Salt Lake County. Townships and Unincorporated Islands Fiscal Evaluation

Transcription

1 Salt Lake County Townships and Unincorporated Islands Fiscal Evaluation September 11, 2015

2 Table of Contents Executive Summary... 4 Background Information... 5 Township Service Provision Options... 5 Remaining Unincorporated County and Islands Annexation Analysis...12 Background Information Maps and Township Boundaries...14 Salt Lake County...15 Copperton...16 Emigration Canyon...18 Kearns...19 Magna...20 Millcreek...22 White City...23 Unincorporated Islands...24 Demographics...25 Population...25 Households...27 Employment...28 Townships Financial Modeling...32 Revenue Analysis...32 Property Valuation and Tax Analysis...32 Sales Tax Revenue Analysis...34 Analysis of Other Revenues...36 Summary of Revenues...37 Operating Expenditure Analysis...37 Township Services...39 Justice Court...39 Development Services...40 Animal Services

3 Public Works Operations...41 Public Works Engineering...41 Municipal Services Statutory and General...41 Capital Expenditures...42 Bonding Capacity...43 Comparative Municipalities Analysis...44 Revenue Analysis...45 Expenditure Analysis...45 Unincorporated Areas Tax Calculator...51 South Jordan...54 Cottonwood Heights...55 Sandy City Sandy City Water...56 Sandy City Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District...57 Sandy City White City Water...58 Sandy City Salt Lake County Rate w/ ¾-inch Meter...59 Sandy City Salt Lake County Rate w/ 1-inch Meter...60 Capital Expenditures Analysis Capital Expenditures Analysis...61 Appendices Appendix A: Maps...64 Appendix B: Future Tax Growth...65 Copperton...66 Emigration...68 Kearns...70 Magna...72 Millcreek...74 White City...76 Unincorporated...78 Appendix C: Municipal Services Fund Budget...79 Appendix D: Comparative Municipalities

4 Executive Summary Background Information Metro Township/New Cities Service Provision Options Remaining Unincorporated Islands Annexation Options (not including Metro Townships/New Cities) 3

5 Executive Summary The purpose of this study is to provide voters in the townships and remaining unincorporated areas of Salt Lake County with accurate data and information regarding the comparative costs of municipal services based on differing municipal structures and methods of service provision. The six townships include Copperton, Emigration Canyon, Kearns, Magna, Millcreek and White City. In addition, impacts were included for the remaining unincorporated areas in the County. The municipal services that will be provided by the Municipal Services District ( District ) and analyzed as part of this study include the following: animal control, building permits, business licenses, code enforcement, economic development, engineering, justice court, planning & zoning, signals & streetlights, storm drain, streets & sidewalks, weed control, and the accompanying capital expenditures required as part of these services. Administrative costs associated with administering the services provided by the Municipal Services District are also included in this analysis. Other municipal services, such as fire, police and sanitation services, are not included as part of this report. Services Provided by the Municipal Services District Animal Control Building Permits Business Licenses Code Enforcement Economic Development Engineering Justice Court Planning & Zoning Signals & Streetlights Storm Drain Streets & Sidewalks Weed Control This study focuses on two methods of service provision: 1) a District that would provide the regional services (previously listed) to all or a portion of the metro townships/new cities/remaining unincorporated areas; and 2) self-provision of services through a source other than the District. Voters in the unincorporated islands have an additional choice to annex into neighboring cities such as Sandy, Cottonwood Heights or South Jordan. Therefore, a tax calculator that compares taxes and fees paid in the unincorporated islands with those paid in neighboring cities has been provided as part of this study. This study is not an incorporation feasibility study for each of the metro townships/new cities; rather, the report simply provides information regarding the relative cost of selected municipal services (as listed above) through either the District or through a means other than the District (self-provision). This report is organized as follows: I. Executive Summary II. Background Information 4

6 III. Metro Township/New Cities/Remaining Unincorporated Areas Service Provision Options a. District Provision b. Self-Provision (comparative cities analysis) IV. Unincorporated Islands Annexation Analysis (not including metro townships/new cities) V. Capital Expenditures Background Information Figure 1 shows the proposed Metro Township boundaries compared to the current township boundaries. Figure 1: Map of Metro Townships/New Cities/Remaining Township Service Provision Options. Two options were analyzed for the Townships including: 1) District provision of services; and 2) Self-provision. 1. District Provision of Services. ZBPF reviewed in detail the County s Municipal Services Budget in order to assign the various revenues and costs to the separate townships and remaining unincorporated areas as applicable. This allowed the building of a fiscal impacts model that shows the relative impacts and economies of scale from differing levels of participation in the District. The as- 5

7 sumptions used to project revenues and expenditures by township, as well as the economies of scale from different levels of participation, are discussed in detail in the body of this report. Contribution Ratios: Table 1 shows the estimated percentage of revenues to expenses that come from each of the geographic areas. Table 1: Percent Revenues to Expenditures - All Areas Participating in the District Area % Revenues to Expenditures Copperton 27.9% Emigration Canyon 59.0% Kearns 72.6% Magna 97.6% Millcreek 105.6% White City 53.2% Remaining Unincorporated 212.1% The remaining unincorporated areas and Millcreek contribute a larger percentage in revenues than they incur in costs. In comparison, the smaller geographic areas Copperton, Emigration Canyon and White City contribute far less on a per capita basis than they cost. Comparison of Costs with Various Areas Participating in District - Economies of Scale: Results of the financial modeling suggest that the feasibility of the District relies heavily on the participation of the three largest participants Kearns, Magna and Millcreek as well as participation from the remaining unincorporated county. Due to economies of scale, costs for all metro townships/new cities and the remaining unincorporated county increase if they are the sole participants in the District. However, costs for the smaller metro townships/new cities increase significantly without the participation of the larger metro townships/new cities. District expenditures at every level of participation assume the District provides all the services it currently provides. 1 In reality, if not all metro townships vote to join the District or new cities withdraw from the District after six months, the District could contract out some of the services it currently provides at lower costs than providing services to a single metro township or a grouping of only the smaller areas. The results of the modeling clearly show that the costs decrease for each of the metro townships/new cities and the remaining unincorporated county from participating together for the provision of municipal-type services. As shown in Table 2, the overall per capita cost of $236.93, which is the total per capita cost if all areas participate in the District, is compared to the per capita cost if not all areas participate. 2 As the analysis shows, it is beneficial to participate together. For example, it costs Copperton, Emigration and White City $ less per capita by everyone participating together in the District. 3 1 For example, the study assumes that even if White City is the only participant in the District, the District will still provide striping and maintain all of the equipment to provide striping services. 2 This analysis also compares per capita/employee costs, as well as the per capita costs shown in the table above. Trends for per capita/employee costs are similar to those calculated for per capita costs. 3 Calculated by subtracting the average cost per capita if all participate in the District ($236.93) from the average per capita cost if only the three smaller townships participate. 6

8 Table 2: Per Capita Savings Analysis from All Areas Participating in District Per Capita Cost Per Capita Savings from All-In District All Areas in the District $ Sample District Groupings: Copperton, Emigration, White City $ $ Kearns, Magna, Millcreek $ ($4.07) Kearns, Magna, Millcreek and Remaining Unincorporated $ $3.11 One Township Only in District: Copperton $1, $ Emigration Canyon $ $ Kearns $ $91.26 Magna $ $ Millcreek $ $29.27 White City $ $ Remaining Unincorporated $ $ Comparison of Revenues and Expenses: In order to evaluate the benefits of participating in the District, costs per capita are compared with revenues per capita. It is important to recognize that revenues for each of the geographic areas will not change under any of the scenarios. Revenues are based on constant revenue sources, mainly sales tax but also road funds, fees, etc., and the geographic areas are not impacted, in terms of revenues, by whether they are in or out of the District. It is only the expenses that change with each scenario, based on the participants and the respective economies of scale. The anticipated fiscal impacts from the difference between the revenues and expenditures, depending on the combination of metro townships/new cities participating in the District are as follows: Table 3: Anticipated Fiscal Impacts of Various Townships Participating in District Groupings Revenues per Capita Expenses per Capita Revenues Less Expenses All Areas in the District $ $ $8.33 Sample District Groupings: Copperton, Emigration, White City $174 $654 ($480) Kearns, Magna, Millcreek $207 $233 ($26) Kearns, Magna, Millcreek and Remaining Unincorporated $250 $240 $10 One Area Only in District: Copperton $ $1, ($910.97) 7

9 Groupings Revenues per Capita Expenses per Capita Revenues Less Expenses Emigration Canyon $ $ ($471.34) Kearns $ $ ($159.70) Magna $ $ ($176.52) Millcreek $ $ ($24.47) White City $ $ ($419.63) Remaining Unincorporated $ $ $ Fiscal Impacts from Various Scenarios of Participation in District: A comparison of revenues with expenditures demonstrates that while some areas contribute more in per capita revenues than per capita costs if all areas are in the District, this dynamic does not hold true if metro townships/new cities are the sole entity in the District. Functioning separately, only the remaining unincorporated county generates more revenues than actual costs. Table 4: Comparison of Fiscal Impacts with Various Townships Participating in District Per Capita/Employee Cost Per Capita Cost Difference Between Revenues and Expenses Taxable Value Mill Rate Increase* Property Tax Impacts per $100,000 of Taxable Value All Areas $ $ $1,225,370 $7,554,231, $0.00 Sample Groupings: Kearns, Magna, Millcreek $ $ ($3,272,755) $5,738,139, $57.04 Copperton, Emigration Canyon, White $ $ ($4,122,953) $448,291, $ City All Except Millcreek $ $ ($1,011,597) $3,422,287, $29.56 Kearns, Magna, Millcreek and Remaining Unincorporated County $ $ $1,336,525 $7,105,940, $0.00 One Area Only in District: Copperton $1, $1, ($750,643) $27,027, $2, Emigration Canyon $ $ ($1,022,817) $234,943, $ Kearns $ $ ($6,045,767) $868,474, $ Magna $ $ ($5,157,175) $737,720, $ Millcreek $ $ ($1,446,601) $4,131,944, $35.01 White City $ $ ($2,349,493) $186,321, $1, Remaining Unincorporated County 4 $ $ $1,888,170 $1,367,800, $0.00 *A mill rate increase is that property tax rate necessary to generate sufficient revenues to ensure that expenses do not exceed revenues. 4 Unincorporated revenues show a significant increase in this analysis due to the fact that Kennecott is moved from the current Copperton boundaries to unincorporated County based on the proposed Copperton boundaries. 8

