work/study agenda springville city council meeting … · council business 1. calendar • sep 01...

WORK/STUDY AGENDA SPRINGVILLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING

AUGUST 18, 2020 AT 5:30 P.M. City Council Chambers 110 South Main Street

Springville, Utah 84663

MAYOR AND COUNCIL DINNER – 5:00 P.M. The Mayor and Council will meet in the Multi-Purpose Room for informal discussion and dinner. No action will be taken on any items. No decisions will be made at this meeting. The public is invited to observe the work session. Public comment generally is not taken during work sessions. CALL TO ORDER- 5:30 P.M. COUNCIL BUSINESS

1. Calendar • Sep 01 – Work/Study Meeting 5:30 p.m., Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. • Sep 07 – Labor Day Observed (City Offices Closed – Monday) • Sep 08 – Work/Study Meeting 5:30 p.m. • Sep 14 – Council Strategy Meeting 6:00 p.m.

2. DISCUSSION ON THIS EVENING’S REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEMS

a) Invocation – Councilmember Snelson b) Pledge of Allegiance – Councilmember Jensen c) Consent Agenda

2. Approval of minutes for the July 21, 2020 regular meeting. 3. Approval of the Mayor’s appointment of Barbara Lee and Nancy Caulkins to the Landmark

Preservation Commission and the re-appointment of Von Alleman to the Landmark Preservation Commission

4. Approval of the Utah County Recreation Grant application request – Corey Merideth, Recreation Director

5. Approval of the Foxridge Plaza Condominiums Phase-I located at 644 South Main, Springville in the CC-Community Commercial Zone – Josh Yost, Community Development Director

6. Approval of an Ordinance amending Springville City Code Title 2, Chapter 2, Sec 101-119 qualifications and duties of officers - Kim Crane, City Recorder

7. Approval of a Resolution to exchange property with the owner of property located 2541 east 1100 south, Springville, Utah – John Penrod, Assistant City Administrator/City Attorney

3. DISCUSSIONS/PRESENTATIONS a) Springville City Code Title 2, Chapter 2, Sec 101-119 qualifications and duties of officers -

Kim Crane, City Recorder b) Discussion regarding the Main Street South Gateway (MSSG) Zone – Troy Fitzgerald, City

Administrator c) Cultural Committee – John Penrod, Assistant City Administrator/City Attorney

CERTIFICATE OF POSTING - THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITH A MINIMUM OF 24-HOURS NOTICE– POSTED 08/14/2020 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City will make reasonable accommodations to ensure accessibility to this meeting. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Recorder at (801) 489-2700 at least three business days prior to the meeting.

Meetings of the Springville City Council may be conducted by electronic means pursuant to Utah Code Annotated Section 52-4-207. In such circumstances, contact will be established and maintained by telephone or other electronic means and the meeting will be conducted pursuant to Springville City Municipal Code 2-4-102(4) regarding electronic meetings. s/s - Kim Crane, CMC, City Recorder

of 2

4. MAYOR, COUNCIL, AND ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS

5. CLOSED SESSION, IF NEEDED – TO BE ANNOUNCED IN MOTION The Springville City Council may temporarily recess the regular meeting and convene in a closed session to discuss the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual, pending or reasonably imminent litigation, and the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, as provided by UCA 52-4-205.

6. ADJOURNMENT

REGULAR AGENDA

SPRINGVILLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 18, 2020 AT 7:00 P.M.

City Council Chambers 110 South Main Street

Springville, Utah 84663

CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION PLEDGE APPROVAL OF THE MEETING’S AGENDA MAYOR’S COMMENTS

CEREMONIAL

1. Swearing in of the 2020/2021 Springville Youth City Council PUBLIC COMMENT Audience members may bring any item, not on the agenda to the Mayor and Council’s attention. Please complete and submit a “Request to Speak” form. Comments will be limited to two or three minutes, at the discretion of the Mayor. State Law prohibits the Council from acting on items that do not appear on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA The Consent Agenda consists of items that are administrative actions where no additional discussion is needed. When approved, the recommendations in the staff reports become the action of the Council. The Agenda provides an opportunity for public comment. If after the public comment the Council removes an item from the consent agenda for discussion, the item will keep its agenda number and will be added to the regular agenda for discussion, unless placed otherwise by the Council.

2. Approval of minutes for the July 21, 2020 regular meeting. 3. Approval of the Mayor’s appointment of Barbara Lee and Nancy Caulkins to the Landmark

Preservation Commission and the re-appointment of Von Alleman to the Landmark Preservation Commission

4. Approval of the Utah County Recreation Grant application request – Corey Merideth, Recreation Director Staff Report

5. Approval of the Foxridge Plaza Condominiums Phase-I located at 644 South Main, Springville in the CC-Community Commercial Zone – Josh Yost, Community Development Director Staff Report

6. Approval of an Ordinance amending Springville City Code Title 2, Chapter 2, Sec 101-119 qualifications and duties of officers - Kim Crane, City Recorder Staff Report

7. Approval of a Resolution to exchange property with the owner of property located 2541 east 1100 south, Springville, Utah – John Penrod, Assistant City Administrator/City Attorney Staff Report

PUBLIC HEARING

8. Public Hearing for consideration of an Ordinance and adoption of the Springville Sewer Master Plans to include the IFFP-Impact Fee Facilities Plan and IFA-Impact Fee Analysis – Brad Stapley, Public Works Director Staff Report CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 04, 2020

9. Public Hearing for consideration of an Ordinance and adoption of the Springville Power Master Plans to include the IFFP-Impact Fee Facilities Plan and IFA-Impact Fee Analysis – Leon Fredrickson, Power Director Staff Report CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 04, 2020

http://www.springville.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/SR_UT-County-Rec-Grant-Application_2020_08_18.pdf

http://www.springville.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/SR_Foxridge-Plaza-Phase-1_2020_08_18.pdf

http://www.springville.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/SR_Title-2_Ch2_Sec101-119-Amendment_2020_08_18.pdf

http://www.springville.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/SR_Property-Exchange-Knights_2020_08_18-1.pdf

http://www.springville.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/SR_Wastewater-Master-Plan_IFFP_IFA_2020_08_18.pdf

http://www.springville.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/SR_Power-Impact-Fee_IFFP_IFA_2020_08_18_size.pdf

CERTIFICATE OF POSTING - THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITH A MINIMUM OF 24-HOURS NOTICE– POSTED 08/14/2020 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City will make reasonable accommodations to ensure accessibility to this meeting. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Recorder at (801) 489-2700 at least three business days prior to the meeting.

Meetings of the Springville City Council may be conducted by electronic means pursuant to Utah Code Annotated Section 52-4-207. In such circumstances, contact will be established and maintained by telephone or other electronic means and the meeting will be conducted pursuant to Springville City Municipal Code 2-4-102(4) regarding electronic meetings. s/s - Kim Crane, CMC, City Recorder

Page 2 of 2

MAYOR, COUNCIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS CLOSED SESSION, IF NEEDED – TO BE ANNOUNCED IN MOTION

10. The Springville City Council may temporarily recess the regular meeting and convene in a closed session to discuss the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual, pending or reasonably imminent litigation, and the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, as provided by UCA 52-4-205.

ADJOURNMENT

MINUTES Springville City Council Regular Meeting – JULY 21, 2020

Page 1 of 6

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SPRINGVILLE CITY COUNCIL HELD ON TUESDAY, JULY 21, 2020 AT 7:00 P.M. AT THE CIVIC CENTER, 110 SOUTH MAIN STREET, SPRINGVILLE, 2 UTAH. 4 Presiding and Conducting: Mayor Richard J. Child 6 Elected Officials in Attendance: Liz Crandall Craig Jensen 8 Patrick Monney Matt Packard 10 Mike Snelson 12 City Staff in Attendance: City Administrator Troy Fitzgerald, Assistant City Administrator/City Attorney John Penrod, Bruce Riddle, Assistant City Administrator/Finance Director, and City Recorder Kim Crane. 14 Sergeant Jeff Ellsworth, Building and Grounds Director Bradley Neel, Power Director Leon Fredrickson, Superintendent Shaun Barker, Community Development Director Josh Yost, Library Director Dan 16 Mickelson, Public Works Director Brad Stapley, Museum of Art Director Rita Wright 18 CALL TO ORDER

Mayor Child welcomed everyone and called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 20 INVOCATION AND PLEDGE

Councilmember Monney offered the invocation, and Councilmember Crandall led the Pledge of 22 Allegiance. 24 APPROVAL OF THE MEETING’S AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER JENSEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MEETINGS AGENDA AS WRITTEN. 26 COUNCILMEMBER CRANDALL SECONDED THE MOTION, AND ALL PRESENT VOTED AYE. 28 MAYORS COMMENTS

Mayor Child welcomed the Council, staff, and those in attendance. He asked if there were any 30 youth in attendance on assignment. There were none.

32 PUBLIC COMMENT

Mayor Child introduced the Public Comment section of the agenda. He asked if there were any 34 written comments submitted.

Andy Hjorth, Springville resident; talked about a fatality at the intersection of 400 East and 36 Highway 89, and 1600 North in Mapleton. He stated the intersection was very dangerous, he lives in the area and people drive very fast. He would like to see some changes and has spoken with the Utah 38 Department of Transportation (UDOT) and Springville and Mapleton personnel. He understands it will take time, he wanted the council to be aware of the concern. 40 42 44

Springville City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – July 21, 2020 Page 2 of 6 DRAFT

CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of minutes for the June 09, 2020, Work-Study meeting and July 07, 2020, Work-Study 46

and Regular meetings 2. Approval of a Resolution and agreement with Axon for the Body-Worn Camera’s Capital 48

Improvement Project – Craig Martinez, Public Safety Director 3. Approval of Surplus Property – John Penrod, Assistant City Administrator/City Attorney 50

COUNCILMEMBER SNELSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS WRITTEN AND TO ADOPT RESOLUTION #2020-23 52

COUNCILMEMBER MONNEY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE IS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS: 54

COUNCILMEMBER CRANDALL AYE COUNCILMEMBER JENSEN AYE 56 COUNCILMEMBER MONNEY AYE COUNCILMEMBER PACKARD AYE 58 COUNCILMEMBER SNELSON AYE

RESOLUTION #2020-23 APPROVED 60

Councilmember Packard noted on the June 9, 2020 council work minutes a correction was needed 62 on line number 175 regarding a hanging sentence. 64 REGULAR AGENDA

4. Consideration of an Ordinance and amendment of Springville City Code Title 11, Chapter 4, 66 Article 3, Section 1, Land Use Matrix, and adoption of Title 11, Chapter 4, Article 7 – Main Street South Gateway Zone – Josh Yost, Community Development Director 68 ITEM CONTINUED, NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN 70

5. Consideration of an Ordinance and amendment of the zoning map for parcels 06:005:0001, 06:005:0002, 06:005:0003, 06:005:0004, 06:005:0006, 06:005:0007, and 06:005:0008, 72 constituting Block 5, Plat A, Springville City Survey, and bounded by Main Street, 100 West, 300 South, and 400 South; from the Community Commercial (CC) Zone to the Main Street South 74 Gateway (MSSG) Zone - Josh Yost, Community Development Director ITEM CONTINUED, NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN 76

6. Consideration of a Resolution and Budget Amendment to the FY 2020/2021 Springville City 78 Budget – Bruce Riddle, Assistant City Administrator/Finance Director Director Riddle reported May sales tax numbers came in up 8% from last year. Despite COVID, 80

online sales tax has contributed to the increase. Unexpected revenues and expenses have emerged since the beginning of the budget year. In 82

order to proceed with addressing the variations from the original budget, The Council would need to act through amending the budget. 84

The City entered into a development agreement with Foxridge Condominiums in August 2019. The agreement included a provision for the City to pay for widening the 100 West and 600 South streets 86 within the Project area from 59 feet to 63 feet to handle additional traffic flow. The oversizing was contemplated to be funded with street impact fees. 88

COUNCILMEMBER SNELSON MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION #2020-24 AMENDING 90 THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND BUDGET FOR CAPITAL EXPENSES APPLYING TO THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2021 AS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT A 92


COUNCILMEMBER JENSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE IS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS: 94

COUNCILMEMBER CRANDALL AYE COUNCILMEMBER JENSEN AYE 96 COUNCILMEMBER MONNEY AYE COUNCILMEMBER PACKARD AYE 98 COUNCILMEMBER SNELSON AYE

RESOLUTION #2020-24 APPROVED 100 PUBLIC HEARING 102

7. Public Hearing for consideration of approval of an Ordinance and adoption of the Springville Culinary Water Master Plans to include the IFFP-Impact Fee Facilities Plan and IFA-Impact Fee 104 Analysis – Brad Stapley, Public Works Director Director Stapley reported item #7 and #8 would be discussed together and introduced by Steve 106

Jones with Hansen, Allan, Luce. Steve explained the Culinary Water Impact Fee Analysis report establishes an impact fee based 108

on the Impact Fee Facilities Plan. The Impact Fee Facilities Plan uses the data and information in the Drinking Water Master Plans. 110

The impact fee was based on costs due to future growth within the IFFP boundary. The impact fee was intended to protect existing customers from the cost burden and impact of expanding a system 112 due to growth. Of the City residents using irrigation half still use culinary water for irrigation.

It was recommended to construct another three-million-gallon tank, drill an additional well, 114 complete fire flow pipeline projects, and fund a regular pipeline replacement program within the next 10 years. 116

Some areas on the east side of the city would have a bigger impact on culinary water, because of no access to pressurized irrigation. 118

Director Stapley reported the impact fee for outdoor culinary use would be charged the same as pressurized irrigation, larger connections would be calculated. 120

Mayor Child opened the public hearing. 122 Deann Huish, Utah Valley Homebuilders Association; asked for clarification on the amount of the 124

impact fees. Administrator Fitzgerald explained the proposed fees. Mayor Child explained when the pressurized irrigation was installed it was intended to be cheaper 126

and they received all the water they wanted. The entire city was paying the same fee and by installing a pressurized irrigation system it saved the city from drilling another water well, which saves dollars on the 128 westside of the city for culinary and the same for the east side.

Administrator Fitzgerald clarified the culinary fee was $1301.00 and if in the pressurized irrigation 130 area, it would be an additional $902.00 The current study for the maximum allowable impact fee has culinary users on the East side where pressurized irrigation is not available at a $3900.00 fee an almost 132 tripling of the rate. The reason for this was there are very few buildable lots on the east side. The west side with culinary and secondary water available was listed as $1106.00 and $1502.00 for a total of 134 $2608.00. The staff recommendation was to have the entire city at $2608.00 up from $2,203.00.

Mayor Child inquired some years ago when building his home, he was required to install a 136 pressurized irrigation pipe that would most likely not be used. Administrator Fitzgerald affirmed it was no longer required and was part of an older master plan. 138

Deann expressed to have the IFFP and IFA charged when it happens because it was solely for new impact. Sometimes future projections can be more than $50 and that impacts someone when they 140


are putting in eight or more houses a month it adds up. She said this was up for discussion at the State level. 142

Karen Ifediba, Springville resident; she began coming to meetings in 1999, and is a general contractor. Springville City had no impact fees at the time. Southern Utah cities and western cities she 144 was required to pay impact fees in the 1980s. Springville had no impact fees when she started coming to meetings, and there were problems with power back in the ’90s, the citizens paid for all of the construction 146 and impact, not those coming into the city. She was very happy as time has gone by the city council and staff decided it was important that those moving into the city should buy into the city. She appreciated the 148 council looking into impact fees. If people move into the city they should pay to move in.

150 COUNCILMEMBER SNELSON MOTIONED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

COUNCILMEMBER MONNEY SECONDED, AND ALL PRESENT VOTED AYE. 152 Discussion ensued with the council for language changes in the ordinance. Councilmember 154

Jensen, Snelson, and Packard agreed with the standardization of impact fees. The planning fee and expenses were included within the impact fee and the council voiced concern about the dollar amount. 156 Councilmember Jensen proposed the planning fee be cut in half.

Administrator Fitzgerald asked if the council wanted the east side to pay no more than the 158 combined culinary and pressurized irrigation fees from the westside and the planning number would be changed. 160

COUNCILMEMBER SNELSON MOVED TO APPROVE ORDINANCE #14-2020 ADOPTING 162 THE SPRINGVILLE CITY CULINARY WATER MASTER PLAN AND IMPACT FEE FACILITIES PLAN; ADOPTING THE CULINARY WATER IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS, AND ENACTING CULINARY WATER 164 IMPACT FEES.

COUNCILMEMBER JENSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE IS RECORDED AS 166 FOLLOWS:

COUNCILMEMBER CRANDALL AYE 168 COUNCILMEMBER JENSEN AYE COUNCILMEMBER MONNEY AYE 170 COUNCILMEMBER PACKARD AYE COUNCILMEMBER SNELSON AYE 172

ORDINANCE #14-2020 APPROVED 174

8. Public Hearing for consideration of approval of an Ordinance and adoption of the Springville Pressurized Irrigation Master Plans to include the IFFP-Impact Fee Facilities Plan and IFA-Impact 176 Fee Analysis – Brad Stapley, Public Works Director Steven Jones, with Hansen, Allan and Luce explained the Secondary Water Impact Fee Analysis 178

report establishing an impact fee based on the Impact Fee Facilities Plan. The Impact Fee Facilities Plan used the data and information in the Pressurized Irrigation Master Plans. 180

The impact fee was based on costs due to future growth within the IFFP boundary. The impact fee was intended to protect existing customers from the cost burden and impact of expanding a system 182 due to growth.

The ULS pipeline will be an obligation in the future for the City to purchase 4945-acre feet of water, 184 the city sold back some of that capacity to pay for the pressurized irrigation system and that portion was not calculated in the future growth. The city will need to account for the obligation in six to ten years. 186

Administrator Fitzgerald noted Public Works has this on their to-do-list in the next eighteen months to check into the possibilities of leasing the water to help pay for the pipeline. 188


Mayor Child opened the public hearing. 190 Karen Ifediba, resident; stated she was very happy there were qualified employees to review the impact fees and the city charges impact fees to cover the cost. 192

COUNCILMEMBER SNELSON MOTIONED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 194 COUNCILMEMBER JENSEN SECONDED, AND ALL PRESENT VOTED AYE.

196 Administrator Fitzgerald explained the changes made to the impact fee ordinances. For those that

do not have pressurized irrigation will pay an indoor water fee and outdoor water fee. After discussion, 198 the planning portion was reduced by 2/3 to handle the impact fee moving forward.

The Council exercised its authority to make changes and not charge the maximum recommended 200 fee.

202 Administrator Fitzgerald explained the planning impact fee was reduced for culinary indoor use to

$1068.00 and $1,502.00 for outdoor use for a total of $2,570.00. The secondary water impact fee was 204 reduced for planning approximately $30.00 for a total of $1472.00 and will only apply to the Westfield’s area. The impact fee for the east side would be $2570.00 After discussion the council reviewed the 206 changes to be culinary indoor use of $1068 and outdoor use of $1443.00 for a total of $2511.00 and secondary water use of $1443.00. 208

Steve Jones asked if the fee implementation would be immediate or wait for the 90-days. Administrator Fitzgerald stated staff will be reviewing the time frame. 210

COUNCILMEMBER PACKARD MOVED TO APPROVE ORDINANCE #15-2020 ADOPTING 212 THE SPRINGVILLE CITY PRESSURIZED IRRIGATION WATER MASTER PLAN AND IMPACT FEE FACILITIES PLAN; ADOPTING THE PRESSURIZED IRRIGATION WATER IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS, 214 AND ENACTING PRESSURIZED IRRIGATION WATER IMPACT FEES.

COUNCILMEMBER MONNEY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE IS RECORDED AS 216 FOLLOWS:

COUNCILMEMBER CRANDALL AYE 218 COUNCILMEMBER JENSEN AYE COUNCILMEMBER MONNEY AYE 220 COUNCILMEMBER PACKARD AYE COUNCILMEMBER SNELSON AYE 222

ORDINANCE #15-2020 APPROVED 224 MAYOR, COUNCIL, AND ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS

Mayor Child asked if there were any comments. There were none. 226

CLOSED SESSION 228 9. The Springville City Council may temporarily recess the regular meeting and convene in a closed

session to discuss the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an 230 individual, pending or reasonably imminent litigation, and the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, as provided by UCA 52-4-205. 232

There was none. 234 236


ADJOURNMENT 238

COUNCILMEMBER JENSEN MOVED TO CLOSE THE REGULAR MEETING at 8:53 P.M. COUNCILMEMBER SNELSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL VOTED AYE. 240

242 This document constitutes the official minutes for the Springville City Council Regular Meeting held on Tuesday, July 21, 2020 I, Kim Crane, do hereby certify that I am the duly appointed, qualified, and acting City Recorder for Springville City, of Utah County, 244

State of Utah. I do hereby certify that the foregoing minutes represent a true and accurate, and complete record of this meeting held on Tuesday, July 21, 2020. 246 248

DATE APPROVED: Kim Crane, CMC 250 City Recorder

252

S T A F F R E P O R T

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA sr_ut county rec grant application_2020_08_18

DATE: August 18, 2020 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Corey Merideth, Recreation Director SUBJECT: ACCEPT AND APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE USE OF THE

2020 UTAH COUNTY RECREATION GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $16,199.35 AUTHORIZING STAFF TO SUBMIT THE APPLICATION AS PRESENTED.

