riverton city · 2019. 12. 31. · riverton engineering staff provided an update to the original...

Riverton City Transportation System

RIVERTON CITY

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPACT FEE FACILITIES

PLAN (2017)

1/19/2018


RIVERTON CITY

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

IMPACT FEE FACILITIES PLAN

WRITTEN ANALYSIS

G Trace Robinson, P.E. Riverton City Public Works Director/City Engineer

Riverton City Public Works Department

12526 South 4150 West Riverton City, Utah 84067

November 7, 2017

Page i


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Background information was provided in previous studies completed by Horrocks Engineering and Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham Inc.

Riverton City

Mayor Bill Applegarth City Council Brent Johnson Trent Staggs Sheldon Stewart Tricia Tingey Paul Wayman City Staff Ryan Carter Interim City Administrator G. Trace Robinson P.E Public Works Director/City Engineer Lisa Dudley Administrative Services Director Jason Lethbridge Development Services Director


Page ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................ i TABLE OF CONTENTS ...........................................................................................................ii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................... iii LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................... iv ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS …………………………………………………...…iv

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................1

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 3

Demographics ...................................................................................................................................... 3

History .................................................................................................................................................. 3

Historical Population ........................................................................................................................... 3

Planning Period.................................................................................................................................... 4

Population Growth Projections ........................................................................................................... 4

Previous Plans and Studies ................................................................................................................. 5

Completed Projects ………………………………………………………………………………5

Modifications to Existing Plans ………………………………………………………………….6 Alignments ……………………………………………………………………………….6 Functional Type Changes ………………………………………………………………...8 New Streets, Traffic, Signals, and Bridges/Box Culverts ………………………………..9 Modification to the 2017 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) to Widen 12600 S from Bangerter Highway to Mountain View…………………………………………………...9

Growth in Vehicle Miles Traveled ………………………………………………………………11

Traffic Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 11 Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) ............................................................................................... 11 Adjustments to Peak Hour Trips (PHT) and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) ................... 11

Transportation Level of Service ………………………………………………………………...12

Future Projects …………………………………………………………………………………..12

Project Priority…………………………………………………………………………………...16


Page iii

Existing Infrastructure Assigned to New Growth ……………………………………………….17

Calculation of Impact Fees ...……………………………………………………………………19 Definitions ...…………………………………………………………………………….19 Cost/VMT……………………..………………………………………….………………19 Impact Fee Calculation …………..……………………………………….……………...19

Impact Fee Facilities Plan (IFFP) Legal Requirements …………………………………………..20 Identify Existing Level of Service (11-36a-302(1)(a)(i))….……………………….……20 Establish Proposed Level of Service (11-36a-302(1)(a)(ii)) ……………………………20 Identify Excess Capacity Required to Accommodate Future Growth at Proposed Level of Service (1302(1)(a)(iii))……………………………….………….20 Identify Demands on Existing Public Facilities by New Development at the Proposed Level of Service (11-36a-302(1)(a)(iv)) ………………………………………...………20 Identify the Future Infrastructure Required to Meet the Demands of New Development (11-36a-302(1)(a)(v)) ……………………………………………………..…………….20 Considerations of All Revenue Sources to Finance Impacts on System Improvements (11-36a-302(2))…………………………………………………21 IFFP Certification (11-36a-306(1))……………………………………………………...21

Summary…………………………………………………………………………………...……21

LIST OF TABLES

NO. TITLE PAGE 1 Historical Population Growth ......................................................................................... 4 2 Projected Population, 2015 to 2030 ................................................................................. 5 3 Completed Projects Since 2010 ......................................................................................... 6 4 Functional Type Changes .................................................................................................... 8 5 New Streets ......................................................................................................................... 9 6 Traffic Signals ..................................................................................................................... 9 7 Bridges/Box Culverts .......................................................................................................... 9 8 Summary of VMT Projections …………………………………………………………..12 9 Future Roadway Capital Projects ...................................................................................... 13 10 Projected Percentages Assigned to CenterCal Project ...................................................... 14 11 Future Roadway Capital Project Cost Assignments to New Growth ............................... 15 12 Proposed Schedule for Construction of Future Roadway Capital Projects ……………. 16


Page iv

LIST OF FIGURES NO. TITLE PAGE

1 K Roads 2010 ……………………..………………………………………………7 2 Realignment of K Roads 2017 ...…..……………………………………………...7 3 Preferred Alternative for UTA TRAX Line ………………………………………8 4 2017 Transportation Master Plan ……………………………………………...…10 5 Project Location ………………………………………………………………….18

LIST OF APPENDICES NO. TITLE

A 2010 Horrocks Impact Fee Assessment B Adjustment Calculations for PHT and VMT C Detailed Infrastructure Cost Estimates D Riverton Standard Street Cross Sections

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS IFFP: Impact Fee Facilities Plan LOS: Level of Service LPA: Local Preferred Alternative MDA: Master Development Agreement PHT: Peak Hour Trips RTP: Regional Transportation Plan SLR: Suburban Land Reserve TAZ: Traffic Analysis Zones TMP: Transportation Master Plan UTA: Utah Transit Authority VMT: Vehicle Miles Traveled WCD: Western Commercial District WFRC: Wasatch Front Regional Council

Transportation Impact Fee Facility

Plan

Page1 November 2017


̀

RIVERTON CITY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City of Riverton has an extensive transportation network with over 444 lane miles of roadway. In 2010 Horrocks Engineering completed an addendum to the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and completed a Travel Demand Model for assignment of peak hour trip (PHT) and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). This model included a large regional commercial center and office complex to be located in the Western Commercial District (WCD). The purpose of this Impact Fee Facilities Plan is to initiate the process of updating master planning of the Riverton Transportation system through buildout. In conjunction with the master planning, impact fees will be established which will fund the improvements as they are constructed. Through the combination of impact fees and infrastructure installed by developers, the transportation system will be systematically installed within the City. This plan assumes that the City will reach full buildout by the year 2030. There are still large areas within the Riverton City boundaries which are not yet fully developed. The entire City contains approximately 8,064 acres, of which approximately 987 acres remain undeveloped and could potentially be developed by 2030. According to the City's development plans, growth rates of 2.0% or less per year are anticipated over the next 13 years. Impact fees are based upon the projected growth in demand units which are used as a means to quantify the impact that future users will have upon the City's system. The 2010, Horrocks study provided a correlation between Peak Hour Trips (PHT) and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Existing PM Peak Hour Trips were estimated to be 32,402 and will grow an additional 32,798 trips by buildout. Horrocks determined that the 32,798 new future 2010 PHT would result in 53,174 Vehicle Mile Traveled (VMT). The 2030 buildout projected total VMT is 106,998. Riverton Engineering Staff provided an update to the original study by subtracting PHT and VMT generated by new growth from 2010 to 2017. The 2017 future PM PHT was calculated to be 30,161, and the 2017 future VMT will increase by an additional 49,497 through buildout. The majority of future growth will occur in the WCD. The area consists of approximately 580 acres owned by the LDS Church. The property is managed by a development arm of the Church known as Suburban Land Reserve (SLR). A Master Development Agreement (MDA) has been established between SLR and Riverton City. The agreement outlines development entitlements which describe densities for residential, commercial, and office space. These higher densities were anticipate in the Horrocks’ study. One of the large tenants known as CenterCal will occupy 85 acres of the SLR property and produce an estimated traffic impact of 3,915 VMT. A development agreement was established


Plan

Page2 November 2017


̀

between Riverton and CenterCal which locked the existing impact fees for the life of the development. To provide equity for new growth, the area of the CenterCal development was removed from this study and Infrastructure costs were reduced by the projected impact fees to be collected with the Development.

This Impact Fee Facility Plan will be used as the basis for the establishment of transportation impact fees. Impact fees will be used for the construction of future roadway, bridges, and traffic signals associated with the expansion of the transportation network to handle new growth.

Below is a list of future projects recommended to be constructed in this plan to accommodate new growth which will provide the Level of Service (LOS) outlined in the City Transportation Master Plan.

FUTURE ROADWAY CAPITAL PROJECTS

Street From To 1300 W 12600 S 13650 S 2700 W 13400 S 13800 S 4000 W 11800 S 12600 S 4150 W 12600 S 13200 S 4150 W 13200 S 13400 S 4250 W 13200 S 13400 S 4570 W 13000 S 13200 S 4500 W 13400 S 13800 S 11800 S 4000 W 4600 W

13200 S Mountain View Welby Jacob

13200 S Welby Jacob 4050 W

13800 S 4200 W Mountain View 13400 S 2300 W 2700 W Mountain View Intersection 13200 S 12500 S Bridge 4200 W Dutchman Ln Bridge 12800 S 4500 W Signal 13200 S 4250 W Signal 13400 S 2700 W Signal 13400 S 11800 S Signal 4500 W 13800 S Signal 3600 W 13800 S Signal 4000 W


Plan

Page3 November 2017


̀

RIVERTON CITY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS


INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to update the Impact Fee Facility Plan Riverton's Transportation System to meet the requirements of future growth within the City. This plan consists of an analysis of the location and required sizing of future transportation infrastructure and over-sizing of the existing system for the benefit of future growth. From this plan, impact fees will be determined based upon the costs of constructing new capital infrastructure and the costs of financing these improvements.