10 Clearly, some of these scenarios are purely hypothetical. Smaller communities, such as Copperton, would simply contract for services rather than pay the high price of being the only member of the District. 2. Self-Provision of Services. This study estimates the cost of each metro township/new city separately providing by means other than through the District, the same municipal services as provided by the District. This is not an incorporation feasibility study for each of the townships, but rather includes only the cost of those municipal services that would otherwise be provided by the District. animal control, building permits, business licenses, code enforcement, economic development, engineering, justice court, planning & zoning, signals & streetlights, storm drain, streets & sidewalks, weed control, and the accompanying capital expenditures required as part of these services. Administrative costs associated with administering the services provided by the Municipal Services District are also included in this analysis. Self-provision of services does not necessarily mean a metro township/new city provides all of its own services. The approach for this part of the study was to compare service costs among similarly-sized municipalities in terms of population and/or employment and to assume that an average or median of the comparable municipalities costs would be similar to those costs incurred by the metro townships/new cities. For this analysis, ZBPF divided the metro townships/new cities into four categories based on size and then compared these groupings with comparable municipalities. Table 5: Comparative Groupings Groupings on Size Metro Township/New Cities Population Range Comparative Municipalities Population Range Copperton ,850 Emigration Canyon and White City 2,170-5, ,957 Kearns and Magna 29,216-37,858 24,702-43,023 Millcreek 59,121 34,328-60,519 Fire, police, and sanitation services were not included in the cost analysis, as they will not be part of the District. Furthermore, in order to fairly evaluate administrative costs, the administrative cost in the municipalities was set equal to the administrative costs (County Township Services and indirect costs) used in the District expenditure calculations. This adjustment was made on a per capita basis. The results of the comparison with other municipalities are shown in the following table and are based on an average cost of the comparison municipalities. The table below compares average per capita and employee costs on the left and then average per capita costs on the right. Both scenarios compare District costs (shaded in gray) with self-provision costs. The per capita/employee evaluation recognizes that some townships have more commercial development; however, results are similar between the two approaches. 9

11 Table 6: Comparison of Costs with District v. Self-Provision of Municipal Services District Average Per Capita/Emp Self- Provision Average Per Capita/Emp District Average Per Capita Self- Provision Average Per Capita Self- Provision Median Per Capita All Areas $ NA $ NA NA One Township Only In District: Copperton $1, NA $1, $ $ Emigration Canyon $ $ $ $ $ Kearns $ $ $ $ $ Magna $ $ $ $ $ Millcreek $ $ $ $ $ White City $ $ $ $ $ The following table shows the per capita costs of a metro township/new city (assuming the metro township/new city is the only metro township/new city participating in the District) compared with municipality averages (in same population groupings), as well as with lower-budget municipalities in those groupings. The two lowest-cost municipalities in each grouping have been averaged in order to arrive at the Lower-Budget Municipality cost. 5 Table 7: Per Capita Comparative Costs with Low Budget Municipalities Township District Township Only Per Capita Comparative Municipality Average Per Capita Lower Budget Municipality Per Capita Lower Budget Comparative Municipalities Copperton $1, $ $ Rush Valley, Elk Ridge Emigration Canyon $ $ $ Hooper, Fruit Heights Kearns $ $ $ Syracuse, Kaysville Magna $ $ $ Syracuse, Kaysville Millcreek $ $ $ Lehi, Taylorsville White City $ $ $ Hooper, Fruit Heights Fiscal impacts were calculated based on the difference between the anticipated revenues and the cost of self-provision of municipal-type services. A property tax mill rate sufficient to cover the gap, if any between revenues and expenditures was then calculated and applied to the taxable value of property. 5 Riverton costs were not used in the lower-cost analysis as the costs were considered to be an outlier when compared with other cities in that grouping. 10

12 Table 8: Fiscal Impacts with Comparable Municipality Averages Comparable Municipalities Per Capita Analysis Revenues Yr 1 Self- Provision Difference Taxable Value Mill Rate Increase Property Tax Impact per $100,000 of Taxable Value 6 Copperton $142,394 $198,804 ($56,410) $27,027, $209 Emigration Canyon $495,123 $468,187 $26,936 $234,943,026 - $0 Kearns $6,378,778 $11,855,451 ($5,476,673) $868,474, $631 Magna $5,442,171 $9,149,159 ($3,706,988) $737,720, $502 Millcreek $14,291,498 $22,438,258 ($8,146,760) $4,131,944, $197 White City $856,613 $1,208,009 ($351,396) $186,321, $189 Remaining Unincorporated $8,478,814 $1,367,800,504 Total $36,085,389 $45,317,867 $7,554,231,529 Table 9: Comparison Costs with Lower Budget Municipality Comparison Lower Budget Municipalities Comparison - Per Capita Revenues Yr 1 Self- Provision Difference Taxable Value Mill Rate Increase Property Tax Impact per $100,000 of Taxable Value Copperton $142,394 $157,069 ($14,676) $27,027, $54 Emigration Canyon $495,123 $311,384 $183,739 $234,943,026 - $0 Kearns $6,378,778 $8,994,318 ($2,615,541) $868,474, $301 Magna $5,442,171 $6,941,149 ($1,498,978) $737,720, $203 Millcreek $14,291,498 $14,867,342 ($575,844) $4,131,944, $14 White City $856,613 $803,427 $53,186 $186,321,104 - $0 Remaining Unincorporated $8,478,814 Total $36,085,389 $32,074,689 A per capita/employment analysis has also been conducted as many of the municipalities have significant employment. Table 10: Fiscal Impacts from Self-Provision of Services Comparative Average Per Capita/Employee Revenues Yr 1 Comparative Municipalities - Per Cap/Emp Analysis Self- Provision Difference Taxable Value Mill Rate Increase Property Tax Impact per $100,000 of Taxable Value Copperton $142,394 NA NA $27,027,194 NA NA Emigration Canyon $495,123 $388,784 $106,339 $234,943,026 - $0 Kearns $6,378,778 $9,497,408 ($3,118,631) $868,474, $359 Magna $5,442,171 $7,663,071 ($2,220,900) $737,720, $301 Millcreek $14,291,498 $22,490,540 ($8,199,043) $4,131,944, $198 White City $856,613 $1,087,864 ($231,251) $186,321, $124 Remaining Unincorporated $8,478,814 $0 $1,367,800,504 6 Commercial property is taxed on the full market value of the property; primary residential property, however, is reduced to 55 percent of market value before applying the tax rate. Therefore, a home with a taxable value of $100,000 would have a market value of $181,

13 Revenues Yr 1 Comparative Municipalities - Per Cap/Emp Analysis Self- Provision Difference Taxable Value Mill Rate Increase Property Tax Impact per $100,000 of Taxable Value Total $36,085,389 $41,127,667 $7,554,231,529 The per capita/employment analysis has also been completed to evaluate the impact of considering only the municipalities with lower budgets in a grouping, rather than the average of the entire grouping. Table 11: Fiscal Impacts from Self-Provision of Services Lower-Budget Municipalities Per Capita/Employee Less Costly Municipalities - Per Cap/Emp Analysis Revenues Yr 1 Self- Provision Difference Taxable Value Copperton $142,394 $27,027,194 Mill Rate Increase Property Tax Impact per $100,000 of Taxable Value Emigration Canyon $495,123 $298,315 $196,808 $234,943,026 - $0 Kearns $6,378,778 $8,612,278 ($2,233,500) $868,474, $257 Magna $5,442,171 $6,948,896 ($1,506,725) $737,720, $204 Millcreek $14,291,498 $18,070,030 ($3,778,532) $4,131,944, $91 White City $856,613 $834,721 $21,892 $186,321,104 - $0 Remaining Unincorporated $8,478,814 $1,367,800,504 Total $36,085,389 $34,764,240 $7,554,231,529 Based on this analysis, the least expensive method for providing municipal services is for all metro townships/new cities to participate together in a District. Remaining Unincorporated County and Islands Annexation Analysis A tax calculator was provided to the County that researched the fees and taxes paid in the unincorporated islands as compared to those paid in Sandy, Cottonwood Heights and South Jordan. This tax calculator was prepared by Sandy City, with review and input by Zions Bank Public Finance. 7 The tax calculator is interactive, allowing residents to provide inputs for home value, energy usage, water usage, etc. Of necessity, the tax calculator in this report represents only a typical scenario and the accompanying impacts. A sample of the outputs of the tax calculator is shown below. Table 12: Tax Calculator Inputs Example Property and Utility Use Assumptions Sandy City Market Value of Home and Lot $295, Est. Monthly Gas Bill (pre-tax) $ Est. Monthly Electric Bill (pre-tax) $ Est. Monthly Phone Bill (pre-tax) $29.32 Est. Monthly Cell Phone Bill (voice only - no data, text, or device charges) $79.99 Est. Monthly Cable TV Bill (If Sat. or Ant., enter 0) $ A more detailed explanation of the tax calculator is included in the main body of the report. 12

