PLEASANT GROVE, UTAH TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE FACILITIES PLAN AND OCTOBER 2012 PREPARED BY: LEWIS YOUNG ROBERTSON & BURNINGHAM
IMPACT FEE CERTIFICATION Impact Fee Facilities Plan (IFFP) Certification LYRB certifies that the attached impact fee facilities plans prepared for Transportation facilities: 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. Impact Fee Analysis (IFA) Certification LYRB certifies that the attached impact fee analysis prepared for Transportation facilities: 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; 3. offsets costs with grants or other alternate sources of payment; and, 4. complies in each and every relevant respect with the Impact Fees Act. LYRB 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 Impact Fee Analysis documents are followed by City Staff and elected officials. 2. If all or a portion of the IFFP or Impact Fee Analysis 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. PAGE 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 4 SECTION II: GENERAL IMPACT FEE METHODOLOGY... 6 SECTION III: OVERVIEW OF SERVICE AREA AND DEMAND... 8 SERVICE AREA... 8 DEMAND UNITS... 8 LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS... 10 SECTION IV: EXISTING FACILTIES INVENTORY... 11 GENERAL SYSTEM EXCESS CAPACITY... 12 EXCESS CAPACITY OF SPECIFIC IMPROVEMENTS... 13 VALUATION OF EXCESS CAPACITY... 14 FUNDING MECHANISM OF EXISTING FACILITIES... 15 SECTION V: CAPITAL FACILITY... 16 CAPACITY OF FUTURE FACILITIES... 17 SYSTEM VS. PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS... 18 SECTION VI: FINANCING STRATEGY... 19 FUNDING OF FUTURE FACILITIES... 20 IMPACT FEE FUND BALANCES... 20 EQUITY OF IMPACT FEES... 21 NECESSITY OF IMPACT FEES... 21 SECTION VII: PROPORTIONATE SHARE... 22 IMPACT FEE CALCULATION... 23 EXPENDITURE OF IMPACT FEES... 24 PROPOSED CREDITS OWED TO DEVELOPMENT... 24 SUMMARY OF TIME PRICE DIFFERENTIAL... 24 APPENDIX A: DETAILED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN... 25 PAGE 3
SECTION I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of the Transportation Impact Fee Facilities Plan ( IFFP ) and Analysis ( IFA ) is to fulfill the requirements established in Utah Code Title 11 Chapter 36a, the Impact Fees Act, and assist Pleasant Grove City (the City ) plan, finance and construct necessary capital improvements related to its municipal transportation system in order to meet the service demands created by development activity. Service Area: For purposes of the City s transportation system, the service area will include all areas within the City s municipal boundaries. 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 development takes place. The transportation capital improvements identified in this study are based on maintaining the existing and established level of service as defined by the City and this document. Level of Service (LOS): LOS C or D is generally considered acceptable for rural or urbanized areas, whereas LOS E and F are considered above capacity or failure without modification or adjustment. For this analysis a LOS C is the maximum acceptable delay/congestion for both roadways and intersections. Existing Facilities and Excess Capacity: Excess capacity or a buy-in component has been considered for system improvements within the City. It is anticipated that approximately 5.4 percent of the City s capacity within existing system roads will be utilized by new development within the next ten years. In addition, new development will be required to buy-in to the capacity of 2000 West and Pleasant Grove Blvd. Capital Facility Analysis: This document identifies public facilities that will allow the City to maintain the same level of service enjoyed by existing residents and development into the future. A total of $5,364,000 in capital cost the will be funded by local dollars and is identified within the next five years and thus applied to new development activity. None of these costs are related to curing existing deficiencies or expanding the established level of service. Many other projects are identified but will be funded as alternative funding sources are identified, including federal, other government funding or grants. $70,000,000 $60,000,000 $50,000,000 $40,000,000 $30,000,000 $20,000,000 $10,000,000 $0 IMPACT FEE FACILITIES PLAN $59,794,000 $44,778,000 $30,514,262 $13,949,000 $12,632,810 $5,364,000 0-5 Y R HORIZON 6-10 YR HORIZON PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATE GROWTH RELATED COSTS IMPACT FEE ELIGIBLE COST Impact Fee Methodology: Impact fees can be calculated using planned capital costs specified for future development, defined as a Plan Based Analysis. The improvements are identified in this document, and the City s Capital Facilities Plan ( CFP ). The total growth related system costs are divided by the total demand units that the capital facilities 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. PAGE 4