DEMOGRAPHICS

Riverton City is a community of approximately 42,000 people, located directly to the west of the Jordan River at the south end of Salt Lake County. Riverton is neighbored by Draper City to the east, South Jordan City to the north, Bluffdale to the south, and Herriman to the west.

HISTORY

Settlement of Riverton began in the 1860's, soon after the Mormon Pioneers reached the Salt Lake Valley. Early settlers lived along the Jordan River. Farms eventually homesteaded on the higher bench lands to the west of the river as the South Jordan and Utah & Salt Lake canals were constructed in the 1870's and 1880's. The area was originally known as Gardnersville. The name Riverton was first used when the area was established as the Riverton precinct of Salt Lake County in 1879.

In the late l800's a central community hub grew up around the intersection of Redwood Road (a major road southward into Utah County) and the Herriman Road (12600 S). Farming and livestock were the industry of the majority of Riverton residents well into the 1900's. The City continued to grow and incorporated into a town in 1947 and later became a City of the third class in 1967. In the early 1990’s, Riverton began to experience rapid grow which continued until the recession in 2008.

Historical Population

In recent years, the population of Riverton has grown substantially. The population doubled in the 1990's from 11,261 people in 1990 to 22,677 people in 1998. The 1999 Capital Facilities Plan projected a growth rate of 5% through 2005, approximating actual growth. The 2000 Census showed that the official population of Riverton was 25,011 people with 6,555 households and an average population of 3.82 people per household. Table 1 shows the historical Growth for Riverton City.


Plan

Page4 November 2017


̀

Table 1 HISTORICAL POPULATION GROWTH 2000 TO 2015

Year 2000 2005 2010 2015 Population 25,011 32,800 38,753 41,500 % Increase Population 31.14% 18.15% 7.09%

Average Population Growth/ Yr. Over 5 Yr. Period 6.23% 3.63% 1.42%

PLANNING PERIOD

This report uses a planning period from 2017 to 2030. Development is expected to continue in Riverton as there is available land in the City. It is expected that the City will near full buildout by the year 2030. By this time all facilities will be in place and the remaining growth will be infill and redevelopment.

POPULATION GROWTH PROJECTIONS

Future population rates vary for the next several years. Large growth rates as seen in the past are not anticipated to occur in the future. Anticipated annual growth rates of 2.0% are anticipated through 2030. There are still large areas within the Riverton City boundaries which are not yet fully developed. The City contains approximately 8,064 acres of which approximately, 987 acres are undeveloped but could be developed by 2030. The majority of future growth will occur in the WCD. The area consist of approximately 580 acres owned by the LDS Church. The property is managed by a development arm of the Church known as Suburban Land Reserve (SLR). A Master Development Agreement (MDA) has been established between SLR and Riverton City. The agreement outlines development entitlements which describe densities for residential, commercial, and office space. An infrastructure agreement was also developed that specifies the transportation network within the development. The MDA is very specific as it relates to the number of single family residential units, office space, retail space, and recreational space. The MDA provides detail that allows for higher accuracy of projecting the transportation system requirements associated with the master planned parcels within the property.

Table 2 shows the projected population growth used in this plan.


Plan

Page5 November 2017


̀

Table 2 PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH

2016 to 2030 Year 2016 *2020 *2025 *2030 Population 41,900 46,433 50,567 55,500

% Increase Population 10.92% 9.85% 9.76% Average Population Growth/ Yr Over 5 Yr Period 2.18% 1.97% 1.95%

*Projected PREVIOUS PLANS AND STUDIES In 2010 Horrocks Engineering completed an addendum to the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and completed a Travel Demand Model for assignment of peak hour trip (PHT) and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). This model included a large regional commercial center and office complex to be located in the Western Commercial District (WCD). The Horrocks study updated previous plans and laid the foundation of for the SLR MDA. The study outlined projects required to complete the infrastructure necessary to handle new growth through buildout of the City and a method of determining impact based on PHT and VMT generated by development. In 2015 Utah Transit Authority (UTA) performed a study to determine a Local Preferred Alternative (LPA) for a future transit corridor through the City. The study determined an alignment connecting the Day Break Station to Front Runner in Draper. In 2016 Riverton City entered into a contract with Hales Engineering to analyze projected traffic patterns to verify the number of lanes for the roadways located in the WCD. The study also provided an analysis of the major intersections and recommended development related improvements to be incorporated into this study. COMPLETED PROJECTS Since the 2010, several projects have been completed that were outline in the previous facilities plan. The list of completed projects is found in Table 3.


Plan

Page6 November 2017


̀

Table 3

COMPLETED PROJECTS SINCE 2010

13400 S roadway widening Bangerter to Mountain View

12600 W 4150 W Signal Mountain View frontage roads Bangerter CFI at 13400 S 11800 S Redwood Road to 2700 W 1300 W from 12600 S to 12830 S

MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING PLANS Alignments In 2015 Riverton City Engineering was asked by SLR to modify the roadway network within their property to better accommodate a large commercial tenant which would occupy 85 acres of the SLR property. This modification shifted Riverton Blvd from approximately 13000 S to 13200 S. The relocation created a major intersection at 13200 S and Mountain View. The ripple effect of this relocation caused other changes in the WCD road alignments. Working with SLR, Riverton City Engineering realigned 4050 W and moved the intersection that was previously associated with Riverton Blvd to 13200 S. Riverton Blvd was removed from the future project list and replaced with 13200 S. The realignment and replacement of these roadways laid the foundation to accommodate a future transit corridor through the development and City. These modifications can be seen in Figures 1 and 2. Figure 1 shows the 2010 alignments and Figure 2 shows the proposed 2017 road network as outlined in the current SLR Infrastructure Agreement for the WCD.


Plan

Page7 November 2017


̀

Figure 1 K Roads 2010 Figure 2 Realignment of K Roads 2017

As previously mentioned, in 2015 a Transit study was completed which resulted in a Local Preferred Alternative (LPA) that connected the Day Break TRAX station to Front Runner in Draper. The alignment leaves the Day Break Station and parallels Mountain View from South Jordan through Herriman. At 13200 S the alignment turns east and passes through Riverton via 13200 S, 4050 W and 12600 S to Draper. Figure 3 shows the described alignment. In 2016 Riverton City Council adopted a portion of the LPA alignment from Herriman to 12600 S. Further Council action will be required to extend the line down 12600 S to the Draper Station. Riverton City Engineering has coordinated closely with UTA’s engineers to incorporate design standards and design elements which will help facilitate the future transit corridor on the13200 S and 4050 W Streets.


Plan

Page8 November 2017


̀

Figure 3 Local Preferred Alternative (LPA) for Transit

Functional Type Changes Since the previous study, there have been changes in the functional classifications for two streets in the WCD. These changes are a result of the alignment modifications described in the prior section. Table 4 lists these modifications.

Table 4

FUNCTIONAL TYPE CHANGES 4150 W from 12600 S to 13400 S was changed from Minor Arterial to Major Arterial 13200 W from Mountain View to 4150 W (old Riverton Blvd) was changed from a Major Collector to Major Arterial


Plan

Page9 November 2017


̀

New Streets, Traffic, Signals, and Bridges/Box Culverts With the SLR MDA, one additional street was added to the Riverton Master Plan along with four new traffic signals and two bridges/box culverts. These improvements can be found in Tables 5, 6, and 7 respectively. Figure 4 shows the updates to the 2010 Horrocks Transportation Master which includes new growth related projects as well as the realignment and reclassification of the City streets described above.

Table 5

Table 6 TRAFFIC SIGNALS

13200 S @ 4570 W 13200 S @ 4150 W 4250 W @13400 S Mountain View @ 13200 S

Table 7

Modification to the 2017 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) to Widen 12600 S from Bangerter Highway to Mountain View Traffic studies show that 2040 traffic counts for 12600 S from Bangerter Highway to Mountain View will exceed 72,000 vehicles per day. This will result in a Level of Service F and capacity failure. This is confirmed by the Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) and described in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) models. Increased traffic on this facility is not a result of growth in Riverton but traffic generated by surrounding Cities. With this type of growth, impact fees cannot be used to increase capacity or Level of Service (LOS). That being said, increasing the width of 12600 S through this section will allow the City to obtain funding and require dedication with development. The width on the 2017 TMP will be increased from 106 feet to 116 feet. The 10 foot widening will take place on the south side of 12600 S where a large portion of the property remains undeveloped.