RECOMMENDED ACTION Motion to approve use of County Rec Grant funds and give authority to Mayor Child to sign the 2020 County Rec Grant application in the amount of $16,199.35. GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES AT ISSUE General Plan Goal - . . . to provide a wide range of opportunities and healthy experiences. Objective 6 – To provide recreation that creates lasting memories, provides diverse opportunities, builds unity, and provides safe and fun experiences for all age abilities and interest. BACKGROUND Utah County is accepting grant applications from municipalities for recreation. In 2019 Springville City was successful in making improvements for a variety of projects including; completed stairway railing and bull rated fencing at Rodeo Arena, window shades at Clyde Rec Center, and backstop renovation/new fencing at Memorial Park. 2020 grant allocations are;

1. $5,200 to purchase 2 shaded benches and install at Clyde Rec Center. 2. $2,200 to purchase 4 aqua fitness boards for classes at CRC. 3. $2,700 to upgrade to LED lighting in Cherry Creek North gym. 4. $6,000 to purchase 2 new volleyball standards/nets/equipment at Cherry Creek South

gym. FISCAL IMPACT The total cost of these projects will not exceed the allotted $16,199.35, in County Recreation Grant Funds. ATTACHMENTS

1. 2020 Utah County Recreation Grant Application

2020 Municipal Recreation Grant Project Description

Project Name: County Grant Projects

(2 Shaded outside benches at CRC, 4 new Aqua Fitness Boards at CRC, LED lighting upgrade in North basketball gym, 2 new volleyball standards/equipment in South gym)

Project Location: Clyde Recreation Center and Cherry Creek Elementary Project Type: Recreation Facilities Grant Amount: $16,199.35 Background/Description: Springville City opened the Clyde Recreation Center in May of 2018, we became aware of things that were missed in construction. During the Summer months, we have a lot of swimmers/kids waiting outside for their rides to come. They need a place to sit, out of the hot sun beating down on them. We will be installing 2 benches with shades along the main entrance sidewalk.

One of our most popular deep-water classes at the CRC is the aerobics board and yoga. The boards we originally purchased when we opened and are falling apart, we need to replace them this year.

At Cherry Creek Elementary, Springville Recreation uses both the North (Old) gymnasium and the South gym for Rec programs. The North gym, BYU played there many years ago and the lighting of the facility shows. We will be upgrading the lights in the gym with highly efficient LED lights. In the South gym, we will be replacing the 20-year-old volleyball stands, they have served the community well, but we are in desperate need of replacing the whole system.

Budget Breakdown

Shaded benches at CRC (2) $5,200 Aqua Fitness Boards for classes at CRC (4) $2,200 LED lighting for basketball gym at Cherry Creek $2,700 New volleyball standard/nets/equipment at Cherry Creek (2) $6,000

TOTAL $16,100

Applicant: Corey Merideth Request: County Recreation

Grant Date of Meeting: July 28, 2020

Parks and Recreation Board

Distribution of Utah County Municipal Recreation Grant.

Motion by Polly Dunn Second by: Katie Sosa

RECOMMENDATION X APPROVE DISAPPROVE OTHER:

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The funds will be allocated in the following manner: Shaded bench at CRC (2) $5,200 Aqua Fitness Boards (4) $2,200 Light upgrade to LED at Cherry Creek North gym $2,700 Volleyball standards and nets at Cherry Creek South gym (2) $6,000 TOTAL $16,100 Voting Record: Member Name APPROVE DENY ABSTAIN Jeremy Barker

X

Deborah Hall

Lynn Bartholomew

Katie Sosa

X

Julie Kappas

X

Grant Sumsion

Polly Dunn

X

Jeremy Barker July 28, 2020 Chair Date

Letter of Recommendation to City Council Springville City Board Name: Parks and Recreation Board

2020 Municipal Recreation Grant Application

Application deadline is September 7, 2020 @ 5:00PM.

Municipality: _Springville City_____________________________________________________

Name of Preparer/Contact Person: __Corey Merideth______________________________________

Mailing Address: _110 South Main Springville, UT _____________________________________

Phone: __(801)491-7878______ E-mail: [email protected]____________

Grant Amount Requested 2020: $ ___16,199________________________________

2019: $ ________________________________ (if eligible)

TOTAL: $ ____16,199______________________________

Project Name: __(2) Shaded benches &(4) Aqua Fitness Boards, (2)Volleyball Standard/nets/equipment & LED Lighting upgrade in gym____________

Project Location: __Clyde Recreation Center and Cherry Creek Elementary gymnasiums_______

Project Type: (Please check all that apply.) ❒ Tourism Promotion ❒ Tourism Facility ❒ Cultural Facility X Recreational Facility ❒ Convention Facility

***Please submit a detailed project description with application*** Date Approved by Municipal Council: ________ ____________________________________________ ________________________________ Mayor or Administrator Signature Date

FOR COMMISSION OFFICE USE ONLY

Application Received by Commission

Office

County Attorney Review

Commission Approval/

Agreement #

Agreement Sent to

Municipality

Signed Agreement Received by Commission

Office

Receipts Received by Commission

Office

PO Sent to County Auditor

Funds Paid


CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Meeting Date: August 18, 2020

S T A F F R E P O R T DATE: August 10, 2020 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Laura Thompson, City Planner II SUBJECT: Approval of the Foxridge Plaza Condominiums-Phase 1 located at 644 S Main in

the CC-Community Commercial Zone. RECOMMENDED MOTION Motion to approve for the Foxridge Plaza Condominiums-Phase 1 located at 644 S Main in the CC-Community Commercial Zone. SUMMARY OF ISSUES/FOCUS OF ACTION Does the proposed condominium project meet the requirements of Springville City Code and the intent of the General Plan? BACKGROUND The Foxridge Business Park site plan was approved on January 28, 2020. The site plan includes commercial uses on the first floor, with eight residential units on the upper second floor. The proposed condominium plat will allow for individual ownership of the units. No alterations are being made to the approved site plan. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW The Planning Commission recommended approval of the condominium project as part of the consent agenda on July 28, 2020. Laura Thompson City Planner II Attachments cc: Cory Anderson

Foxridge Condominiums

S 89°00'47" W30.06'

C3

N 0

0°00

'00"

E

98

.03'

C1

N 89°28'14" E 73.22'

N 0

1°00

'53"

W

61

.19'

S 89°05'04" W52.46'

N 1

4°37

'05"

E

11

3.44

'

S 03

°53'

14" W

35.5

3'

C2

Ref

er to

She

et 2

of 2

for b

uild

ing

deta

ils

Ref

er to

She

et 2

of 2

for b

uild

ing

deta

ils

644

Sout

h M

ain

Curve Data Table

SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEET(S)

Condominiums

Reservation of Common Areas

Utility Dedication

Owner's Certificate and Dedication

Boundary Description

Surveyor's Certificate

Acceptance by the City of SpringvilleSpringville City, Utah County, Utah

Scale: 1" = 20 Feet

Occupancy Restriction Notice

Conditions of Approval

Phase 1

Planning Commission Approval

Acknowledgment

Prepared by:

Dudley and Associates, Inc.353 East 1200 SouthOrem, Utah 84058office 801-224-1252fax 801-224-1264

Vicinity Map

Site

Springville Power

Foxridge Plaza

600 South Street

Mai

n St

reet

Including a vacation of Lot 2, Plat "B" FoxridgePlaza Subdivision

Private Area

Limited Common Area

Common Area

ADDRESS BLOCK

Building is Addressed as 644 South Main St.

Commercial Units:Suites A-D

Residential Units:Unit 201-208

Units A-1 - D-1 are basement units with noaddresses assigned.

BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN

2nd LEVEL FLOOR PLAN

MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN

Suite A-11,732 SF

Suite B-11,732 SF

Suite C-11,732 SF

Suite D-11,732 SF

Suite A1,732 SF

Suite B1,732 SF

Suite C1,732 SF

Suite D1,732 SF

Unit 201869 SF

Unit 202863 SF

Unit 204863 SF

Unit 203869 SF

Unit 205863 SF

Unit 207863 SF

Unit 206869 SF

Unit 208869 SFSouth ElevationNorth Elevation

West Side Elevation

East Side Elevation

Suite A-1

Suite A

Unit 201Unit 202Unit 203Unit 204Unit 205Unit 206Unit 207Unit 208

Suite BSuite CSuite D

Suite B-1Suite C-1Suite D-1

Units 201-208 Units 201-208

Suites A-D

Suites A-1 - D-1

Suites A-D

Suites A-1 - D-1

Suite A-1

Suite A

Unit 201 Unit 202 Unit 203 Unit 204

Suite B

Suite B-1

Unit 206Unit 205

Suite C

Suite C-1

Unit 208Unit 207

Suite D

Suite D-1

Prepared by:

Dudley and Associates, Inc.353 East 1200 SouthOrem, Utah 84058office 801-224-1252fax 801-224-1264

SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEET(S)Phase 1, Foxridge Plaza CondominiumsPrivate Area

Limited Common Area

Common Area


CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Meeting Date: August 18, 2020

DATE: August 18, 2020 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Kim Crane, City Recorder SUBJECT: TITLE 2, CHAPTER 2, SECTION 2-2-101 TO 2-2-119 AMENDMENT RECOMMENDED MOTION Motion to approve Ordinance #XX-2020 amending Title 2, Chapter 2, Section 2-2-101 To 2-2-119 of the Springville City Municipal Code General Qualifications and Duties of Officers. SUMMARY OF ISSUES/FOCUS OF ACTION Update of the Springville City Municipal Code for grammatical errors and to bring it into compliance with the State Code as it relates to certain provisions for the general qualifications and duties of officers. Because State code is changing frequently and in order to maintain and provide an efficient and up to date Springville city code some areas have been referenced or linked to the State code. The following sections were updated for grammatical and punctuation corrections along with references to Utah code. No fundamental changes were made. Section: 2-2-101 Eligibility for Office Section: 2-2-102 Ter of Office for Mayor and Councilmember Section: 2-2-105 Removal from City Section: 2-2-109 Bonds Section: 2-2-110 Salaries Section: 2-2-111 Inspection of Records Section: 2-2-112 Approval of Expenditures Section: 2-2-113 Budget Limits Section: 2-2-117 Unfair Employment Practices Prohibited Section: 2-2-118 Occupational Safety and Health Act Section: 2-2-119 Additional Powers and Duties

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Meeting Date: August 18, 2018 Page 2

The following sections were updated to include more context and significant Utah code changes. Section: 2-2-103 Appointed Officers and Section: 2-2-104 Term of Appointed Officers These two sections were updated to reflect (Utah code 10-3-916). State code required City Recorders and Treasurers in a city of the third class to be appointed by the Mayor in February following a municipal election. In 2017 the legislature changed the State code to state “the Mayor with advice and consent of the City Council shall appoint a qualified person to the office of City Recorder and to the office of City Treasurer” and to include “all appointed officers shall continue in office until their successors are appointed and qualified”. Section: 2-2-106 Delivery of Records. This section was updated to provide clarification and grammatical conformity. It provides more detail on what is required of an individual when leaving office or employment. Section: 2-2-107 Vacancies. Language was removed to reflect the most up to date standards and requirements by law of midterm vacancies in municipal offices and a reference to (Utah code 20A-1-510) was added. State code repealed (Utah code 10-3-303). This section was amended to reflect the current State code and references to (Utah code 10-3-301 and 10-3-916). Section: 2-2-108 Oath of Office. Language was added to include what is required when administering an oath of office and that all oaths shall be filed with the City Recorder. The amendment also adds more clarification per State code and grammatical changes. Section: 2-2-114 Emergencies. In light of (Utah code 10-10-53) being repealed this section was repealed to reference city code Section 2-10-111 in order to provide more information regarding emergency purchases in case of an actual emergency. Section: 2-2-115 Ethics Act. This section was removed as it does not apply to elected officials. Elected and appointed officials of the City are required to comply with the Municipal Officers' and Employees' Ethics Act (Utah Code 10-3-1301)

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Meeting Date: August 18, 2018 Page 3

Section: 2-2-116 Employment of Family Members Prohibited. Reference to (Utah code 52-3) was added to better define prohibiting employment of relatives and household members. FISCAL IMPACT None

ORDINANCE #XX-2020 Page 1 of 5

ORDINANCE #XX-2020

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 2, CHAPTER 2, SECTION 2-2-101 TO 2-2-119 OF THE SPRINGVILLE CITY MUNICIPAL CODE GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS AND DUTIES OF OFFICERS

WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to bring the Springville Municipal Code into compliance with the State Code as it relates to certain provisions for the General Qualifications and Duties of Officers; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF SPRINGVILLE, UTAH AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.

CHAPTER 2

GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS AND DUTIES OF OFFICERS

Sections: 2-2-101 Eligibility for Office. 2-2-102 Term of Office for Mayor and Councilmen Councilmember. 2-2-103 Appointive Appointed Officers. 2-2-104 Term of Appointive Appointed Officers. 2-2-105 Removal from City. 2-2-106 Delivery of Records. 2-2-107 Vacancies. 2-2-108 Oath of Office. 2-2-109 Bonds. 2-2-110 Salaries. 2-2-111 Inspection of Records. 2-2-112 Approval of Expenditures. 2-2-113 Budget Limits. 2-2-114 Emergencies. 2-2-115 Ethics Act.REPEALED 2-2-116 Employment of Family Members Prohibited. 2-2-117 Unfair Employment Practices Prohibited. 2-2-118 Occupational Safety and Health Act. 2-2-119 Additional Powers and Duties.

2-2-101 Eligibility for Office. Any person elected to a City office must be a registered voter of the City. Except as provided by Section 2-2-105(2), any person appointed to any office enumerated in Section 2-2-103 below shall be a resident of the City.

(Statutory Authority UCA 10-3-301 (2), 10-3-816 REPEALED, 10-3-916 (2); 1968 Code 1-8-1; amended in codification 1979; 1979 Code 2-2-1; amended by Ordinance No. 17-90)

2-2-102 Term of Office for Mayor and Councilmen Councilmember. The Mayor and Councilmen Councilmembers shall enter upon their duties at 12:00 o’clock noon on the first Monday in January next succeeding their election. The Mayor and each Councilman Councilmember shall continue in office for a term of four (4) years, and in each case, until a successor is duly elected and qualified, unless otherwise provided by law.


(Statutory Authority UCA 10-3-916 (1) 10-3-205; 1968 Code 1-8-2; 1979 Code 2-2-2)

2-2-103 Appointive Officers.Appointed Officials The Mayor with advice and consent of the City Council shall appoint a qualified person to the office of City Recorder and a qualified person to the office of City Treasurer. On or before the first Monday in February following a municipal election, the Mayor, with the advice and consent of the City Council, shall appoint a qualified person to each of the offices of City Recorder and City Treasurer. The Mayor shall also appoint a City Marshall as provided by Section 3-2-101. The City Recorder shall be ex officio the City Auditor and shall perform the duties of such office. The Mayor with advice and consent of the City Council shall appoint a qualified person to the office of City Recorder and a qualified person to the office of City Treasurer.

The Mayor and City Council shall use best efforts to ensure the office of City Recorder or Office of City Treasurer is not vacant. The Mayor, with the advice and consent of the City Council, may also appoint and fill vacancies in all offices provided for by law or ordinance.

(Statutory Authority UCA 10-3-916 (1); 1968 Code 1-8-3; amended in codification 1979; 1979 Code 2-2-3; amended by Ord. No. 11-96)

2-2-104 Term of Appointive Appointed Officers. Except as otherwise may be provided by law, the term of office of the City Recorder and City Treasurer shall be until the election next following their appointment and until their respective successors are chosen and qualified, except that they may be sooner removed by the Mayor with the concurrence of a majority of the members of the City Council, or by the City Council with the concurrence of the Mayor.

All appointed officers shall continue in office until their successors are appointed and qualified. (UCA 10-3-916

(1968 Code 1-8-4; amended in codification 1979; 1979 Code 2-2-4; amended by Ord. No. 11-96) 2-2-105 Removal from City. (1) If any elected officer shall, at any time during his term of office, live outside the boundaries of the City for a continuous period of more than sixty (60) days or establish residence outside the City during his or her term of office, the office shall thereby become automatically vacant. (2) If any appointed officer listed in Section 2-2-103 shall, at any time during his term of office, live outside a reasonable distance from the City for a continuous period of more than sixty (60) days or establish residence outside of a reasonable distance from the City during his or her term of office, the office shall thereby become automatically vacant. Provided, however, the Mayor may, with the consent of the City Council, exempt any person appointed from the residence requirement. (Statutory Authority UCA 10-3-301 (3), 10-3-816,Repealed, 10-3-916 (2); added in codification 1979; 1979 Code 2-2-5; amended by Ordinance No. 17-90; amended in codification; amended by Ordinance 3-05) 2-2-106 Delivery of Records. Every officer and employee of the City, upon expiration of his term for any cause whatsoever, shall, within five (5) days after notification and request, deliver to his successor all books and records which may be the property of the City. Every officer, employee and elected official of the City shall, immediately upon leaving that particular office or position of employment, deliver to his or her successor in office all properties, books and effects of every description in his or her possession belonging to the City or appertaining to his or her office or employment. If no successor has been appointed, the properties, books, and effects shall be delivered to City Administration.

The individual leaving office or employment shall be liable to the City for all damages caused by his or her failure to deliver any property, book, or effect of the office or employment.


(Added in codification 1979; 1979 Code 2-2-6)

2-2-107 Vacancies. (1) Whenever any vacancy occurs in the office of Mayor or Councilman, the City Council shall by a majority vote appoint any registered voter in the City to fill the portion of the unexpired term of the office vacated provided by state law. If for any reason the City Council does not fill the vacancy within thirty (30) days after the vacancy occurs, the persons having the highest number of votes of the City Council shall come before the City Council, and if there is not a majority vote by the City Council, the vacancy shall be filled by lot in the presence of the City Council.

If any vacancy occurs in the municipal legislative body, the municipal legislative body shall appoint a registered voter in the municipality per Section 20A-1-510 of the Utah Code.

(2) If a vacancy shall occur in the office of City Recorder or City Treasurer, the Mayor, by and with the consent of the City Council, shall forthwith fill such vacancy by appointment for the unexpired term.

The Mayor, with the advice and consent of the City Council, may also appoint and fill vacancies in all offices provided for by law or ordinance.

(Statutory Authority UCA 10-3-303 Repealed; 10-3-301, 10-3-916 1968 Code 1-8-5; amended in codification 1979; 1979 Code 2-2-7; amended by Ordinance Nos. 9-86; amended by Ord. No. 11-96)

2-2-108 Oath of Office. (1) All officers of Springville, whether elected or appointed, shall, before they enter upon the duties of

their respective offices, take, subscribe and file the constitutional oath of office.

(1)(2) The oath of office required under this part shall be administered by any judge, notary public, or by the recorder of the municipality. Elected officials shall take their oath of office at 12 o’clock noon on the first Monday in January following their election or as soon thereafter as is practical. Appointed officers shall take their oath at any time before entering on their duties. All oaths of office shall be filed with the City Recorder.

(2)(3) No official act of any officer shall be invalid for the reason that he failed to take the oath of office.

(Statutory Authority UCA 10-3-827 and to10-3-829; 1968 Code 1-8-6; second paragraph added in codification 1979; 1979 Code 2-2-8)

2-2-109 Bonds. Every officer of Springville, whether elected or appointed, and the City Treasurer should, before entering upon the duties of his or her office, be bonded or covered by crime or theft insurance for the faithful performance of the officer’s or City Treasurer’s respective duties based on the payment of all money received by such officers according to law in an amount not less than an amount approved in accordance with and as established by State law or City resolution

(Statutory Authority UCA 10-3-819, 10-3-821 to 823; 10-3-831 1968 Code 1-8-7; amended in codification 1979; 1979 Code 2-2-9; Ord. No. 23-2018 § 1, 11/06/2018)

2-2-110 Salaries. (1) The elected, appointed and statutory officers of the City shall receive such compensation for their services as the City Council may fix by an ordinance adopting compensation or compensation schedules enacted after a public hearing, which hearing may be part of the budget hearing.

(2) The Council shall comply with Section 10-3-818, Utah Code Annotated 1953, in setting compensation for elected and statutory officers.

(Statutory Authority UCA 10-3-818; 1968 Code 1-8-8 as amended by Ordinance No. 9-79; minor changes in phraseology made in codification 1979; 1979 Code 2-2-10; amended by Ordinance No. 13-93; Ord. No. 07-2018 § 1, 06/05/2018)


2-2-111 Inspection of Records. All records, books, papers, and documents belonging to any office of the City shall be open at any time to inspection by the Mayor or any member of the City Council.

(1968 Code 1-8-9; 1979 Code 2-2-11)

2-2-112 Approval of Expenditures.

No purchase shall be made and no indebtedness incurred by any officer or employee of the City without

approval and order of the City Recorder or of some other person duly authorized and commissioned by

the City Council to act as a purchasing agent for the City.

(Statutory Authority UCA 10-10-44;Repealed1968 Code 1-8-10; 1979 Code 2-2-12)

2-2-113 Budget Limits.

No City officer shall make or incur expenditures or encumbrances in excess of total appropriations for any

department in the budget as adopted or as subsequently amended. Any obligation that is so contracted by

any such officer shall be and become the obligation of the officer himself and shall not be or become valid

or enforceable against the City.

(Statutory Authority UCA 10-10-45;Repealed1968 Code 1-8-11; 1979 Code 2-2-13)

2-2-114 Emergencies.REPEALED: Refer to City Code 2-10-111 In the event that the City Council determines that an emergency exists, such as widespread damage from fire, flood or earth-quake, or that the said emergency necessitates the expenditure of money in excess of the budget of the general fund, the City Council may make such expenditures and incur such deficits in said fund as may be reasonably necessary to meet said emergency. In the case of a wide-spread low-income housing shortage, however, such expenditure shall be limited to the amount of money in the emergency reserve provided for in Utah Code Annotated 1953, 10-10-38 REPEALED, or other applicable state law and for this purpose no deficit shall be incurred.

(Statutory Authority UCA 10-10-53 REPEALED; added in codification 1979; 1979 Code 2-2-14; amended in codification)

2-2-115 Ethics Act. REPEALED All officers and employees of the City shall adhere to the standards of conduct as set forth in the Utah Public Officers and Employees Ethics Act, Title 67, Chapter 16, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended.