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES The applicable buy-in component and new facility costs are identified in Table 1.1. The total cost of existing and future facilities utilized by new development is applied to the total future trips served. This results in a cost per trip of $320. In other words, the cost of each trip per new development unit will cost $320 to provide sufficient public facilities to meet the demand created by development activity. TABLE 1.1: ILLUSTRATION OF IMPACT FEE PER TRIP TOTAL QUALIFIED COST % TO NEW GROWTH COST TO NEW GROWTH NEW TRIPS COST PER TRIP Existing Facilities (Capacity for Growth) $16,254,827 5.4% $873,363 12,447 $70 Outstanding Debt $4,501,567 6.1% $272,679 12,447 $22 Reimbursement to County (2000 West) $2,900,000 3.9% $111,861 12,447 $9 Future Facilities (Next Five Years) $5,364,000 50.3% $2,698,789 12,447 $217 Professional Expense $15,000 100.0% $15,000 6,053 $2 Total $29,035,394 $3,971,693 $320 The cost per trip is then applied to the trip statistics for each type of land use, as shown below in order to derive the impact fee for various types of land uses. TABLE 1.2: FEE BY LAND USE TYPE LAND USE ITE CODE WEEKDAY TRIPS PASS-BY ADJUSTMENT ENTERING/ EXITING ADJUSTED TRIPS IMPACT Single-Family 210 Per Unit 9.57 0% 50% 4.79 $1,533 Multi-Family 220 Per Unit 6.65 0% 50% 3.33 $1,065 Lodging 310,320 Per Room FEE 6.90 0% 50% 3.45 $1,105 General Office 710 Per KSF 11.01 0% 50% 5.51 $1,764 General Commercial 820 Per KSF 42.94 34% 50% 14.17 $4,540 Industrial 110,120 Per KSF 4.81 0% 50% 2.41 $1,533 KSF = 1,000 square feet NON-STANDARD IMPACT FEES The proposed fees are based upon projected trip ends generated by land uses within the City. 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. 1 This adjustment could result in a lower impact fee if the City determines that a particular user may create a different impact than what is standard for its land use. To determine the impact fee for a non-standard use, the City should use the following formula: Total Trips (per Specified Land Use) * Applicable Adjustment Factors * Cost per Trip ($320) 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 five to six years should be spent only on those projects as set forth in this analysis. The legislative definition of encumber" means a pledge to retire a debt or an allocation to a current purchase order or contract. 2 1 11-36a-402(1)(c) 2 11-36a-102(6) PAGE 5
SECTION II: GENERAL IMPACT FEE METHODOLOGY FIGURE 2.1: IMPACT FEE METHODOLOGY DEMAND LOS 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 is designed to identify the demands placed upon the City s 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 funded by impact fees. The IFA is designed to proportionately allocate the cost of the new facilities and any excess capacity to new development, while ensuring that all methods of financing are considered. Each component must consider the historic level of service provided to existing development and ensure that impact fees are not used to raise that level of service. DEMAND 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 facilities and the future demand as a result of new development that will impact public facilities. For purposes of this Transportation related IFFP and IFA, trips generated by new development activity is used as the demand unit to measure impact. EXISTING FACILITIES FUTURE FACILITIES FINANCING STRATEGY PROPORTIONATE SHARE LEVEL OF SERVICE The demand placed upon existing public facilities by existing development is known as the existing Level of Service ( LOS ). Through the inventory of existing facilities, combined with the growth assumptions, this analysis identifies the level of service 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. Any demand generated from new development that overburdens the existing system beyond the existing capacity justifies the construction of new facilities. 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 system facilities. To the extent possible, the inventory valuation should consist of the following information: Original construction cost of each facility; Estimated date of completion of each future facility; Estimated useful life of each facility; and, Remaining useful life of each existing facility. 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. FUTURE CAPITAL FACILITIES 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 level of service. Any demand generated from new development that overburdens the existing system beyond the existing capacity justifies the construction of new facilities. PAGE 6
FINANCING STRATEGY CONSIDERATION OF ALL REVENUE SOURCES 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. 3 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. 4 PROPORTIONATE SHARE 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 system improvements establishes that impact fees are necessary to achieve an equitable allocation to the costs borne in the past and to be borne in the future (UCA 11-36a-302(3)). 3 11-36a-302(2) 4 11-36a-302(3) PAGE 7
SECTION III: OVERVIEW OF SERVICE AREA AND DEMAND 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 facilities and the future demand as a result of new development that will impact public facilities. FIGURE 3.1: DEMAND METHODOLOGY DEMAND LOS EXISTING FACILITIES FUTURE FACILITIES ESTABLISH SERVICE AREA; DEFINE BASE UNIT ESTABLISH EXISTING DEMAND UNITS ESTABLISH FUTURE DEMAND UNITS ESTABLISH ANNUAL GROWTH IN UNITS SERVICE AREA Utah Code requires the impact fee enactment to establish one or more service areas within which impact fees will be imposed. 