NEW STREETS 4250 W, 13200 S to 13400 S

BRIDGES/BOX CULVERTS

Dutchman Lane @ Jacob Welby Canal 4200 W @ 13400 S

ww ww ww ww

ww

ww

ww

wwwwwwww

wwwwww

ww

ww ww ww wwww

ww

ww ww

wwww

ww

ww

ww ww

XY

XY XY

XY

XY

wwww

kj

kjkj

kjkj

kj

kjkj

kj

kj

kj

kj

kjkjkj

kjkj

kjkjkjkj

kj

kj

GF

GF

GF

ww

kj

kj

kj

kj

kj

kj

kj

kj kj

kj

kj

kj

kj kj kj kj

kj

kj

kj

kjkjkj

kj

wwww

µ Not to ScaleB l u f f d a l e C i t yB l u f f d a l e C i t y

H e r r i m a n C i t yH e r r i m a n C i t y

S o u t h J o r d a n C i t yS o u t h J o r d a n C i t y

D r a p e r C i t yD r a p e r C i t yHighway CorridorMajor Arterial (106' - 114' TYP.)

Transportation Master PlanLegendFunctional Classification

Minor Arterial (88' TYP.)Major Collector (66' TYP.)Minor Collector (60' TYP.)Other Roads (54' TYP.)

Future ImprovementsHighway CorridorMajor ArterialMinor ArterialMajor CollectorMinor Collector

Proposed AlignmentsHighway CorridorMajor ArterialMinor ArterialMajor CollectorMinor CollectorOther Roads

XYFuture Interchangeww Existing Traffic Signalww Future Signal Pending Warrant!( Future Major Intersection

GF Existing CrossingGFkj

kjkj

Future CrossingMajor Culvert CrossingExisting BridgeFuture Bridge/Culvert

TRAX Line

Figure 4


Plan

Page11 November 2017


̀

GROWTH IN VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED

Impact fees are based upon the projected growth in demand units which are used as a means to quantify the impact that future users will have upon the City's system. In 2010, Horrocks Engineering was selected to perform a study which provided a correlation between Peak Hour Trips (PHT) and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Horrocks’ methodology of calculating the vehicle miles traveled is based on the Wasatch Front Regional Council's travel demand model which considers roadway and socioeconomic data for the entire region. However, the data was modified to isolate Riverton City boundaries. The model looked at new trip calculations into, out of, and within Riverton City. Additionally, it measured trip lengths classified as home-based work (HBW), home-based college (HBC), home-based other (HBO), non-home based (NHB), and commercial (COMM). This information is further detailed in Appendix A. The demand unit used in the calculation of the transportation impact fees is based upon each land use category's impact and road usage characteristics expressed in the number of vehicle miles traveled. The existing and future Vehicle Miles Traveled used in this analysis are based upon information gathered from the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manuals, 7th Edition. An estimated length of trips for each user class through the City's roadway network was modeled by the Engineers. Horrocks was also contracted to perform a traffic analysis to determine the need for additional roadways. Based on the traffic study, the Engineers prepared a Capital Facilities Plan, detailing the recommended capital projects that will maintain the established Level of Service through buildout.

TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

In order to obtain an understanding of impact associated with new growth a detailed traffic analysis was required. The following is a description of what was used to fulfill these requirements:

Traffic Analysis Zones

The basis for the population growth estimates and other key socio-economic indicators that serve to project future demands for Transportation services through buildout are found in Appendix A This data has been provided by Horrocks Engineering using 14 Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ). The TAZ were prepared by the Wasatch Front Regional Council and include projections of key factors such as auto ownership rates, number of jobs, dwelling units, and population within each zone. Based upon this information and the actual amount of undeveloped land within the City, the Engineers estimated the number of PM Peak Hour Trips (PHT) currently generated in the City and what would be generated at buildout. In 2010, existing PM Peak Hour Trips were estimated to be 32,402 and would grow an additional 32,798 trips at buildout. Horrocks determined that the 32,798 new future PHT would result in 53,174 Vehicle Mile Traveled (VMT).

Adjustments to Peak Hour Trips (PHT) and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) During the recession, Riverton experienced very little growth. As previously mentioned, Horrocks analysis included a regional commercial and housing district in the WCD. With the small amount of growth and minor changes to the previous plan, Riverton Engineering Division felt that the 2010 study still represents future growth and could be used in the current study with some minor adjustments.


Plan



̀

Using the 2010 study, an update of future PHT and VMT was made. In order to calculate equitable impact fees, every building permit was pulled from 2010 to 2017. The PHT and VMT were assigned based on development type. These numbers were then subtracted from the numbers provided by the Horrocks study. From this, the 2017 future PM PHT and future VMT was calculated. It was determined that between 2010 and 2017 there were 2,637 PM PHT and 3,677 VMT used by development. The 2017 future PM PHT was calculated to be 30,161, and the 2017 future VMT was calculated to be 49,497. The 2010 Horrocks Study can be found in Appendix A and information regarding these calculations can be found in Appendix B. Table 8 is a summary of the various VMT projections outlined in this section,

Table 8

Summary of VMT Projections Existing VMT 2010 53,824 Future VMT 2010 To Buildout 53,174 Total VMT @ Buildout (2030) 106,998 Used VMT 2010- 2017 3,677 Future VMT 2017 To Buildout (2030) 49,497 Projected CenterCal VMT 3,915 Future VMT 2017 To Buildout minus CenterCal 45,582

TRANSPORTATION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) Impact fees cannot be used to finance an increase in the Level of Service (LOS) to current or future users of capital improvements. Therefore, it is important to identify the Level of Service within the City to ensure that the new capacities of projects financed through impact fees do not exceed the established LOS. The current Level of Service, as defined by City standards, is shown below.

Intersection Congestion Level: Level of Service D or Higher Roadway Congestion Level: Level of Service C or Higher Levels of Service range from grade A to grade F. Grade A (Level of Service A) denotes a sufficient roadway, or a roadway with little traffic congestion, while a Grade F (Level of Service F) denotes a failing roadway, or a roadway with extreme traffic congestion. Future capital projects have been designed to maintain the aforementioned Level of Service for future development. Standard practice is to design roadway networks that will maintain congestion levels of D and C once buildout is reached. In order to serve new growth and development activity, the City must expand its roadway system to perpetuate the Level of Service that has historically been maintained for existing development. FUTURE PROJECTS From the Horrocks Capital Facilities Plan (CFP), along with the modifications described in the previous sections, a new infrastructure project plan was developed to accommodate new growth. A list of these projects can be found in Table 9. Projects highlighted in yellow are located within the WCD.


Plan



̀

Table 9

FUTURE ROADWAY CAPITAL PROJECTS

Street From To 1300 W 12600 S 13650 S 2700 W 13400 S 13800 S 4000 W 11800 S 12600 S 4150 W 12600 S 13200 S 4150 W 13200 S 13400 S 4250 W 13200 S 13400 S 4570 W 13000 S 13200 S 4500 W 13400 S 13800 S 11800 S 4000 W 4600 W

13200 S Mountain

View Welby Jacob

13200 S Welby Jacob 4050 W

13800 S 4200 W Mountain

View 13400 S 2300 W 2700 W Mountain View 13200 S 12500 S Bridge 4200 W Dutchman Ln Bridge 12800 S 4500 W Signal 13200 S 4250 W Signal 13400 S 2700 W Signal 13400 S 11800 S Signal 4500 W 13800 S Signal 3600 W 13800 S Signal 4000 W

Prior to the development of the SLR MDA, it was announced that the developer of the commercial retail and office center in the WCD would be CenterCal. CenterCal is a large scale developer based in the Los Angeles area. They are known for their development of Station Park in Farmington, Utah and the Village at Meridian in Idaho. As agreements were developed between the City and CenterCal, impact fees were locked-in based on the 2016 impact fee schedules for the CenterCal development. Any increased adjustments to impact fees above those in the CenterCal agreement would cause a deficit to the City’s ability to finance projects using impact fees. This deficit will need to be financed using City funding sources other than impact fees. In order to calculate new impact fees, an assignment of project percentages directly associated with the CenterCal development was determined. These percentages were applied to the fee schedule calculations to adjust project costs and fees.


Plan



̀

This will provide equity for the undeveloped property outside the CenterCal development. Table 10 lists the percentages directly associated with CenterCal.

Table 10

Street From To Assignment to

CenterCal

1300 W 12600 S 13650 S 0%

2700 W 13400 S 13800 S 0%

4000 W 11800 S 12600 S 0%

4150 W 12600 S 13200 S 15%

4150 W 13200 S 13400 S 15%

4250 W 13200 S 13400 S 50%

4570 W 13000 S 13200 S 15%

4500 W 13400 S 13800 S 10%

11800 S 4000 W 4600 W 0%

13200 S Mountain View Welby Jacob 20%

13200 S Welby Jacob 4050 W 20% 13800 S 4200 W Mountain View 0% 13400 S 2300 W 2700 W 0% Mountain View Intersection 13200 S 20% 12500 S Bridge 4200 W 0%

Dutchman Ln Bridge 12800 S 0%

4250 W Signal 13400 S 0% 4500 W Signal 13200 S 0% 2700W Signal 13400 S 0%

11800 S Signal 4500 W 0%

13800 S Signal 3600 W 0%

13800 S Signal 4000 W 0% Riverton Engineering Division evaluated each of these projects and developed estimates to be used for impact fee calculation. In addition to estimates, percentage assignments to new growth were determined. Costs associated with the CenterCal development were deducted from costs assigned to new growth. The results are summarized in Table 11. The detailed cost breakdowns can be found in Appendix C of this report.