14 Table 13: Tax Calculator Outputs Example Estimated Annual Charges Sandy City Item Sandy City Unincorporated SLCo Property Tax for Municipal Services $ $0.00 Property Tax for Tort Levy Fund $0.00 $11.85 Property Tax for Fire Services $0.00 $ Property Tax for Wholesale Water $65.92 $64.94 Property Tax for Salt Lake Valley Law Enforcement Area $0.00 $ Municipal Energy Tax - Gas $72.72 $0.00 Municipal Energy Tax - Electric $97.92 $0.00 Muni Telecomm License Tax (Phone) $12.31 $0.00 Muni Telecomm License Tax (Cell Phone) $33.60 $0.00 Muni Telecomm License Tax (Cable TV) $40.88 $40.88 Street Light Utility Fee $30.36 $0.00 Storm Water Fee $72.00 $0.00 Total $ $ Difference $

15 Background Information Maps and Metro Township/ New Cities Boundaries Demographics 14

16 Maps and Township Boundaries Salt Lake County Salt Lake County is bordered by the Wasatch Mountains to the east and the Oquirrh Mountains to the west. In the County there are six townships, including Copperton, Emigration Canyon, Kearns, Magna, Millcreek, and White City. The remaining areas are listed as unincorporated areas. Full size maps from this section are included in Appendix A. Figure 2: Salt Lake County 15

17 Copperton Copperton is located in the southwest corner of the County, and is bordered by West Jordan and South Jordan to the east, and unincorporated areas to the north and south. The metro township/new city boundaries for Coppertonp, as shown in Figure 3, are proposed to decrease from approximately square miles to 0.31 square miles compared to the current Copperton Township boundaries. Figure 3: Copperton Metro Township/New City Boundary 16

18 Figure 4: Copperton Metro Township/New City Boundary 17

19 Emigration Canyon The Emigration Canyon Metro Township/new city is located in the northeast corner of the County, and is bordered by Salt Lake City at the mouth of the canyon, while the remainder is surrounded by unincorporated areas of Salt Lake County. The Emigration Canyon Metro Township/New City boundaries are the same as the current Emigration Canyon Township boundaries. Figure 5: Emigration Canyon Metro Township/New City Boundary 18

20 Kearns Kearns is located on the west side of Salt Lake County. It is bordered by West Valley City on the north, Taylorsville to the east, and West Jordan to the south. The Kearns Metro Township/new city boundaries are the same as the current Kearns Township boundaries. Figure 6: Kearns Metro Township/New City Boundary 19

21 Magna Magna is located in the northwest area of the County. Magna is bordered by Salt Lake City and West Valley City to the east. The following is a list of changes to the Magna Metro Township/new city boundaries compared to the current Magna Township boundaries: Removal of approximately acres in the southwest corner (approximately 3500 South and 3800 South, south and west of the railroad tracks; Addition of approximately 2 aces directly north of the Pleasant Green Cemetery; and Removal of 5.8 acres at the west end of Magna Main Street west of 9200 South. A more detailed view of the boundary changes are shown in Figures 7 and 8. Figure 7: Magna Metro Township/New City Boundary 20

22 Figure 8: Magna Metro Township/New City Boundary 21

23 Millcreek Millcreek is located on the central east side of Salt Lake County. It is bordered by Salt Lake City to the north, South Salt Lake and West Valley City to the northwest, Taylorsville and Murray to the southwest, and Holladay to the south, with portions of the eastern and southern borders adjacent to unincorporated areas of Salt Lake County. Border changes for the Millcreek Metro Township/new city compared to the current Millcreek Township boundaries include: Shifting the southern border near Van Winkle Drive north to Murray Holladay Road. This will result in the removal of acres or 0.23 square miles along Van Winkle Drive between 900 East and 1300 East, and Murray Holladay Road and 5290 South; The new eastern border will be at approximately 4300 East; Removal of Parley s Historic Nature Park and surrounding areas near Parley s Canyon. Figure 9 shows the current Millcreek Township and the Millcreek Metro Township/new city boundaries. Figure 9: Millcreek Metro Township/New City Boundary 22

24 White City White City is located in the southeast area of the County and is surrounded by Sandy City. There are no changes to the White City Metro Township/new city boundaries compared to the current White City Township boundaries. Figure 10: White City Metro Township/New City Boundary 23

25 Unincorporated Islands There are 44 unincorporated islands within Salt Lake County, 42 of which are surrounded by Sandy, with 1 located between South Jordan and West Jordan and another between Sandy and Cottonwood Heights. Figure 11 shows the unincorporated islands in Salt Lake County. Figure 11: Unincorporated Islands 24

26 Demographics Demographic figures were calculated by both current township boundaries and metro township/new city boundaries in order to analyze financial data individual to each Township and to the remaining unincorporated area. Demographics by current and proposed boundaries were used where appropriate to compare population, household, and employment numbers against financial figures both in the past and in future projections. These demographic figures are provided here for reference. Population Population was analyzed by Census Block to give the most detailed population counts along metro township/new city boundaries, both current and projected. Since population is only released at the block level with the official decennial Census, these demographics were totaled from 2000 and 2010 Census Blocks and then an average annual growth rate (AAGR) 8 applied to those totals to project the population for each year to Almost all metro townships/new cities and remaining unincorporated areas within Salt Lake County had positive population growth from 2000 to 2010, with the exception of White City. With the growth rates applied, all areas except White City are projected to have continued positive growth. Emigration Canyon and Magna are projected with the highest growth rates with the current boundaries. Millcreek is the largest Township, with Kearns and Magna following. Table 14: Population, Current Township Boundaries Township AAGR Copperton % Emigration Canyon 816 1, % 1,671 1,784 1,904 2,033 Kearns 31,948 35, % 36,183 36,595 37,011 37,432 Magna 21,838 26, % 27,023 27,552 28,090 28,640 Millcreek 57,919 58, % 58,821 58,904 58,987 59,070 White City 5,872 5, % 5,671 5,653 5,635 5,617 Remaining Unincorporated 11,242 11, % 11,986 12,056 12,126 12,197 Total 130, , , , , ,858 Source: US Census Block Data Table 15: Population, Current Township Boundaries, Continued Copperton Emigration Canyon 2,170 2,316 2,472 2,639 2,816 3,006 Kearns 37,858 38,289 38,725 39,165 39,611 40,062 Magna 29,200 29,771 30,353 30,946 31,551 32,168 Millcreek 59,153 59,236 59,319 59,402 59,486 59,570 White City 5,599 5,581 5,564 5,546 5,528 5,511 8 An average annual growth rate is the compounded growth rate that shows the average growth over a given time period. It is not the average of the change between each of the individual years. 25

27 Remaining Unincorporated 12,268 12,340 12,412 12,484 12,557 12,631 Total 147, , , , , ,887 Source: US Census Block Data Compared to the other metro township/new cities, Emigration Canyon continues to show the fastest growth, but Copperton moves forward as the second fastest. Table 16: Population, Metro Township/New City Boundaries Township AAGR Copperton % Emigration Canyon 816 1, % 1,671 1,784 1,904 2,033 Kearns 31,948 35, % 36,183 36,595 37,011 37,432 Magna 21,851 26, % 27,038 27,567 28,106 28,655 Millcreek 57,524 58, % 58,691 58,798 58,906 59,013 White City 5,872 5, % 5,671 5,653 5,635 5,617 Remaining Unincorporated 11,800 12, % 12,198 12,235 12,272 12,309 Total 130, , , , , ,862 Source: US Census Block Data Table 17: Population, Metro Township/New City Boundaries, Continued Copperton Emigration Canyon 2,170 2,316 2,472 2,639 2,816 3,006 Kearns 37,858 38,289 38,725 39,165 39,611 40,062 Magna 29,216 29,787 30,370 30,963 31,569 32,186 Millcreek 59,121 59,229 59,337 59,446 59,555 59,663 White City 5,599 5,581 5,564 5,546 5,528 5,511 Remaining Unincorporated 12,346 12,383 12,421 12,458 12,496 12,534 Total 147, , , , , ,905 Source: US Census Block Data Table 18: Projected Population Growth, , Metro Township/New City Boundaries Projected Population Growth Growth 2015 to 2020 Copperton Emigration Canyon 2,170 3, Kearns 37,858 40,062 2,204 Magna 29,216 32,186 2,970 Millcreek 59,121 59, White City 5,599 5,511 (88) Remaining Unincorporated 12,346 12, Total 147, ,905 6,771 Source: US Census Block Data 26