5 A service area is a geographic area designed by the City on the basis of sound planning and engineering principles in which a defined set of public facilities are provided. The service area for purposes of the City s transportation impact fees will include all areas within the City s municipal boundaries. This document identifies capital projects (qualifying public Facilities ) that will help to maintain the established and existing level of service enjoyed by existing residents and businesses into the future. In order for the City to maintain adequate service related to transportation infrastructure, the City will need to acquire and construct Public Facilities, as identified in the capital improvement program. FINANCING STRATEGY PROPORTIONATE SHARE DEMAND UNITS Under 11-36A-302, an impact fee facilities plan shall identify i) demands placed upon existing public facilities by new development activity; and ii) the proposed means by which the local political subdivision will meet those demands. For purposes of the City s transportation impact fees, demand is measured in terms of trip generation related to undeveloped residential and commercial land use types. Based on projected growth in demand within the service area, public facilities are needed to meet the additional demands created on the City s existing roadway system and maintain the level of service. The impact fees calculated in this document are based upon the projected growth in trip generation which is used as a means to quantify the impact that future users will have upon the City s system. The trip generation or demand unit used in the calculation of the transportation impact fee is based upon each land use category s impact and road usage characteristics expressed in the number of trips generated. The existing and future trip statistics used in this analysis were prepared by the City and LYRB based on existing and future land use. 5 11-36a-402(a) PAGE 8
To determine the proportionate impact from each land use type, the existing trips are allocated to the different land use types based on trip statistics as presented in the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 8 th Edition. Appropriate adjustment factors are applied to remove pass-by traffic. Based on the growth in trips, the City will need to expand its current facilities to accommodate new development activity. TABLE 3.1: EXISTING TRIP ENDS BY TYPE LAND USE UNIT FAR ACRES DEVELOPED UNITS PEAK HOUR TRIPS ENTERING/ EXITING PASS-BY ADJUSTMENT CURRENT PEAK HOUR TRIPS Single-Family Unit 3,118 6,398 9.57 0.50 0% 30,614 Multi-Family Unit 219 2,984 6.65 0.50 0% 9,922 General Commercial Sq Ft 0.15 646 4,217,697 42.94 0.50 34% 59,766 Industrial Sq Ft 0.30 197 2,571,782 4.81 0.50 0% 6,188 Total: 4,179 106,490 Source: Pleasant Grove Land Use Data, LYRB FAR = Floor Area Ratio TABLE 3.2: FUTURE TRIP ENDS BY TYPE LAND USE UNDEVELOPED UNDEVELOPED FUTURE PEAK TOTAL TRIPS @ ACRES UNITS HOUR TRIPS BUILD-OUT Single-Family Dwellings 995.68 2,043 9,776 40,390 Multi-Family Dwellings 117.43 1,601 5,323 15,245 General Commercial 463.83 3,030,678 42,945 102,711 Industrial 83.95 1,097,059 2,640 8,828 Total: 1,661 60,684 167,175 TABLE 3.3: SUMMARY OF ANNUAL GROWTH IN TRIP ENDS YEAR TRIPS ANNUAL GROWTH YEAR TRIPS ANNUAL GROWTH 2012 108,846 1,184 2022 121,429 1,321 2013 110,043 1,197 2023 122,765 1,336 2014 111,254 1,210 2024 124,115 1,350 2015 112,477 1,224 2025 125,481 1,365 2016 113,715 1,237 2026 126,861 1,380 2017 114,966 1,251 2027 128,256 1,395 2018 116,230 1,265 2028 129,667 1,411 2019 117,509 1,279 2029 131,094 1,426 2020 118,801 1,293 2030 132,536 1,442 2021 120,108 1,307 2031 133,994 1,458 2022 121,429 1,321 2032 135,467 1,474 New Trips in 5 Year Horizon 6,053 New Trips in 10 Year Horizon 12,447 New Trips Through Buildout 60,684 Data from the 2009 and 2040 models were compared and showed a 1.1% average annual growth rate. The 2021 data is the 2009 data grown at 1.1% annually for 13 years. Source: Horrocks Engineers, 2012 Transportation Capital Facilities Plan Table 3.3 identifies the new trips generated through the five and ten-year planning horizons, as well as through buildout. It is important to forecast the growth in the service area to properly allocate the study costs to the demand that will be served. PAGE 9
FIGURE 3.2 LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS The demand placed upon existing public facilities by existing development is known as the existing Level of Service ( LOS ). Through the inventory of existing facilities, combined with the growth assumptions, the IFFP identifies the level of service which is provided to a community s existing residents and ensures that future facilities maintain these standards. In addition, the IFFP illustrates excess capacity within existing facilities and the utilization of excess capacity by new development. Any demand generated from new development that overburdens the existing system beyond the existing capacity justifies the construction of new facilities. DEMAND LOS EXISTING FACILITIES ESTABLISH EXISTING LOS PER UNIT ESTABLISH FUTURE LOS PER UNIT Roadway operations are typically rated based on level of service standard, described as the traffic operations of an intersection and/or roadway based on congestion and delay. The LOS is generally defined in ranges from LOS A (almost no congestion or delay) to LOS F (traffic demand is above capacity and the intersections experience long queues and delays). LOS C or D is generally considered acceptable for rural or urbanized areas, whereas LOS E and F are considered above capacity or failure without modification or adjustment. FUTURE FACILITIES The Impact Fees Act allows local political subdivisions to charge impact fees for roadway facilities as long as a reasonable relationship exists between the fees imposed on development and the needs generated by new development activity. For this analysis a LOS C is the maximum acceptable delay/congestion for both roadways and intersections, as shown in the CFP (See 2012 Transportation Capital Facilities Plan pp.2-4). FINANCING STRATEGY PROPORTIONATE SHARE For those road segments that experience a reduced level of service as a result of new growth activity, impact fees are an applicable method of financing additional capital improvements. In addition, in areas where new roadways need to be constructed (due to new development), the capital costs of these projects can also be applied to impact fees. For the road segments that do not experience a reduced level of service as a result of future growth, the capital costs are not included in the impact fee analysis. Under this methodology the consultants isolated those projects that are directly necessitated by new development activity and thus, are appropriately funded through impact fees. It is important to note that the roadways that maintain the level of service despite growth and the road segments that will be funded by developers or other agencies are not included in the computation of impact fees. PAGE 10