PROJECT PERCENTAGES ASSIGNED TO CENTERCAL PROJECT


Plan

November 2017


̀

Table 11 FUTURE ROADWAY CAPITAL PROJECT COST ASSIGNMENTS TO NEW GROWTH

Street From To Construction

Cost ROW Costs Engineering

Costs Total Cost

% Riverton Owned Weighted Cost

% to CenterCal

Percent New

Growth City Cost New Growth

Cost Impact Fee Costs

1300 W 12600 S 13650 S $3,390,672 $684,032 $353,809 $4,428,513 100% $4,428,513 0% 45% $2,435,682 $1,992,831 $1,992,831

2700 W 13400 S 13800 S $1,630,986 $302,643 $170,190 $2,103,818 100% $2,103,818 0% 83% $357,649 $1,746,169 $1,746,169

4000 W 11800 S 12600 S $2,904,509 $2,629,696 $303,079 $5,837,285 100% $5,837,285 0% 97% $175,119 $5,662,166 $5,662,166

4150 W 12600 S 13200 S $3,857,146 $281,600 $453,782 $4,592,528 100% $4,592,528 15% 82% $826,655 $3,765,873 $3,765,873

4150 W 13200 S 13400 S $2,465,003 $0 $290,000 $2,755,003 100% $2,755,003 15% 85% $413,250 $2,341,753 $2,341,753

4250 W 13200 S 13400 S $1,688,768 $0 $198,679 $1,887,447 100% $1,887,447 50% 50% $943,723 $943,723 $943,723

4570 W 13000 S 13200 S $1,107,967 $0 $130,349 $1,238,316 100% $1,238,316 15% 85% $185,747 $1,052,568 $1,052,568

4500 W 13400 S 13800 S $2,390,311 $0 $281,213 $2,671,524 100% $2,671,524 10% 90% $267,152 $2,404,372 $2,404,372

11800 S 4000 W 4600 W $408,053 $143,968 $48,006 $600,028 100% $600,028 0% 100% $0 $600,028 $600,028

13200 S Mountain View Welby Jacob $4,933,698 $0 $514,821 $5,448,519 100% $5,448,519 20% 80% $1,089,704 $4,358,815 $4,358,815

13200 S Welby Jacob 4050 W $2,033,409 $0 $239,225 $2,272,633 100% $2,272,633 20% 80% $454,527 $1,818,106 $1,818,106

13800 S 4200 W Mountain View $2,955,495 $0 $347,705 $3,303,200 50% $1,651,600 0% 100% $0 $1,651,600 $1,651,600

13400 S 2300 W 2700 W $324,624 $0 $38,191 $362,815 100% $362,815 0% 100% $0 $362,815 $362,815

Mountain View 13200 S $434,487 $0 $51,116 $485,603 100% $485,603 20% 80% $97,121 $388,483 $388,483

12500 S Bridge 4200 W $324,360 $0 $38,160 $362,520 100% $362,520 0% 50% $181,260 $181,260 $181,260

Dutchman Ln Bridge 12800 S $339,660 $0 $39,960 $379,620 100% $379,620 0% 100% $0 $379,620 $379,620

4500 W Signal 13200 S COSTS INCLUDED WITH THE COSTRUCTION OF 13200 S PROJECT

4250 W Signal 13400 S COSTS INCLUDED WITH THE COSTRUCTION OF 4250 W PROJECT

2700W Signal 13400 S $101,898 $0 $11,988 $113,886 100% $113,886 0% 25% $85,415 $28,472 $28,472

11800 S Signal 4500 W $270,300 $0 $31,800 $302,100 50% $151,050 0% 100% $0 $151,050 $151,050

13800 S Signal 3600 W $283,050 $0 $33,300 $316,350 50% $158,175 0% 100% $0 $158,175 $158,175

13800 S Signal 4000 W $254,745 $0 $29,970 $284,715 50% $142,358 0% 100% $0 $142,358 $142,358

Total $32,099,141 $4,041,939 $3,605,343 $39,746,423 $37,643,240 $7,513,004 $30,130,236 $30,130,236


Plan



̀

Project Priority

The majority of infrastructure remaining to be constructed in Riverton is located in the WCD. An Infrastructure Agreement between the City and SLR was created in conjunction with the Master Development Agreement (MDA), which outlines a time frame for the completion of the infrastructure located within the SLR property. Using this information along with the timing for other proposed projects in the City, project priorities and estimated dates of construction were determined. Table 12 shows the priorities and estimated year for project construction. Figure 4 shows the location of each of these projects. Table 12

PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF FUTURE

ROADWAY CAPITAL Street From To Year

1300 W 12600 S 13650 S 2029

2700 W 13400 S 13800 S 2023

4000 W 11800 S 12600 S 2027

4150 W 12600 S 13200 S 2023

4150 W 13200 S 13400 S 2023 4250 W 13200 S 13400 S 2018 4570 W 13000 S 13200 S 2020

4500 W 13400 S 13800 S 2018

11800 S 4000 W 4600 W 2022

13200 S Mountain View Welby Jacob 2017

13200 S Welby Jacob 4050 W 2021

13800 S 4200 W Mountain View 2025 13400 S 2300 W 2700 W 2023 Mountain View Intersection 13200 S

2017

12500 S Bridge 4250 W 2018

Dutchman Ln Bridge 12800 S 2018

4500 W Signal 13200 S 2017

4250 W Signal 13400 S 2018

2700W Signal 13400 S 2023

11800 S Signal 4500 W 2026

13800 S Signal 3600 W 2028

13800 S Signal 4000 W 2027


Plan



̀

EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE ASSIGNED TO NEW GROWTH To determine the buy-in component of the impact fee, a relationship between the existing assets and new growth needs to be established. This is accomplished by determining the percentage of the cost of existing assets that will be assigned to new growth. This is easily calculated by the following equation: A/B= C Where:

A= Future VMT 2017 to Buildout (minus CenterCal) = 45,582 VMT B= Total VMT at Buildout (minus CenterCal) = 103,083 VMT C = % Existing Assets to Growth (See Table 8)

Therefor: Percentage of existing assets assigned to new growth is 45,585 VMT/103,083 VMT =.442 or 44.2% Thus, 44.2% of the cost of the existing eligible infrastructure can be applied to new growth and added to the impact fee for constructing future infrastructure relating to growth.

ww

ww

wwww

ww

kj

kjkj

kj

ww

wwww

ww

µ Not to ScaleB l u f f d a l e C i t yB l u f f d a l e C i t y

H e r r i m a n C i t yH e r r i m a n C i t y

S o u t h J o r d a n C i t yS o u t h J o r d a n C i t y

D r a p e r C i t yD r a p e r C i t y

Transportation Capital Facilities Future Project

Location2017 - 2030

Functional ClassificationHighway CorridorMajor Arterial (106' - 114' TYP.)

Legend

Minor Arterial (88' TYP.)Major Collector (66' TYP.)Minor Collector (60' TYP.)Other Roads (54' TYP.)

Future ImprovementsHighway CorridorMajor ArterialMinor ArterialMajor CollectorMinor Collector

ww Future Signal Pending Warrantkj Future Bridge/Culvert

TRAX Line

Figure 5


Plan



̀

CALCULATION OF IMPACT FEES Definitions: VMT- Vehicle Miles Traveled PHT- Peak Hour Trips ITE- Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual TAZ- Traffic Analysis Zone Trip Lengths from the Wasatch Front Regional Council Model The development of the impact fee is dependent on determining the cost per VMT. Components of this calculation include:

• Eligible Project Costs • Existing Debt Services • City Funding • System Buy-In Costs • Miscellaneous Fees

Cost / VMT The cost per VMT is calculated by multiplying each of the components listed above by the percentages of each cost related to new growth and the total Future VMT. Examples are shown below:

(Eligible Project Costs x Percentages Related to New Growth x Future VMT) (Existing Debt Services x Percentages Related to New Growth x Future VMT) (City Funding x Percentages Related to New Growth x Future VMT) (System Buy-In x Percentages Related to New Growth x Future VMT) (Miscellaneous Fee x Percentages Related to New Growth x Future VMT)

The sum of each of the equations listed above determines the total Cost/VMT. Impact Fee Calculation Components required to calculate the impact fee are listed below:

• Land Use Category (ITE) • Cost per VMT • Peak Hour Trips (ITE) • Adjustment Factor (ITE) • Trip Lengths (TAZ Model)

The Land Use Category is selected from the (ITE) manual. Each Land Use Category in the manual lists the estimated number of PHT and an adjustment factor to account for destination vs random trips. The PHT in the ITE manual is usually designated as #trips/1000 sq ft, #trips/number of seats, #trips/ number of rooms etc. From the TAZ model, the trip lengths for each use is generated. The equation to calculate this impact fee is as follows:

(Cost/VMT x #PHT x Adjustment Factor x Trip Lengths) = Impact Fee/ Unit The impact fee consultant will determine actual fees.