(Added in codification 1979; 1979 Code 2-2-15)

2-2-116 Employment of Family Members Prohibited. No person shall be employed by the City in violation of the provisions of Title 52, Chapter 3, Utah Code Annotated 1953., as amended, which prohibits the employment of relatives by any person holding any position, the compensation for which is paid by City funds.

(Added in codification 1979; 1979 Code 2-2-16)UCA 52-3

2-2-117 Unfair Employment Practices Prohibited. The City shall not engage in any discriminatory or unfair employment practice in violation of Title 34, Chapter 35, Title 34A, Chapter 5 Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended.


(Added in codification 1979; 1979 Code 2-2-17) UCA 34A-5

2-2-118 Occupational Safety and Health Act. The City and its employees shall be subject to the provisions of the Utah Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973, Title 35, Chapter 9 Title 34A, Chapter 6, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, but only to the extent that that act is, by the terms thereof, specifically applicable to the City.

(Added in codification 1979; 1979 Code 2-2-18) UCA 34A-6

2-2-119 Additional Powers and Duties. The duties, powers, and privileges of all officers in any way connected with the City not defined in this Code shall be defined from time to time by appropriate ordinance or resolution of the City Council.

(Statutory Authority UCA 10-3-701; 1968 Code 1-8-13; amended in codification 1979; 1979 Code 2-2-19)

SECTION 2. CONFLICTING ORDINANCES AND ADOPTION

1. CONFLICTING PROVISIONS All other ordinances that conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

2. PROVISIONS SEVERABLE This ordinance and the various sections, clauses, and paragraphs are hereby declared to be severable. If any part, sentence, clause, or phrase is adjudged to be unconstitutional or invalid it is hereby declared that the remainder of the ordinance shall not be affected thereby.

3. AMENDMENT TO BE ADDED TO CITY CODE The City Council hereby authorizes and directs that insert pages reflecting the provisions enacted hereby shall be made and placed in the City Code Title 2. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall become effective immediately

upon passage and posting.

PASSED, ADOPTED AND ORDERED POSTED by the City Council of Springville City, Utah this 18th day of August 2020.

___________________________________ Richard J. Child, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________________ Kim Crane, City Recorder


CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

DATE: August 13, 2020 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: John Penrod, City Attorney SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION TO EXCHANGE PROPERTY

WITH THE OWNER OF PROPERTY LOCATED 2541 EAST 1100 SOUTH, SPRINGVILLE, UTAH.

RECOMMENDED MOTION Motion to approve Resolution No. ______ that authorizes the Mayor and City staff to sign documents necessary to exchange property with the owner of property located at 2541 East 1100 South, Springville, Utah. BACKGROUND In or about 2007, the Rivers Subdivision, located immediately west of the Bartholomew Pond, was approved and constructed. As part of the subdivision, the developer deeded the City property for a trail along the northern portion of the subdivision. The trail runs behind a number of homes and has an access on the west end of the subdivision, as shown on the below map.

Access to City Trail Property

When the access to the City trail property was installed, the developer incorrectly installed the access on the lot located at 2541 East 1100 South. (Where the legal description for the access is located, there is a storm drain with no curb cut. In addition, there is a tree that has started to grow into the legal description for the access area.) The home owner of the property at 2541 East 1100 South approached the City a number of weeks ago to see if the City would be willing to exchange property. As part of the exchange, the City would receive the area where the access lane was actually installed and give up property behind the home. The exchange would be for the same area of property. Below shows how the property exchange would happen.

In addition to exchanging property, the property owner is willing to provide the City with an access easement across the property the City provides to the property owner should the City need to access any infrastructure behind the home. Currently, the City does not own any infrastructure behind the home. The infrastructure is the Springville Irrigation Company’s Ditch 1 and CUP’s Mapleton/Springville lateral. The proposed ordinance will allow City staff to determine the final property exchange and approve the Mayor signing the necessary documentation to finalize the exchange. FISCAL IMPACT None.

of 2

RESOLUTION #2020-XX

A RESOLUTION APPROVING (1) THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY WITH THE HOME OWNER OF LOT 2541 EAST 1100 SOUTH IN SPRINGVILLE AND (2) THE EXECUTION OF ALL DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY.

WHEREAS, Springville City owns property along the north boundary of the Rivers

Subdivision, which property is used for a recreation trail; and WHEREAS, on the west end of the recreation trail, the City owns property to access

the trail; and WHEREAS, the developer of the Rivers Subdivision installed the access to the

recreation trail outside of the City’s property and on private property located at 2541 East 1100, Springville, Utah (the “Lot”); and

WHEREAS, the owner of the Lot has requested that the City exchange an equal

amount of property with the owner that would provide the City with property at the location where the trail has been installed in exchange for property behind the Lot, as shown on Exhibit A; and

WHEREAS, the owner of the Lot is also willing to provide the City an easement

across the property the City provides to the owner that would allow the City to access any irrigation infrastructure behind the Lot; and

WHEREAS, on August 18, 2020, in a public meeting, the City Council heard

evidence and other information concerning the proposed property exchange described in this resolution and finds that the property exchange is in the best interest of Springville City and will serve the health, welfare, and public infrastructure needs of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF SPRINGVILLE CITY, UTAH:

SECTION 1. Approval. The City staff is authorized to work with the owner of the Lot to determine and finalize a property exchange as described in this resolution. The Mayor and any other required City staff is authorized to execute any documents necessary to finalize the property exchange.

SECTION 2. Effective Date. This resolution shall become effective immediately

upon passage.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 18th day of August 2020.

By ____________________________ ATTEST Richard J. Child, Mayor ________________________________ Kim Crane, Recorder

RESOLUTION #2020-XX Page 2 of 2

EXHIBIT A


WASTEWATER MASTER PLANS AND IFA August 18, 2020

DATE: August 3, 2020 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jake Nostrom, Wastewater Superintendent Public Works SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF THE WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER

PLAN, WASTEWATER COLLECTION IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE #XX-2020

RECOMMENDED MOTION Motion to

• Adopt the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan prepared by Hansen Allen & Luce Inc.

• Adopt the Wastewater Impact Fee Analysis report prepared by Hansen Allen & Luce Inc.

• Adopt Ordinance #XX-2020 which sets forth Impact Fees GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES AT ISSUE The City General Plan, Section 7, Community facilities & Services has a goal to.

Provide functionally effective community facilities and services to support a safe, healthy, and vibrant community life;”

Objective 4 of this goal is to: “Provide a process for planning and constructing capital improvements that meet the current and future needs of Springville City;”

Objective 7 of this goal is to:

A wastewater collection and treatment system that protects the health and safety of the City, is economical, and is designed to meet the needs of Springville City now and in the future.

City Council August 18, 2020 Page 2


SUMMARY OF ISSUES/FOCUS OF ACTION Springville City retained Hansen Allen & Luce (HAL) to update the City’s Wastewater collection system master plan, impact fee facility plan (IFFP) and impact fee analysis (IFA). HAL and Springville City staff have worked closely together and recently completed a draft final for Master Plan, IFFP, and IFA. The Master Plan was presented to City Council on July 14th, to the Planning Commission July 28th, and made available to the Utah County Home Builders Association and the general public. The master plan report addresses the existing and future wastewater collection needs for Springville City. The IFFP is also contained in this report. The adoption of the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan is also critical to establishing a legal defensible Wastewater Impact Fee. The impact fee adopted by the City Council determines how much funding will become available through development for wastewater projects as growth occurs. DISCUSSION The scope of the draft Wastewater Collection System Master Plan update includes the following:

• Review of existing master plans and information • Establish IFFP boundary areas. • Estimate Wastewater loading values for the existing system. • Evaluate the existing system’s ability to convey existing wastewater flows. • Prepare growth projections. • Predict growth areas. • Prepare future loading estimates based on growth. • Predict projects that will create the additional needed wastewater conveyance

capacity. • Evaluation of the existing wastewater facilities and identification of deficiencies in

this system • Prepare Capital Improvement plan including recommendations for immediate and

future improvements. • Prepare the wastewater IFFP with relevant projects within the established time

frame and within the IFFP boundary area The Wastewater Impact Fee Analysis report establishes an impact fee based on the Impact Fee Facilities Plan established in the Wastewater Master Plan. This impact fee specifically is based on costs allocable to growth within the IFFP boundary area. The impact fee is intended to protect existing customers from the cost burden and impact of expanding a system, in this case wastewater system that is already adequate for their own needs absence growth.



Once the capital costs solely due to the need for additional capacity to serve new users in the IFFP boundary area is determined, it is divided by the projected equivalent residential units (ERU’s) to arrive at the impact fee amount. MASTER PLAN ENGINEERING CRITERIA The draft Wastewater Collection System Master Plan uses the following engineering criteria as a basis for the plan:

• Utilize population projections from the Water Master Plan and current water usage records to determine sewer flows. The calculated wastewater average flows per ERU is 250 gallons per day.

• Full pipe flow is defined when the ratio of depth of flow (d) to the diameter of the pipe (D) is equal to 750/o (i.e. d/D = 75%). The remaining capacity of the pipe will be utilized to convey inflow into the system.

• Flow monitoring data is analyzed to provide a basis for flow characterization. • Inflows were estimated comparing WWTP inflow data to precipitation data.

ALTERNATIVES Staff recommends the Council carefully consider the methodology involved in completing the Wastewater Impact Fee Analysis. The maximum defensible impact fee amount presented in this report represents the highest amount that can be legally charged per equivalent residential connection (ERU) for new development. Other factors may influence the final amount of the Wastewater Impact Fee set by the City Council. These may include current or projected economic trends, long-term growth projections, or present trends of other area cities. The Council can set the actual Wastewater Impact Fee at any amount less than the maximum defensible amount. City Staff recommends the full impact fee of $1,677 per ERU be adopted. Establishing an impact fee amount less than $1,677 would leave a shortfall in anticipated funding to complete the needed capital improvement projects outlined in the Wastewater IFFP contained in the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. FISCAL IMPACT The draft Wastewater Collection System Master Plan estimates $12,350,000 in existing and future improvement costs for wastewater collection system projects projected out until build-out of the City. The draft Wastewater IFFP estimates that a development proportionate cost of $5,647,604 of existing cost and additional $2,179,284 will be required over the next ten years within the IFFP boundary area and therefore can be allocated to impact fees. Adding collection system and treatment buy-in (including debt-related



expenses), future treatment facilities, and professional expenses, a legally-defensible Impact Fee of up to $1,677 per ERU will fund the future growth in the IFFP area as can be seen in the following table from the IFA:

The table below show that Springville City is very competitive in the Utah county marketplace for wastewater impact fee’s


ORDINANCE #XX-2020

AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE SPRINGVILLE CITY WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN AND IMPACT FEE FACILITIES PLAN; ADOPTING THE WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS; AND ENACTING WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPACT FEES.

WHEREAS, Springville City has legal authority pursuant to Title 11, Chapter 36a of

the Utah Code known as the “Impact Fee Act” (hereinafter the “Act”) to impose development

impact fees as a condition of development approval, which impact fees are used to defray

capital infrastructure costs attributable to new development activity; and

WHEREAS, the City has historically assessed impact fees as a condition of

development approval in order to appropriately assign capital infrastructure costs to

development in an equitable and proportionate manner; and

WHEREAS, on October 26, 2018, pursuant to the Act, the City properly noticed its

intent to update its Wastewater Collection System Master Plan and to create a Wastewater

Collection System Impact Fee Facilities Plan (the “IFFP”) and to amend its Wastewater

Collection System Impact Fee based on an updated Wastewater Collection System Impact

Fee Analysis (the “IFA”); and

WHEREAS, the City has reviewed and evaluated the City’s wastewater collection

system service area for the wastewater collection system, this area is the current Springville

City municipal boundary and areas that are expected to be annexed into the city. The

Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, determined that it is in the City’s best interest to

establish the said service area for the purpose of imposing Wastewater Collection System

Impact Fees; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of Sections 11-36a-301 and 302 of the Act,

Hansen, Allen & Luce Engineers has prepared the “Springville City Wastewater Collection

System Master Plan,” which includes the Wastewater Collection System Impact Fee Facility

Plan (the “IFFP”), attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” which the Hansen, Allen & Luce Engineers

has properly certified pursuant to the requirements of Section 11-36a-306 of the Act; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of Sections 11-36a-303 and 304 of the Act,

Hansen, Allen & Luce Engineers, has prepared the “Springville City Wastewater Collection


System Impact Fee Analysis” (the “IFA”), which Hansen, Allen & Luce Engineers has

properly certified pursuant to the requirements of Section 11-36a-306 of the Act; and

WHEREAS, Hansen, Allen & Luce Engineers has also calculated for enactment

Wastewater Collection System Impact Fees as set forth in the IFA and pursuant to the

requirements of Sections 11-36a-305 of the Act; and

WHEREAS, on July 28, 2020, the Springville Planning Commission held a properly

noticed public hearing regarding the proposed and certified Springville Wastewater

Collection System Master Plan, the IFFP, the IFA, and this Impact Fee Enactment or

Ordinance and recommended approving the documents to the City Council; and

WHEREAS, on July 22, 2020, pursuant to Section 11-36a-502 of the Act, a full copy

of the Springville City Wastewater Collections System Master Plan, the IFFP, the IFA, and

this Impact Fee Enactment or Ordinance, along with an executive summary of the IFFP and

the IFA that was designed to be understood by a lay person, were made available to the

public at the Springville City Public Library, posted on the City’s Website, and the Public

Notice Website; and

WHEREAS, on July 23, 2020, the Provo Daily Herald published a notice of the date,

time, and place of the public hearing to consider the Springville City Wastewater Collection

System Master Plan, IFFP, the IFA, and this Impact Fee Enactment or Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, on August 18th, 2020, the Springville City Council held a public hearing

regarding the proposed and certified Springville Wastewater Collection System Master Plan,

the IFFP, the IFA, and this Impact Fee Enactment or Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, the Springville City Council does now desire to hereby approve and

adopt the Springville City Wastewater Collection System Analysis, the IFFP, and the IFA and

to formally enact Wastewater Collection System Fees pursuant thereto and pursuant to the

requirements of Sections 11-36a-401 through 11-36a-403 of the Act.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of Springville, Utah:

SECTION 1: Adoption.

The Springville City Wastewater Collection System Analysis, the IFFP, and the IFA are attached hereto and approved, adopted and incorporated as part of this Ordinance. The Wastewater Collection System


Impact Fees as set forth in the IFA are hereby approved, and adopted, and at the time the

fees become effective pursuant to this Ordinance, the fees will replace all previously adopted

wastewater collection system impact fees.

SECTION 2: Service Area.

The service area established in the IFFP and the IFA and for which Wastewater Collection

System Impact Fees are established and imposed is the current Springville municipal

boundary and areas that are expected to be annexed into the city. The Service Area is

established based upon sound planning and engineering principles for the City’s wastewater

system services.

SECTION 3: Level of Service.

The proposed level of service provided by the City’s wastewater system shall be 250 gallon

per day on indoor drinking water supply per ERU(Equivalent residential unit).

SECTION 4: Impact Fee Analysis and Impact Fee Calculations.

As found in the IFA, the Wastewater Collection System Impact Fee calculation is based on

the following:

1. Elements. In calculating the Wastewater Collection System Impact Fee, the City has

included those costs allowed, including debt service, if any, that are found under

Section 11-36a-305 of the Act.

2. Proportionate Share Analysis. Included within the IFA is a proportionate share

analysis as required by Section 11-36a-304 of the Act.

3. Formula. The Wastewater Collection System Impact Fee is based upon the Act’s

required proportionate share analysis in determining the total project costs to

maintain the City’s current Wastewater Collection System level of service for new

development activity that will occur during the next ten (10) years. The following

schedule of Wastewater Collection System Impact Fees specify the amount of impact

fee to be imposed for each type of development activity and for each type of system

improvement and/or the formula the City will use to calculate each impact fee. A

more detailed analysis is found in the attached IFA.


4. Non-standard Impact Fees. The City reserves the right under the Act to assess an

adjusted impact fee that more closely matches the true impact that the land use will

have upon the Pressurized Irrigation water system. This adjustment could result in a

different impact fee if evidence suggests a particular user will create a different impact

than what is standard for its category.

5. Impact Fee Adjustments.

a. The City Council is authorized to adjust the standard fee at the time the fee is

charged to:

i. respond to:

1. unusual circumstances in specific cases; or

2. a request of a prompt and individualized impact fee review for

the development activity of the state, a school district, or a

charter school and an offset or credit for a public facility for

which an impact fee has or will be collected, and

ii. ensure that the impact fees are imposed fairly.

b. The impact fee may be adjusted for a particular development based on

studies or data provided by a developer after review by the City’s Impact Fee

Administrator and approval by the City Council.

6. Credits and Reimbursements.


a. A developer, including a school district or a charter school, shall receive a

credit against or proportionate reimbursement of an impact fee from the City if

the developer:

i. dedicates land for a system improvement,

ii. builds and dedicates some or all of a system improvement, or

iii. dedicates a public facility that the City and the developer agree will

reduce the need for a system improvement.

b. The City shall require a credit against the impact fee for any dedication of land

for, improvement to, or new construction of, any system improvements

provided by the developer if the facilities:

i. are system improvements, or

ii. A. are dedicated to the public, and

B. offset the need for an identified system improvement.

SECTION 5: Assessment.

The Wastewater Collection System Impact Fee shall be charged for all new service

connections where no existing water service has been provided by the City or whenever a

customer desires to increase the size of an existing water service. In the latter instance, the

impact fee shall be based on the difference in service capacity between the new and existing

service. The impact fee shall be charged throughout the Service Area for all classes of

service.

SECTION 6: Expenditure of Impact Fees.

The City may extend impact fees only for a system improvement identified in the IFFP and

for the specific public facility type for which the fee was collected. Impact fees will be

expended on a first-in-first-out basis. Impact fees collected pursuant to this Ordinance shall

be expended or encumbered for a permissible use within six (6) years of their receipt. The

City may hold the fees for longer than six (6) years if it identifies, in writing, an extraordinary

and compelling reason why the fees should be held longer than six (6) years and an

absolute date by which the fees will be expended.

SECTION 7: Refunds.


The City shall refund any impact fee paid by a developer, plus interest earned, when:

1. the developer does not proceed with the development activity and has filed a

written request for a refund;

2. the fee has not be spent or encumbered; and

3. no impact has resulted.

An impact that would preclude a developer from a refund from the City may include any

impact reasonably identified by the City, including but not limited to, the City having sized

facilities and/or paid for, installed and/or caused the installation of facilities based, in whole or

in part, upon the developer’s planned development activity even though that capacity may, at

some future time, be utilized by another development.

SECTION 8: Impact Fee Challenges.

A person or entity that has standing to challenge an impact fee may appeal the impact fee

pursuant to Title 14, Chapter 5 of the Springville City Code. The procedures and time

limitations for challenging an impact fee, including procedures for mediation and/or

arbitration, shall be as set forth in Sections 11-36a-702 through 705 of the Act. The

applicable remedies for an impact fee challenge shall be limited to those set forth in Section

11-36a-701 of the Act.

SECTION 9: Accounting of Impact Fees.

The City shall follow all of the accounting and reporting requirements found in Section 11-

36a-601 of the Act.

SECTION 10: Severability.

If any portion or provision of this Ordinance shall be declared invalid for any reason, such

decision shall not affect the remaining portions of this Ordinance that shall remain in full force

and effect. For this purpose, the provisions of this Enactment are declared to be severable.

SECTION 11: Effective Date.

This Ordinance will become effective 90 days after its approval.


SECTION 12: Publication.

The City Recorder shall cause this ordinance or a short summary hereof to be published in

the Daily Herald, a newspaper published and of general circulation in the City.

ADOPTED by the City Council of Springville, Utah, this _____ day of ________ 2020.

SPRINGVILLE CITY

______________________________ Richard J. Child, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Kim Crane, City Recorder

WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPACT FEE FACILITY PLAN AND IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS

(HAL Project No.: 260.50.100)

DRAFT

January 2020

CITY OF SPRINGVILLE

WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE FACILITY PLAN AND IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS

(HAL Project No.:260.50.100)

Steven C. Jones, P.E.

Project Engineer

January 2020

DRAFT

IMPACT FEE CERTIFICATION The Utah Impact Fee Act requires certifications for the Impact Fee Facilities Plan (IFFP) and the Impact Fee Analysis (IFA). Hansen, Allen & Luce provides these certifications with the understanding that the recommendations in the IFFP and IFA are followed by City Staff and elected officials. If all or a portion of the IFFP or IFA are modified or amended, or if assumptions presented in this analysis change substantially, this certification is no longer valid. All information provided to Hansen, Allen & Luce, Inc. is assumed to be correct, complete, and accurate. IFFP Certification Hansen, Allen & Luce, Inc. certifies that the Impact Fee Facilities Plan (IFFP) prepared for the sewer system:

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. HANSEN, ALLEN & LUCE, INC. IFA Certification Hansen, Allen & Luce, Inc. certifies that the Impact Fee Analysis (IFA) prepared for the sewer system:

1. includes only the costs of public facilities that are: a. allowed under the Impact Fees Act; and b. actually incurred; or c. projected to be incurred or encumbered within six years after the day on

which each impact fee is paid; 2. does not include:

a. costs of operation and maintenance of public facilities; b. costs for qualifying public facilities that will raise the level of service for the

facilities, through impact fees, above the level of service that is supported by existing residents;

c. an expense for overhead, unless the expense is calculated pursuant to a methodology that is consistent with generally accepted cost accounting practices and the methodological standards set forth by the federal Office of Management and Budget for federal grant reimbursement;

d. offsets costs with grants or other alternate sources of payment; and 3. complies in each and every relevant respect with the Impact Fees Act.