SECTION IV: EXISTING FACILTIES INVENTORY In order to quantify the demands placed upon existing public facilities by new development activity, the Impact Fee Facilities Plan provides an inventory of the City s existing facilities. To the extent possible, the inventory valuation should consist of the following information: Original construction cost of each existing system improvement; Estimated date of completion of each future system improvement; Estimated useful life of each system improvement; and, Remaining useful life of each existing system improvement. 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. Figure 4.1 illustrates the process for evaluating existing facilities. FIGURE 4.1 DEMAND LOS EVALUATE EXCESS CAPACITY RELATIVE TO LOS (SYSTEM LEVEL) EXISTING FACILITIES IDENTIFY ORIGINAL COST OF EXCESS CAPACITY IDENTIFY FUNDING FUTURE FACILITIES MECHANISM OF EXCESS CAPACITY INCLUDE ONLY PROJECTS FUNDED BY FINANCING STRATEGY EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PROPORTIONATE SHARE PAGE 11
GENERAL SYSTEM EXCESS CAPACITY Transportation impact fees are justified when average daily trips (ADTs) are added to system-wide roadways that exceed the existing capacity or when new system-wide roadways are needed to meet the demands of new development activity. A buy-in component is contemplated for the roadways that have sufficient capacity to handle new growth activity while maintaining safe and acceptable levels of service. Table 4.1 below shows the existing roadways, many of which have sufficient capacity to handle new growth. An average of 5.4 percent capacity is identified related to new growth demand by 2021. It is important to note that only City owned system roadways are included in this analysis. Roadways owned by other government agencies or that are considered project improvements are excluded in the capacity analysis, as well as from the valuation analysis. STREET NAME TABLE 4.1: CITY EXISTING ROADWAY FACILITIES INVENTORY 2011 ADT 2011 LOS 2021 ADT 2021 LOS CAPACITY LOS CAPACITY* 2011 LOS CAPACITY REMAINING 2021 LOS CAPACITY REMAINING % TO NEW GROWTH (CITY ONLY) 1000 South 4,500 A 5,200 A 11,500 9,775 5,275 4,575 7.2% 1050 East 1,800 A 2,100 A 10,500 8,925 7,125 6,825 3.4% 1100 North 6,400 A 7,400 B 13,000 11,050 4,650 3,650 9.0% 1100 North 6,100 A 7,000 B 13,000 11,050 4,950 4,050 8.1% 1100 North 5,900 A 6,800 A 13,000 11,050 5,150 4,250 8.1% 1100 North 4,200 A 4,800 A 11,500 9,775 5,575 4,975 6.1% 1100 North 3,100 A 3,600 A 11,500 9,775 6,675 6,175 5.1% 1100 North 3,000 A 3,500 A 13,000 11,050 8,050 7,550 4.5% 1100 North 2,900 A 3,300 A 10,500 8,925 6,025 5,625 4.5% 1300 East 1,200 A 1,400 A 10,500 8,925 7,725 7,525 2.2% 1300 West 9,600 D 11,100 D 10,500 8,925-675 -2,175 0.0% 1300 West 8,300 C 9,600 C 11,500 9,775 1,475 175 13.3% 1300 West 4,900 A 5,600 B 11,500 9,775 4,875 4,175 7.2% 1300 West 3,900 A 4,500 A 10,500 8,925 5,025 4,425 6.7% 1300 West 2,800 A 3,200 A 10,500 8,925 6,125 5,725 4.5% 1300 West 2,100 A 2,400 A 10,500 8,925 6,825 6,525 3.4% 1500 East 3,200 A 3,700 A 10,500 8,925 5,725 5,225 5.6% 1500 East 1,600 A 1,800 A 10,500 8,925 7,325 7,125 2.2% 1800 North 2,400 A 2,800 A 10,500 8,925 6,525 6,125 4.5% 1800 North 2,000 A 2,300 A 10,500 8,925 6,925 6,625 3.4% 1800 North 1,600 A 1,800 A 10,500 8,925 7,325 7,125 2.2% 200 South 7,800 C 9,000 C 10,500 8,925 1,125-75 12.6% 200 South 7,600 C 8,800 C 10,500 8,925 1,325 125 13.4% 200 South 6,200 B 7,100 C 10,500 8,925 2,725 1,825 10.1% 200 South 5,200 A 6,000 B 11,500 9,775 4,575 3,775 8.2% 200 South 4,500 A 5,200 B 10,500 8,925 4,425 3,725 7.8% 200 South 3,700 A 4,300 A 10,500 8,925 5,225 4,625 6.7% 200 South 2,300 A 2,700 A 10,500 8,925 6,625 6,225 4.5% 200 South 1,300 A 1,500 A 10,500 8,925 7,625 7,425 2.2% 220 South 3,000 A 3,500 A 11,500 9,775 6,775 6,275 5.1% 2600 North 4,800 A 5,500 B 11,500 9,775 4,975 4,275 7.2% 2600 North 4,600 A 5,300 A 11,500 9,775 5,175 4,475 7.2% 2600 North 3,700 A 4,300 A 11,500 9,775 6,075 5,475 6.1% 2600 North 3,300 A 3,800 A 11,500 9,775 6,475 5,975 5.1% 300 East 4,000 A 4,600 A 10,500 8,925 4,925 4,325 6.7% 300 East 3,600 A 4,200 A 10,500 8,925 5,325 4,725 6.7% 300 East 1,900 A 2,200 A 10,500 8,925 7,025 6,725 3.4% 300 East 700 A 800 A 10,500 8,925 8,225 8,125 1.1% 4000 North 650 A 700 A 10,500 8,925 8,275 8,225 0.6% 4000 North 580 A 700 A 10,500 8,925 8,345 8,225 1.3% PAGE 12