28 Households Households were calculated in a similar manner to population, but with a key difference - household counts were not available at the block level for 2000, so the growth rates applied to population above were applied to the 2010 household numbers to project to It is assumed that household growth trends similarly to population growth. Given the same growth rates are applied, the same trends apply to households as do population: Emigration Canyon and Magna have the highest growth within current boundaries while Copperton has higher growth with the proposed boundary changes. Millcreek has the highest number of households with its high population. Table 19: Households, Current Township Boundaries 2010 AAGR Copperton % Emigration Canyon % Kearns 10, % 10,297 10,414 10,532 10,652 Magna 8, % 8,251 8,412 8,576 8,744 Millcreek 24, % 24,996 25,032 25,067 25,102 White City 1, % 1,830 1,824 1,818 1,812 Remaining Unincorporated 5, % 5,258 5,289 5,319 5,350 Total 51,282 51,665 52,056 52,456 52,863 Source: US Census Block Data Table 20: Households, Current Township Boundaries, Continued Copperton Emigration Canyon 937 1,000 1,068 1,140 1,216 1,298 Kearns 10,773 10,896 11,020 11,145 11,272 11,400 Magna 8,915 9,089 9,267 9,448 9,633 9,821 Millcreek 25,137 25,173 25,208 25,243 25,279 25,314 White City 1,807 1,801 1,795 1,789 1,784 1,778 Remaining Unincorporated 5,382 5,413 5,445 5,477 5,509 5,541 Total 53,280 53,705 54,140 54,584 55,039 55,504 Source: US Census Block Data Table 21: Households, Metro Township/New City Boundaries AAGR Households Future Boundaries Copperton % Emigration Canyon % Kearns 10, % 10,297 10,414 10,532 10,652 Magna 8, % 8,255 8,416 8,581 8,749 Millcreek 24, % 24,948 24,993 25,039 25,085 27

29 Households Future Boundaries 2010 Townships and Unincorporated Islands Fiscal Evaluation Salt Lake County AAGR White City 1, % 1,830 1,824 1,818 1,812 Remaining Unincorporated 5, % 5,333 5,349 5,365 5,381 Total 51,282 51,664 52,055 52,454 52,862 Source: US Census Block Data Table 22: Households, Proposed Township Boundaries, Continued Households Copperton Emigration Canyon 937 1,000 1,068 1,140 1,216 1,298 Kearns 10,773 10,896 11,020 11,145 11,272 11,400 Magna 8,920 9,094 9,272 9,453 9,638 9,827 Millcreek 25,131 25,177 25,223 25,269 25,315 25,361 White City 1,807 1,801 1,795 1,789 1,784 1,778 Remaining Unincorporated 5,397 5,414 5,430 5,446 5,463 5,479 Total 53,278 53,703 54,138 54,582 55,037 55,502 Source: US Census Block Data Employment Employment was analyzed through Traffic Area Zone (TAZ) projections provided by Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC), again using both current and metro township/new city boundaries. 9 Data for the years 2007, 2011, 2015, and 2020 are directly from the TAZ projections, with years in between calculated on a straight-line basis. Within both current and metro township/new city boundaries, Kearns and Magna are expected to have the most significant growth. Kearns is projected to have 7.23 percent growth from 2015 to 2020, with an AAGR of 1.4 percent. Magna is projected to have just over two percent growth in the same time period. Copperton has a significant difference in employment based on current or metro-township/new city boundaries. Within current boundaries employment ranges from 1,182 to 1,233 from 2009 to Employment is almost non-existent in the metro township/new city boundaries. Table 23: Employment, Current Township Boundaries Copperton 1,182 1,191 1,200 1,202 1,204 1,207 Emigration Canyon Kearns 3,204 3,288 3,373 3,452 3,532 3,612 Magna 4,146 4,136 4,126 4,171 4,217 4,262 Millcreek 29,605 29,889 30,174 30,403 30,633 30,862 9 Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) are a geographical unit most commonly used in transportation planning models. TAZ provide socio-economic data which is based on census block information. 28

30 White City Remaining Unincorporated 3,569 3,298 3,028 3,075 3,121 3,168 Total 42,365 42,468 42,574 42,982 43,392 43,802 Source: Wasatch Front Regional Council Traffic Area Zones Table 24: Employment, Current Township Boundaries, Continued Copperton 1,209 1,212 1,214 1,217 1,220 1,223 Emigration Canyon Kearns 3,692 3,745 3,799 3,852 3,906 3,959 Magna 4,308 4,326 4,344 4,363 4,381 4,399 Millcreek 31,092 31,085 31,078 31,071 31,064 31,057 White City Remaining Unincorporated 3,215 3,268 3,321 3,375 3,428 3,482 Total 44,213 44,332 44,453 44,573 44,694 44,814 Source: Wasatch Front Regional Council Traffic Area Zones Table 25: Employment, Metro Township/New City Boundaries Copperton Emigration Canyon Kearns 3,288 3,373 3,452 3,532 3,612 Magna 4,137 4,127 4,173 4,218 4,264 Millcreek 29,501 29,783 30,011 30,239 30,468 White City Remaining Unincorporated 4,874 4,617 4,667 4,717 4,767 Total 42,468 42,573 42,982 43,391 43,802 Source: Wasatch Front Regional Council Traffic Area Zones Table 26: Employment, Metro Township/New City Boundaries, Continued Copperton Emigration Canyon Kearns 3,692 3,745 3,799 3,852 3,906 3,959 Magna 4,309 4,328 4,346 4,365 4,383 4,402 Millcreek 30,696 30,691 30,687 30,682 30,678 30,673 White City Remaining Unincorporated 4,817 4,871 4,925 4,979 5,032 5,086 Total 44,211 44,332 44,453 44,573 44,694 44,815 Source: Wasatch Front Regional Council Traffic Area Zones 29

31 Table 27: Projected Employment Growth Projected Employment Growth Growth 2015 to 2020 Copperton Emigration Canyon Kearns 3,692 3, Magna 4,309 4, Millcreek 30,696 30,673 (23) White City (4) Remaining Unincorporated 4,817 5, Total 44,211 44, Source: Wasatch Front Regional Council Traffic Area Zones 30

32 Townships Financial Modeling Revenue Analysis Operating Expenditure Analysis Bonding Capacity Self-Provide Comparative Municipalities Analysis 31

33 Financial Modeling ZBPF created an Excel spreadsheet model that analyzed the revenues and expenditures associated with each of the metro townships/new cities. The model considers all revenue sources, including property taxes, sales, road funds, charges for services, fines, etc. In addition, the model has inputs that consider the economies of scale that can be achieved depending on which metro townships/new cities participate in the District. The model is interactive, allowing for sensitivity modeling with any different combination of metro townships/new cities participating in the District. Detailed spreadsheets from the model are included in Appendix B, and assumptions used for the revenue and expenditure projections are included in the following two sections of this report. Revenue Analysis Property Valuation and Tax Analysis Taxable value in the Unincorporated County has grown by approximately 1.7 percent per year between 2010 and The average annual rate of growth has been the most rapid in Copperton, the area with the smallest taxable value, followed by Millcreek the area with the largest taxable value. Table 28: Taxable Property Value by Year Township AAGR* Copperton $23,510,057 $23,510,056 $22,219,639 $21,824,564 $25,593,352 $27,027, % Emigration Canyon $222,705,667 $222,406,612 $220,799,939 $217,670,218 $219,371,378 $234,943, % Kearns $833,279,911 $832,660,221 $758,367,619 $777,582,059 $834,682,205 $868,474, % Magna $703,891,401 $704,361,477 $632,434,949 $651,754,629 $700,750,199 $737,720, % Millcreek $3,658,750,777 $3,665,243,726 $3,584,883,700 $3,745,397,147 $3,886,072,894 $4,131,944, % White City $172,400,494 $172,396,491 $162,468,015 $167,917,149 $178,046,003 $186,321, % Remaining Unincorporated Areas $1,332,454,666 $1,334,947,752 $1,306,278,584 $1,335,273,608 $1,353,350,405 $1,367,800, % Total $6,946,992,973 $6,955,526,335 $6,687,452,445 $6,917,419,374 $7,197,866,436 $7,554,231, % *AAGR = average annual growth rate which is defined as that rate of growth applied annually to the 2010 taxable value, results in the 2015 taxable value. Thjs is considered to be a cumulative rate that takes into account annual compounding. Millcreek accounts for more than half of all the taxable value in the study area, yet only 40 percent of the population. This ratio, however, does not produce significantly more revenues from Millcreek because the property tax rate that flows to the County is extremely low at Similarly, Emigration Canyon and the other unincorporated areas have higher ratios of taxable value as compared to percent of population. Table 29: Taxable Value Comparisons among Townships and Remaining Unincorporated County Township % of Population 2015 % of Total Taxable Value 2015 Average Taxable Value per Capita 2015 Copperton 0.6% 0.4% $30,678 Emigration Canyon 1.5% 3.1% $108, This is the 2014 Municipal Services Fund tax rate as the 2015 rate will not be certified until November 1, The proposed 2015 tax rate will change slightly to

34 Township Townships and Unincorporated Islands Fiscal Evaluation Salt Lake County % of Population 2015 % of Total Taxable Value 2015 Average Taxable Value per Capita 2015 Kearns 25.7% 11.5% $22,940 Magna 19.9% 9.8% $25,264 Millcreek 40.2% 54.7% $69,852 White City 3.8% 2.5% $33,278 Remaining Unincorporated Areas 8.4% 18.1% $111,493 Total/Average 100.0% 100.0% $51,344 Future property tax growth is projected based on the valuation of new building permits issued in the County. Past taxable value growth rates include both appreciation and new construction. In order to accurately project future taxable growth due to new construction only, building permits have been analyzed. Table 30: Building Permit Valuations, Copperton $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,281 Non-Residential Building $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,281 Emigration Canyon $1,930,899 $1,372,329 $627,647 $3,184,822 $1,269,731 $2,251,487 Non-Residential Building $0 $0 $0 $77,574 $0 $0 Residential: Single Family $1,930,899 $1,372,329 $627,647 $3,107,248 $1,269,731 $2,251,487 Kearns $3,647,817 $240,816 $1,035,711 $2,380,709 $1,280,099 $16,525,653 Commercial: New Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,026,892 Non-Residential Building $3,515,219 $60,000 $996,271 $1,342,988 $894,853 $6,784 Other: Water Tanks $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,277,842 Residential: Single Family $132,598 $180,816 $39,440 $1,037,720 $385,247 $214,135 Magna $8,747,740 $3,759,198 $7,347,719 $10,690,708 $4,615,206 $38,411,456 Commercial: New Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $545,495 Non-Residential Building $3,992,548 $1,056,602 $236,959 $7,856,689 $2,959,722 $0 Residential: Multi Family $0 $0 $3,013,942 $0 $422,246 $35,172,058 Residential: New Clubhouse $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $564,607 Residential: Single Family $4,755,193 $2,702,596 $4,096,818 $2,686,944 $1,233,238 $2,129,296 Residential: Two Family $0 $0 $0 $147,076 $0 $0 Millcreek $37,408,069 $12,910,995 $28,036,265 $26,713,423 $30,785,648 $21,220,449 Commercial: New Communications $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 Tower Non-Residential Build- $23,129,265 $2,921,014 $9,314,429 $3,321,564 $4,256,391 $0 33