HANSEN, ALLEN & LUCE, INC.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No IMPACT FEE SUMMARY…………………..………………………….....…………………….………ii CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Purpose ............................................................................................................................1-1 1.3 Impact Fee Collection .......................................................................................................1-1 1.4 Incorporation by Reference of the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan ................1-1 CHAPTER 2 – EXISTING WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM 2.1 General ............................................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Existing Equivalent Residential Units ................................................................................2-1 2.3 Level of Service ................................................................................................................2-1 2.4 Methodology Used to Determine Existing System Capacity .............................................2-2 2.5 Collections........................................................................................................................2-2 2.6 Treatment .........................................................................................................................2-3 2.7 Collection System.............................................................................................................2-3 2.8 Capital Facilities to Meet System Deficiencies .................................................................2-3 CHAPTER 3 – IMPACT FEE CALCULATION

3.1 General ........................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Growth Projections .......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.3 Cost of Existing and Future Facilities................................................................................3-2 3.4 Impact Fee Unit Calculation ............................................................................................3-3 3.5 Revenue Options .............................................................................................................3-7 LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1: Collection System Capacity ..................................................................................2-3 Table 2-2: Existing WWTP Summary .....................................................................................2-3 Table 3-1: Growth Projections ...............................................................................................3-1 Table 3-2: Impact Fee-Eligible Cost of Existing Facilities .......................................................3-2 Table 3-3: Estimated Cost of Growth-Related Facilities .........................................................3-3 Table 3-4: Collections Facility Costs by Time Period .............................................................3-4 Table 3-5: WWTP Costs Summary ........................................................................................3-4 Table 3-6: Treatment Facility Costs by Time Period...............................................................3-5 Table 3-7: Facility Cost by Time Period .................................................................................3-6 Table 3-8: Proposed Wastewater Impact Fee per ERU .........................................................3-6 Table 3-9: Proposed Wastewater Impact Fee based on Meter Size .......................................3-7 APPENDICES Appendix A: Project Costs and Cost Estimates

ii

IMPACT FEE SUMMARY The purpose of the Impact Fee Facility Plan (IFFP) and Impact Fee Analysis (IFA) is to provide a technical and financial basis for impact fees and to document compliance with the Utah Impact Fee Act. The IFFP and IFA identify loadings placed on the existing wastewater collection system by new development and identify the means by which the City will meet the new demands. This study replaces the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan & Capital Facilities Plan Including Impact Fee Facilities Plan (IFFP) adopted in 2014. This study addresses changes in conditions and assumptions that result in a change in the wastewater impact fee. The Wastewater Collection System Master Plan and capital facility plan have also been updated to support this analysis. SERVICE AREA The impact fee service area is the current Springville City municipal boundary and areas that are expected to be annexed into the City. IMPACT FEE UNIT The impact fee unit for sewer use is based on the Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU). An ERU is equal to the average loading of one residential connection. The method of using ERUs for analysis is a way for allocating existing and future demands of non-residential land uses. LEVEL OF SERVICE The level of service for indoor drinking water supply is 250 gpd per ERU. EXISTING AND FUTURE ERU COUNTS The existing system served about 18,250 ERUs at the end of 2018. Projected growth is anticipated to add 3,645 ERUs in the next 10 years for a total of 21,895 ERUs by 2029. IMPACT FEE ELIGIBLE COSTS Impact fee eligible costs include costs of projects due to new development and the proportionate share of existing infrastructure costs that may be assigned to new development. The wastewater collection system has existing deficiencies. These deficiencies are listed in Table 6-3 of the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (HAL 2019). The cost of providing capacity for existing deficiencies is not included in the impact fee. However, excess capacity can be built into projects intended to solve existing deficiencies, and this excess capacity can be included in the impact fee. Likewise, available capacity in existing facilities and capacity that is created through new projects is included in the impact fee. In addition to the proportional share costs of existing facilities, the impact fee is based on infrastructure that will begin construction within the next 10 years. The following table is a summary growth costs in the next 10 years.

iii

WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE COSTS

COMPONENT COST

COLLECTION $2,179,284

TREATMENT $3,878,231

PLANNING $200,000

TOTAL COST $6,257,515

The impact fee is calculated based on the cost of the system divided by the capacity. This accounts for existing capacity used and results in a unit cost for future development. The fee is $1,716 per ERU.

PROPOSED WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE PER ERU

Component Cost per ERU

COLLECTION $597.88

TREATMENT $1063.99

PLANNING $54.87

TOTAL $1,716.74

Given that wastewater collection is not metered, and given that wastewater loading is created by water passing through the drinking water meter, the wastewater impact fee is based on drinking water use. The impact fee above has been calculated based on 1 ERU which would correspond to a standard 1” drinking water meter. Larger drinking water meters are assumed to serve more than 1 ERU and will have a higher corresponding drinking and wastewater impact fees. The table below indicates the impact fee rate schedule based on water meter size. The ERU factor is calculated based on American Water Works Association (AWWA) rated capacity for each meter size. This represents an equitable distribution of potential to use the City’s sewer system. ERU capacity for users requiring larger meters will be assessed individually by the City.

iv

PROPOSED WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE BASED ON METER SIZE

Drinking Water Meter Size ERU Impact Fee

1” 1 $1,716

1 ½” 3.33 $5,714

2” 5.33 $9,146

1-1

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND The City of Springville is experiencing rapid growth, which is expected to continue into the future. As this growth continues, additional wastewater collection and treatment facilities will be required to provide adequate wastewater collection capacity. The City has recognized the importance of planning for increased demands on its wastewater collection system from new development as a result of the rapid growth. A new Wastewater Collection System Impact Fee Facilities Plan (IFFP) and Impact Fee Analysis (IFA) is required to address changes in conditions and assumptions that have occurred since the previous master plan. The Wastewater Collection System Master Plan and Capital Facility Plan provide an updated analysis. PURPOSE The purpose of the IFFP and IFA is to provide a technical and financial basis for impact fees and to document the basis compliance with the Utah Impact Fee Act. Previously, Springville City prepared a wastewater collection system master plan and capital facilities plan (2014). These analyses and studies were used to prepare and IFFP and IFA. Since that time, new growth patterns and growth locations have begun to emerge. As a result of these changes, Springville City decided to prepare new plans and analyses based on the new data. IMPACT FEE COLLECTION Impact fees enable local governments to finance public facility improvements necessary to service new developments without burdening existing development with capital facilities construction costs that are attributable to growth. In order to determine the appropriate impact fee, the cost of the facilities associated with future development must be proportionately distributed. As a guideline in determining the “proportionate share”, the fee must be found to be roughly proportionate and reasonably related to the impact caused by the new development. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF THE WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN This IFFP and IFA document is based on the analysis performed as part of the Springville City – Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (HAL 2019). It predicts all wastewater collection system capital facilities required for each of the planning periods, as well as growth related projects.

1-2

A hydraulic model of the wastewater collection system was prepared so that existing and future infrastructure needs could be identified. The model was used to assess existing system capacity and to confirm the effectiveness of the proposed capital facility projects.

2-1

CHAPTER 2 EXISTING WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM

GENERAL The purpose of this chapter is to provide information regarding the existing wastewater collection system, identify the current and proposed levels of service, and analyze the remaining capacity of the existing system’s facilities. Springville’s existing wastewater collection system is comprised of gravity pipes including laterals, collectors, interceptors and outfall. The system also includes lift stations, force mains and the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Figure 2-1 of the wastewater collection system master plan illustrates the existing wastewater system. EXISTING EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNITS In order to compare the relative quantities of wastewater loading between different types of land use, it is helpful to use a common unit of measure. The unit of measure that is used with this analysis is the Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU). The use of ERUs is a typical approach to describe the wastewater collection system’s usage. An ERU is equal to the average loading of residential connections. Once the ERU is established, non-residential uses can be quantified in terms of ERU multiples. An ERU is the ratio of non-residential wastewater loadings in comparison to an equivalent residential level of service. For this analysis all residential connections, including townhouses and apartments were equated to one ERU for indoor water demands. For drinking water, Springville City has selected a 1 inch diameter water meter as the connection for a residential service. Non-residential developments are assigned a number of ERUs based on their meter size. Given that wastewater collection is not metered, and given that wastewater loading is created by water passing through the drinking water meter, the wastewater impact fee is also based on drinking water meter size. The number of wastewater ERUs designated for each property is the same the number of ERCs designated for the water according to the meter size. LEVEL OF SERVICE The level of service designated for the wastewater collection system has been established by the City to provide adequate wastewater collection and treatment capacity. ERU Loading

• Existing: The existing level of service is 230 gpd per ERU.

• Proposed: The proposed level of service is 250 gpd per ERU.

2-2

Sewer Capacity

• Existing: Peak daily flow in the pipe must not exceed 75 percent (75%) of the pipe’s full

flow capacity. The remaining 25 percent of the pipe’s capacity is reserved for unexpected flows, peaking, or flow restrictions. Per State of Utah standards, no collection pipe may be less than 8-inches in diameter.

• Proposed: Peak daily flow in the pipe must not exceed a depth/diameter ratio of 0.75. The remaining capacity is reserved for unexpected flows, peaking, or flow restrictions. Per State of Utah standards, no collection pipe may be less than 8-inches in diameter.

METHODOLOGY USED TO DETERMINE EXISTING SYSTEM CAPACITY The method for determining the remaining capacity in the wastewater collection system was based on the defined level of service in terms of ERUs. Both Collection (pipes and lift stations) and Treatment components of the wastewater collection system were assessed a capacity in terms of ERUs. The treatment plant was not evaluated by HAL, but the predicted loadings were compared to the plant capacity as reported by Springville City. The difference between the ERUs capacity and ERUs existing demand for each component is the remaining capacity. For example, to calculate the remaining capacity for treatment in ERUs, the required treatment for existing users in ERUs is subtracted from the capacity of the treatment plant in ERUs. A hydraulic model was developed for the purpose of assessing system operation and capacity. For pipelines, the model was used to calculate a capacity in terms of ERUs for each pipeline and to assign sewer capacity. The capacity for each pipeline in ERUs is estimated by the depth over pipe diameter (d/D) ratio of 0.75 and dividing that flow rate by the level of service of 250 gpd/ERU. Capacity, demand and remaining capacity is presented in the following paragraphs for each component of the Sewer System. COLLECTIONS The existing Springville City wastewater collection system consists of nearly 135 miles of pipeline and over 2,700 manholes. The pipes range in size from 4-inch diameter to 36-inch diameter. The system also has force main piping ranging from 2-inch diameter to 12-inch diameter. Lift stations are used to pump wastewater where gravity flow sewers are not possible. The City operates twelve lift stations. These pump stations lift the sewage to the wastewater treatment plant and must therefore meet the level of service of 250 gpd/ERU. The lift stations that will serve future growth are 1500 West and West Fields. The pipelines within the service areas of these lift stations were sized based on the capacity of these lift station. As such, capacity of the collection pipes is directly related to the capacity of the lift stations.

2-3

TABLE 2-1 COLLECTION SYSTEM CAPACITY

Lift Station Capacity (MGD)

Capacity (ERU)

Existing Users (ERU)

Remaining Capacity

(ERU)

1500 W 2.016 8,064 5,184 2,880

West Fields 2.592 10,368 4,262 6,106

Total 4.608 18,432 9,446 8,986

TREATMENT Springville operates one wastewater treatment plant. It was originally constructed at a capacity of 5.5 MGD. Later, an expansion was made adding 1.96 MGD capacity. Table 2-2 shows the costs and capacities of each phase of the wastewater treatment plant.

TABLE 2-2 EXISTING WWTP SUMMARY

Phase Capacity (MGD)

Capacity (ERU)


Remaining Capacity

(ERU)

Initial 5.5 22,000 18,250 3,750

Expansion 1.96 7,840 0 7,840

Total 7.46 29,840 18,250 11,590

CAPITAL FACILITIES TO MEET SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES The existing wastewater collection system is generally adequate to convey the anticipated wastewater to the wastewater treatment plant. However, there are a few areas with inadequate capacity. These are described in Table 6-3 in the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan.

3-1

CHAPTER 3 IMPACT FEE CALCULATION

GENERAL This chapter relies on the data presented in the previous chapters to calculate a proposed impact fee based on the appropriate proportion of cost of projects planned in the next 10 years to increase capacity for new growth and an appropriate buy-in cost of available existing excess capacity previously purchased by the City. The Sewer System facility projects planned in the next 10 years to increase capacity for new growth included within the impact fee are presented. Also included in this chapter are the possible revenue sources that the City may consider to fund the recommended projects. The Sewer System impact fee units include both collection and treatment components. GROWTH PROJECTIONS The development of impact fees requires growth projections over the next ten years. Growth projections for Springville were made using future population estimates by decade from the 2012 Baseline Projections - Utah Governor’s Office of Management and Budget. The existing system serves about 18,250 ERUs. Projected growth adds 3,645 ERUs in the next 10 years for a total of 21,895 ERUs. Total growth projections are summarized in Table 3-1. Further information on growth projections can be found in the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan.

TABLE 3-1 GROWTH PROJECTIONS

Year Total ERUs Annual Growth

2018 18,250 - 2019 18,593 1.90% 2020 18,944 1.90% 2021 19,247 1.60% 2022 19,556 1.60% 2023 19,871 1.60% 2024 20,192 1.60% 2025 20,520 1.60% 2026 20,854 1.60% 2027 21,194 1.60% 2028 21,541 1.60% 2029 21,895

1.60%

Change +3,645 -

3-2

COST OF EXISTING AND FUTURE FACILITIES The facilities and costs presented in Table 3-2 are existing facilities with remaining buy-in capacity. The historical costs for the existing facilities come from Springville City records. See Appendix A. Costs and figures depicting these projects are included in the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan.

TABLE 3-2 IMPACT FEE-ELIGIBLE COST OF EXISTING FACILITIES

PROJECT COLLECTION TREATMENT TOTAL

Main St. (400 S to 500 S) $271,775 $0 $271,775

1500 W (1000 N to Center) $1,599,340 $0 $1,599,340

1500 W (Center to 900 S) $615,885 $0 $615,885

550 N (950 W to 1500 W) $299,915 $0 $299,915

West Fields Lift Station $296,077 $0 $296,077

1500 West Lift Station $1,622,190 $0 $1,622,190

Original Treatment Plant $0 $9,546,786 $9,546,786

Treatment Plant Expansion $0 $10,704,310 $10,704,310

TOTAL $4,705,182 $20,251,096 $24,956,278

The facilities and costs presented in Table 3-3 are proposed projects essential to maintain the current level of service while accommodating future growth within the next 10 years. The facility sizing for the future proposed projects was based on using the proposed level of service with growth projections provided by the City and hydraulic modeling. All future projects have a design life greater than 10 years, as required by the Impact Fee Act, and all of the projects are 100% growth-related. Detailed cost estimates and further details are included in the wastewater collection system master plan.

3-3

TABLE 3-3 ESTIMATED COST OF GROWTH-RELATED FACILITIES

MAP ID* PROJECT COST

PERCENT IMPACT FEE-

ELIGIBLE

IMPACT FEE- ELIGIBLE

COST

F-1 500 N to 1000 N along 2000 W $2,365,000 100% $2,365,000

F-2 500 N near 2000 W $200,000 90% $180,000

F-3 75 S to 25 N along 1750 W $190,000 37% $70,000

F-4 Anderson Development to Spring Point Lift Station $2,085,000 100% $2,085,000

F-5 East side of the 2400 W drain toward Spring Point Lift Station $555,000 100% $555,000

F-6 Spring Point Lift Station $1,060,000 100% $1,060,000

TOTAL $6,455,000 - $6,315,000 * See Figure 6-3 of the wastewater collection system master plan IMPACT FEE UNIT CALCULATION Wastewater Impact Fee Unit It is recommended that the City continue to use the ERU method to calculate a wastewater Impact Fee Unit. The number of ERUs is determined by the size of the water meter. One impact fee unit is equal to 1 ERU, which corresponds to a ¾” or 1” drinking water meter. Larger meters correspond to a higher ERU count. Impact Fee Calculation The Wastewater impact fee per unit is has been calculated based on the on value of the excess capacity in the system and the cost of predicted future projects over the next 10 years. Collections The collections portion of the impact fee unit is calculated as shown in Table 3-4. Because pipes are all sized in direct relation to the ultimate capacity of their respective lift station, the fee was calculated by dividing the impact fee-eligible cost of existing and planned 10-year projects by the capacity of the lift stations which will serve growth.

3-4

TABLE 3-4 COLLECTIONS FACILITY COSTS BY TIME PERIOD

Time Period ERUs Proportion of Total Capacity Proportionate Cost

Existing 9,446A 51% $5,647,604.12

10-year 3,645B 20% $2,179,284.04

Beyond 10-year 5,341 29% $3,193,293.84

TOTAL 18,432C 100% $11,020,182.00D

A. Based on existing usage. See Table 2-1. B. Based on Master Plan Growth projections. See Table 3-1. C. Based on the capacity of the 1500 W and West Fields lift stations. See Table 2-1. D. Calculated as the sum of the impact fee-eligible cost of existing collections projects ($4,705,182; see Table 3-2) and

future projects ($6,315,000; see Table 3-3). Treatment Springville operates one wastewater treatment plant. It was originally constructed at a cost of $9,546,786 and at a capacity of 5.5 MGD. Later, an expansion was made adding 1.96 MGD capacity, at a cost of $10,704,310. The treatment portion of the impact fee was calculated based on the proportionate cost of capacity remaining in the existing wastewater treatment plant. Costs for all existing users was attributed to the cost of the construction of the initial treatment plant. Costs for existing and future users was split proportionally between the remaining costs associated with the construction of the initial treatment plant and the cost of the treatment plant expansion. Costs of the various components of the wastewater treatment plant are shown in Table 3-5.

TABLE 3-5 WWTP COSTS SUMMARY

Phase Cost Capacity (ERU)


Proportion of Total Capacity

Proportionate Cost

Proportionate Cost

Remaining

Initial $9,546,786 22,000 18,250 83% $7,919,492.93 $1,631,633

Expansion $10,704,310 7,840 0 0% $0 $10,704,310

Total $20,251,096 29,840 18,250 - $7,919,492.93 $12,335,943

3-5

The cost of the treatment facilities are shown by time period in Table 3-6.

TABLE 3-6 TREATMENT FACILITY COSTS BY TIME PERIOD

Time Period ERUs Proportion of

Remaining Capacity

Proportionate Cost

Existing 18,250A - $7,919,492.93D

10-year 3,645B 31% $3,878,230.65E

Beyond 10-year 7,945 69% $8,453,372.42E

TOTAL 29,840C 100% $20,251,096.00

A. Based on existing usage. See Table 3-1. B. Based on Master Plan Growth projections. See Table 3-1. C. Based on the capacity of the treatment plant. See Table 2-2. D. As Calculated in Table 3-5. E. Calculated as (proportion of remaining capacity) * ($12,335,943). See Table 3-5. $12,335,943 is the cost attributable to

excess capacity in the treatment plant. Planning Within the 10-year planning period, it is assumed that Springville will commission two planning studies of approximately $100,000 each. These studies will help the City to serve an estimated 3,645 ERUs coming within the next 10 years. Facility Cost by Time Period Costs attributed to growth over the next 10 years are included in the impact fee. Table 3-7 is a summary of the existing and future facility costs by time period. Existing costs are those costs attributed to capacity currently being used by existing connections. Costs attributed to the next 10 years are costs for the existing capacity or new capacity for the assumed growth. These costs are included in the impact fee.

3-6

TABLE 3-7 FACILITY COST BY TIME PERIOD

ITEM EXISTING NEXT 10 YEARS

BEYOND 10 YEARS TOTAL

COLLECTION $5,647,604 $2,179,284 $3,193,294 $11,020,182

TREATMENT $7,919,493 $3,878,231 $8,453,372 $20,251,096

PLANNING $0 $200,000 $0 $200,000

TOTAL $13,567,097 $6,257,515 $11,646,666 $31,471,278

Table 3-8 is a summary of the cost included in the impact fee calculation by component. It shows the unit cost per ERU, which was calculated by dividing the cost of the collection system by the total ERUs served and by dividing the remaining treatment plant cost by the remaining treatment plant capacity. This method allows for development to pay their fair share of the sewer system costs.

TABLE 3-8 PROPOSED WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE PER ERU

Component Impact Fee-Eligible CostA ERUs ServedB Cost per ERU

Collection $2,179,284 3,645 $597.88

Treatment $3,878,231 3,645 $1063.99

Planning $200,000 3,645 $54.87

TOTAL $1,716.74 A. See Table 3-7 B. See Table 3-1

3-7

Total Impact Fee Calculation for Various Meter Sizes Table 3-9 shows the recommended impact fee by meter size. Users requiring larger meters will individually be assessed an ERU capacity based on projected water use. The total proposed impact fee for a typical single-family residential connection requiring a 1-inch drinking water connection would have an impact fee of $1,716 (see Table 3-4). For larger meter sizes, the fee scales proportionately according to the ERU capacity of the meter. The ERU count for each meter size is calculated based on American Water Works Association (AWWA) rated capacity for each meter size. This represents an equitable distribution of potential to use the City’s sewer system.