STREET NAME 2011 ADT 2011 LOS 2021 ADT 2021 LOS CAPACITY LOS CAPACITY* 2011 LOS CAPACITY REMAINING 2021 LOS CAPACITY REMAINING % TO NEW GROWTH (CITY ONLY) 500 East 500 A 600 A 10,500 8,925 8,425 8,325 1.1% 500 North 4,000 A 4,600 A 10,500 8,925 4,925 4,325 6.7% 500 North 3,000 A 3,500 A 10,500 8,925 5,925 5,425 5.6% 600 West 5,200 B 6,000 B 10,500 8,925 3,725 2,925 9.0% 600 West 4,600 A 5,300 B 10,500 8,925 4,325 3,625 7.8% 600 West 2,700 A 3,100 A 10,500 8,925 6,225 5,825 4.5% 600 West 2,000 A 2,300 A 10,500 8,925 6,925 6,625 3.4% 700 East 2,200 A 2,500 A 10,500 8,925 6,725 6,425 3.4% 700 East 1,800 A 2,100 A 10,500 8,925 7,125 6,825 3.4% 700 North (Lindon) 11,000 A 12,700 A 30,500 25,925 14,925 13,225 6.6% 700 South 8,000 B 9,200 C 11,500 9,775 1,775 575 12.3% 700 South 6,400 B 7,400 C 10,500 8,925 2,525 1,525 11.2% 800 North 800 A 900 A 10,500 8,925 8,125 8,025 1.1% 800 North 700 A 800 A 10,500 8,925 8,225 8,125 1.1% 900 South 2,900 A 3,300 A 10,500 8,925 6,025 5,625 4.5% 900 West 1,800 A 2,100 A 10,500 8,925 7,125 6,825 3.4% 900 West 800 A 900 A 10,500 8,925 8,125 8,025 1.1% 900 West 680 A 800 A 10,500 8,925 8,245 8,125 1.3% Center St 12,500 A 14,400 A 30,500 25,925 13,425 11,525 7.3% Center St 8,100 A 9,300 A 30,500 25,925 17,825 16,625 4.6% Center St 3,300 A 3,800 A 10,500 8,925 5,625 5,125 5.6% Center St 2,900 A 3,300 A 10,500 8,925 6,025 5,625 4.5% Dalton Ave 1,200 A 1,400 A 10,500 8,925 7,725 7,525 2.2% Grove Creek Dr 3,000 A 3,500 A 10,500 8,925 5,925 5,425 5.6% Locust Av 4,300 A 5,000 A 10,500 8,925 4,625 3,925 7.8% Main St 8,600 A 9,900 A 22,500 19,125 10,525 9,225 6.8% Main St 8,600 C 9,900 D 10,500 8,925 325-975 3.6% Murdock Dr 1,800 A 2,100 A 10,500 8,925 7,125 6,825 3.4% Murdock Dr 1,100 A 1,300 A 10,500 8,925 7,825 7,625 2.2% Murdock Dr 700 A 800 A 10,500 8,925 8,225 8,125 1.1% Murdock Dr 500 A 600 A 10,500 8,925 8,425 8,325 1.1% Weighted Average Capacity 5.4% Source: 2012 Travel Demand Model, Horrocks Engineers, LYRB *The Level of Service (LOS) Capacity is based on 85 percent allocation of the total capacity, based on a roadway LOS of C or greater. In other words, the total capacity can reach 85 percent of the maximum before the roadway will require improvement. Anything above this level would result in a reduction in the LOS. EXCESS CAPACITY OF SPECIFIC IMPROVEMENTS Pleasant Grove has two major roadway improvements that still have outstanding obligations: Pleasant Grove Boulevard and 2000 West (North County Blvd.). 2000 West was partially funded by Utah County with an agreement for Pleasant Grove to repay the County from impact fees. The repayment amount equals $2.9 million. Based on the traffic demand model, a total of 3.9 percent of the roadway capacity will be utilized within the ten year IFFP planning horizon. Pleasant Grove Blvd. was funding using debt financing. The repayment amount equals $4,501,567, including a PAGE 13
repayment to the General Fund as discussed later in this analysis. 6 Based on the traffic demand model, a total of 6.1 percent of the roadway capacity will be utilized within the ten year IFFP planning horizon. STREET NAME TABLE 4.2: CAPACITY OF 2000 WEST AND PLEASANT GROVE BOULEVARD 2000 West 2011 ADT 2011 LOS 2021 ADT 2021 LOS CAPACITY LOS CAPACITY 2011 LOS CAPACITY REMAINING 2021 LOS CAPACITY REMAINING % TO NEW GROWTH (CITY ONLY) 2000 West 6,500 A 7,500 A 30,500 29,925 19,425 18,425 3.9% Pleasant Grove Boulevard I-15 Interchange 23400 B 27,000 D 30,500 25,925 2,525 (1,075) 9.7% 700 South 21000 F 24,200 F 11,500 9,775 (11,225) (14,425) 0.0% 1300 West 15600 F 18,000 F 11,500 9,775 (5,825) (8,225) 0.0% 220 South 11600 A 13,400 A 30,500 25,925 14,325 12,525 6.9% Source: 2012 Travel Demand Model, Horrocks Engineers, LYRB Weighted Average PG Blvd. 6.1% VALUATION OF EXCESS CAPACITY According to the City s financial statements, the original cost of the existing roadway system is $38,463,748, which consists of roadway improvements and land. However, many of the improvements are classified as developer improvements or contributions, or are related to 2000 West and Pleasant Grove Blvd. These improvements have been removed from the general system analysis, resulting in a total of $16,254,827. The growth from 2011 to 2021 will utilize approximately 5.4 percent of the total system capacity. Thus, $873,363 is the amount attributed to new development activity through 2021, and will be applied to the growth in trips through 2021. Of the reimbursement to the County, 3.3 percent will be applied to new growth, or $111,861. A total of $272,679 will be applied for buy-in to Pleasant Grove Blvd. General System 2000 West PG Blvd. Existing System Value $38,463,748 $2,900,000 $4,501,567* Less Developer Improvements ($15,675,947) - - Less PG Blvd. ($3,632,974) - - Less 2000 West ($2,900,000) - - Subtotal $16,254,827 $2,900,000 $4,501,567 Available Capacity for New growth 5.4% 3.9% 6.1% Buy-In Component $873,363 $111,861 $272,679 *Includes Debt as shown in Table 4.3 Source: Pleasant Grove Financial Statements, LYRB The road segments included represent City-owned, system improvements classified as either a collector or arterial roadway. The excess capacity will help mitigate the impacts from new development activity. However, additional capital improvements will be required within the next five to ten years to maintain the existing level of service, as discussed in Section V. 6 At the time of this analysis, the City did not have an impact fee fund balance related to transportation impact fees. It was identified that approximately $868,593 was borrowed from the General Fund to pay the debt service payment related to the construction of improvements to Pleasant Grove Blvd. PAGE 14
