Limit V/C Cutpoints Arterials/Collectors 0.6 0.75 0.9 >0.9 For this analysis PM volumes and capacity were used for the base and horizon years (2011, 2016, 2026, and 2050). Freeway functional class facilities were not included in the analysis.Table 4 provides a summary of LOS for each year.This analysis suggests the expected increase in vehicle travel will outpace capacity increases, contributing to increasing peak period traffic congestion. Table 4: Citywide Level of Service Average Remaining PM Volume PM Capacity PM V/C LOS Capacity 2011 4,585,826 8,041,658 0.57 C or better 3,455,832 2016 4,803,785 8,068,598 0.60 C or Better 3,264,813 2026 5,239,703 8,122,478 0.65 D 2,882,775 2050 6,285,906 8,251,790 0.76 E 1,965,884 FEHRf'PEERS 5of5 UT15 1098