TABLE 3-9 PROPOSED WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE BASED ON METER SIZE

Drinking Water Meter Size ERUs Impact Fee

1” 1.0 $1,716 1 ½” 3.33 $5,714 2” 5.33 $9,146

REVENUE OPTIONS

Funding options for the recommended projects could include the following: Existing City funds, general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, State/Federal grants and loans, inter-fund loans and impact fees. The City may need to consider a combination of these funding options. The following discussion describes each of these options. Existing City Funds Existing City funds, such as a wastewater fund or the general fund, at times may be funding options for existing deficiency projects or infrastructure growth projects. The wastewater fund is often used to resolve existing deficiencies and to provide funding for operations and maintenance. General Obligation Bonds This form of debt enables the City to issue general obligation bonds for capital improvements and replacement. General Obligation (GO) bonds are debt instruments backed by the full faith and credit of the City, which would be secured by an unconditional pledge of the City to levy assessments, charges or ad valorem taxes necessary to retire the bonds. GO bonds are the often the lowest-cost form of debt financing available to local governments and can be combined with other revenue sources to form a dual security through the City’s revenue generating authority. These bonds are supported by the City as a whole, so the amount of debt issued for the water system is limited to a fixed percentage of the real market value for taxable property within the City.

3-8

Revenue Bonds This form of debt financing is also available to the City for utility related capital improvements. Revenue bonds are not backed by the City as a whole, but constitute a lien against the water service charge revenues of a Water Utility. Revenue bonds present a greater risk to the investor than do GO bonds, since repayment of debt depends on an adequate revenue stream, legally defensible rate structure and sound fiscal management by the issuing jurisdiction. Due to this increased risk, revenue bonds generally require a higher interest rate than GO bonds. This type of debt also has very specific coverage requirements in the form of a reserve fund specifying an amount, usually expressed in terms of average or maximum debt service due in any future year. This debt service is required to be held as a cash reserve for annual debt service payment to the benefit of bondholders. Typically, voter approval is not required when issuing revenue bonds. State/Federal Grants and Loans Historically, local governments have experienced significant infrastructure funding support from state and federal government agencies in the form of block grants, direct grants in aid, interagency loans, and general revenue sharing. State and federal grants and loans may be investigated as possible funding sources for needed water system improvements. Impact Fees Impact fees can be applied to water related facilities according to the Utah Impact Fees Act (Act). The Act is intended to provide a framework for establishing new development assessments. The fundamental objective for the impact fee structure is the imposition on new development of costs associated with providing or expanding water infrastructure to meet the capacity needs created by new development. Impact fees cannot be applied retroactively. Interfund Loans Loans between City funds can be considered as a method of financing capital improvement projects. Summary of Available Funding Options Each of the above options have been considered for funding infrastructure project. Of the above options, impact fees are the most appropriate funding method for growth related projects. At this time, Springville City will implement impact fees to fund growth improvements.


CITY COUNCIL MEETING Meeting Date – August 4, 2020

DATE: July 28, 2020 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Leon Fredrickson, Power Department Director SUBJECT: POWER CFP (CAPITAL FACILITY PLAN), IFFP (IMPACT FEE FACILITY

PLAN) AND IFA (IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS) MOTION

Motion to approve Ordinance #2020-____, Readopting the Springville City Power Capital Facility Plan (CFP), Impact Fee facility Plan (IFFP), and Impact Fee Analysis in the Updated:2019 Impact Fee Study.

GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES AT ISSUE Goals: It is the goal of the Power department to provide the best customer service possible with the highest level of reliability and stable rates. The department strives to communicate with customers about electrical safety, energy efficiency and conservation, project planning, construction and operating improvements. Objective: To maintain an electric system that has the facilities necessary to deliver the resources needed to meet the demands of capacity and energy of the customers connected in a safe, reliable and economical manner. As the city continues to grow, it will be necessary to update the capital improvement plans as well as monitor and maintain all existing facility investment through good budget processes. Strategies: Continue to do regular reviews of the Impact Fees as they relate to the Impact Fee Facility Plan and Impact Fee Analysis based on the most current State Impact Fee Act. BACKGROUND Introduction

In 2019, the Springville Electrical Department engaged the services of Salient Power Engineering LLC who partnered with R. E. Pender Inc. (“Consultant”) to conduct certain studies and analyses related to the development of an updated Electrical Department Capital Facilities Plan, Impact Fee Facilities

CITY COUNCIL MEETING Meeting Date – August 4, 2020 Page 2


Plan, and Impact Fee Analysis that will be implemented upon City Council approval.

The Updated: 2019 Impact Fee Analysis was issued to update the previous analysis which was performed in 2012 by these same consultants. That analysis was similar in scope to the current analysis and a similar methodology was used to create the updated analysis. Some of the projects identified in the previous analysis are still ongoing and are noted in the analysis. Impact Fees – General

Generally speaking, impact fees are used by government agencies (e.g., city and county governments) to fund certain capital-related expenditures (e.g., new infrastructure) incurred in providing governmental services to “new” development as mandated by law or ordinance.

The basic philosophy behind the implementation of impact fees is that “new” development should bear the additional or “incremental” capital cost incurred in order to provide services to the “new” development. This establishes a cost causation or “nexus” requirement between the cost incurred in providing the service and those who benefit from the service.

To be clear however, impact fees are not intended to recover annual operating expenses (e.g., utility costs) or to pay for capital expenditures related to the correction of an existing deficiency in the service provided. Impact Fees – State of Utah

Very generally, the State of Utah Statute (Act) requires that each political subdivision imposing an impact fee shall, with some exceptions, (1) prepare an Impact Fee Facilities Plan (§ 11-36a-301), (2) perform an Impact Fee Analysis (§ 11-36a-303), (3) calculate the Impact Fee(s) (§ 11-36a-305) and (4) certify the Impact Fee Facilities Plan (§ 11-36a-306).

According to the Act, the “Impact Fee Facilities Plan (“IFFP”) shall identify (a) demands placed upon existing public facilities by new development activity; and (b) the proposed means by which the political subdivision will meet those demands.” The IFFP shall also generally consider all revenue sources, including impact fees, used to finance impacts on system improvements. This report combines the IFFP with the system Capital Facilities Plan (CFP). The difference between the IFFP and the CFP is that the CFP includes projects which are unrelated to the impact fee. For example, if it is determined that a transformer must be replaced do to aging and is unrelated to new development demands it would be included in the CFP but would not be included IFFP.

The Impact Fee Analysis (“IFA”) portion of the Statute states that (1) “each local political subdivision or private entity intending to impose an impact fee shall



prepare a written analysis of each impact fee” and (2) “shall also prepare a summary of the impact fee analysis designed to be understood by a lay person.” The requirements of the IFA include identifying the estimated impacts on existing capacity and system improvements caused by the anticipated development activity. The political subdivision must also estimate the proportionate share of (i) the costs of existing capacity that will be recouped and (ii) the costs of the impacts on system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development activity.

Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) and Impact Fee Facilities Plan (IFFP) - General

The first step in updating a Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is to collect information about the current system. This information can be specific electrical system infrastructure and resources as well as demographic information about populations, growth and customer profiles.

Historical load information is evaluated and used in conjunction with population growth estimates to predict the future load demands on the system due to development as well as changes in customer usage profiles. The next step is to place these new loads onto the system, evaluate the performance of the system under the new loading requirements, and make recommendations for future capital projects to maintain the same level of service to both the existing customers as well as the new growth.

Similar to a Capital Facilities Plan, an Impact Fee Facilities Plan (IFFP) focuses on only the impact that new development has on the Capital Facilities Plan. The IFFP shall, in accordance with the Statute, identify (a) demands placed on existing public utilities by new development activity and (b) the proposed means by which the local subdivision will meet those demands. In addition, each local political subdivision shall generally consider the revenue sources that will be used to finance the impacts on system improvements.

In other words, a Capital Facilities Plan includes all projects which are necessary to maintain the system’s current level of service to all customers both existing and future. An Impact Fee Facilities Plan includes only those projects which are directly necessitated by the demands of new development. These projects would not need to be implemented by the City “But For” the additional demands placed on the system by the new growth.

CFP and IFFP - Level of Service Standards

The City Power Department plans, designs and operates its system based on the following criteria:



• Transformer ratings under varying load levels and loading conditions must remain below their base rating;

• The distribution system must be able to adequately serve load under single contingency (N-1) situations, where “N” is a power system element such as a transformer or line;

• The system switching required under an N-1 contingency should remain as simplified as possible to ensure that switching orders not become unnecessarily complex

• Distribution circuit loading criteria must remain below 90% of its maximum current rating;

• Primary circuit voltage must remain between 95% and 105% of its nominal value; and

• Distribution circuit mains must be able to serve additional load under N-1 contingencies.

The above criteria were used to determine Springville’s future facility needs based on the amount of load (i.e., demand) placed on the existing system over a pre-determined CFP/IFFP planning horizon.

CFP and IFFP – Demands Placed on Existing Facilities

The demand placed on an electric system is typically measured in kilowatts (kW) or kilovolt-amperes (kVA) and stated as either coincident-peak (“CP”) demand or non-coincident peak (“NCP”) demand.

The system CP demand is typically the maximum hourly demand for the entire system measured over some time period (e.g. week, month, year); i.e., the point in time where the sum of all demands placed on the system are the highest for the system as a whole. The NCP demand represents the sum of the maximum demands of individual customers or customer classes (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial) measured or estimated for a time period. The CP demand represents the combined loads across all customer classes measured at the system level where the NCP demand represents the total demand the system would be subject to if all customer classes peaked at the same time.

The CP demand by definition will always be lower than the NCP demand. For purposes of calculating Impact Fees, CP is used to represent the demands placed on existing facilities, primarily because the CP demand is normally the demand that a utility plans for when sizing facilities that will be used to meet future growth on the system. However, each individual piece of equipment must be able to support its own individual peak demand even if that demand does not occur at the same time as the system’s CP.



The analysis projected demands for the CFP/IFFP and are summarized in the Analysis. The Total System CP (coincident-peak) Demand is used as the basis for calculation of the Impact Fees.

CFP and IFFP – System Modeling

In order to find the deficiencies and surpluses within the City’s current electrical system, a working electrical model was created by the Consultant with data collected from the Power department. This model, created using Aspen Power Flow, Version V14.5.

The existing system was analyzed for deficiencies, had any deficiencies been identified they would have been assigned a corresponding CIP project to be performed outside the Impact Fee Projects: No Existing deficiencies were identified.

After the existing system was analyzed the model was updated for the estimated changes in demands due to growth on the system at different CIP plan intervals. At each CIP interval the system was then evaluated and any deficiencies created by this additional demand were identified and noted as a CIP/IFFP project for that plan interval. When the model was then updated for the next plan interval it was assumed that all the capital projects identified in the CFP/IFFP for the previous interval were implemented.

CFP and IFFP – Model Results

The results of the “Updated:2019 Base Case” model confirmed that the current system is able to serve the entirety of its current load within the identified standard of service.

As the model was updated for the estimated changes in system demands due to growth at the CIP intervals and as a deficiency was identified as related to growth, a project was assigned and assumed to be implemented before the next analysis was run.

The CFP/IFFP lists projects which the analysis identified as being necessary over the CFP/IFFP planning windows. These projects were broken down into five priority levels; High Priority, Moderately High Priority, Medium Priority, Low Priority and Long-Term Priority, each level corresponds to a different implementation schedule.

The physical location of future development was modeled as realistically as possible. However due to unpredictability of load growth in both scale and location, some projects in the IFFP my need to be implemented prior to the scheduled times while some could possibly be postponed.



The portion of the cost of the projects which is applied to the Impact Fee calculation of the project is the proportion of the capacity added by the project for new growth minus the current capacity divided by the total updated capacity as shown in this equation as determined by the type of project.

% 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝐼𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝐹𝑒𝑒 =𝑈𝑝𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 − 𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦

𝑈𝑝𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦

When projects are completely related to new growth and impact on the system 100% of the cost of the project will be applied and allocated into the Net Impact Fee Project Costs to be Recovered.

As a result of this current analysis there were 17 projects associated with the City system that were identified with varying levels of projects costs being applied. The CFP and IFFP projects mentioned above can be found in table form in Exhibit 2 of the Impact Fee Study document. The budgets for these projects are estimated in 2019 dollars. As with most capital facilities plans, the majority of these projects are scheduled to occur in the earlier planning windows. However, growth in demand on the system generally happens in “groups” or “lumps” according to actual commercial and residential development. Because residential developments are generally in subdivision form and commercial developments are generally grouped around a single locations, many of the sub-areas in the IFFP area may not realize the growth modeled; and, therefore, some of the projects which were identified as being in the High and Moderately High Priority level project listings could, in reality, be delayed until required by localized growth. Impact Fee Analysis (IFA) - General

The IFA portion of the Act requires that each local political subdivision intending to impose an impact fee prepare a written analysis of each impact fee. It also requires that IFA include a summary designed to be understood by a lay person. Additional requirements include identifying the estimated impacts on existing capacity and system improvements caused by the anticipated development activity.

The political subdivision must also estimate the proportionate share of (i) the costs of existing capacity that will be recouped and (ii) the costs of the impacts on system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development activity.

Impact Fee Analysis – Discussion



The Impact Fee Analysis involved three (3) basic steps or sub-analyses: (1) an Impact Fee Cost Analysis; (2) an Impact Fee Demand Analysis; and (3) the Calculation of the Impact Fee.

The Impact Fee Cost Analysis is shown in Exhibit 3 of the IFA. The Total Cost of New Development-related Projects is $5,060,355. Three adjustments were made to this amount to account for (i) previous IFFP Projects in Progress Not Accounted for in the Current Study (zero for this update study); (ii) the balance of Net Revenues Available in the Impact Fee Fund ($1,080,623); and (iii) the Portion Designed to recover Existing Facilities from previous studies (zero for the study). After these adjustments are made it produces an amount of Net Impact Fee Project Costs to be Recovered of $3,980,732.

The Impact Fee Demand Analysis is presented as Exhibit 4 in the study. This analysis calculates the Demand Placed on the Existing System to be used as the denominator in determining the Impact Fee. The first step was to determine the increase in the CP demand over the 10-year Recovery Period 2020 – 2029 which is 18,390.5 kW.

The increase in CP demand was then converted to NCP by applying an Estimated System Diversity Factor of 1.25; resulting in an increase in NCP demand at the input to the distribution system of 22,988 kW.

The System Diversity Factor is actually the reciprocal of the System Coincidence Factor which is the relationship between (i) the maximum kilowatt demand established simultaneously by all customers (CP Demand) and (ii) the arithmetic sum of the maximum demands of the individual customers regardless of the time of day at which they occur (NCP Demand).

The projected average annual Coincidence Factor for the SCP (System Coincidence Peak) system was determined to be 0.80 and was calculated by first applying the estimated following NCP (Non-coincidence Peak) F load factors to estimated energy sales by rate class.

The resulting NCP Demands by rate class were then summed to produce the Total System NCP at the meter level. It was therefore determined from this analysis that the appropriate Coincidence Factor to use for the Impact Fee Demand analysis is 0.80 which results in a Diversity Factor of 1.25 (1/0.80).

The Diversity Factor was simply multiplied times the increase in the CP Demand at Input to produce the Estimated NCP Demand at Input. This demand was then adjusted to the meter level by subtracting losses (estimated at 2.4%) which produced the NCP of 22,436.4 kW used in the Impact Fee Calculation.

The Impact Fee Calculation is provided in Exhibit 5 and is restated below for ease of reference.



1. Net Impact Fee Project Costs to be Recovered = $3,980,732 2. Future Demand Placed on Existing System = 22,436.4 kW 3. Base Impact Fee (line 1 / line 2) = $177.42 per kW 4. Impact Fee at 30% Panel Utilization = $53.23 per kW

The 30 percent Panel Utilization factor (consistent with what was used in the 2004 and 2012 studies) recognizes the over sizing that is assumed to be typical for new customer electrical panels installed on the Springville City system. That is, electrical panels are designed such that a customer will only utilize a fraction of the total panel capacity available, even during periods of high demand.

Summary – Impact Fee

The result of the Updated:2019 study, shows that the new Impact Fee at 30% Panel utilization per installed customer kW will be approximately 12% lower than the 2012 Study. This fee will allow continuing funding of those projects identified in the Capital Facility Plan (CFP) that have direct correlation to the Impact Fee Facility Plan (IFFP) based upon the allowable project allocations as determined by the study. ALTERNATIVES The City electrical system has seen and will continue to see impacts upon it as growth occurs and new customers request connection to the system. To maintain a safe and reliable system for current and future customers, the best utility practice would be to continue to collect allowable Impact Fees for the funding of the necessary capital projects as outlined in the IFFP. FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact would be recognized by the requesting customer at time of permit application. All current utility services sizes can be assessed by the Updated:2019 Impact Fee Calculation Worksheet referenced in the Analysis as Exhibit 7. The Ordinance does allow for the City council to adjust the standard fee at the time the fee is charged to respond to unusual circumstances in specific cases. Fees collected would become revenue that would then be used by the department to meet the IFFP projects as prioritized in the Analysis.

ATTACHMENTS -Impact Fee Enactment Ordinance -Exhibit A: Springville City Power CFP, IFFP & IFA Update:2019


ORDINANCE #XX-2020

AN ORDINANCE READOPTING THE SPRINGVILLE CITY POWER CAPITAL FACILITY PLAN, IMPACT FEE FACILITY PLAN AND THE IMPACT FEE STUDY; AND REENACTING POWER IMPACT FEES.








WHEREAS, on July 28, 2020, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed

public hearing to hear public input on and consider the “Springville City Power Capital

Facility Plan, Impact Fee Facility Plan and the Impact Fee Study, Update: 2019,” which

resulted in a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt this ordinance and all of

the attached documents; and

WHEREAS, on August 4, 2020, after the City properly noticed its intent pursuant to

the Act to (1) update and approve the “Springville City Power Capital Facility Plan, Impact

Fee Facility Plan and the Impact Fee Study, Update: 2019,” prepared and certified by Salient

Power Engineer, LLC and R.E. Pender, Inc., and (2) enact the Power Impact Fees, the City

approved the “Springville City Capital Facility Plan, the Impact Fee Facility Plan and the

Impact Fee Study” and enacted the Springville City Power Impact Fees; and

WHEREAS, the City has determined that its power impact fee assessed to new

development has allowed it to complete impact fee facilities as outlined in the City’s Impact

Fee Facility Plan; and


of the Springville City Power Capital Facility Plan, Impact Fee Facility Plan and Impact Fee

Study and this Impact Fee Enactment Ordinance, along with an executive summary of the

IFFP and the IFA that was designed to be understood by a lay person, were made available

to the public at the Springville City Public Library and posted on the City’s Website; and



time, and place of the public hearing to consider the Springville City Power Capital Facility

Plan, Impact Fee Facility Plan and Impact Fee Study and this Impact Fee Enactment

Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, on August 18, 2020, the Springville City Council held a public hearing

regarding the proposed and certified Springville City Power Capital Facility Plan, Impact Fee

Facility Plan and Impact Fee Study and this Impact Fee Enactment Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, the Springville City Council does now desire to hereby reapprove and

readopt the Springville City Power Capital Facility Plan, Impact Fee Facility Plan and Impact

Fee Study and the Power Impact Fee pursuant thereto and pursuant to the requirements of

Sections 11-36a-401 through 11-36a-403 of the Act.



The “Springville City Power Capital Facility Plan, Impact Fee Facility Plan and Impact Fee

Study, Updated: 2019” (the “Impact Fee Documents”) are hereby approved and adopted and

incorporated herein and attached as Exhibit “A.” The Power Impact Fees set forth in the

Impact Fee Study and this Ordinance are hereby approved and enacted. The impact fees

adopted by this ordinance will replace all previously adopted power impact fees.


The service area established in the Impact Fee Documents and for which the Power Impact

Fees are established and imposed is all of the Springville City Power Departments Service

Area, which area includes all of Springville City (the “Service Area”). The Service Area is

established based upon sound planning and engineering principles for the City’s power

system services.


The existing level of service provided by the City’s power system shall remain the same as it

was prior to this Ordinance and is hereby again adopted as the level of service to be

provided throughout the City. The existing and proposed level of service is fully defined in

Section 2.4 of the Impact Fee Documents, as follows:



As found in the Impact Fee Documents, the Power Impact Fee calculation is based on the

following:

1. Elements. In calculating the Power Impact Fee, the City has included those costs

allowed, including debt service, if any, that are found under Section 11-36a-305 of the

Act.

2. Proportionate Share Analysis. Included within the Impact Fee Documents is a

proportionate share analysis as required by Section 11-36a-304 of the Act.

3. Formula. The Power Impact Fee is based upon the Act’s required proportionate

share analysis in determining the total project costs to maintain the City’s current

power system level of service for new development activity that will occur during the

next six (6) to ten (10) years. The following schedule of Power Impact Fees is found

in the Impact Fee Study and specifies the amount of impact fee to be imposed for

each type of development activity and for each type of system improvement and/or

the formula the City will use to calculate each impact fee. The impact fee study

provides further detail regarding the schedule.




have upon the power system. This adjustment could result in a different impact fee if

evidence suggests a particular user will create a different impact than what is

standard for its category.



charged to:

i. respond to:







b. The impact fee may be adjusted for a particular development based on studies or data provided by a developer after review by the City’s Impact Fee Administrator and approval by the City Council.




the developer:













The Power Impact Fee shall be charged for all new service connections where no existing

power service has been provided by the City or whenever a customer desires to increase the

size of an existing power service. In the latter instance, the impact fee shall be based on the

difference in service capacity between the new and existing service. The impact fee shall be

charged throughout the Service Area for all classes of service.


The City may expend impact fees only for a system improvement identified in the Impact

Fee Facilities Plan and for the specific public facility type for which the fee was collected.

Impact fees will be expended on a first-in-first-out basis. Impact fees collected pursuant to

this Ordinance shall be expended or encumbered for a permissible use within six (6) years of

their receipt. The City may hold the fees for longer than six (6) years if it identifies, in writing,

an extraordinary and compelling reason why the fees should be held longer than six (6)

years and an absolute date by which the fees will be expended.

SECTION 7: Refunds.





















36a-601 of the Act.





SECTION 11: Effective Enactment Date.





ADOPTED by the City Council of Springville, Utah, this 18th day of August, 2020.