FUNDING MECHANISM OF EXISTING FACILITIES The inventory of existing assets includes only those roadways classified as City owned roadways. While complete records are not available regarding the original source of funding for each project, it is assumed these projects were funded by existing residential and commercial land-uses through general fund moneys and impact fee revenues. Therefore, the City s existing level of service standards have been funded by the City s existing residents and the City revenues created by existing residential and commercial development. 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. OUTSTANDING DEBT According to the previous impact fee studies completed in 2009, bonds were issued in both 2001 and 2002 to fund growth related roadway improvements. The 2001 bonds have been paid in full, while the remaining debt for the 2002 bonds were refinanced in 2012. According to the City, 70 percent of the debt was utilized for growth related transportation improvements, with the remaining 30 percent related to other government services. The payments on the 2012 refunding bonds have been included in the impact fee calculations. TABLE 4.3: EXISTING OUTSTANDING DEBT RELATED TO TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS YEAR ENDING (JUNE 30) PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL 70% ALLOCATED TO IMPACT FEES 2012 $50,000 $112,913 $162,913 $114,039 2013 $385,000 $111,913 $496,913 $347,839 2014 $395,000 $104,213 $499,213 $349,449 2015 $410,000 $96,313 $506,313 $354,419 2016 $415,000 $87,088 $502,088 $351,461 2017 $425,000 $77,750 $502,750 $351,925 2018 $435,000 $67,125 $502,125 $351,488 2019 $450,000 $56,250 $506,250 $354,375 2020 $460,000 $42,750 $502,750 $351,925 2021 $475,000 $28,950 $503,950 $352,765 2022 $490,000 $14,700 $504,700 $353,290 Total $4,390,000 $799,963 $5,189,963 $3,632,974 Repayment to General Fund $868,593 Total Repayment $4,501,567 Source: Pleasant Grove City PAGE 15
SECTION V: CAPITAL FACILITY The demand analysis, LOS analysis and existing facility inventory allow for the development of a list of capital projects necessary to serve new growth and to maintain the existing system. Any demand generated from new development that overburdens the existing system beyond the existing capacity justifies the construction of new facilities. Impact fees cannot be used to finance an increase in the level of service to current or future users of capital improvements. Therefore, it is important to: i) measure and identify the City s level of service for roadways, and ii) identify the appropriate capital facilities necessary to maintain the existing and measured level of service related to roadway facilities within the designated service area. Future capital projects have been designed to maintain a consistent and proportional level of service, as defined in Section III, for future development, and repair and replacement projects have been excluded from the calculation of impact fees. This section identifies system improvements that are necessary to maintain the existing LOS. FIGURE 5.1 DEMAND LOS IDENTIFY SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS TO MAINTAIN LOS EXISTING FACILITIES IDENTIFY ACTUAL COST OF NEW PROJECTS FUTURE FACILITIES IDENTIFY PORTION OF NEW PROJECTS DESIGNED TO CURE EXISTING DEFICIENCIES FINANCING STRATEGY IDENTIFY CAPACITY SERVED BY FUTURE PROJECTS PROPORTIONATE SHARE PAGE 16
Based upon the projected increase in trip ends through 2021, the City s engineers have determined what transportation capital improvements are needed to serve future development activity. The figure below summarizes the costs of future transportation capital projects (See Appendix A for greater detail). IMPACT FEE FACILITIES PLAN $70,000,000 $60,000,000 $59,794,000 $50,000,000 $44,778,000 $40,000,000 $30,000,000 $30,514,262 $20,000,000 $13,949,000 $12,632,810 $10,000,000 $5,364,000 $0 0-5 Y R HORIZON 6-10 YR HORIZON PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATE GROWTH RELATED COSTS IMPACT FEE ELIGIBLE COST The impact fee eligible projects identified above represent the planning level cost estimates that are attributed to new development activity. However, many of the projects will only be funded if alternative funding sources are identified. These include federal, state or other government funding and grants. While many of the projects are considered impact fee eligible (i.e. growth-related), the City anticipates funding only a portion of the project through impact fees and identifying other funding mechanisms to complete the other projects. The total City funded projects are identified at $5,364,000within the next five years, and an additional $12,632,810 required through year ten. This represents the cost that will be funded by local dollars and thus applied to new development activity. This analysis only considers the cost through year five. None of the project costs identified above are related to curing existing deficiencies or increasing the current defined level of service (as defined in Section III Level of Service Standards). CAPACITY OF FUTURE FACILITIES In order to determine the portion of future facilities related to new development within the IFFP planning horizon, each future project was analyzed based on the capacity provided. According to the traffic demand model, the improvements to 600 West will add an additional 1,000 ADTs, with 700 to 800 new ADTs anticipated to occur within the IFFP planning horizon (or an average of 75 percent of the new capacity added for these improvements). The realignment of State Street will add an addition 19 percent capacity, of which five percent will be utilized within the IFFP horizon. These ratios are applied to the total cost of each project to determine the growth related cost, as shown in Table 5.2. PAGE 17