35 ing Residential: Multi Family Residential: Single Family Residential: Townhomes Residential: Two Family Townships and Unincorporated Islands Fiscal Evaluation Salt Lake County $338,184 $0 $5,086,363 $10,906,454 $3,758,460 $2,829,295 $10,725,054 $7,960,415 $11,882,355 $8,516,501 $21,541,590 $12,965,252 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,696,567 $3,215,566 $2,029,566 $1,753,118 $3,968,904 $1,229,207 $2,629,336 White City $307,576 $0 $244,247 $0 $742,378 $0 Residential: Single Family Residential: Two Family $0 $0 $244,247 $0 $514,402 $0 $307,576 $0 $0 $0 $227,976 $0 Grand Total $52,042,100 $18,283,337 $37,291,588 $42,969,662 $38,693,064 $78,414,326 The total new valuation in building permits between 2010 and 2015 was added to the 2010 property values in order to estimate the 2015 taxable value growth attributable to new construction only. This growth rate was used to project the increased taxable value between 2015 and 2020, not including appreciation. This approach is used due to Utah s truth-in-taxation laws that require tax rates to be adjusted to offset inflation; therefore additional revenues come from new construction only. Table 31: New Construction Taxable Value Growth Rate for Projections 2010 Taxable Value New Valuation Value (without appreciation) Growth Rate Copperton $23,510,057 $5,281 $23,515, % Emigration Canyon $222,705,667 $10,636,916 $233,342, % Kearns $833,279,911 $25,110,805 $858,390, % Magna $703,891,401 $73,572,027 $777,463, % Millcreek $3,658,750,777 $157,074,848 $3,815,825, % White City $172,400,494 $1,294,201 $173,694, % Remaining Unincorporated $1,332,454,666 $130,512,968 $1,462,967, % Future property tax growth for each of the metro townships/new cities is shown on the spreadsheets attached in Appendix B. Sales Tax Revenue Analysis Historical sales tax revenues to the Municipal Services Fund have grown at approximately 1.89 percent per year from 2005 to However, during this time, the recession hit (in about 2008 and 2009), with sharply declining sales tax revenues. In 2011, sales tax revenues had rebounded to 2005 levels. The average annual growth rate in revenues from 2009 to 2014 was better about 2.78 percent as revenues rebounded to previous levels. However, overall growth rates have slowed in the past few years. 34

36 Table 32: Historical Sales Tax Revenues to the Municipal Services Fund Year Sales Tax Revenues 2005 $19,215, $22,207, $23,105, $19,568, $17,294, $18,831, $19,839, $22,368, $21,836, $22,742,582 AAGR* % AAGR % AAGR % *AAGR = average annual growth rate; this is the compounded average rate of increase per year over the total time period; this is not the average of each year s rate In order to better understand the sales tax revenues and growth rates in the various townships, ZBPF geocoded all of the sales outlets in the study area from 2010 to Total sales generated by tax area are as follows: Table 33: Historical Sales by Township and Remaining Unincorporated County, (Based on Future Boundaries) Grand Total Copperton $47,785 $42,595 $66,075 $108,963 $102,280 $367,698 Emigration $2,779,545 $3,001,789 $3,117,784 $3,144,906 $3,660,767 $15,704,791 Kearns $86,697,085 $88,970,132 $92,736,933 $88,855,533 $92,970,016 $450,229,699 Magna $70,737,266 $74,096,547 $79,695,930 $79,479,743 $86,571,964 $390,581,450 Millcreek $524,809,745 $568,764,407 $618,517,558 $639,997,414 $683,460,177 $3,035,549,301 White City $170,271 $143,580 $225,548 $199,447 $205,621 $944,467 Remaining Unincorporated $1,032,253,334 $948,211,385 $1,135,798,600 $968,225,103 $1,034,582,265 $5,119,070, Remaining Unincorporated but in a $131,879,359 $149,382,369 $153,518,356 $138,174,095 $147,758,239 $720,712,418 City Grand Total $1,849,374,390 $1,832,612,804 $2,083,676,784 $1,918,185,204 $2,049,311,329 $9,733,160,511 Sales tax revenues are not distributed based solely on point of sale. Rather, they are distributed based on both point of sale and population. Therefore, the estimated amounts by point of sale 11 Some businesses either did not have an address listed or were listed as a delivery location (i.e., the location to which items were delivered). Due to the lack of a specific address, it is assumed that the revenues from these sales go to the remaining unincorporated county. 35

37 and population distribution are shown below. Point of sale is based on ½ of one percent and the population distribution is estimated to be $89.45 per person. 12 Based on metro township/new city boundaries, the historic breakout of sales tax revenues, accounting for point of sale and population distribution by township, is as follows: Table 34: Sales Tax Revenue by Townships and Remaining Unincorporated County, (Based on Future Boundaries) Geographic Area Copperton $64,732 $66,406 $68,312 $70,405 $72,340 Emigration $153,976 $164,480 $175,168 $186,037 $200,156 Kearns $3,633,649 $3,681,420 $3,737,107 $3,754,912 $3,813,142 Magna $2,725,900 $2,789,032 $2,864,348 $2,911,480 $2,996,050 Millcreek $7,864,388 $8,093,732 $8,352,069 $8,469,129 $8,696,014 White City $509,732 $507,989 $506,789 $505,048 $503,469 Remaining Unincorporated $6,908,465 $6,579,080 $7,541,006 $6,629,726 $7,012,743 Grand Total $21,860,843 $21,882,138 $23,244,798 $22,526,738 $23,293,913 Future growth rates have been based on an average of rates from 2005 to 2014, showing good growth, but somewhat slower than the recovery years of 2010 to With sales tax revenue growth rates slowing somewhat since 2013, it seems prudent to use the longer time period for future projections. Detailed sales projections for each township are shown in Appendix B of this study. Analysis of Other Revenues Detailed projections for other revenue sources for each township are included in Appendix B of this study. The basis for each revenue allocation is shown in the table below. Table 35: Basis for Revenue Allocation Revenue Category Basis for Allocation Franchise Tax Per Household 911 Surcharge Per Capita/Employee Business License Fees # Business License Fees and Average Fee Pet License Fees Per Household Building Permits # Building Permits Sewer/Water Permits # Building Permits Zoning Permits # Building Permits Animal Services Per Household JP Court Fines # of Cases Sheriff Law Enforcement Per Capita/Employee Property Cleanup Per Capita/Employee Fire Prevention Insurance Per Capita/Employee Street Lighting Historic Cost per Light Class B Road Funds Weighted Road Mile and Population Distribution 12 Source: Utah State Tax Commission 36

38 Summary of Revenues Total projected revenues by source are shown in the table below. Millcreek accounts for nearly 40 percent of all revenues, similar to its share of population. Table 36: 2016 Projected Revenues by Source Projected 2016 Revenues Property Tax Sales Tax All Other Revenues Total Copperton $2,081 $76,349 $63,964 $142,394 Emigration Canyon $18,260 $226,358 $250,505 $495,123 Kearns $67,271 $3,895,377 $2,416,130 $6,378,778 Magna $57,945 $3,112,571 $2,271,654 $5,442,171 Millcreek $320,846 $8,874,148 $5,096,504 $14,291,498 White City $14,368 $500,282 $341,962 $856,613 Remaining Unincorporated $107,307 $6,539, $1,832,290 $8,478,814 TOTAL $588,079 $23,224,301 $12,273,009 $36,085,389 Table 37: Percent of 2016 Revenues and % of Population Projected 2016 Revenues % of Total Revenues % of 2016 Population Copperton 0.4% 0.6% Emigration Canyon 1.4% 1.6% Kearns 17.7% 25.8% Magna 15.1% 20.1% Millcreek 39.6% 39.9% White City 2.4% 3.8% Remaining Unincorporated 23.5% 8.3% TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% Operating Expenditure Analysis Operating expenditures for the District were based on a thorough review of the existing Municipal Services Department budgets. Expenses for services provided to contract cities were not included as part of the analysis of operating costs since these services will not be included in the District. In most cases, costs decrease when a larger degree of services is provided whether it is the number of cases in Justice Court or the number of households served by Animal Services. This is because service providers have fixed costs costs that they have to cover regardless of the number of direct services they provide. So, when costs are spread over a greater number of cases or households, or whatever the demand driver may be, the cost per unit decreases. This is particularly true with large-scale machinery and equipment that must be paid for regardless of its level of use. The following table shows the demand drivers that were used in estimating economies of scale for each expense category: 13 Remaining unincorporated sales include sales that occur in the County but do not have a specific address associated with the businesses (e.g., NA or Delivery Locations). It is assumed that because there is no address listed, the revenues from these sales go to the County. 37