SPRINGVILLE CITY



Exhibit “A”

Springville City Power Capital Facility Plan, Impact Fee Facility Plan and Impact Fee Study,

Updated: 2019

SPRINGVILLE CITY POWER

Capital Facility Plan, Impact Fee

Facility Plan and Impact Fee Analysis

Update:2019

Submitted By:

Salient Power Engineering LLC

And

R.E. Pender, Inc.

2 | P a g e

Contents Section 1 - Background ............................................................................................................................... 4

1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 4

1.2 Impact Fees - General .................................................................................................................. 4

1.3 Impact Fees - Utah ....................................................................................................................... 6

1.4 Springville City Power ................................................................................................................ 7

1.5 Utah County ................................................................................................................................. 8

Section 2 - Capital Facilities Plan and Impact Fee Facilities Plan ............................................................ 9

2.1 General ......................................................................................................................................... 9

2.2 City Population .......................................................................................................................... 10

2.3 Existing Infrastructure ............................................................................................................... 11

2.3.1 Power System Basics ......................................................................................................... 11

2.3.2 Electricity Supply ............................................................................................................... 12

2.3.3 Transmission System ......................................................................................................... 13

2.3.4 Distribution System ........................................................................................................... 14

2.4 Level of Service Standards ........................................................................................................ 17

2.5 Demands Placed on Existing Facilities ..................................................................................... 17

2.6 System Modeling ....................................................................................................................... 20

2.7 “N-1” Contingencies .................................................................................................................. 21

2.8 Model Results ............................................................................................................................ 22

2.9 10 Year Primary Growth Area .................................................................................................. 22

2.10 SUVPS Projects ......................................................................................................................... 23

2.11 IFFP Projects .............................................................................................................................. 23

2.11.1 High Priority – One Year Projects .................................................................................... 24

2.11.2 Moderately High Priority – 3 Year Projects ..................................................................... 26

2.11.3 Medium Priority – 6 Year Projects ................................................................................... 29

2.11.4 Low Priority – 10 Year Projects ........................................................................................ 30

2.12 IFFP Capital Projects and Costs ................................................................................................ 30

2.13 Disclosures ................................................................................................................................. 31

2.14 Certification of the IFFP ............................................................................................................ 31

Section 3 - Impact Fee Analysis ................................................................................................................ 33

3.1 General ....................................................................................................................................... 33

3.2 Impact Fee Analysis .................................................................................................................. 33

3.3 Impact Fee Charges – Present and Proposed ............................................................................ 35

3 | P a g e

3.4 Certification of the IFA ............................................................................................................. 37

EXHIBIT 1 ................................................................................................................................................. 38

EXHIBIT 2 ................................................................................................................................................. 39

EXHIBIT 3 ................................................................................................................................................. 40

EXHIBIT 4 ................................................................................................................................................. 41

EXHIBIT 5 ................................................................................................................................................. 42

EXHIBIT 6 ................................................................................................................................................. 43

EXHIBIT 7 ................................................................................................................................................. 44

EXHIBIT 8 ................................................................................................................................................. 45

EXHIBIT 9 ................................................................................................................................................. 46

4 | P a g e

Section 1 - Background

1.1 Introduction Springville City (“the City”) engaged the service of Salient Power Engineering, LLC (“Consultant”) to

conduct certain studies and analyses related to the development of an updated Electrical Power Capital

Facilities Plan, Impact Fee Facilities Plan, and Impact Fee Analysis (“Impact Fee Analysis”) that will

be implemented upon approval by the city council of Springville, UT. The current Springville impact

fees were implemented in 2013. The work for the immediate Impact Fee Analysis was conducted in

accordance with a consulting agreement between the City and the Consultant; and Utah Statute U.C.A.

11-36a-101 et seq.

The 2019 Impact Fee Analysis was issued to update the previous submitted analysis which was

performed in 2013 by the Consultant and R.E. Pender, Inc. The updated Impact Fee Analysis is similar

in scope to the previous analysis and a similar methodology was utilized to generate the new report.

Some of the projects identified in the 2013 analysis are still ongoing and are noted in this report.

In conducting the subject analysis, certain publicly available information, data supplied by the City, and

electronic spreadsheets developed specifically for this engagement were utilized. In reaching the

conclusions and recommendations discussed herein, certain assumptions and considerations were made

regarding future events and circumstances that may affect the ultimate outcome of the results. No

assurances or guarantees are made as to the actual outcome of any assumption or consideration made in

the development of these studies. However, it is believed that all assumptions and considerations made

herein are appropriate and reasonable for purposes of the Impact Fee Analysis. Certain information was

obtained by the Consultant by other sources, all of which are believed to be reliable and reasonable for

the purpose of this undertaking.

1.2 Impact Fees - General Generally speaking, impact fees are used by government agencies (e.g., City and county governments)

to fund certain capital-related expenditures (e.g., new infrastructure) incurred in providing governmental

services to “new” development as mandated by law or ordinance. The basic philosophy behind the

5 | P a g e

implementation of impact fees is that the “new” development should bear the additional or

“incremental” capital cost incurred in order to provide services to the “new” development. This

establishes a cost causation or “nexus” requirement between the cost incurred in providing the service

and those who benefit from the service. However, impact fees are not intended to recover annual

operating expenses (e.g., utility costs), or to pay for capital expenditures related to the correction of an

existing deficiency in the service provided.

There are two generally recognized methods for calculating impact fees: the inductive method and the

deductive method.

Under the inductive method, the cost and capacity of a particular facility is identified and used as the

generic model for all future facilities. Take for example the cost of a new electrical substation having a

construction cost of $2,000,000 and sized to serve approximately 5,000 residential dwelling units and

1,000,000 feet of commercial space. In this very simple example, assuming the capital cost is recovered

evenly (50% each) between residential and commercial loads, the impact fee would be determined as

follows:

Residential = $2,000,000 x .50 / 5,000 = $200 per dwelling unit

Commercial = $2,000,000 x .50 / 1,000,000 = $1.00 per sq. foot.

The advantage to this method is that it is fairly straightforward and easy to implement. It also is not

affected by changes to capital improvement plans or population estimates. The monies needed for the

future capital requirement (like the electrical substation in the above example) will be available as soon

as the actual growth reaches the design levels, which may be any number of years down the road. A

disadvantage of the inductive method is that the impact fee calculation is based on a generic model

approach and therefore may not address the special needs of the community. It may also fail to capture

all of the capital requirements associated with the project such as the additional facilities that will be

needed to support the primary project (e.g., required increases to the capacity of administrative support

offices).

The deductive approach involves calculating the impact fee based on the anticipated additional demand

(e.g., number of new residential dwelling units) on a facility or infrastructure used in providing services.

Normally, the entity implementing the impact fee will have an established level of service (“LOS”)

standard for the particular service (e.g., 1 community park per 5,000 population). Alternatively, the

6 | P a g e

current LOS (1 community park serving an existing population of 4,000) is used as the basis to

determine the capital requirements underlying the impact fee calculation. In either case, once the LOS

standard is known, it is a matter of applying that standard to future growth projections involving

population or commercial space, as they apply to the master plan/capital improvement plan, determine

the new capital expenditure requirements.

An advantage of using the deductive method is that specific needs of the community are addressed when

determining future capital requirements. The disadvantage is this method requires much more detailed

information to perform the calculations and must be updated periodically as changes in population

projections, master plans, etc. occur.

The inductive and deductive methods are both valid and the decision on the specific method employed

will depend largely upon the information available and the specific circumstances of the community. In

calculating the subject impact fees for the City included in this study, we have employed only the

deductive approach.

1.3 Impact Fees - Utah It is commonplace for states to have varying forms of impact fees while 26 states have statutes

specifically authorizing the use of impact fees. In Utah, impact fees are governed by state statute,

specifically U.C.A. 11-36a-101-7051 et seq (the “Statute”). A copy of the Statute is attached hereto as

Exhibit 9.

A simple breakdown of the Statute requires that each political subdivision imposing an impact fee shall,

with some exceptions, (1) prepare an Impact Fee Facilities Plan (§ 11-36a-301), (2) perform an Impact

Fee Analysis (§ 11-36a-303), (3) calculate the Impact Fee(s) (§ 11-36a-305) and (4) certify the Impact

Fee Facilities Plan (§ 11-36a-306).

Per the Statute, the “Impact Fee Facilities Plan (“IFFP”) shall identify (a) demands placed upon existing

public facilities by new development activity; and (b) the proposed means by which the political

subdivision will meet those demands.” The IFFP shall also generally consider all revenue sources used

to finance new infrastructure on system improvements including the impact fee. Unlike an IFFP, the

1 Source: Utah State Legislature, https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title11/Chapter36A/11-36a.html

7 | P a g e

CFP includes projects which are unrelated to the impact fee. An example would be a transformer that

has been determined to need replacement due to aging. This would be unrelated to new development

and not in the IFFP.

The Impact Fee Analysis (“IFA”) portion of the Statute (§ 11-36a-303) states that (1) “each local

political subdivision or private entity intending to impose an impact fee shall prepare a written analysis

of each impact fee.” and (2) “shall also prepare a summary of the impact fee analysis designed to be

understood by a lay person.” The requirements of the IFA include identifying the estimated impacts on

existing capacity and system improvements caused by the anticipated development activity. The

political subdivision must also estimate the proportionate share of (i) the costs of existing capacity that

will be recouped and (ii) the costs of the impacts on system improvements that are reasonably related

to the new development activity.

The calculation of the Impact Fee may include the following:

(a) The construction contract price;

(b) The cost of acquiring land, improvements, materials, and fixtures;

(c) The cost for planning, surveying, and engineering fees for services provided for and

directly related to the construction of the system improvements; and

(d) For a political subdivision, debt service charges, if the political subdivision might use

impact fees as a revenue stream to pay the principal and interest on bonds, notes or other

obligations issued to finance the costs of the system improvements.

Furthermore, the Calculation of the Impact Fee must be based on realistic estimates. The assumptions

and underlying information as the basis of those estimates must be disclosed in the IFA.

Finally, a written certification shall be included in the IFFP and the IFA by the person or entity that

prepared those requirements.

1.4 Springville City Power

Springville City Power, located in Springville, Utah is a municipal-owned electric utility which was

formed in 1904. Springville City Power serves nearly 11,964 customers in Utah County with a system

8 | P a g e

coincident peak demand of 62.5 megawatts2. The utility's service area spans 34.23 square miles

including all of the City of Springville incorporated area and additional areas in Utah County.

Along with its electric distribution system, Springville City Power owns and operates four hydroelectric

generators and one natural gas generating plant (Whitehead Power Plant) with an overall generating

capacity of nearly 30.9 MW.

Historical annual customer growth averaged 3-4% per year. However, in both 2014 and 2016, electrical

system peak as well as kilowatt hour sales both decreased from the previous year. Both the system peak

and the quantity of energy sold have increased 20% and 11% respectively over the last seven years since

the completion of the last Impact Fee Study. The discrepancies in these percentages mean that the load

factor has decreased from 2012. It should be noted that 2012 had an abnormally high load factor of

54% while the 2019 load factor of 50.7% is closer to the historical average. The previous report expected

a 2019 peak of approximately 59.2 MW compared to 62.5 MW actual. Due to the accuracy of the

previous forecast, the future load growth for this study was predicted using the same growth factors.

1.5 Utah County Utah County is situated in north-central Utah about 44 miles south of Salt Lake City and

is the second most populous county in the state. Provo, the county seat, is the largest city

in the county. The total land and water area of the county is 2,003 square miles and is the

16th largest county in Utah. According to the US Census Bureau 2010 report, the county

had a total population of 516,564 residents at a population density of 258 per square mile.

There were 148,350 housing units at an average density of 74 per square mile. The 2010 census also indicates

there were 140,602 occupied households in the county with the average household size being 3.57. These

numbers are estimated to have grown to 151,342 households and 3.63 persons per household.3 The largest

employers in the county are Brigham Young University, Alpine School District, Utah Valley University, Utah

Valley Hospital and Vivint, Inc. The largest portion of the workforce is employed in the education, health and

social services, transportation and utilities sectors.4

2 As of fiscal year-end 2018. 3 Sources: Wasatch County General Plan and en.wikipedia.org. 4 Source: Daily Herald, https://www.heraldextra.com/business/local/big-business-in-utah-county-top-valley-employers/collection_5aa456f4-b63f-586b-a2f1-e865e1474994.html#18.

9 | P a g e

Section 2 - Capital Facilities Plan and Impact Fee Facilities Plan

2.1 General

The first step in updating a CFP is to collect information about the state of the current system.

This information can be specific electrical system infrastructure and resources as well as

demographic information about populations, growth and customer profiles. Historical load

information is evaluated and used in conjunction with population growth estimates to predict the

future load demands on the system due to development as well as changes in customer usage

profiles. The next step is to place these new loads onto the system, evaluate the performance of

the system under the new loading requirements, and make recommendations for future capital

projects to maintain the same level of service to both the existing customers as well as the new

growth.

Similar to a CFP, an IFFP focuses on only the impact that the new development has on the CFP. The

IFFP shall, in accordance with the Statute, identify (a) demands placed on existing public utilities by

new development activity and (b) the proposed means by which the local subdivision will meet those

demands. In addition, each local political subdivision shall generally consider the revenue sources that

will be used to finance the impacts on system improvements.

In other words, a CFP includes all projects which are necessary to maintain the systems current

level of service to all customers both existing and future. An IFFP includes only those projects

which are directly necessitated by the demands of new development. That is, these projects would

not need to be implemented by the City “but for” the additional demands placed on the system by

the new growth.

All electrical systems need continuous maintenance and equipment must be replaced as it fails or

begins to reach the end of its design life. These projects must not be included in the IFFP as these

updates were not necessarily brought about due to additional demand on the system. A substation

transformer is generally designed to have an in-service life of approximately 30 years. However,

10 | P a g e

careful maintenance and conservative loading can extend the life of equipment well beyond the

design life. Many utilities use their CFP plan to incorporate the phasing in new equipment that will

replace older equipment. Since the actual effect life of equipment can be longer (or shorter) than

the design life, utilities should proactively test their equipment to assist in making an educated

estimate of the effective life remaining of that asset. This testing can include core samples of

transmission and distribution poles, oil and electrical tests of transformers, power factor and

impedance tests of substation equipment, along with other testing available. Using the results of

these tests, the economical and planned upgrades of equipment can be more accurately estimated

based on actual condition rather than relying on design life alone.

Through the efforts of the City’s staff and leadership, the existing electrical system has a sound

design and implementation has been efficient. The current condition of the City’s substations and

transmission assets are very good. The average age of the City’s substation transformer assets is

approximately 20 years and auxiliary equipment at these substations has been continuously tested

and upgraded. All five of the existing distribution substations have either been recently upgraded

or routinely maintained as necessary for efficient operation.

2.2 City Population

The 2010 census population of the City of Springville was 29,466. The Governor’s Office

projections for population growth in Springville are shown below alongside the growth projections

given to the Consultant from the City.

Table 2-1

Springville City Population

Description 2010 2020 2030 2040

Impact Fees Facilities Plan Growth 29,466 36,214 45,901 58,089

Governor’s Office Growth 29,468 37,094 45,078 51,971

Source: Governor’s Office Website and Springville City Staff

Table 2-1 above shows that the Governor’s Office growth predictions to be slightly more

aggressive in the short term before leveling off at “Build Out” in the year 2040. Springville City

Staff decided to use a slightly different growth statistic based on their internal building and zoning

11 | P a g e

estimates of 2.32% growth per year through the duration of this study. The population growth

projections were used in the creation of this IFFP.

2.3 Existing Infrastructure

2.3.1 Power System Basics As illustrated in Figure 2-1 below, an electrical power delivery system is made up of three basic

components or functions: electric generators that produce the power, a transmission system to deliver

the power to the distribution system, and the distribution system which delivers the power to the end-

user. All of the components in the figure are present in the City’s existing electrical system in some

form.

Historically the System shown in figure 2-1 was accurate for almost all utility distribution systems.

With the increased system penetration of roof top solar systems, the historical top down model is slowly

being modified. The combined increase of efficiencies from appliances and electronics have also had

an effect and tempered load growth. An increased number of electronics per customer have lessened

the efficiency effect resulting in a nominal growth in demand on a per customer basis.

Figure 2-1 Illustration of a Typical Power Delivery System

Source: Tri-State Generation and Transmission website

12 | P a g e

2.3.2 Electricity Supply

In any electrical system, electricity (measured in kilowatt-hours) is produced by any number of

generation technologies, powered by a diversity of fuel resources. A utility may also utilize generation

supplied by others in the form of purchased power agreements. These can include firm power (long-

term, interim, and short-term); unit power (a purchase out of a specific generating unit) and non-firm

(usually short-term) power agreements. The type and amount of each generating resource that is utilized

by the utility in meeting its hourly demand (measured in megawatts) for electricity at any point in time

will depend primarily on the amount and duration of the demand, the availability of the generating units,

and the variable operating cost of the generating unit(s). Very simply, in meeting the daily demand for

electricity, each available generating resource is stacked according to its operating cost (lowest to

highest) and subsequently dispatched to meet the demand for electricity in each hour of the day.

The City of Springville has four “run-of-river” hydro-electric generators meaning that the generators

run based on the flow of water at that point in time. Unlike storage hydro where a large mass of water

is stored in a reservoir and can be “scheduled” or run on an as-needed basis, these generators simply

offset other forms of generation at whatever the natural flow of the river allows them

The City’s Whitehead Power Plant consists of six natural gas-powered generators which can be operated

based on current economics or as other obligations dictate. Whitehead Power Plant also serves as an

important backup power supply to the City’s adjacent wastewater treatment plant. For the purposes of

this study the power plant is not considered, nor are its contributions to the cost of electricity to the City

included in the standard of service.

The City is a member of the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS), an organization

that allows each of its municipal members to invest collectively in projects which benefit each specific

member. Through UAMPS, the City is able to economically participate in outside generation projects

along with other municipalities in projects including wind, natural gas, hydroelectric and coal-fired

generation. The City has also purchased a percentage of the UAMPS Nebo Power station near Payson,

Utah.

13 | P a g e

2.3.3 Transmission System

A power transmission system is sometimes referred to colloquially as a "grid." Redundant paths and

lines are provided so that power can be routed from numerous power sources to dispersed load centers

as required. Power routing is based on the economics of transmission and physical characteristics of

the transmission path as well as the cost of power. Whitehead Power Plant steps the 6.9kV generator

voltage up to the City’s sub-transmission voltage of 46kV for distribution throughout the City. The

City’s hydroelectric plants are connected to the distribution system at 12.47kV. Due to their small size,

the power from the hydro-generators is “consumed” on the distribution network without feeding any

power to the 46kV system. Springville City’s external energy sources or points of delivery are the

Southern Utah Valley Power Systems (SUVPS) Dry Creek Substation and the City’s Calvin J. Baxter

Substation.

Dry Creek Substation is fed from several 138kV transmission lines and contains two 138kV-46kV

transformers. The City uses two bays on the 46kV bus attached to these transformers to feed Baxter

Substation and Hobble Creek Substation. Dry Creek Substation feeds numerous SUVPS members in

addition to the City of Springville. Baxter substation also has a second 46kV feed from Rocky Mountain

Power’s Spanish Forks Substation.

A map of the SUVPS power system is included below. The City is located at the northern most edge

of the SUVPS system. The green lines feeding into the City represent the current 46kV transmission

lines owned by the City.

14 | P a g e

Figure 2-3 SUVPS 46kV Switch Map

Source: City of Springville

See Exhibit 8 for the full-size version.

2.3.4 Distribution System

Electricity distribution is the final stage in the delivery of electricity to end-users. A distribution system's

network carries electricity from the transmission system and delivers it to the end consumer. The City’s

electric distribution system includes medium-voltage (12.47kV) distribution lines, breakers/reclosers,

switches, poles, transformers, service drops, and metering. The City’s distribution system begins as the

voltage is stepped down from 46kV to 12.47kV, via the City’s six substation transformers located at the

five distribution substations dispersed throughout the City (Baxter Substation contains two distribution

transformers). Table 2-2 below shows each distribution substation and the capacity of the

transformers within each substation. Table 2-2 does not include City owned generation step-up

15 | P a g e

transformers at the Hobble Creek Canyon hydroelectric facilities and Whitehead Power Plant. In

addition to the City’s 12.47kV distribution loads, the City also serves the Stouffers industrial load

at 4.16kV through two redundant transformers. Due to the difference in low-side voltages, these

transformers cannot be utilized to serve other City loads and are therefore categorized differently

in the table below and not considered in the overall City transformer capacity N-1 calculations.

Table 2-2

System Transformer Capacity

Transformer

Primary Bus

voltage

Secondary Bus

Voltage

Load Tap

Changer

Manufacture Year

MVA Base

Rating

Distribution Substations

Baxter Substation Transformer #1 46kV 12.47kV Yes 2004 12

Baxter Substation Transformer #2 46kV 12.47kV Yes 1993 12

Compound Substation 46kV 12.47kV Yes 2007 12

Hobble Creek Substation 46kV 12.47kV Yes 2001 25

Knight Substation 46kV 12.47kV Yes 2008 12

900 North Substation 46kV 12.47kV Yes 1976 12

Total Distribution Transformer Capacity 85

Industrial Substations

Stouffers Substation Transformer #1 46kV 4.16kV Yes 1997 12

Stouffers Substation Transformer #2 46kV 4.16kV Yes 1997 12

Total Industrial Transformer Capacity 24

Conductors for the distribution delivery system are either located overhead on utility poles or

buried underground. Distribution is normally three-phase in order to serve all types of customers;

residential, commercial, and industrial. The City currently owns approximately 275 miles of

distribution lines throughout the city.

The distribution system ends as the secondary service enters the customer's meter socket via a

transformer (pole mounted or ground level with protective enclosure), which reduces the

distribution voltage to the relatively low voltage used by lighting and interior wiring systems.