TABLE 5.1: ILLUSTRATION OF NEW FACILITY CAPACITY STREET NAME OWNER CLASS LANES 11ADT/ VEHICLES 11LOS 21ADT/ VEHICLES 21LOS 600 West City Collector 3 5,200 A 6,000 B 600 West City Collector 3 4,600 A 5,300 A Realignment State Street (US-89)/Main Street and 100 East City Intersection 4,100 C 4,500 C *Using the ICU method from Synchro to determine capacity of the intersection, Source: Horrocks Engineers CAPACITY 10,500 No Build, 11,500 Build 10,500 No Build, 11,500 Build 85% No Build*, 66% Build* TABLE 5.2: ILLUSTRATION OF NEW FACILITY COST TO NEW GROWTH STREET NAME 11CAPACITY REMAINING 21CAPACITY REMAINING NEW CAPACITY NEW ADTS/ VEHICLES % TO GROWTH COST NEW GROWTH 600 West 6,300 5,500 1,000 800 80.0% 600 West 6,900 6,200 1,000 700 70.0% $2,644,000 $1,983,000 Realignment State Street (US-89)/Main Street and 100 East 34% 29% 19% 5% 26.0% $2,720,000 $715,789 Source: Horrocks Engineers, LYRB COST SYSTEM VS. PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS System improvements are defined as existing public facilities designed to provide services to service areas within the community at large and future public facilities that are intended to provide services to service areas within the community at large. 7 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. 8 The Impact Fee Analysis may only include the costs of impacts on system improvements related to new growth within the proportionate share analysis. 7 11-36a-102(20) 8 11-36a102(13) PAGE 18
SECTION VI: FINANCING STRATEGY This analysis 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. 9 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. 10 FIGURE 6.1 DEMAND LOS EXISTING FACILITIES FUTURE FACILITIES IDENTIFY FINANCING MECHANISMS FOR FUTURE PROJECTS FINANCING STRATEGY IDENTIFY OTHER RESOURCES TO FUND PROPORTIONATE SHARE FUTURE PROJECTS (I.E. EXISTING IMPACT FEE FU N D BALANCES, GRANTS, STATE, ETC.) 9 11-36a-302(2) 10 11-36a-302(3) PAGE 19
FUNDING OF FUTURE FACILITIES A total of $44.7 million in capital costs were identified within the next five years. The City anticipates receiving Federal, State and other funding to finance a majority of these projects. The projects that will not receive funding from alternative sources will need to be funded through impact fees or other general fund dollars. TABLE 6.1: REVENUE RESOURCES AVAILABLE FOR FUTURE PROJECTS ROADWAY OR LOCATION PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATE OTHER FUNDING DEVELOPERS COSTS POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE* PERCENT TO IMPACT FEES 0-5 Years 100 East $1,013,000 $0 $0 F, S, C, O 0% 100 East $875,000 $0 $0 F, S, C, O 0% 100 East $1,252,000 $0 $0 F, S, C, O 0% 100 East $1,676,000 $0 $0 F, S, C, O 0% 600 West $2,644,000 $0 $0 F, S, C, O 100% State Street $18,846,000 $18,846,000 $0 C, O 0% 1300 West $1,679,000 $0 $0 C, O 0% 750 West $4,842,000 $0 $4,842,000 F, S, C, O 500 South $2,331,000 $0 $2,331,000 C, O 0% 1000 South $4,180,000 $2,090,000 $0 C, O 0% 100 E/GenevaRd/State St $5,440,000 $2,720,000 $0 F, S, C, O 100% Subtotal: $44,778,000 $23,656,000 $7,173,000 $5,364,000 5-10 Years Embassy Grove Pkwy $3,389,000 $0 $2,848,890 C, O 0% PG Boulevard $2,277,000 $0 $0 C, O 0% 1000 South $12,769,000 $2,852,900 $7,063,200 C, O 0% 100 East $11,423,000 $0 $0 F, S, C, O 10% 220 South (Battlecreek Drive) $12,964,000 $0 $8,346,420 C, O 100% 1300 West $3,321,000 $0 $0 C, O 100% 2600 North $2,976,000 $0 $0 C, O 100% PG Boulevard $546,000 $0 $0 F, S, C, O 0% 800 North $1,303,000 $0 $1,095,339 C, O 0% 500 South $4,421,000 $0 $3,716,419 C, O 0% 1300 West $1,129,000 $0 $949,070 C, O 100% 900 West $945,000 $0 $472,500 C, O 0% Mill Creek Road $1,935,000 $0 $1,935,000 C, O 0% 600 West/ 1800 North $198,000 $0 $0 C, O 100% 600 West/ 1100 North $198,000 $0 $0 C, O 100% Subtotal: $59,794,000 $2,852,900 $26,426,838 $12,632,810 *F-Federal, S-State, C-City, and O-Other Source: 2012 Transportation Capital Facilities Plan p.14-15 IMPACT FEE FUND BALANCES Currently the City does not have an impact fee fund balance related to transportation impact fees. It was also identified that approximately $868,593 11 was borrowed from the General Fund to pay the debt service payment related to the construction of improvements to Pleasant Grove Blvd. This was a result of the slow growth in development activity over the last few years leading to reduction in impact fee revenues. To meet debt service obligations, funds were borrowed from the general fund when impact fee revenues were not sufficient to cover the payments. New development will be required to repay this amount to the General Fund. 11 As of 6.30.2011 PAGE 20
EQUITY OF IMPACT FEES The transportation impact fees identified in this document are intended to recover the costs of capital infrastructure that relate to future development activity. The impact fee calculations are structured for impact fees to fund 100% of the growth-related facilities identified in the proportionate share analysis as presented in this document. 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. This analysis recommends that the City consider documenting any inter-fund loan or transfer as a liability or debt obligation for which future collection of impact fees will repay and reimburse. This will allow the City to accurately allocate the true cost of new development activity. NECESSITY OF IMPACT FEES This analysis and documentation has determined that for purposes of the transportation impact fees, the City is justified to collect impact fees as a way to finance system improvements. This is predicated upon the review of existing inventory, level of service standards, and historic funding of similar system improvements. In other words, in order to establish and achieve parity and equity across current and future users of the transportation and roadway system, the City must impose and collect the impact fees calculated in this document. PAGE 21