Plan



̀

IMPACT FEE FACILITIES PLAN (IFFP) LEGAL REQUIREMENTS

There are certain legal requirements which need to be met in developing IFFP Plans. The following is a description of the legal requirements and the criteria used to fulfill the requirement.

Identify Existing Level of Service (11-36a-302(1)(a)(i))

The current Level of Service, as defined by City standards, is shown below:

• Intersection Congestion Level: Level of Service D or Higher

• Roadway Congestion Level: Level of Service C or Higher

Establish Proposed Level of Service (11-36a-302(1)(a)(ii))

The Proposed Level of Service is described as follows:

• Intersection Congestion Level: Level of Service D

• Roadway Congestion Level: Level of Service C

Identify Excess Capacity Required to Accommodate Future Growth at Proposed Level of Service (11-36a-302(1)(a)(iii))

Previous City plans were based on master planning techniques that included capacity for future growth through buildout. These plans include common and accepted engineering standards and practices. At the turn of the century, Riverton put masterplans in place which included excess capacity for the future buildout of the City. This included the construction of additional lanes on all of the main east-west and north-south streets, bridges for connectivity, and the strategic placement of traffic signals. These standards are reflected in the Level of Service described above. Traffic impact is measured in Peak Hour Trips (PHT) and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The completion of the projects outlined in the IFFP and previous studies will provide 49,497 new capacity VMT. Identify Demands on Existing Public Facilities by New Development at the Proposed Level of Service (11-36a-302(1)(a)(iv))

As previously stated, excess capacity has been included in master planning, and has been constructed into infrastructure of the City’s road network. The majority of the backbone system is in place. Remaining new growth infrastructure to be completed is development driven and unique to each of the remaining undeveloped parcel. Identify the Future Infrastructure Required to Meet the Demands of New Development (11-36a-302(1)(a)(v))

Future infrastructure required to meet the demands for new development is identified on Figure 4 of this plan. Table 10 shows the summary of costs and Appendix C shows the detailed estimate for each individual component of infrastructure. The proposed infrastructure provides the Level of Service described above and will provide the capacity described in previous plans.


Plan



̀

Considerations of All Revenue Sources to Finance Impacts on System Improvements (11-36a-302(2))

In order to provide a complete Transportation System, initial planning included the exploration of sources to finance the system. Sources considered were Class “C” Roads, City general fund, bonds, grants, and impact fees.

Sources of funding used by the City include Legislative appropriations, Corridor Preservation, STP Grants, and CMAQ Grants. Whenever additional funding is used to finance projects listed in this study, an adjustment should be made in the next study cycle to decrease the impact fee proportionate to the amount of funding received.

IFFP Certification (11-36a-306(1)

We certify that the information provided in this IFFP is true and correct to the best of our knowledge and professional judgement. Certain data, such as future growth rates, are projections based on sound industry practices, but may not exactly reflect the realized values once they do occur. Every effort has been undertaken to represent the current and future information in as accurate a manner as possible. This IFFP was developed for Riverton City Corporation and was prepared in conformity with industry standards and principles generally accepted in the State of Utah.

SUMMARY The purpose of the Impact Fee Facilities plan is to study the infrastructure required to meet the needs of new growth and develop a means of providing funding for construction. In this plan, Riverton Engineering Division identified and provided engineered estimates for infrastructure needs and established a timeframe for which the infrastructure is to be constructed. The Division evaluated the existing infrastructure and assigned a buy-in component to new growth. Peak Hour Trips (PHT) and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), procedures should be used to determine impact fees outlined in the study. In conclusion, this plan provides the tools necessary to determine an equitable impact fee to be applied across the City to cover costs associated with new development. This plan will be reviewed by a consultant who will determine impact fees to be applied to future development.

APPENDIX A 2010 Horrocks Impact Fee Assessment

06/16/2010 page 1 of 4 Riverton City Traffic Impact Fees

To: Trace Robinson, P.E

Riverton City

From: Steven Lord, E.I.T

Date: June 16, 2010 Technical Memorandum

Subject: Riverton City Impact Fee Assessment

Introduction This memorandum contains an outline of the updates to the current Riverton City Traffic Impact Fees. A copy of a previous impact fee study was provided to Horrocks by Riverton City and the same methodology of the original report was followed in this analysis. The analysis consisted of recreating trip generation and distribution data using CUBE travel demand modeling software. This data was used to project the number of PM peak hour trips that would be generated in Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) within Riverton City boundaries. Both the current year (2010) and the projection year (2030) were used in the analysis. Trip lengths were also calculated and categorized by land use type according to Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) recommendations. The results of the analysis include the recommended impact fees to be assessed by Riverton City broken down by land use type.

Travel Demand Model Methodology System‐wide transportation planning models are typically based on a four‐step modeling process: trip generation, trip distribution, mode split, and trip assignment. The Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) model incorporates these steps and adds an auto ownership model that is sensitive to urban design variables. Figure 1 shows the four‐step modeling flow diagram.

Figure 1. Four‐step modeling process

The model has a feedback loop between trip distribution and traffic assignment, which is a process that ensures consistency between travel congestion and times that influence trip distribution patterns and are also an outcome of trip assignment. Travel time, or more generally speaking accessibility, is calculated based on outputs from the assignment model, and also is an important determinant of trip distribution and mode split. Therefore it is customary to iterate these three models in order to reach a convergent solution.


At the start of a full model run, the auto ownership model estimates household auto ownership levels and then the trip generation model uses land use data and auto ownership to calculate trip ends at the TAZ level. These trip ends are then paired into origins and destinations in the distribution model. In the mode split model, a mode of travel is selected for each trip. Vehicle trips are assigned to the highway network in the assignment model. The travel time feedback loop in the model is accomplished prior to mode choice be converting person trips to vehicle trips based on observed data.

Socio‐Economic Data Riverton City is broken up into 15 TAZs some of which are only partly contained within the Riverton City boundaries. Figure 2 shows the TAZs considered in this study. It should be noted that TAZ numbers 944 and 945 fall partially outside of the Riverton City boundary.

The socio‐economic data used for the 2010 and 2030 analyses are shown in Table 1 and 2 respectively.

Table 1. 2010 Socio‐economic data

Traffic Analysis Zone

PopulationDwelling Units

EmploymentAverage

Household Size

393 976.00 311.00 82.00 3.14394 310.00 84.00 342.00 3.69911 954.00 246.00 755.00 3.88912 3289.00 804.00 334.00 4.09913 4322.00 1144.00 1178.00 3.78914 3182.00 827.00 354.00 3.85915 2020.00 509.00 83.00 3.97931 858.00 239.00 2233.00 3.59932 5553.00 1380.00 908.00 4.02933 6951.00 1791.00 1192.00 3.88934 2110.00 633.00 692.00 3.33935 962.00 266.00 343.00 3.62944 3625.00 1085.00 112.00 3.34945 980.00 372.00 66.00 2.63


Table 2. 2030 Socio‐economic data

Trip Generation Based on the socio‐economic data mentioned the travel demand model is able to forecast new development within the city boundaries on presently undeveloped land. This development information is then used to predict the number of new PM peak hour trips in the desired build‐out year. The following data was obtained for the number of PM Peak hour trips beginning or terminating within the Riverton City boundaries (Table 3).

Table 3. Trip generation data

Trip Lengths Trip lengths are calculated based on the distances between the respective TAZs. Trips are distributed from one TAZ to the other TAZs within the travel demand model on the basis of the assumed develop attractions within the destination zone. Trips are broken down into home‐based work, home‐based other, non‐home based, home‐based college, and commercial trips.

Traffic Analysis Zone

PopulationDwelling Units

Employment

Average Household

Size393 3535.00 1249.00 246.00 2.83394 3886.00 1008.00 5546.00 3.86911 4713.00 1362.00 1048.00 3.46912 3981.00 1045.00 642.00 3.81913 6548.00 1898.00 1240.00 3.45914 4082.00 1173.00 546.00 3.48915 2982.00 826.00 288.00 3.61931 3400.00 880.00 3005.00 3.86932 5892.00 1567.00 1183.00 3.76933 8392.00 2344.00 3040.00 3.58934 2348.00 796.00 580.00 2.95935 1024.00 337.00 392.00 3.04944 14918.00 4751.00 262.00 3.14945 561.00 207.00 96.00 2.71

Trip Type No. Trips Trip Type No. TripsInternal to External 13326 Internal to External 27806External to Internal 16252 External to Internal 32329Internal to Internal 2824 Internal to Internal 5065Total 32402 Total 65200

New Trips 32798

2010 2030


These trip rates were related to the ITE land use categories by taking a weighted average length of each trip type that would be associated with that land use category. For example for residential trips it was assumed that a weighted average of home‐based work, home‐based other, and home‐based college trips would represent the average trip length. The following Table 4 shows the calculated average trip lengths for each ITE land use category.