A copy of the City’s power distribution map is shown below with the red boxes designating the

Substation and the colored lines representing the 12.47kV distribution system.

16 | P a g e

Figure 2-4 Springville City Power-Distribution Map

Source: City of Springville

See Exhibit 8 for the full-size version.

In addition to the five distribution substations discussed above, the City also operates and

maintains Stouffers substation, Whitehead Power Plant substation and a portion of Dry Creek

substation. Stouffers substation represents the City’s only dedicated industrial substation. This

substation feeds power exclusively to the Stouffers plant at 4.16kV. The Stouffers plant load is

evaluated in the system as a “point load”, which affects the City’s 46kV transmission but has no

effect on the 12.47kV distribution system loads. Whitehead substation (shown on the above maps

as “Electric Operations Center”) contains three transformers which as discussed above, step up

voltage from the generators at 6.9kV and onto the 46kV loop.

17 | P a g e

2.4 Level of Service Standards The City plans, designs and operates its system based on the following criteria:

Transformer ratings under varying load levels and loading conditions must remain below their

base rating;

The system must be able to adequately serve load under single contingency (N-1) situations,

where “N” is power system elements such as a transformer or line;

The system switching required under an N-1 contingency should remain as simplified as

possible to ensure that switching orders not become unnecessarily complex;

Distribution circuit loading criteria must remain below 90% of its maximum current rating;

Primary circuit voltage must remain between 95% and 105% of its nominal value; and

Distribution circuit mains must be able to serve additional load under N-1 contingencies.

The above criteria were used to determine Springville’s future facility needs based on the amount of

load (i.e., demand) placed on the existing system over a pre-determined CFP/IFFP planning horizon

(e.g., one, three, six and ten years).

2.5 Demands Placed on Existing Facilities The demand placed on an electric system is typically measured in kilowatts (kW) or kilovolt-amperes

(kVA) and stated as either coincident-peak (“CP”) demand or non-coincident peak (“NCP”) demand.

The system CP demand is typically the maximum hourly demand for the entire system measured over

some time period (e.g. week, month, year); i.e., the point in time where the sum of all demands placed

on the system are the highest for the system as a whole. The NCP demand represents the sum of the

maximum demands of individual customers or customer classes (e.g., residential, commercial,

industrial) measured or estimated for a time period. The CP demand represents the combined loads

across all customer classes measured at the system level where the NCP demand represents the total

demand the system would be subject to if all customer classes peaked at the same time. The CP demand,

by definition, will always be lower than the NCP demand. For purposes of calculating Impact Fees, CP

is used to represent the demands placed on existing infrastructure primarily because the CP demand is

normally the demand that a utility plans for when sizing facilities that will be used to meet future growth

on the system. However, each individual piece of equipment must be able to support its own individual

peak demand even if that demand does not occur at the same time as the system’s CP.

18 | P a g e

The analysis of the City’s projected demands for the IFFP one, six- and ten-years periods is shown in

Exhibit 1 attached hereto and summarized hereunder in Table 2-3.

Table 2-3

Summary of CP and NCP Demands

For the Period 2020 through 2029

Description 2020

1 Year

2022

3 Year

2025

6 Year

2029

10 Year

Total System CP Demands (kW) 65,414 69,060 73,939 80,887

Total System NCP Demands (kW) 79,653 84,115 90,319 99,205

The System CP demands for the forecast period were developed by the Consultant and reviewed by the

City. From the load forecast in Exhibit 1, the estimated NCP demands (measured at the meter) shown

on lines 25-29 were computed based on the Projected Energy Sales (shown on lines 4-8) and the

following assumptions and considerations:

Residential customer growth is estimated to be 325 new connections in 2020 and will grow at

a rate of 2.32% per year which is correlated to the anticipated population growth as defined by

the City. Commercial customer growth was assumed to be approximately 7.4 percent of

Residential customer growth based on a review of historical data. No growth in customers was

assumed for the Industrial rate class and the “Other” customer class was assumed to grow at

one (1) connection per year, based on an analysis of historical data.

A large incoming commercial load, Wavetronics, is expected to come to the city. This was

added as a spot load after the growth calculations. Wavetronics was added as 0.5MW in year

1 and 1.0MW for year 2 and thereafter.

Growth in Average Annual Usage per Customer (lines 40-43) for residential, commercial and

other customer classes was assumed to be zero due to increases in appliance efficiencies,

demand side management programs and increased penetration of rooftop solar. Industrial

customers were predicted to show growth in relation to GDP.

Estimated NCP Load Factors (lines 44-47) were assumed to be: Residential – 30%;

Commercial – 40%; Industrial – 65% and Other - 40%.

19 | P a g e

The System Load Factor (line 3) was assumed to average approximately 50% over the forecast

period and approximates recent historical loading patterns for the system. This was determined

by historical loading.

As discussed later in Section 3, it is the estimated change (i.e., increase) in the Total System CP demand

from 2020 to 2029 that is used as the basis for calculation of the IFFP. Based on 2019 metering data,

the system CP was 62,496 kW and the total system load was 277,420 MWh. By dividing the system

load by the number of hours in the year (8,760hrs) and then dividing that number by the system CP, the

calculated load factor is 50.7%.

Starting in year 1, a spot load was added to feeder 704 to emulate the proposed Wavetronics facility.

The year 1 IFFP model spot load was modeled as 500kW and then increased to 1.0MW in year two and

remains constant from that point forward. This additional spot load was not added in addition to the

normal anticipated load growth numbers, therefore, the first- and second-year growth to the system was

slightly higher than future years.

The chart below summarizes both the historical demand (blue) and the future demand (maroon) with

the Wavetronics spot load (Purple) as designated in Exhibit 1. The green line represents the expected

population as discussed in Section 2.2.

20 | P a g e

Figure 2-5

Graph of CP Demands and Population

For the Period 1994 through 2040

2.6 System Modeling In order to find the deficiencies and surpluses within the City’s current electrical system, a working

electrical model was created by the Consultant with data collected from the City’s employees,

substation inspections by the Consultant, SUVPS reports and PacificCorp information. This model was

created using Aspen Power Flow, Version V14.5. The existing system was analyzed for deficiencies,

had any deficiencies been identified they would have been assigned a corresponding Capital

Improvement Project (CIP) to be performed outside of the Impact Fee Projects; no existing deficiencies

were identified. After the existing system was analyzed, the model was updated for the estimated

changes in demands due to growth on the system at different IFFP plan intervals. At each IFFP interval,

21 | P a g e

the system was then evaluated and any deficiencies created by this additional demand were identified

and noted as a CIP/IFFP project for that plan interval. When the model was updated for the next plan

interval, it was assumed that all the capital projects identified in the CFP/IFFP for the previous interval

were implemented. Figure 2-6 below shows the current “Base Case” model with the existing system

components.

Figure 2-6

Aspen Load Flow Model

Base Case Model

2.7 “N-1” Contingencies Being able to continuously operate at an acceptable N-1 contingency level means that the system can

withstand the loss of any single system component (equipment, transmission line, source, etc.) while

still providing service to its customers at an acceptable standard of service as defined above. In order

22 | P a g e

to verify that the City maintains N-1 contingency in its current system as well as for the future growth,

each model was modified to remove electrical components from service. Single contingency analysis

was conducted for substation transformers, 46kV line segments, certain critical underground cables,

generator failures and source failures.

As an example, if one of the substation transformers in Table 2-2 fails, the load being fed from that

transformer must be fed from any combination of the remaining substation transformers. This load is

transferred over to neighboring substation transformers by use of distribution switches at the 12.47kV

level. The transfer of this load from one transformer to its neighbors necessitates that both the

neighboring transformers have enough available capacity to serve this additional load and that the

distribution system is robust enough to support the transfer of the additional demand through the

12.47kV distribution system.

2.8 Model Results The results of the “Base Case” model confirmed that the current system can serve the entirety of its

current load within the identified standard of service. As discussed in Section 2.6, each time a deficiency

was identified, a project was assigned and assumed to be implemented before the next analysis was

run. Section 2.11 below lists projects which the analysis identified as being necessary over the IFFP

planning windows. These projects were broken down into five different priority levels; High Priority,

Moderately High Priority, Medium Priority, Low Priority and Existing Deficiencies. Each level

corresponds to a different implementation schedule. The physical location of future development was

modeled as realistically as possible. However due to unpredictability of load growth in both scale and

the location, some projects in the IFFP may need to be implemented prior to the scheduled dates below

while some could possibly be postponed.

2.9 10 Year Primary Growth Area The City staff provided the Consultant with a map showing the identified area where the majority of

the load growth was anticipated for the 10-year IFFP plan. Growth outside the area was also considered

and additional loads can be added throughout the system as need for future development.

23 | P a g e

2.10 SUVPS Projects As discussed above, the City is a member of the SUVPS along with three other cities and one service

district. SUVPS operates on funding from its members to provide transmission and transformation for

resources which are purchased through UAMPS for its members, including the City. As a member of

SUVPS, the City is a partner in various projects which benefit itself, as well as all of the other members.

The cost of these projects is divided amongst the member utilities equitably based on the benefit to each

utility by project. SUVPS previously released in 2013, and is in the process of updating, a Capital

Facility Plan prepared by Intermountain Consumer Professional Engineers, Inc that will be completed

in 2020. The Projects recommended for N-1 contingencies based on the 2013 SUVPS system load of

155MW require contributions from each SUVPS member. Because some of these projects are being

required for the existing loading, they are qualified as “Existing Deficiencies” in the Springville IFFP

project listing. There are several future SUVPS projects identified in the project listings which may

be required due to future demands. These SUVPS projects may or may not be included in the IFFP

projects. It is to be noted that SUVPS has not determined the budget for these projects or an allocation

to each member. The IFFP project listing should be updated after SUVPS issues an approved budget

with the appropriate projects included. This report may be updated in the future based on the

requirements of the forthcoming SUVPS report.

2.11 IFFP Projects CFP items are listed based on five priority levels as described below. As discussed in Section 1, the deductive method of IFA calculation was used:

Priority 1: High Priority – Recommended to be completed within one year

Priority 2: Moderately High Priority – Recommended to be completed within 3 years

Priority 3: Medium Priority – Recommended to be completed within 6 years

Priority 4: Low Priority – Recommended to be completed with 10 years

Existing Deficiencies: CFP Only

These projects are listed in Table 2-4 and, are presented in more detail in Exhibit 2.

Table 2-4

CFP/IFFP Projects

Outline Impact Fee Study for Years 2020-2029

24 | P a g e

Impact Fee Cost Analysis

2.11.1 High Priority – One Year Projects Projects identified as “High Priority” are projects which under current loading, are very near their

design limits or are close to violating the current level of service. These projects either lack the

additional capacity to allow for any substantial load growth to be supported in the immediate future or

are projects which are currently scheduled for updates for reasons other than growth.

25 | P a g e

Project #1 – Additional Feeder to Under the Interstate: To facilitate the growth in the area

west of the I-15 around 1000 north, and to provide N-1 contingency feeds to feeder 706, an

additional crossing of I-15 is necessary. Currently there are only two feeds under I-15. One is

located on feeder 706 and the other on feeder 101. Should one of these crossings be taken out

of service, the existing crossing will be overloaded in the near term. In order to avoid an

overload condition at these crossings, feeder 703 will have to be extended. This additional

feeder will be underground and eventually become a part of the new feeder 704 when it is

added. The propose cable for this feeder is the City’s standard 1100 kcmil underground cable

which is rated for 13.35MVA. The approximate length of the extended feeder is approximately

3200 ft. The estimated cost of this extension was calculated using the City’s current material

costs and labor rates as well as estimated project man hours and equipment hours. This

estimated construction cost is $256,128. Because this extended feeder is added solely for the

additional demands of new development, 100% of the costs associated with the feeder are

applied to the impact fee.

Projects #2a, 2b – Upgrades to Stouffers Substation: For the 46kV transmission system to

be protected and dispatched from Stouffers substation, several additions must be incorporated

into the existing substation design. These updates include additions of circuit switchers on the

existing transformers. This upgrade will increase the reliability of the system and allows for

slightly higher loads to be fed through the transmission lines due to new protective relay settings

on the 46kV protective relays at Baxter Substation. Part B of this project is the addition of 46kV

transmission breakers at Stouffers substation. This addition will allow for the system to be

segmented automatically if there is a fault on the incoming 46kV system. These new breakers

would allow for the 46kV system to be looped and would allow the additional capacity of the

new 46kV line to be fed into the existing system. This additional switching ability is required

due to increased load on the 46kV east and central lines. In particular, the east line will have

difficulty supplying load to the central line substations in the event of a loss of the center 46kV

line. This addition will also increase the reliability of the system for existing customers.

Therefore, the existing rate payer will pay 50% of the cost of this project.

Table 2-5

High Priority

Stouffers Substation Upgrades

26 | P a g e

Project Increase in Customer Reliability

Estimated Cost

Percent to Impact

Fee

Impact Fee Cost

#2A – Circuit Switchers Significant $162,470 10% $16,247

#2B – Transmission Breakers Increased $275,000 50% $137,500

Project #3 – Install Feeder 704: Feeders 101, 103, 203, and 706 can no longer accommodate

the added load as additional development is constructed in the IFFP area. An additional feeder

from Hobble Creek (feeder 704) will need to be installed. The feeder will initially serve the

incoming load due to the Wavetronics facility. This feeder’s other loads can be determined in

the future as new developments are planned and added. The cost of this new feeder addition is

estimated to be $572,286 with 100% of the new capacity serving new demand and therefore

the entire project will be recovered using impact fee dollars.

Total Costs of High Priority Projects

Estimated Costs $1,265,884

Impact Fee Costs $982,161 (approximately 77.6% of the total Estimated Costs)

2.11.2 Moderately High Priority – 3 Year Projects

Project #4 Upgrade to feeder 202: The conductor utilized on feeder 202 will need upgrading

in order to service the loads from feeder 601 for N-1 contingency as well as to facilitate future

growth. The conductor that will be upgraded is from Knight sub from Main St to 400 West.

The line is approximately 3200 ft. The current conductor size of this feeder is 4/0 aluminum

conductor which is rated for 7.5MVA of load. The proposed new conductor for this feeder is

the City’s standard 477 kcmil aluminum conductor which is rated for 12.70MVA of load. This

is an additional 5.23MVA above the current capacity. Fifteen percent of this line is underbuilt

on 46kV transmission lines. The estimated cost of the upgrade to this line was calculated using

the City’s current material costs and labor rates as well as estimated project man hours and

equipment hours. This estimated construction cost is $432,533. The portion of the cost which

was applied to the impact fee calculation is the proportion of the capacity added to this feeder

for new growth divided by the total capacity which will also be used to feed existing loads as

shown in the Equation 2.1 below.

Equation 2.1 Impact Fee Cost Percentage

27 | P a g e

% �� =�� − ��

��

For example, for Project #4 the existing capacity of the circuit is 7.47MVA, the updated capacity

after the conductor replacement will be 12.7MVA. This results in a 5.23MVA increase in

capacity of this section of line. 5.23MVA of increased capacity over the 12.7MVA of total

capacity results in a 41.2% increase overall. This percentage is then applied to the project cost

for what will be recovered in impact fees (each project has a percentage calculated based on

existing equipment capacity and the proposed upgraded equipment capacity).

12.7�� − 7.47��

12.7��= 41.2%

41.2% × $432,533 = $178,204

It is assumed that $178,204 will be collected from impact fees for this project and the remaining

$254,329 (58.8%) will be collected from rate revenues.

Project #5, #6 and #7 - Upgrade to Feeder 103 Overhead, 103 Underground, 103

Overhead: Feeder 103 is an existing feeder from Baxter substation along 1600 South from

SR51 to 950 West for project #5, along 400 South between 950 West to 1500 West for project

#6 and along SR51 from Baxter substation to 700 South for project #7. The approximate length

for the upgrade for each project is 6,110ft, 2,646ft, and 7,213ft respectively. The proposed

conductor for this new feeder is the City’s standard 477 kcmil aluminum conductor for the

overhead lines and 1100 kcmil underground cable for the underground portions. Seventy

percent of project #7 will be underbuilt. Using Equation 2.1, the estimated project costs, their

percentage applied to the impact fee, and the resulting costs to be recovered from the impact

fee are shown in Table 2-6.

28 | P a g e

Table 2-6

Projects #5, #6 and #7

Distribution line Upgrades

Project

Current Conductor Capacity (MVA)

Proposed Conductor Capacity (MVA)

Estimated Cost

Percent to

Impact Fee

Impact Fee Cost

#5 – Upgrade to Feeder 103 7.47 12.70 $356,946 41% $146,994 #6 - Upgrade to Feeder 103 UG 6.16 13.35 $243,554 54% $131,172 #7 – Upgrade to Feeder 103 7.47 12.70 $467,835 41% $192,660

Project #8 – Add new feeder to North Sub: Expected loads in the area will exceed the

capacity of feeders 503 and 203 in the future. The approximate length of the new feeder will

be 1,500ft. The proposed conductor for this new feeder is the City’s standard 477 kcmil

aluminum conductor which is rated for 12.70MVA of load. The cost of the new feeder is

calculated at $126,770. Only fifteen percent of the capacity will be available for new

development due to current transformer loading. This transformer is aging so any future

transformer upgrade undertaken as a capital expenditure project will allow for more

development to be sourced by this feeder and substation. The impact fee amount recovered for

this project would be $19,016 based on the current substation configuration and loading.

Project #9 – New Substation Near Center Street: Baxter T1 and Knight substation

transformers are operating close to their ratings. At the future load requirements of the areas,

neither could back up capacity from other substations for N-1 contingencies. Load growth is

also expected in the areas fed by these substations. In the previous report, a project was

proposed to move 103 loads onto T2 at Baxter substation. As a result of the new load growth

that is planned on feeder 103, T2 will be overloaded in its current configuration. To free up

capacity at Baxter substation, an additional feeder from Hobble Creek was evaluated as a means

of offloading feeder 101 onto Hobble Creek. The calculated cost of a new dedicated feeder

was estimated at $1,550,000. Evaluating the difficulty in supporting contingency loads at

Baxter substation in the event of an N-1 loss of Hobble Creek substation has indicated that a

new substation will be required more quickly than was previously assumed. The new substation

would be able to carry load from feeders 101, 103, 706 as well as other required by the future

29 | P a g e

growth. If land and easements can be procured at costs similar to those purchased recently by

the City in that area for other projects, then the new substation is estimated to cost $2,746,200.

Project # 10 - Capacitor Additions to the System: Capacitors on the 12.47kV distribution

help to correct the power factor of the system load as seen by the substation transformers and

the City’s electrical sources. The City is contractually obligated to maintain above a 0.95

lagging power factor. In simple terms, the power factor is the ratio of real power to apparent

power. Apparent power (Volt-amps) is comprised of the vector sum of real power (watts) and

reactive or magnetizing power (Volt-amps Reactive). By adding capacitors to the 12.47kV

system, the City can lower the magnetizing current required from outside sources and maintain

its required 0.95 power factor. The new demand brought on by the planned development can

vary the amount of reactive power required from the system. As a result, the additional

capacitor support required for maintaining the correct power factor will vary. The assumption

used in this study for additional power requirements of the systems is that for every 1,000kW

increase in load, the City will need to supply approximately 150kVAR. Capacitor installation

locations are best determined by examining feeder loads and placing the capacitors on the

feeders with the largest reactive power demands. The capacitor locations will be determined

by the City electrical department. Because these capacitors are added solely for the additional

demands of new development, 100% of the costs associated with power factor correction

capacitors are applied to the impact fee at a price of $37,500.

Total Costs of Moderately High Priority Projects

Estimated Costs $4,411,338 + SUVPS

Impact Fee Costs $3,451,664 (approximately 78.2% of the total Estimated Costs)

2.11.3 Medium Priority – 6 Year Projects

Project #11 – Upgrade Feeder 203: In order to provide N-1 contingency protection for the

expected growth on feeder 103, feeder 203 must have the ability to pick up loads from the

feeder 103. The feeder 203 section that connects feeder 103 to the main feeder 203 at 400 West

and 400 South requires an upgrade. The length of this feeder is approximately 215ft. The

existing conductor is 4/0 aluminum which will be replace by the proposed conductor using the

City’s standard 477 kcmil aluminum conductor. The total cost of the project is $12,560 and

41% of it needs to be collect from impact fee which is $5,172.

30 | P a g e

Project #12 – Capacitor Additions to the System: A requirement of 750kVAR of

capacitance is calculated. The cost of this addition is $37,500 for the six years Medium Priority

growth with the entirety of the cost to be paid out of impact fees.

Projects #13a, 13b – Upgrades to Feeder 203: In order to provide N-1 contingency protection

for the expected growth on feeder 203, feeder 203 must be able to pick its own additional loads

while still offloading Compound substation. Feeder 203 must be upgraded and completed from

400 South to 500 North along 950 West. This will be replaced by the proposed conductor using

the City’s standard 477 kcmil aluminum conductor. The total cost of the project is $292,100

and $69,286 is expected to be recovered through impact fees.

Total Costs of Medium Priority Projects

Estimated Costs $342,160 + SUVPS

Impact Fee Costs $111,959 (32.7% of the total Estimated Costs)

2.11.4 Low Priority – 10 Year Projects

Project #14 – Capacitor Additions to the System: 1000kVAR of capacitance is calculated

to be added at a price of $50,000 for the ten-year low priority growth with the entirety of the

cost to be paid out of impact fees.

Project #15 – Upgrade to 103 Underground Feeder: In order to facilitate growth in the area

identified in the Ten Year IFFP, the underground section of feeder 103 between 400 west and

950 west along 400 south requires an upgrade. The section is approximately 2,265ft and its

existing cable is 4/0 underground cable. The proposed 1,100 kcmil cable is the City’s

underground cable standard. The cost of the project would be $208,484 and 54% will be

collected through impact fees using the equation 2.1.