SECTION VII: PROPORTIONATE SHARE The calculation of impact fees relies upon the demand analysis, LOS analysis, inventory of existing facilities and excess capacity, and the needed future capital improvement as identified in Sections II through VI. Impact fees are calculated based on many variables centered on proportionality and level of service. The following paragraphs briefly discuss the methodology for calculating impact fees. PLAN BASED (FEE BASED ON DEFINED CIP) Impact fees can be calculated using a specific set of costs specified for future development. The improvements are identified in the IFFP, CFP or CIP as growth related projects. The total project costs are divided by the total demand units the projects 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. FIGURE 7.1 DEMAND LOS EXISTING FACILITIES APPORTION EXISTING FACILITIES COST TO NEW DEVELOPMENT FUTURE FACILITIES APPORTION NEW FACILITIES COST TO NEW DEVELOPMENT FINANCING STRATEGY APPORTION FINANCING COST TO NEW DEVELOPMENT PROPORTIONATE SHARE CREDITS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT PAGE 22
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION The applicable buy-in component and new facility costs are identified in Table 7.1. The total cost of existing and future facilities utilized by new development is applied to the total future trips served (See Section III). This results in a cost per trip of $320. TABLE 7.1: ILLUSTRATION OF IMPACT FEE PER TRIP TOTAL QUALIFIED COST % TO NEW GROWTH COST TO NEW GROWTH NEW TRIPS COST PER Existing Facilities $16,254,827 5.4% $873,363 12,447 $70 Outstanding Debt $4,501,567 6.1% $272,679 12,447 $22 Reimbursement to County (2000 West) $2,900,000 3.9% $111,861 12,447 $9 Future Facilities (Next Five Years) $5,364,000 50.3% $2,698,789 12,447 $217 Professional Expense $15,000 100.0% $15,000 6,053 $2 Total $29,035,394 $3,971,693 $320 Table Notes: Existing Facilities: The growth from 2011 to 2021 will utilize approximately 5.4 percent of the total system capacity. Thus, $873,363 is the amount attributed to new development activity through 2021, and will be applied to the growth in trips through 2021. Repayment to General Fund: Currently the City does not have an impact fee fund balance related to transportation impact fees. Outstanding Debt: The payments on the 2012 refunding bonds have been included in the impact fee calculations. In addition, approximately $868,593 was borrowed from the General Fund to pay the debt service payment related to the construction of improvements to Pleasant Grove Blvd. Reimbursement to County: Of the reimbursement to the County, 3.9 percent is considered growth related within the IFFP horizon. Thus $111,861 will be applied to new growth. Future Facilities: This analysis only includes the projects identified in the next five years. Based on the capacity analysis related to these projects, 50.3 percent of the project total is applicable to new development within the IFFP horizon. Professional Expense: This cost assumes future impact fee updates within the planning horizon, allocated to new development within a five year period. TRIP The cost per trip is then applied to the trip statistics for each type of land use, as shown below. TABLE 7.2: FEE BY LAND USE TYPE LAND USE ITE CODE WEEKDAY TRIPS PASS-BY ADJUSTMENT ENTERING/ EXITING ADJUSTED TRIPS IMPACT Single-Family 210 Per Unit 9.57 0% 50% 4.79 $1,533 Multi-Family 220 Per Unit 6.65 0% 50% 3.33 $1,065 Lodging 310,320 Per Room 6.90 0% 50% 3.45 $1,105 General Office 710 Per KSF 11.01 0% 50% 5.51 $1,764 General Commercial 820 Per KSF 42.94 34% 50% 14.17 $4,540 Industrial 110,120 Per KSF 4.81 0% 50% 2.41 $1,533 KSF = 1,000 square feet FEE NON-STANDARD IMPACT FEES The proposed fees are based upon projected trip ends generated by land uses within the City. 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. 12 This adjustment could result in a lower impact fee if the City determines that a particular user may create a different impact than what is standard for its land use. To determine the impact fee for a non-standard use, the City should use the following formula: Total Trips (per Specified Land Use) * Applicable Adjustment Factors * Cost per Trip ($320) 12 11-36a-402(1)(c) PAGE 23
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 five to six years should be spent only on those projects as set forth in this analysis. The legislative definition of encumber" means a pledge to retire a debt or an allocation to a current purchase order or contract. 13 PROPOSED CREDITS OWED TO DEVELOPMENT The Impact Fees Act requires that credits be paid back to development for future fees that will pay for growthdriven projects and qualifying system improvements included in the Impact Fee Facilities Plan that would otherwise be paid for through user fees. Credits may also be paid to developers who have constructed and donated facilities to that City that are included in the IFFP in-lieu of impact fees. This situation does not apply to developer exactions or improvements required to offset density or as a condition of development or project improvements. Any project that a developer funds must be included in the IFFP if a credit is to be issued. In the situation that a developer chooses to construct facilities found in the IFFP in-lieu of impact fees, the decision must be made through negotiation with the developer and the City on a case-by-case basis. 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. While an inflation component may be included in the impact fee analysis to reflect the future cost of facilities, it is not considered in the cost estimates in this study. 13 11-36a-102(6) PAGE 24