Table 4. Trip lengths

Land UseAverage Trip Length (mi)

Industrial 2.71Residential 1.74Lodging 1.59Recreational 1.59Institutional 1.70Medical 1.59Office 1.59Retail 1.59Services 1.59


To: Trace Robinson, P.E

Riverton City

From: Steven Lord, E.I.T

Date: September 28, 2010 Technical Memorandum Subject: Riverton City Traffic Impact Fee VMT Methodology

Introduction This memorandum contains a description of the methodology used to determine the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to be used to calculate proposed traffic impact fees for Riverton City. This document is intended to supplement the document entitled “Riverton City Impact Fee Assessment” dated June 16, 2010. Travel Demand Model Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) maintains a travel demand model. The current version of the model is version 6.0 and this version was used in this analysis. The WFRC model includes roadway and socioeconomic data for the entire Wasatch Front region and was modified only in order to isolate Riverton City and calculate trips originating or ending inside Riverton City boundaries. New Trip Calculations Two separate model runs were performed to simulate the base year (2010) and the build-out year (2030). For each model run the total number of PM peak hour trips was calculated and compared. These trips were categorized in the following manner: • Internal to external – Trips originating inside the Riverton City boundaries and

terminating outside of the city. • External to internal – Trips originating outside of the Riverton City boundaries and

terminating inside the city. • Internal to internal – Trips originating and terminating within Riverton City boundaries.

By comparing the 2030 data to that calculated for 2010, it was possible to estimate the number of new trips that could be attributed to the potential new development in the city. The predicted total number of new PM peak hour trips occurring due to growth is 32,798. Trip Lengths Trip lengths vary depending on the type of trip that occurs. As a general rule people tend to travel shorter distances to go grocery shopping than they do to go to work or to college. As such it is necessary to further categorize trips in order to calculate trips lengths. Trips were further categorized as follows:


• Home-based work (HBW) – Trips consisting of an origin and destination combination of home and workplace.

• Home-based college (HBC) – Trips consisting of an origin and destination combination of home and college.

• Home-base other (HBO) – Trips whose origin and destination combination is home and something other than work or college.

• Non-home based (NHB) – Trips whose origin or destination is not the place of residence. • Commercial (COMM) – Trips that are commercial in nature.

The number of daily trips for each of these categories that have an origin and/or destination inside Riverton City boundaries were calculated in the model and each category weighted based on its fraction of the total number of trips. This weight was then applied to the number of new PM peak hour trips previously estimated and a number of new trips in each category determined. Average trip length was also calculated in the model for each trip type. Vehicle Miles Traveled Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) was calculated by multiplying the average trip length for each trip category by the number of peak hour trips for each category. The sum of each categorized VMT value was reported as the total VMT (53,174).

APPENDIX B

Adjustment Calculations for PHT and VMT

Adjusted VMT

Land Use Category ITE Code Number of

Units Peak Hour

Trips Adjustment

Factor Trip

Lengths

VMT Used since 2011

Single Family Residential (Unit) 210 670 1.01 1.00 1.74 1177

Apartment Building (unit) 220 0.62 1.00 1.74 0

Condo / Townhouse (each dwelling unit) 230 466 0.52 1.00 1.74 422

Assisted Living (each dwelling unit) 254 0.22 1.00 1.74 0

Land use/1000 Sq Ft

Warehousing (each 1000 sq. ft.) 150 0.32 1.00 2.71 0

Storage Units 10

Light Industrial (1K Sq Ft) 110 0.97 1.00 2.71 0

Manufacturing (each 1000 sq. ft.) 140 0.73 1.00 2.71 0

Lodging

Hotel (per room) 310 0.59 1.00 1.59 0

Motel Lodging (each room) 320 0.47 1.00 1.59 0

Recreational

Golf Course (per hole) 430 2.78 1.00 1.59 0

Bowling alley # of Lanes 437 30.817 1.71 0.60 1.59 50

Multiplex Movie Theater (each seat) 444 0.08 1.00 1.59 0

Health/Fitness Club (each 1000 sq. ft.) 492 3.53 1.00 1.59 0

Institutional

Elementary School (each 1000 sq. ft.) 520 1.21 1.00 1.7 0

Middle / Jr High School (each 1000 sq. ft.) 522 1.19 1.00 1.7 0

High School (each 1000 sq. ft.) 530 26.31 0.97 1.00 1.7 43

Church (each 1000 sq. ft.) 560 6.878 0.55 1.00 1.7 6

Day Care Center (each 1000 sq. ft.) 565 15.039 12.46 1.00 1.7 319

Medical

Hospital (each 1000 sq. ft.) 610 104.386 1.14 1.00 1.59 189

Nursing Home (each 1000 sq. ft.) 620 27.09 0.74 1.00 1.59 32

Animal Hospital / Veterinary Clinic (each 1000 sq. ft.) 640 4.72 1.00 1.59 0

Office

General Office Building (each 1000 sq. ft.) 710 32.936 1.49 1.00 1.59 78

Medical/Dental Office Building (each 1000 sq. ft.) 720 3.46 1.00 1.59 0

Retail

Building Materials and Lumber (each 1000 sq. ft.) 812 4.49 0.74 1.59 0

Free-standing Discount Superstore (each 1000 sq. ft.) 813 4.61 0.72 1.59 0

Specialty Retail (each 1000 sq. ft.) 814 19.26 2.71 0.66 1.59 55

Garden Center / Nursery (each 1000 sq. ft.) 817 3.8 0.74 1.59 0

Shopping Center (each 1000 sq. ft.) 820 41.46 3.73 0.66 1.59 162

New Car Sales (each 1000 sq. ft.) 841 2.59 0.72 1.59 0

Automobile Parts Sales (each 1000 sq. ft.) 843 5.98 0.57 1.59 0

Tire Store (each 1000 sq. ft.) 848 14.385 4.15 0.72 1.59 68

Supermarket (1K Sq Ft) 850 10.5 0.64 1.59 0

Convenience Market ‐ 24 hrs. (each 1000 sq. ft.) 851 52.41 0.39 1.59 0

Discount Club (each 1000 sq. ft.) 857 4.24 0.77 1.59 0

Department Store 875 1.78 0.66 1.59 0

Apparel Store (each 1000 sq. ft.) 876 3.83 0.66 1.59 0

Pharmacy/Drug Store no Drive‐Thru (each 1000 sq. ft.) 880 8.42 0.47 1.59 0 Pharmacy/Drug Store with Drive‐Thru (each 1000 sq. ft.) 881 10.35 0.51 1.59 0

Furniture Store (each 1000 sq. ft.) 890 0.45 0.47 1.59 0

Services

Bank, Drive‐Thru (each 1000 sq. ft.) 912 25.82 0.53 1.59 0

Restaurant ‐ Quality (each 1000 sq. ft.) 931 7.49 0.56 1.59 0

High Turnover (sit down) Resturant 932 33.609 11.15 0.57 1.59 340

Fast Food Resturant 934 2.733 33.84 0.50 1.59 74

Quick Lubrication (each servicing positions) 941 5.19 0.58 1.59 0

Automobile Care Ce nter 942 3.38 0.72 1.59 0

Automobile Parts and Service Center (each 1000 sq. ft.) 943 21.987 4.46 0.57 1.59 89

Gas Station (each fueling position) 944 13.87 0.58 1.59 0 Gas Station with Convenience Mkt (each fueling position) 945 54 13.38 0.44 1.59 505

Beagle Shop with drive thru 2.023 19.99 0.58 1.59 37

Self‐Service Car Wash (each stall) 947 4 5.54 0.58 1.59 20

TOTAL Used VMT since 2011 3677

Adjusted VMT

Residential

Year SF Units MF Units

2010 peak

hour trips

2030 peak

hour trips

New Trips

2010

2010 to

2017 Used

Trips

2017 Future

trips

2010 64 29 32402 65200 32798 2637 30161

2011 81 79 2010 VMT 2030 VMT

2010 New

VMT

2010 to

2017 Used

VMT

2017 Future

VMT

53824 106998 53174 3677 49497

2012 81 2 2013 107 69 2014 75 41 2015 121 164 2016* 141 82 TOTAL 670 466

*2016 YTD through October

Future VMT 2011 53174

VMT Used 3677

Future VMT 2017 49497

Automobile Parts Sales (each 1000 sq. ft.) 21987 21.987 Gas Station with Convenience Mkt (each fueling position) 54 54 High School (each 1000 sq. ft.) 26310 26.31 Nursing Home (each 1000 sq. ft.) 27090 27.09 Specialty Retail (each 1000 sq. ft.) 19260 19.26 Beagle shop drive thru 2023 2.023 High Turnover (sit down) Resturant 33609 33.609 Medical/Dental Office Building (each 1000 sq. ft.) 81363 81.363 Tire Store (each 1000 sq. ft.) 14385 14.385 General Office Building (each 1000 sq. ft.) 32936 32.936 Day Care Center (each 1000 sq. ft.) 15039 15.039 Car Wash bays 4 4 Bowling Alley( Lanes) 30817 30.817 Fast Food Resturant 2733 2.733 Shopping Center (each 1000 sq. ft.) 41460 41.46