39 Table 38: Drivers for Economy of Scale Calculations Budget Category Township Services Justice Court Development Services Animal Services Public Works Operations Public Works Engineering M/S General M/S Capital Driver Population Cases Business Licenses, Building Permits, Code Enforcement Households Road Miles Road Miles Population Road Miles In the following table, the first two columns signifying Low and High represent the percent of the total District that falls into that category. For example, with Township Services, it would represent the percent of population (compared to the total if all townships are in the District) in the District under that scenario. With Justice Court it represents the percent of all cases, with public works the percent of road miles, etc. The remaining columns in the table show the percent increase in cost as fewer and fewer townships participate (i.e., less demand drivers over which to spread costs). As the table clearly shows, there are significant economies of scale associated with almost all of the municipal services that the District would provide. This analysis assumes the District will provide all the services it currently provides. In reality, the District may contract out for services to reduce costs if not all metro townships/new cities vote to join the District. Economies of scale vary between the services offered. This is because fixed costs are different for each service. For example, fixed costs for the Justice Court are partially determined by State Statute which specifies the court must have a minimum or five clerks. A large portion of the fixed costs in Public Works Operations is attributable to the equipment necessary for the various services currently provided by the County. A more detailed explanation of the economies of scale in each department is included following Table 39. Table 39: Economies of Scale by Municipal Service Low High Justice Court Township Services Development Services Animal Services Public Works Operations Public Works Engineering Statutory and General Capital Expenditures 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00% 0% 80% 99% 7% 7% 2% 6% 5% 11% 0.04% 8% 60% 79% 17% 18% 5% 23% 4% 15% 0.12% 10% 40% 59% 10% 27% 9% 54% 8% 18% 0.20% 13% 20% 39% 21% 49% 19% 125% 11% 57% 0.44% 34% 0% 19% 86% 165% 79% 535% 60% 48% 1.96% 54% 38

40 Township Services Costs for the Townships Services budget were divided between fixed and variable, with the large majority of costs in this category considered as variable. Table 40: Fixed and Variable Cost Analysis for Townships Budget Township Fixed Variable Total Copperton $21, $6, $28, Emigration Canyon $21, $16, $38, Kearns $21, $288, $310, Magna $21, $222, $244, Millcreek $21, $450, $472, White City $21, $42, $64, Remaining Unincorporated $21, $94, $115, Total $152, $1,121, $1,273, Using this ratio of fixed and variable costs results in increasing costs as the number of Townships and Remaining Unincorporated County participating in the District decreases. The ratio of Low and High represents the percentage of population included in the District, based on the Townships that choose to participate. Table 41: Economies of Scale Calculation Low High Average Population Cost % Change 100% 100% 147,134 $ % 99% 132,421 $9.24 7% 60% 79% 102,994 $ % 40% 59% 73,567 $ % 20% 39% 44,140 $ % 0% 19% 14,713 $ % Justice Court Based on a detailed review of the Justice Court budget, including a breakout of fixed and variable costs, the percent change in economies of scale has been calculated. The demand driver for Justice Court is the number of cases. Table 42: Calculation of Fixed and Variable Cost Ratios for Justice Court Low High Average Cases per Scenario Variable Cost per Case Total Variable Total Fixed Total Cost per Case % Change 100% 100% 7,835 $72 $565,665 $808,371 $1,374,036 $ % 99% 7,051 $72 $509,099 $808,371 $1,317,469 $ % 60% 79% 5,485 $72 $395,966 $808,371 $1,204,336 $ % 40% 59% 3,918 $72 $282,833 $808,371 $1,091,203 $ % 39

41 Low High Townships and Unincorporated Islands Fiscal Evaluation Salt Lake County Average Cases per Scenario Variable Cost per Case Total Variable Total Fixed Total Cost per Case % Change 20% 39% 2,351 $72 $169,700 $808,371 $978,070 $ % 0% 19% 783 $72 $56,567 $808,371 $864,937 $1, % Development Services Economies of scale for Development Services were calculated based on a break-out of 13.5 percent fixed costs and 86.5 percent variable costs. 14 Variable costs were allocated based on the percent of business licenses, building permits and code enforcement violations for each Township and the unincorporated areas. Table 43: Calculation of Economies of Scale for Development Services Low High Fixed Cost Variable Cost Total Cost Average Units 15 Cost per Unit 100% 100% $87, $3,637, $3,725, , % Increase 80% 99% $87, $3,326, $3,413, , % 60% 79% $87, $2,703, $2,791, , % 40% 59% $87, $2,081, $2,168, , % 20% 39% $87, $1,458, $1,546, , % 0% 19% $87, $836, $923, % Animal Services Detailed budgets for the Animal Services department were examined and it was determined that the average variable cost per household is $ The total cost per household is $52.29, meaning that the fixed cost per household is $ Therefore, with such a high amount of fixed costs per household more than 50 percent of total cost the economies of scale are considerable for Animal Services. Table 44: Animal Services Economies of Scale Calculation Low High Households Cost per HH % Increase 100% 100% 53,278 $ % 80% 99% 47,950 $ % 60% 79% 37,295 $ % 40% 59% 26,639 $ % 20% 39% 15,983 $ % 0% 19% 5,328 $ % 14 Variable and fixed costs were calculated based on interviews with Development Services management and an analysis of the Development Services budget. 15 A unit includes business licenses, building permits and code enforcement violations 16 Source: Animal Services Department 40

42 Public Works Operations Economies of scale for public works operations are based on road miles. Note that these calculations are based on lane miles rather than on the weighted road miles used for the distribution of Class B/C Road Funds. Table 45: Calculations for Economies of Scale for Public Works Operations Low High Average Miles per Scenario Equipment Cost per Mile Materials Cost per Mile Labor Cost per Mile Administrative Cost per Mile Total Cost per Mile % Change 100% 100% $4,194 $3,895 $5,381 $809 $14,279 80% 99% $4,613 $4,090 $5,381 $899 $14,983 5% 60% 79% $4,907 $4,207 $5,381 $1,156 $15,651 4% 40% 59% $5,452 $4,712 $5,381 $1,314 $16,859 8% 20% 39% $6,165 $5,466 $5,381 $1,684 $18,696 11% 0% 19% $7,046 $6,559 $12,735 $3,534 $29,874 60% Public Works Engineering Economies of scale for Engineering are based on lane miles and show increasing costs as the number of road miles decreases. Table 46: Calculations for Economies of Scale for Public Works Engineering Average Low High Road Miles Cost per Road Mile 100% 100% $3, % Change 80% 99% $4, % 60% 79% $4, % 40% 59% $5, % 20% 39% $9, % 0% 19% $13, % Municipal Services Statutory and General Economies of scale for MS Statutory and General Expenditures were based on population and include a fixed cost portion and a variable cost portion. Variable costs consist primarily of DA charges, Justice Courts and Indigent Legal Services. Fixed costs include subscriptions and memberships, travel and transportation, etc. The increasing costs were then multiplied by the percent of total MS General Expenditures that have economies of scale. For example, the DA charges to the District would not change regardless of who is in or out of the District. Park maintenance expenditures for neighborhood parks are also included in the MS General fund. The Parks Department is large enough that maintenance charges to the District for neighborhood parks would not be subject to economies of scale. E911 expenditures are tied directly to E911 revenues. 41

43 Table 47: Calculation of Economies of Scale for Municipal Services Statutory and General % Total Expenditures Low High Cost per Capita 17 % Change w/ Economies of Scale 100% 100% $7.07 %Change 80% 99% $7.16 1% 3.3% 0.04% 60% 79% $7.41 3% 3.3% 0.12% 40% 59% $7.86 6% 3.3% 0.20% 20% 39% $ % 3.3% 0.44% 0% 19% $ % 3.3% 1.96% Capital Expenditures Capital expenditures include projects such as installation of sidewalk, curb & gutter, storm drain, park improvements, salt yard improvements, guardrail replacement, etc. Capital expenditures vary from year to year as projects generally take about four years from design to completion. After the design phase is completed, issues that delay the project may occur such as right of way, etc. This ebb and flow of projects is the primary cause of the variation in annual capital expenditures. As such, capital expenditure projections have been made based on an average 10-year history of actual costs. The 10-year average for capital expenditures is $3,359,599. Table 48: Capital Expenditure History Year Capital Expenditure 2005 $940, $1,025, $8,228, $5,732, $2,448, $2,421, $1,470, $3,145, $4,554, $3,628, Average $3,359,599 Economies of scale for capital expenditures are based on road miles and were calculated using an average of the economies of scale for the Public Works Operations and Engineering Departments. Table 49: Economies of Scale for Capital Expenditures Low High % Change 100% 100% 0% 80% 99% 11% 17 Excluding E911 42