Church (each 1000 sq. ft.) 6878 6.878

Hospital (each 1000 sq. ft.) 104386 104.386

Storage Units 10 10

APPENDIX C

Detailed Infrastructure Cost Estimates

Future Roadway Capital Projects

Street From To Construction

Cost ROW Costs

Engineering Costs Total Cost

% Riverton Owned

Weighted Cost

% to CenterCal

Percent New

Growth City Cost

New Growth

Cost Impact Fee

Costs

Assignment to CenterCal

1300 W 12600 S 13650 S $3,390,672 $684,032 $353,809 $4,428,513 100% $4,428,513 0% 45% $2,435,682 $1,992,831 $1,992,831 $4,428,513 0% $0

2700 W 13400 S 13800 S $1,630,986 $302,643 $170,190 $2,103,818 100% $2,103,818 0% 83% $357,649 $1,746,169 $1,746,169 $2,103,818 0% $0

4000 W 11800 S 12600 S $2,904,509 $2,629,696 $303,079 $5,837,285 100% $5,837,285 0% 97% $175,119 $5,662,166 $5,662,166 5% $283,108

4150 W 12600 S 13200 S $3,857,146 $281,600 $453,782 $4,592,528 100% $4,592,528 15% 82% $826,655 $3,765,873 $3,765,873 15% $564,881

4150 W 13200 S 13400 S $2,465,003 $0 $290,000 $2,755,003 100% $2,755,003 15% 85% $413,250 $2,341,753 $2,341,753 $13,184,816 15% $351,263

4250 W 13200 S 13400 S $1,688,768 $0 $198,679 $1,887,447 100% $1,887,447 50% 50% $943,723 $943,723 $943,723 $1,887,447 50% $471,862

4570 W 13000 S 13200 S $1,107,967 $0 $130,349 $1,238,316 100% $1,238,316 15% 85% $185,747 $1,052,568 $1,052,568 15% $157,885

4500 W 13400 S 13800 S $2,390,311 $0 $281,213 $2,671,524 100% $2,671,524 10% 90% $267,152 $2,404,372 $2,404,372 $3,909,840 10% $240,437 11800 S 4000 W 4600 W $408,053 $143,968 $48,006 $600,028 100% $600,028 0% 100% $0 $600,028 $600,028 $600,028 0% $0

13200 S Mountain View

Welby Jacob $4,933,698 $0 $514,821 $5,448,519 100% $5,448,519 20% 80% $1,089,704 $4,358,815 $4,358,815 20% $871,763

13200 S Welby Jacob 4050 W $2,033,409 $0 $239,225 $2,272,633 100% $2,272,633 20% 80% $454,527 $1,818,106 $1,818,106 $7,721,152 20% $363,621

13800 S 4200 West Mountain

View $2,955,495 $0 $347,705 $3,303,200 50% $1,651,600 0% 100% $0 $1,651,600 $1,651,600 $3,303,200 0% $0

13400 S 2300 West 2700 W $324,624 $0 $38,191 $362,815 100% $362,815 0% 100% $0 $362,815 $362,815 $362,815 $0

Mountain View 13200 South $434,487 $0 $51,116 $485,603 100% $485,603 20% 80% $97,121 $388,483 $388,483 $485,603 20% $77,697

12500 S Bridge 4200 W $324,360 $0 $38,160 $362,520 100% $362,520 0% 50% $181,260 $181,260 $181,260 $0

Dutchman Ln Bridge 12800 S $339,660 $0 $39,960 $379,620 100% $379,620 0% 100% $0 $379,620 $379,620 $742,140 $0

2700 W Signal 13400 S $101,898 $0 $11,988 $113,886 100% $113,886 0% 25% $85,415 $28,472 $28,472 $0 11800 S Signal 4500 W $270,300 $0 $31,800 $302,100 50% $151,050 0% 100% $0 $151,050 $151,050 $0

13800 S Signal 3600 W $283,050 $0 $33,300 $316,350 50% $158,175 0% 100% $0 $158,175 $158,175 $0

13800 S Signal 4000 W $254,745 $0 $29,970 $284,715 50% $142,358 0% 100% $0 $142,358 $142,358 $1,017,051 0% $0

Total $32,099,141 $4,041,939 $3,605,343 $39,746,423 $37,643,240 $7,513,004 $30,130,236 $39,746,423 $3,382,517

1300 W

Total $ 4,428,513.23

Riverton 1300 W

From 12600 S to 13650 S

Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Amount

Median L.F. 0 $ 90.00

Roadway Section (6" ACP - 8"UBC) S.Y 4660 $ 28.80 $ 134,208.00

Curb and Gutter L.F. 7592 $ 26.40 $ 200,428.80

Sidewalk L.F. 7592 $ 26.40 $ 200,428.80

Parkstrip L.F. 7592 $ 30.00 $ 227,760.00

Drainage L.F. 7592 $ 180.00 $ 1,366,560.00

Granular Borrow C.Y. 500 $ 30.00 $ 15,000.00

St. Lighting - Commercial Each 0 $ 7,200.00 $ -

St. Lighting - Collector Each 25 $ 6,000.00 $ 151,840.00

St. Lighting - Residential Each 0 $ 4,800.00 $ -

Bridge/Culvert Each 1 $ 360,000.00 $ 360,000.00

Traffic Signal Each 0 $ 264,000.00 $ -

Subtotal $ 2,656,225.60 Contingency 5% $ 132,811.28

Subtotal $ 2,789,036.88 Mobilization 6% $ 159,373.54

Subtotal $ 2,948,410.42

Utilities by Owner 15% $ 442,261.56

Right-of-Way S.F. 85504 $ 8.00 $ 684,032.00

Construction Costs + ROW Subtotal $ 4,074,703.98

Preconstruction Engineering 6% $ 176,904.62

Construction Engineering 6% $ 176,904.62

Subtotal $ 4,428,513.23

Project Cost $ 4,428,513.23

66' ROW 41' Pavement

Scurve ROW 43560

S Curve Length 800 S Curve Pave Width 41

Borrow 500

1300 W

New Impact

Pave Width FT. Pave S.Y.

Sidewalk L.F.

Curb & Gutter L.F.

Park Strip L.F.

Street Lights EA.

ROW Width F.T. ROW S.F.

7 156 200 200 200 1 7 1400

7 224 288 288 288 1 7 2016

7 437 562 562 562 2 7 3934

7 142 182 182 182 1 7 1274

7 212 273 273 273 1 7 1911

7 686 882 882 882 3 7 6174

7 387 497 497 497 2 7 3479

7 278 358 358 358 1 7 2506

7 218 280 280 280 1 7 1960

7 169 217 217 217 1 7 1519

7 768 988 988 988 3 7 6916

7 470 604 604 604 2 7 4228

7 514 661 661 661 2 7 4627

41 3644 1600 1600 1600 5 43560

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

8305 7592 7592 7592 25 85504

2700 W

Total $ 2,103,818.38

Riverton New Construction 2700 W

From 13400 S to 13800 S


Median L.F. 0 $ 90.00

Roadway Section (6" ACP - 8"UBC) S.Y 4755 $ 28.80 $ 136,953.60


Sidewalk L.F. 3057 $ 26.40 $ 80,704.80

Parkstrip L.F. 3057 $ 30.00 $ 91,710.00

Drainage L.F. 3057 $ 180.00 $ 550,260.00

St. Lighting - Arterial Each 10 $ 7,200.00 $ 73,368.00


St. Lighting - Collector Each 0 $ 6,000.00 $ -


Bridge/Culvert Each 0 $ 216,000.00 $ -

Traffic Signal Each 1 $ 264,000.00 $ 264,000.00



Subtotal $ 1,418,248.33


Right-of-Way S.F. 33627 $ 9.00 $ 302,643.00

Construction Costs Subtotal $ 1,933,628.58



Subtotal $ 2,103,818.38


New Impact

Pave Width FT. Pave S.Y.. Sidewalk L.F.

Curb & Gutter L.F.

Park Strip L.F.

Street Lights

EA.

ROW Width

F.T. ROW S.F.

14 1332 856 856 856 3 11 9416

14 3424 2201 2201 2201 7 11 24211

4755 3057 3057 3057 10 33627

4000 W- 4150 W

Total $ 13,184,815.58

Riverton 4000 W

From 11800 S to 12600 S


Median L.F. 0 $ 90.00

Roadway Section (6" ACP - 8"UBC) S.Y. 13676 $ 54.00 $ 738,528.00


Sidewalk L.F. 8792 $ 26.40 $ 232,108.80

Parkstrip L.F. 8792 $ 30.00 $ 263,760.00

Drainage L.F. 8792 $ 72.00 $ 633,024.00

St. Lighting - Arterial Each 0 $ 7,200.00 $ -



$ - $ -

$ - $ -

$ - $ -

Subtotal $ 2,275,369.60

Contingency 5% $ 113,768.48

Subtotal $ 2,389,138.08

Mobilization 6% $ 136,522.18

Subtotal $ 2,525,660.26


Right-of-Way S.F. 228712 $ 8.00 $ 2,629,696.00

Total Construction Costs + ROW Subtotal $ 5,534,205.29



Subtotal $ 5,837,284.53


New Impact

Pave Width

FT. Pave S.Y. Sidewalk L.F. Curb & Gutter

L.F.