44 Low High % Change 60% 79% 15% 40% 59% 18% 20% 39% 57% 0% 19% 48% Bonding Capacity Based on Utah Code 10C-3-204, a metro township that is included in a municipal services district and has limited municipal powers, or if a metro township subsequently joins a municipal services district, the metro township may not levy or impose a tax unless the Legislature expressly provides that the metro township may levy or impose the tax. This limits the ability of a metro township to issue debt and, at this point in time, the Legislature has not authorized metro townships to have bonding authority. However, the District is able to issue bonds to serve the needs of the metro townships. Based on Utah Code 10-3c-205, a metro township that is included in a municipal services district and has limited municipal powers, or if a metro township subsequently joins a municipal services district, the municipal services district of which a metro township is a part shall, upon request by the metro township, collect on behalf of the metro township all fines, fees, charges, levies and other payments imposed by the metro township. Although not allowed to bond directly, townships may bond through the municipal services district which is subject to a statutory limitation, by the State of Utah, of 2.0 percent of the fair market value of taxable property in the District. As of the County s 2014, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, the limit for the County at December 31, 2014 is $2,266.6 million, providing a debt margin of $2,063.3 million. Total taxable value in the township areas is as follows: Table 50: Taxable Value by Township and Remaining Unincorporated County Township 2015 Taxable Value 2% of Taxable Value 5% of Taxable Value Copperton $27,027,194 $540,544 $1,351,360 Emigration Canyon $234,943,026 $4,698,861 $11,747,151 Kearns $868,474,965 $17,369,499 $43,423,748 Magna $737,720,232 $14,754,405 $36,886,012 Millcreek $4,131,944,505 $82,638,890 $206,597,225 White City $186,321,104 $3,726,422 $9,316,055 Unincorporated Areas $1,367,800,504 $27,356,010 $68,390,025 Total $7,554,231,529 $151,084,631 $377,711,576 The debt limits for various districts are defined under Utah Code (3)(b). This section limits general obligation bonds to a percentage of the fair market value of all taxable property within the district. For a basic local district, the tax limitation is 0.05, or five percent. In other words, if the ceiling is five percent of taxable value, then the District may not bond for more than $377,711,576, assuming all areas participate in the District. 43

45 With the exception of the SID Bond for Millcreek, which expires March 15, 2016, there is no outstanding long-term debt for any of the townships that must be considered as part of this analysis. The remaining principal on this bond is $275,000. Comparative Municipalities Analysis In order to help new metro townships/new cities compare the cost of being in the District with the cost of self-providing 18 municipal services (not including fire and police which are provided by UFA and UPD respectively), ZBPF compiled a database of municipal service costs in municipalities of comparable size. The municipalities reviewed include: Table 51: Comparative Municipalities Analysis Population Employment Alta 390 NA Rush Valley 447 NA Stockton 616 NA Huntsville Elk Ridge City 2, Sunset 5,137 1,348 Fruit Heights 5, Farr West 6,140 2,793 South Weber 6, Hooper 7, Bluffdale 8,387 3,085 Alpine 10,024 1,567 Cedar Hills 10, Lindon 10,611 8,874 Centerville 16,624 6,096 Highland 17,011 2,887 Clinton 20,924 2,786 South Salt Lake 24,702 35,148 Midvale 30,764 14,558 Springville 31,205 11,152 Cottonwood Heights 34,238 18,943 Midvale 30,764 14,558 Springville 31,205 11,152 Cottonwood Heights 34,238 18,943 Roy 37,733 5,979 Riverton 40,921 9,035 Bountiful 43,023 14, Self-provided does not necessarily mean municipalities will provide the services themselves. It is a comparison of municipalities of similar size. 44

46 Population Employment Draper 45,285 25,602 Murray 49,612 44,793 Lehi 54,382 17,201 Taylorsville 60,519 20,816 Orem 91,648 48,688 West Jordan 110,077 30,585 West Valley City 133,579 65,370 Salt Lake City 191, ,103 The budgets for the comparative municipalities are included in Appendix D. Budgets were analyzed to exclude police and fire services, other costs not provided by the District, and were adjusted to include only a portion of administrative costs. Revenue Analysis If a metro township/new city chooses to provide its own services, its revenues will be the same as those projected under the District. Therefore, the projected revenues have been described in a previous section of this study and are not repeated in this section. Expenditure Analysis For purposes of estimating the costs of self-providing municipal services, the townships were grouped as follows, based on population data, and compared with the following municipalities: Table 52: Comparison Municipalities Township Copperton Emigration Canyon & White City Kearns and Magna Comparison Municipalities Rush Valley Stockton Huntsville Elk Ridge Rush Valley Stockton Huntsville Elk Ridge Sunset Fruit Heights Farr West South Weber Hooper Syracuse Kaysville Clearfield Midvale Springville 45

47 Township Millcreek Comparison Municipalities Cottonwood Heights Roy Riverton Bountiful Cottonwood Heights Bountiful Draper Murray Lehi Taylorsville The municipal budgets of these municipalities are included in Appendix D. The range in annual per capita and per capita/employee expenditures is shown in the following table. Table 53: Comparable Municipality Annual Averages Not Including Police and Fire Township Comparison Municipalities Per Capita/Employment Per Capita Copperton Average NA $ Median NA $ Lower Cost Average NA $ Rush Valley NA $ Elk Ridge City NA $ Stockton NA $ Huntsville NA $ Emigration Canyon & White City Average $ $ Median $ $ Lower Cost Average $ $ Hooper $ $ Fruit Heights $ $ South Weber $ $ Rush Valley NA $ Elk Ridge City $ $ Farr West $ $ Stockton NA $ Sunset $ $ Huntsville $ $ Kearns and Magna Average $ $ Median $ $

48 Township Comparison Municipalities Per Capita/Employment Per Capita Lower Cost Average $ $ Riverton $71.75 $89.16 Syracuse $ $ Kaysville $ $ Bountiful $ $ Clearfield $ $ Roy $ $ Springville $ $ Cottonwood Heights $ $ Midvale $ $ Millcreek Average $ $ Median $ $ Lower Cost Average $ $ Lehi $ $ Taylorsville $ $ Bountiful $ $ Cottonwood Heights $ $ Draper $ $ Murray $ $ Fiscal impacts were calculated based on the difference between the anticipated revenues and the cost of self-provision of municipal-type services. A property tax mill rate sufficient to cover the gap, if any, between revenues and expenditures was then calculated and applied to the taxable value of property. Table 54: Fiscal Impacts with Comparable Municipality Averages Comparable Municipalities - Per Capita Analysis Revenues Yr 1 Self-Provision Difference Taxable Value Mill Rate Increase Property Tax Impact per $100,000 of Taxable Value 19 Copperton $142,394 $198,804 ($56,410) $27,027, $209 Emigration Canyon $495,123 $468,187 $26,936 $234,943,026 - $0 Kearns $6,378,778 $11,855,451 ($5,476,673) $868,474, $631 Magna $5,442,171 $9,149,159 ($3,706,988) $737,720, $502 Millcreek $14,291,498 $22,438,258 ($8,146,760) $4,131,944, $197 White City $856,613 $1,208,009 ($351,396) $186,321, $189 Remaining Unincorporated $8,478,814 $1,367,800,504 Total $36,085,389 $45,317,867 $7,554,231, Commercial property is taxed on the full market value of the property; primary residential property, however, is reduced to 55 percent of market value before applying the tax rate. Therefore, a home with a taxable value of $100,000 would have a market value of $181,

49 Table 55: Comparison Costs with Less Costly Municipality Comparison Efficient Municipalities Comparison - Per Capita Revenues Yr 1 Self- Provision Difference Taxable Value Mill Rate Increase Property Tax Impact per $100,000 of Taxable Value Copperton $142,394 $157,069 ($14,676) $27,027, $54 Emigration Canyon $495,123 $311,384 $183,739 $234,943,026 - $0 Kearns $6,378,778 $8,994,318 ($2,615,541) $868,474, $301 Magna $5,442,171 $6,941,149 ($1,498,978) $737,720, $203 Millcreek $14,291,498 $14,867,342 ($575,844) $4,131,944, $14 White City $856,613 $803,427 $53,186 $186,321,104 - $0 Remaining Unincorporated $8,478,814 Total $36,085,389 $32,074,689 A per capita/employment analysis has also been conducted as many of the municipalities have significant employment. Table 56: Fiscal Impacts from Self Provision of Services Comparative Municipalities - Per Cap/Emp Analysis Revenues Yr 1 Self- Provision Difference Taxable Value Mill Rate Increase Property Tax Impact per $100,000 of Taxable Value Copperton $142,394 NA $27,027,194 Emigration Canyon $495,123 $388,784 $106,339 $234,943,026 - $0 Kearns $6,378,778 $9,497,408 ($3,118,631) $868,474, $359 Magna $5,442,171 $7,663,071 ($2,220,900) $737,720, $301 Millcreek $14,291,498 $22,490,540 ($8,199,043) $4,131,944, $198 White City $856,613 $1,087,864 ($231,251) $186,321, $124 Remaining Unincorporated $8,478,814 $0 $1,367,800,504 Total $36,085,389 $41,127,667 $7,554,231,529 - $0 The per capita/employment analysis has also been completed to evaluate the impact of considering only the less costly municipalities in a grouping, rather than the average of the entire grouping. Table 57: Fiscal Impacts from Self Provision of Services 48

50 Less Costly Municipalities - Per Cap/Emp Analysis Revenues Yr 1 Self- Provision Difference Taxable Value Mill Rate Increase Property Tax Impact per $100,000 of Taxable Value Copperton $142,394 $27,027,194 Emigration Canyon $495,123 $298,315 $196,808 $234,943,026 - $0 Kearns $6,378,778 $8,612,278 ($2,233,500) $868,474, $257 Magna $5,442,171 $6,948,896 ($1,506,725) $737,720, $204 Millcreek $14,291,498 $18,070,030 ($3,778,532) $4,131,944, $91 White City $856,613 $834,721 $21,892 $186,321,104 - $0 Remaining Unincorporated $8,478,814 $1,367,800,504 Total $36,085,389 $34,764,240 $7,554,231,529 Based on this analysis, the least expensive method for providing municipal services is for all metro townships/new cities and the remaining unincorporated areas to participate together in a District. 49

51 Remaining Unincorporated Areas Tax Calculator 50

52 Tax Calculator Voters in the unincorporated islands have the choice to annex into neighboring cities such as Sandy, Cottonwood Heights or South Jordan. Therefore, a tax calculator that compares taxes and fees paid in the unincorporated islands with those paid in neighboring cities has been provided and is included in this study. Unincorporated islands that choose not to annex can use the previous analysis to determine the fiscal impacts of alternate scenarios. The calculator uses average home values and utility usage amounts for the area to estimate the taxes and fees paid in the unincorporated islands and the neighboring cities. The calculator was created by Korban Lee, Assistant CAO for Sandy City, with the cooperation of South Jordan City, Cottonwood Heights, and Salt Lake County, and has been audited by Zions Public Finance. 51

53 The tax calculator includes the following taxes and fees: Property Tax Municipal Energy Tax (including gas and electric) Municipal Telecom License Tax (including land lines and cell phones) Municipal Cable TV Tax Street Light Utility Fee Storm Water Fee The calculator uses the average home value and utility usages for the area (see Figure 12). The calculator incorporates differences for each water provider (i.e., Sandy City, Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District, or White City Water), and for areas that could annex into Sandy, the calculator also makes distinctions based on the water rate (i.e., Sandy City rate or the County rate) and the size of the water connection (i.e., ¾-inch connection or 1-inch connection). Table 58: Tax Calculator Inputs Example Property and Utility Use Assumptions Sandy City Market Value of Home and Lot $295, Est. Monthly Gas Bill (pre-tax) $ Est. Monthly Electric Bill (pre-tax) $ Est. Monthly Phone Bill (pre-tax) $29.32 Est. Monthly Cell Phone Bill (voice only - no data, text, or device charges) $79.99 Est. Monthly Cable TV Bill (If Sat. or Ant., enter 0) $68.14 Based on these inputs, the calculator returns estimated annual charges in the incorporated county and the potential annexing city. An example of this is shown in Figure 13. Table 59: Tax Calculator Outputs Example Estimated Annual Charges Sandy City Item Sandy City Unincorporated SLCo Property Tax for Municipal Services $ $0.00 Property Tax for Tort Levy Fund $0.00 $11.85 Property Tax for Fire Services $0.00 $ Property Tax for Wholesale Water $65.92 $64.94 Property Tax for Salt Lake Valley Law Enforcement Area $0.00 $ Municipal Energy Tax - Gas $72.72 $0.00 Municipal Energy Tax - Electric $97.92 $0.00 Muni Telecomm License Tax (Phone) $12.31 $0.00 Muni Telecomm License Tax (Cell Phone) $33.60 $0.00 Muni Telecomm License Tax (Cable TV) $40.88 $40.88 Street Light Utility Fee $30.36 $0.00 Storm Water Fee $72.00 $0.00 Total $ $ Difference $

54 A scenario for each annexing area is included in this section. The following assumptions are made for the scenarios: Market Value of Home and Lot: Average market value for homes in unincorporated islands. This includes single family, duplex, PUD, condo, mother-in-law apartments, and parcels with multiple detached housing units. Estimated Monthly Gas Bill: (Source: Questar Gas) Estimated Monthly Electric Bill: Utah average (Source: Rocky Mountain Power) Estimated Monthly Phone Bill: Average phone cost from local service providers Estimated Monthly Cell Phone Bill: Average phone cost from local service providers Estimated Monthly Cable TV Bill: Average cable cost from local service providers Residents that would like estimates based on their unique home value and utility usage may contact Salt Lake County. Residents will need the following information when calling: Market Value of Home and Lot: This can be found on the Tax Notice received by the Salt Lake County Treasurer s Office or on the Salt Lake County Assessor s Office at Monthly Gas Bill Monthly Electric Bill Monthly Phone Fill (if applicable) Monthly Cell Phone Bill (if applicable) Monthly Cable TV Bill (if applicable) Residents in unincorporated islands that could annex into Sandy City will also need their water bill 53

55 South Jordan 54

56 Cottonwood Heights 55

57 Sandy City Sandy City Water 56

58 Sandy City Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District 57

59 Sandy City White City Water 58

60 Sandy City Salt Lake County Rate w/ ¾-inch Meter 59

61 Sandy City Salt Lake County Rate w/ 1-inch Meter 60

62 Capital Expenditures Analysis Capital expenditures include projects such as installation of sidewalk, curb & gutter, storm drain, park improvements, salt yard improvements, guardrail replacement, etc. Total capital expenditures in the townships and other unincorporated areas over the past five years range from a low of $1,470,509 in 2011 to a high of $4,228,934 in Table 60: Historic Capital Expenditures Area Total Copperton $181,461 $934 $25,718 $49,703 $654 $258,470 Emigration Canyon $166,413 $12,500 $125,360 $113,675 $12,327 $430,275 Kearns $686,524 $220,194 $501,507 $874,874 $1,056,391 $3,339,490 Magna $232,378 $78,249 $500,748 $619,101 $338,997 $1,769,473 Millcreek $972,538 $764,331 $1,532,421 $2,509,068 $1,791,521 $7,569,881 White City $25,693 $160,324 $111,973 $18,424 $613,359 $929,773 Remaining Unincorporated County $156,831 $233,977 $347,904 $436,163 $415,685 $1,590,559 Total $2,421,839 $1,470,509 $3,145,631 $4,621,009 $4,228,934 $15,887,921 The total average annual capital expenditures over the past five years range from $3,193 per road mile in the Remaining unincorporated areas to $20,352 per road mile in Copperton. Table 61: Historic Capital Expenditures per Road Mile Area Average Capital Expenditures ( ) Average Capital Expenditures per Road Mile ( ) Copperton $51,694 $20,352 Emigration Canyon $86,055 $5,989 Kearns $667,898 $7,177 Magna $353,895 $4,476 Millcreek $1,513,976 $8,487 White City $185,955 $10,194 Remaining Unincorporated County $318,112 $3,193 The following table shows the amount of funds other than Municipal Fund revenue used to finance capital improvements over the past five years. Funding sources other than Municipal Fund revenue includes impact fee revenue and revenue from inter-local agreements with neighboring cities where the project benefited both the residents in the unincorporated areas of the County and a neighboring City. For example, Salt Lake City contributed approximately $485,000 to the Riches Avenue Storm Drain project as the new storm drain system benefits citizen residing in Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County. Impact fee revenue was used for the Lodestone Detention Basin project in Kearns in Funding other than Municipal Fund revenue for capital projects has been used 61

63 over the past five years to fund projects in Emigration Canyon, Kearns, Millcreek and the Other unincorporated areas. Table 62: Funding Sources Other than Municipal Fund Revenues Area Total Average Copperton $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Emigration Canyon $0 $0 $0 $41 $0 $41 $8 Kearns $0 $0 $0 $48,037 $0 $48,037 $9,607 Magna $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Millcreek $0 $0 $0 $0 $600,928 $600,928 $120,186 White City $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Remaining Unincorporated $0 $0 $0 $18,003 $0 $18,003 $6,001 Total $0 $0 $0 $66,081 $600,928 $667,009 The following table shows the breakout of the average capital expenditures per road mile over the past five years in the unincorporated areas of the County between Municipal Fund Revenue and grant funding. Millcreek has received the largest amount of grant funding of $674 per road mile. Table 63: Comparison of Historical Funding Sources for Capital Expenditures Area Average MF Capital Expenditures per Road Mile ( ) Average Grant Funding per Road Mile ( ) Total Expenditures per Road Mile ) Copperton $20,352 $0 $20,352 Emigration Canyon $5,989 $1 $5,989 Kearns $7,074 $103 $7,177 Magna $4,476 $0 $4,476 Millcreek $7,813 $674 $8,487 White City $10,194 $0 $10,194 Remaining Unincorporated $3,157 $67 $3,224 62

64 Appendices Appendix A: Maps Appendix B: Future Tax Growth Appendix C: Municipal Services Fund Budget Appendix D: Comparative Municipalities 63

65 Appendix A: Maps 64

66 Metro Township/ New City Boundaries Magna Emigration Canyon Legend Metro Township/New City Boundaries Area Removed from Current Boundaries Unincorporated Areas Salt Lake County Boundaries Millcreek Kearns Copperton White City Miles

67 Metro Township/ New City Boundaries - Copperton Legend Metro Township/New City Boundaries Area Removed from Current Boundaries Copperton Miles

68 Metro Township/ New City Boundaries - Copperton Legend Metro Township/New City Boundaries Area Removed from Current Boundaries Copperton Miles

69 Metro Township/ New City Boundaries - Emigration Canyon Legend Metro Township/New City Boundaries Emigration Canyon Miles

70 Metro Township/ New City Boundaries - Kearns Legend Metro Township/New City Boundaries Kearns Miles

71 Metro Township/ New City Boundaries - Magna Legend Magna Metro Township/New City Boundaries Area Removed from Current Boundaries Miles

72 Metro Township/ New City Boundaries - Magna Legend Metro Township/New City Boundaries Area Removed from Current Boundaries Magna Miles

73 Metro Township/ New City Boundaries - Millcreek Legend Metro Township/New City Boundaries Area Removed from Current Boundaries Millcreek Miles

74 Metro Township/ New City Boundaries - White City Legend Metro Township/New City Boundaries White City Miles

75 Township Boundaries - Unincorporated Islands Legend Unincorporated Islands Miles