Park Strip L.F. Street Lights EA.

ROW Width

F.T. ROW S.F.

14 3626 2331 2331 2331 8 11 25641

14 1486 955 955 955 3 11 10505

14 1062 683 683 683 2 11 7513

14 1280 823 823 823 3 11 9053

14 6222 4000 4000 4000 13 88 176000

13676 8792 8792 8792 29 228712

4000 W- 4150 W

Riverton 4150 W New Construction With Trax

From Mascaros to 13200 S


Median L.F. 2380 $ 90.00 $ 214,200.00

Roadway Section 10" PCC - 8"UBC S.Y. 15338 $ 54.00 $ 828,240.00


Sidewalk L.F. 4760 $ 26.40 $ 125,664.00

Parkstrip SQ. FT. 28560 $ 6.00 $ 171,360.00

Drainage L.F. 2380 $ 180.00 $ 428,400.00


$ - $ -

$ - $ -

$ - $ -

$ - $ -

$ - $ -

Subtotal $ 2,117,112.00


Subtotal $ 2,222,967.60


Subtotal $ 2,349,994.32


Right-of-Way S.F. 0 $ 8.00 $ -




Subtotal $ 2,678,993.52


New Impact

Pave Width


L.F.

Park Strip

SQ. FT. Street Lights EA.

ROW Width

F.T. ROW S.F.

58 15338 4760 9520 28560 14

15338 4760 9520 28560 14 0 0

4000 W- 4150 W

Riverton 4050 W New Construction

From TRAX transition to 13400 S


Median L.F. 1395 $ 90.00 $ 125,550.00

Roadway Section 10" PCC - 8"UBC S.Y. 10230 $ 54.00 $ 552,420.00


Sidewalk L.F. 2790 $ 31.20 $ 87,048.00

Parkstrip SQ. FT. 16740 $ 6.00 $ 100,440.00

Drainage L.F. 1395 $ 180.00 $ 251,100.00


$ - $ -

$ - $ -

Kern River Gas Line Each 1 $ 60,000.00 $ 60,000.00





Subtotal $ 1,451,445.20






Subtotal $ 1,654,647.52


New Impact

Pave Width


L.F.

Park Strip L.F. Street Lights EA.

ROW Width

F.T. ROW S.F.

66 10230 2790 2790 16740 8 0 0

10230 2790 2790 16740 8 0 0

4570 W- 4500 W

Total $ 3,909,839.91


From 13000 S to 13200 S


Median L.F. 0 $ 90.00 $ -

Roadway Section (10" PCC - 8"UBC) S.Y 6869 $ 48.00 $ 329,706.67


Sidewalk L.F. 0 $ 26.40 $ -

Parkstrip L.F. 0 $ 6.00 $ -

Drainage L.F. 1405 $ 180.00 $ 252,900.00



$ - $ -

$ - $ -

$ - $ -

$ - $ -

Subtotal $ 978,596.38 Contingency 5% $ 48,929.82


Subtotal $ 1,086,241.98



Construction Costs+ROW Subtotal $ 1,107,966.82



Subtotal $ 1,238,315.86


New Impact

Pave Width FT. Pave S.Y. Sidewalk L.F.

Curb & Gutter L.F.

Park Strip L.F.

Street Lights EA.


44 6869 2810 2810 16860 8 0 0

6869 2810 2810 16860 8 0

4570 W- 4500 W

Riverton

New Construction 4500 W From 13400 S to 13800 S


Median L.F. $ 90.00 $ -



Sidewalk L.F. 0 $ 26.40 $ -

Parkstrip L.F. 0 $ 6.00 $ -

Drainage L.F. 2640 $ 180.00 $ 475,200.00

Bridge/Culvert L.F. 1 $ 420,000.00 $ 420,000.00


$ - $ -

L.F. $ - $ -

$ - $ -

Each $ -

Subtotal $ 2,111,209.14


Subtotal $ 2,216,769.60


Subtotal $ 2,343,442.15



Construction Costs +ROW Subtotal $ 2,390,310.99



Subtotal $ 2,671,524.05


New Impact


Curb & Gutter L.F.

Park Strip L.F.

Street Lights EA.


66 19360 5280 5280 31680 15 0 0

19360 5280 5280 31680 15 0

4200 W

Total $ 1,887,446.54


From 13200 S to 13400 S


Median L.F. 0 $ 90.00 $ -



Sidewalk L.F. 0 $ 26.40 $ -

Parkstrip L.F. 9000 $ 6.00 $ 54,000.00

Drainage L.F. 1500 $ 180.00 $ 270,000.00



Bridge Each 1 $ 300,000.00 $ 300,000.00

$ - $ -

$ - $ -

$ - $ -

Subtotal $ 1,491,580.95


Subtotal $ 1,566,160.00


Subtotal $ 1,655,654.86



Construction Costs+ROW Subtotal $ 1,688,767.95



Subtotal $ 1,887,446.54


New Impact

Pave Width FT. Pave S.Y.

Sidewalk L.F.

Curb & Gutter L.F.

Park Strip L.F.

Street Lights EA.


44 7333 1500 3000 9000 9 0 0

7333 1500 3000 9000 9 0

11800 S

Total $ 600,027.61

Riverton 11800 S

From 4000 W to 4600 W


Median L.F. 0 $ 90.00

Roadway Section (6" ACP - 8"UBC) S.Y. 2545 $ 26.40 $ 67,185.07


Sidewalk L.F. 1636 $ 25.20 $ 41,227.20

Parkstrip L.F. 1636 $ 18.00 $ 29,448.00

Drainage L.F. 2370 $ 36.00 $ 85,320.00

St. Lighting - Arterial Each 0 $ 7,200.00 $ -






Subtotal $ 360,407.47 Contingency 5% $ 18,020.37

Subtotal $ 378,427.84 Mobilization 6% $ 21,624.45

Subtotal $ 400,052.29


Right-of-Way S.F. 17996 $ 8.00 $ 143,968.00

Construction Costs Subtotal $ 552,021.33



Subtotal $ 600,027.61

Project Cost $ 600,027.61

New Impact


Curb & Gutter L.F.

Park Strip L.F.

Street Lights

EA.

ROW Width

F.T. ROW S.F.

14 2545 1636 1636 1636 5 11 17996

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2545 1636 1636 1636 5 17996

13200 S

Total $ 600,027.61

Riverton New Construction 13200 S

Ramp to Mountain View


Median L.F. 750 $ 90.00 $ 67,500.00



Sidewalk L.F. 1500 $ 31.20 $ 46,800.00

Parkstrip L.F. $ 30.00 $ -

Drainage L.F. 750 $ 180.00 $ 135,000.00


St. Lighting - Commercial Each $ 7,200.00 $ -

St. Lighting - Collector Each $ 6,000.00 $ -

St. Lighting - Residential Each $ 4,800.00 $ -

Ramp Each 1 $ 1,500,000.00 $ 1,500,000.00

$ -



Subtotal $ 2,359,305.00






Subtotal $ 2,996,317.35


New Impact


Curb & Gutter L.F.

Park Strip L.F.

Street Lights EA.

ROW Width

F.T. ROW S.F.

58 4,833 1500 3000 0 5 0 0

4833 1500 3000 0 5 0

13200 South

Riverton

New Construction 13200 S From Ramp to Welby Jacob Canal


Median L.F. 1920 $ 90.00 $ 172,800.00

Roadway Section (11" PCC - 6"UBC) S.Y 12373.33 $ 54.00 $ 668,160.00


Sidewalk L.F. 3840 $ 31.20 $ 119,808.00

Parkstrip SQ FT 23040 $ 6.00 $ 138,240.00

Drainage L.F. 1920 $ 180.00 $ 345,600.00


$ - $ -

$ - $ -

$ - $ -

Ramp Each $ 360,000.00 $ -

Traffic Signal Each $ 264,000.00 $ -

Subtotal $ 1,739,520.00


Subtotal $ 1,826,496.00


Subtotal $ 1,930,867.20






Subtotal $ 2,452,201.34


New Impact


Curb & Gutter L.F.

Park Strip S.F

Street Lights EA.

ROW Width

F.T. ROW S.F.

58 12,373 3840 7680 23040 13 0 0

12373 3840 7680 23040 13 0

13200 South

Riverton New Construction 13200 S

From Welby Jacob Canal to 4050 W


Median L.F. 1550 $ 90.00 $ 139,500.00

Roadway Section (11" PCC - 6"UBC)

riverton city · 2019. 12. 31. · riverton engineering staff provided an update to the original...

Documents