Total Costs of Low Priority Projects

Estimated Costs $258,484

Impact Fee Costs $162,285 (approximately 62.9% of the total Estimated Costs)

2.12 IFFP Capital Projects and Costs The IFFP projects listed above can be found in table form in Exhibit 2. The budgets for these projects

are estimated in 2019 dollars. As with most capital facilities plans, the majority of these projects are

31 | P a g e

scheduled to occur in the earlier planning windows. Growth in demand on the system generally happens

in “groups” or “lumps” according to actual commercial and residential development. Because

residential developments are generally in subdivision form and commercial developments are generally

grouped around a single location, many of the sub-areas in the IFFP area may not realize the growth

modeled. Therefore, some of the projects which were identified as being in the High and Moderately

High Priority level project listings could, in reality, be delayed until required by localized growth.

2.13 Disclosures Salient Power Engineering, LLC has performed engineering assistance for Springville City Capital

projects in the past. The Consultant may issue proposals to continue to provide engineering assistance

for projects listed in the IFFP project listing. The projects listed have been discussed and approved by

Springville City Electric department staff. The Consultant has relied upon information provided by City

Staff as well as public information. While the Consultant has no reason to believe any of this information

to be inaccurate or incomplete, the Consultant has not independently verified such information and

cannot guarantee its accuracy.

2.14 Certification of the IFFP I certify that the attached Impact Fee Facilities Plan:

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 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

32 | P a g e

methodological standards set forth by the federal Office of Management and Budget

for federal grant reimbursement;

3. complies in each and every relevant respect with the Impact Fees Act.

CERTIFIED BY:

Signature: ________________ ______________

Name: Christopher W. Mielke

Title: Vice President

Date: _____

33 | P a g e

Section 3 - Impact Fee Analysis

3.1 General As discussed in Section 1, the IFA portion of the Statue requires that each local political subdivision

intending to impose an impact fee prepare a written analysis of each impact fee. It also requires that IFA

include a summary designed to be understood by a lay person. Additional requirements include

identifying the estimated impacts on existing capacity and system improvements caused by the

anticipated development activity. The political subdivision must also estimate the proportionate share

of (i) the costs of existing capacity that will be recouped and (ii) the costs of the impacts on system

improvements that are reasonably related to the new development activity.

3.2 Impact Fee Analysis The Impact Fee Analysis involved three (3) basic steps or sub-analyses: (1) an Impact Fee Cost

Analysis; (2) an Impact Fee Demand Analysis; and (3) the Calculation of the Impact Fee. The Impact

Fee Cost Analysis is shown in the attached Exhibit 3. As shown on page 2, line 1 of this Exhibit, the

Total Cost of New Development-related Projects is $5,061,355, as presented in Table 2-4 above. Three

adjustments were made to this amount to account for (i) previous IFFP Projects in Progress Not

Accounted for in the Current Study (zero for this study) (see line 2); (ii) the balance of Net Revenues

Available in the Impact Fee Fund ($1,080,623) (see line 4); and (iii) the Portion Designed to Recover

Existing Facilities (line 5) from previous reports (zero for this study). After these three adjustments are

made it produces an amount of Net Impact Fee Project Costs to be Recovered of $3,980,732 (line 7).

$5,061,355 − $0 − $1,080,623 − $0 = $3,98,732

The Impact Fee Demand Analysis is presented in Exhibit 4. This analysis calculates the Demand Placed

on the Existing System to be used as the denominator in determining the Impact Fee. The first step was

to determine the increase in the CP demand over the 10-year Recovery Period (2020 – 2029 which is

18,391 kW (see lines 1-3). The increase in CP demand was then converted to NCP by applying an

Estimated System Diversity Factor of 1.25; resulting in an increase in NCP demand at the input to the

34 | P a g e

distribution system of 22,988 kW. The System Diversity Factor is actually the reciprocal of the System

Coincidence Factor which is the relationship between (i) the maximum kilowatt demand established

simultaneously by all customers (CP Demand) and (ii) the arithmetic sum of the maximum demands of

the individual customers regardless of the time of day at which they occur (NCP Demand).5 This

relationship can be express as follows:

CP / NCP = Coincidence Factor

The projected average annual Coincidence Factor for the SCP system was determined to be 0.80 and

was calculated by first applying estimated the following NCP load factors to estimated energy sales by

rate class.

Residential – 30%

Commercial – 40%

Industrial – 65%

Other – 40%

The resulting NCP Demands by rate class were then summed to produce the Total System NCP at the

meter level – see line 29 of Exhibit 1. The resulting System Coincidence Factors are shown on line 30

of Exhibit 1. It was therefore determined from this analysis that the appropriate Coincidence Factor to

use for the Impact Fee Demand analysis is 0.80 which results in a Diversity Factor of 1.25 (1/0.80).

The Diversity Factor was simply multiplied times the increase in the CP Demand at Input to produce

the Estimated NCP Demand at Input shown on line 5 of Exhibit 4 (22,988 kW). This demand was then

adjusted to the meter level by subtracting losses (estimated at 2.4%) which produced the NCP of

22,436.4 kW (line 7) used in the Impact Fee Calculation.

The Impact Fee Calculation is provided in Exhibit 5 and is restated below for ease of reference.

1. Net Impact Fee Project Costs to be Recovered = $3,980,732

2. Future Demand Placed on Existing System = 22,436.4 kW

3. Base Impact Fee (line 1 / line 2) = $177.42 per kW

4. Impact Fee at 30% Panel Utilization = $53.23 per kW

5 “The Art of Rate Design,” Frank S. Walters, 1984 Edison Electric Institute.

35 | P a g e

The 30 percent6 Panel Utilization factor recognizes the oversizing that is assumed to be typical for new

customer electrical panels installed on the Springville City system. That is, electrical panels are

designed such that a customer will only utilize a fraction of the total panel capacity available, even

during periods of high demand.

3.3 Impact Fee Charges – Present and Proposed A summary of Impact Fee charges for the Residential and Commercial customer classes is provided in

the attached Exhibit 6. The estimated charges, shown by the selected electric panel size, have been

calculated under each of the proposed Impact Fees as compared to the current Impact Fee. The

calculation of the Impact Fee charge is based on the following Equation 3.1 and Equation 3.2:

Equation 3.1 Single Phased Calculation

�� =�� × ��

1000× ��

Example 200A 120/240V Single Phase Service

200� �� ℎ�� =200� × 240�

1000× $53.20/�� = $2,554

Equation 3.2 3 Phase Calculation

�� = √3 ×�� ×��

��× ��

Example 600A 120/208V Three Phase Service

600� �ℎ�� ℎ�� = √3600� × 208�

1000× $53.20/�� = $11,499

Charges under the currently effective Impact Fee, shown under column (a) of Exhibit 6, are calculated

using a base fee of $60.74. The worksheet that Springville City used to determine impact fees for new

connections is attached as Exhibit 7. Charges under the Proposed Impact Fee (base $53.20) are shown

6 The 30 percent is consistent with the like factor used for the 2004 and 2012 Impact Fee Study.

36 | P a g e

in column (b) of Exhibit 6. Exhibit 6 contrasts the Current Impact Fee versus the Proposed Impact Fee

to showcase the differences of charges for both residential and commercial customers.

37 | P a g e

3.4 Certification of the IFA I certify that the attached Impact Fee Analysis:

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 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. offsets costs with grants or other alternate sources of payment; and

4. complies in each and every relevant respect with the Impact Fees Act.

CERTIFIED BY:

Signature : Name: Robert E. Pender, ASA

Title: President

Company: R. E. Pender, Inc.

Date: __________

Springville City Power EXHIBIT 1 Impact Fee Analysis

EXHIBIT 1

Exhibit 1Page 1 of 3

Line 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

No. Description 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029

1 System Coincident Peak Demand [1] kW 65,414.0 67,469.3 69,060.3 70,687.8 72,295.5 73,939.0 75,619.0 77,336.3 79,091.9 80,886.5

2 Total System Energy (Input to Distribution System) [2] MWh 284,323.2 291,135.7 298,104.3 305,232.5 312,274.4 319,472.7 326,831.0 334,353.0 342,042.3 349,902.7

3 System Load Factor % 49.6% 49.3% 49.3% 49.3% 49.3% 49.3% 49.3% 49.4% 49.4% 49.4%

Energy Sales at Meter [3]

4 Residential MWh 88,970.9 91,672.5 94,437.1 97,266.0 100,160.9 103,123.2 106,154.5 109,256.5 112,430.8 115,679.0

5 Commercial MWh 101,192.9 103,294.3 105,444.7 107,645.2 109,896.9 112,201.1 114,559.0 116,971.9 119,440.9 121,967.5

6 Industrial MWh 75,746.0 77,488.1 79,270.4 81,093.6 82,715.5 84,369.8 86,057.2 87,778.3 89,533.9 91,324.5

7 Other MWh 10,916.8 11,004.5 11,092.2 11,179.8 11,267.5 11,355.2 11,442.9 11,530.6 11,618.3 11,706.0

8 Total MWh 276,826.6 283,459.4 290,244.3 297,184.6 304,040.8 311,049.3 318,213.6 325,537.3 333,023.8 340,677.0

9 System Energy Loss Factor [4] % 2.64% 2.64% 2.64% 2.64% 2.64% 2.64% 2.64% 2.64% 2.64% 2.64%

Number of Customers [5]

Year-End

10 Residential # 10,988 11,320 11,661 12,009 12,365 12,730 13,103 13,485 13,875 14,275

11 Commercial # 1,199 1,224 1,250 1,276 1,303 1,330 1,358 1,387 1,416 1,446

12 Industrial # 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

13 Other # 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134

14 Total 12,314 12,673 13,040 13,415 13,799 14,192 14,594 15,005 15,426 15,857

Average

15 Residential # 10,825 11,154 11,491 11,835 12,187 12,547 12,916 13,294 13,680 14,075

16 Commercial # 1,187 1,212 1,237 1,263 1,289 1,316 1,344 1,372 1,401 1,431

17 Industrial # 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

18 Other # 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134

19 Total # 12,139 12,494 12,856 13,227 13,607 13,995 14,393 14,799 15,216 15,642

Average Annual Usage Per Customer

20 Residential [6] MWh/Cust. 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2

21 Commercial [7] MWh/Cust. 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2 85.2

22 Industrial [7] MWh/Cust. 37,873.0 38,744.1 39,635.2 40,546.8 41,357.7 42,184.9 43,028.6 43,889.2 44,766.9 45,662.3

23 Other [6] MWh/Cust. 87.7 87.7 87.7 87.7 87.7 87.7 87.7 87.7 87.7 87.7

24 Total MWh/Cust. 22,804.4 22,688.5 22,576.4 22,467.8 22,344.8 22,225.3 22,109.3 21,996.5 21,886.9 21,780.3

Estimated NCP Demand at Meter [8]

25 Residential kW 33,855.0 34,883.0 35,935.0 37,011.4 38,113.0 39,240.2 40,393.7 41,574.0 42,781.9 44,017.9

26 Commercial kW 29,379.2 30,479.0 31,092.7 31,720.6 32,363.3 33,020.9 33,693.8 34,382.4 35,087.0 35,808.1

27 Industrial kW 13,302.8 13,608.7 13,921.7 14,241.9 14,526.8 14,817.3 15,113.7 15,415.9 15,724.2 16,038.7

28 Other kW 3,115.5 3,140.5 3,165.6 3,190.6 3,215.6 3,240.6 3,265.7 3,290.7 3,315.7 3,340.7

29 Total kW 79,652.5 82,111.2 84,114.9 86,164.6 88,218.6 90,319.0 92,466.8 94,663.0 96,908.9 99,205.4

30 System Coincidence Factor % 80.0% 80.0% 79.9% 79.9% 79.8% 79.7% 79.6% 79.5% 79.5% 79.4%

Springville City Power

2019 Impact Fee Study

Forecasted Customers, Energy and Demands

For Years 2020 - 2029

Forecast Period

20191121 SCP_Impact Fee Study_Load Forecast.xlsx Salient Power/R. E. Pender, Inc.


Line 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

No. Description 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029




For Years 2020 - 2029

Forecast Period

Average NCP Per Customer

31 Residential kW/Cust. 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1

32 Commercial kW/Cust. 24.7 25.2 25.1 25.1 25.1 25.1 25.1 25.1 25.0 25.0

33 Industrial kW/Cust. 6,651.4 6,804.4 6,960.9 7,121.0 7,263.4 7,408.7 7,556.8 7,708.0 7,862.1 8,019.4

34 Other kW/Cust. 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0

35 Total kW/Cust. 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.3

Avg. Number of Customers Added Per Year [9]

36 Residential 325 332 340 348 356 365 373 382 391 400

37 Commercial 24 25 26 26 27 27 28 29 29 30

38 Industrial - - - - - - - - - -

39 Other 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Estimated Increase in Average Usage Per Customer [10]

40 Residential 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

41 Commercial 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

42 Industrial 2.30% 2.30% 2.30% 2.30% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%

43 Other 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Estimated Class NCP Load Factor [11]

44 Residential 30.00% 30.00% 30.00% 30.00% 30.00% 30.00% 30.00% 30.00% 30.00% 30.00%

45 Commercial 40.00% 40.00% 40.00% 40.00% 40.00% 40.00% 40.00% 40.00% 40.00% 40.00%

46 Industrial 65.00% 65.00% 65.00% 65.00% 65.00% 65.00% 65.00% 65.00% 65.00% 65.00%

47 Other 40.00% 40.00% 40.00% 40.00% 40.00% 40.00% 40.00% 40.00% 40.00% 40.00%

Footnotes shown on page 3.



[1] Calculated based on Total System Energy (line 2) and an assumed System Load Factor of 50.0%.

[2] Calculated based on Total Sales at Meter (line 8) and the assumed System Loss Factor (line 9).

[3] Calculated based on average number of customers and usage per customer.

[4] Based on the historical average of years 2009 - 2019.

[5] Equals prior year number plus current year additions (lines 36 - 39).

[6] Based on historical average plus assumed growth in usage (line 40).

[7] Equals prior year usage times the assumed growth in usage (lines 41 -42).

[8] Annual NCP Demand based on kWh sales at meter, assumed NCP load factor and indicated loss factor.

[9] Estimated number of customers added per year. Residential is based on the population growth data provided by the City.

Commercial is based on the ratio of commercial to residential customers as of year-end 2012.

[10] Assumptions for increase in usage per customer based on the following:

Residential & Commercial: based on data contained in EIA Annual Energy Outlook, 2012.

Industrial: assumed to generally follow the forecasted growth in the United States GDP as published by The Conference Board.

[11] Based on a review of industry literature/data.




For Years 2020 - 2039



EXHIBIT 2

of 1

NUMBER PROJECTS NOTE 1 NOTE 2 NOTE 3 Underbuilt

Current

Conductor

Proposed

Conductor

Current Capacity

(MVA)

Upgrade

Capacity (MVA)

Additional

Capacity (MVA) Reason

Percent to

Growth Estimated Cost To Impact Fee Implementation Schedule

1 Additional Feed Under the Interstate Near 1000 North NA 3200 Conduit NA 1100 0 13.35 13.35 Support for 703 100% $256,128 $256,128 1 year

2 Stouffers Updates See Below $0 1 year

2a Circuit Switchers on Existing Transformers (2) Included in 2004 study reliability Decreased outage duration and higher relay settings 10% $162,470 $16,247 1 year

2b Circuit Breaker Addition for 46kV loop Needed for new line and increased reliability Allowing for System to be looped 50% $275,000 $137,500 1 year

3 Install Feeder 704 JBOX at Hobble Creek Center Street 7,150 Conduit NA 1100 0 13.35 13.35 New Load 100% $572,286 $572,286 1 year

TOTAL $1,265,884 $982,161


Current

Conductor

Proposed

Conductor

Current Capacity

(MVA)

Upgrade

Capacity (MVA)

Additional


Percent to


4 Upgrade 202 conductor Knight sub to 400 North 400 West to Main Yes 4/0 477 7.47 12.70 5.23 N-1, overload when Compound out 41% $432,533 $178,122 3 years

5 Upgrade to 103 conductor From Baxter To 950 West 1600 South No 4/0 477 7.47 12.70 5.23 Load increase 41% $356,946 $146,994 3 years

6 Upgrade to 103 conductor From 4/0 UG 400 West 400 South To 1500 West 400 South No 4/0 1100 6.16 13.35 7.19 N-1 for 103 and 706 54% $243,554 $131,172 3 years

7 Upgrade to 103 conductor From 1600 South SR51 To 400 West 400 South Yes 4/0 477 7.47 12.70 5.23 Overload at normal condition 41% $467,835 $192,660 3 years

8 Add new feeder to North Sub North sub 504 Feeder Yes N/A 477 0 12.70 12.73 Load growth in 503, 203, 706 feeders 15% $126,770 $19,016 3 years

9 New Substation Near Center Street NA NA 0 25 25.00 New Load, Baxter and North overload 100% $2,746,200 $2,746,200 3 years

10 Capacitor Additions to System 150kVAR PER 1000kW added 750KVAR ADDITION 750KVAR KVAR SUPPORT 100% $37,500 $37,500 3 years

SUVPS 6 Hale Line Interconnection Springville Cost Only FROM SUVPS 100% TBD $0 3 years

SUVPS 7 Power factor Improvement (On Going - Addressed Above) FROM SUVPS 100% TBD $0 3 years

SUVPS 8 138/46kV Transformer/Substation Improvements FROM SUVPS 100% TBD $0 3 years

SUVPS 9 Line Improvements FROM SUVPS 100% TBD $0 3 years

SUVPS 10 RMP Coordination FROM SUVPS 100% TBD $0 3 years

TOTAL $4,411,338 $3,451,664 3 years


Current

Conductor

Proposed

Conductor

Current Capacity

(MVA)

Upgrade

Capacity (MVA)

Additional


Percent to


11 Upgrade to 203 feeder From 477 section To First 103 SW No 4/0 477 7.47 12.70 5.23 N-1 for 103 & 203 41% $12,560 $5,172 6 years

12 Capacitor Additions to System 150kVAR PER 1000kW added 750KVAR ADDITION KVAR SUPPORT 100% $37,500 $37,500 6 years

13 Feeder 203 Upgrades See Below 6 years

13a Upgrade to 203 feeder From Center 950 West To 500 North 950 West No 4/0 477 7.47 12.70 5.23 41% $151,892 $62,276 6 years

13b Upgrade to 203 feeder From Center 950 West To 400 South 950 West No 336 477 12.1 12.70 0.60 5% $140,208 $7,010 6 years

SUVPS 11 Power Factor Improvements (On Going and Taylor) FROM SUVPS TBD TBD $0 6 years

SUVPS 12 Additional 138kV Line Support FROM SUVPS TBD TBD $0 6 years

SUVPS 13 138/46kV Line Transformation Project #8 - Upgrade Feeder 203 FROM SUVPS TBD TBD $0 6 years

SUVPS 14 Line Improvements FROM SUVPS TBD TBD $0 6 years

SUVPS 15 RMP Coordination FROM SUVPS TBD TBD $0 6 years

TOTAL $342,160 $111,959


Current

Conductor

Proposed

Conductor

Current Capacity

(MVA)

Upgrade

Capacity (MVA)

Additional


Percent to


14 Capacitor Additions to System 150kVAR PER 1000kW added 1000KVAR ADDITION KVAR SUPPORT 100% $50,000 $50,000 10 years

15 Upgrade to 103 UG Feeder From 400 South 400 West To 400 South 950 West No 4/0 1100 6.16 13.35 7.19 Load increase 54% $208,484 $112,285 10 years

TOTAL $258,484 $162,285


Current

Conductor

Proposed

Conductor

Current Capacity

(MVA)

Upgrade

Capacity (MVA)

Additional


Percent to


SUVPS 1 NEBO Trans. DC. Trans Springville Cost Only FROM SUVPS 0% $412,000 $0 1 year

SUVPS 2 Capacitor Additions to Baxter Springville Cost Only FROM SUVPS 0% $434,280 $0 1 year

SUVPS 3 Line Improvements Springville Cost Only 477 1272 53.38 95.61 42.23 FROM SUVPS 0% $1,483,790 $0 1 year

SUVPS 4 RMP Coordination Springville Cost Only FROM SUVPS 0% $90,475 $0 1 year

SUVPS 5 SF-Whitehead to Dry Creek Springville Cost Only 477 1272 53.38 95.61 42.23 FROM SUVPS 0% $54,285 $0 1 year

10 Year CFP/IFFP Project Costs TEN YEAR ESTIMATED COST 75.0% $6,277,867 $4,708,068

Existing Deficiency TOTAL EXISTING DEFICENCY 0 $2,474,830 $0

EXHIBIT 2

Springville City Power2019 Impact Fee Study

Impact Fee Facility Plan Years 2020-2029

PRIORITY FIVE - LONG TERM PRIORITY

PRIORITY ONE - HIGH PRIORITY

PRIORITY TWO - MODERATELY HIGH PRIORITY

PRIORITY THREE - MEDIUM PRIORITY

PRIORITY FOUR - LOW PRIORITY

20200312 SCP_CFP & IFFP Analysis-3.xlsx

Salient Power/R. E. Pender, Inc.

Ò

Ò

J

J

CityHall

SpringvilleHigh School

Spring CreekHydroelectric

PlantReams

Art CityElementary

(d

(d

(d

Hobble CreekHydro

Lower BHydro

Upper BHydro

Grindstone

Jolly's

Hatch

7th Day

Dee's

Holiday Hills

Haven

Mt. Air

Roney

Right Hand

Left Hand Fork - Hobble Creek CanyonFlying J

2452 W 400 S

821 N 1750 W

402 W 850 N

544 N 400 W

253 S 50 E

450 N Main

611 N 400 E

720 S Main

1050 S 500 E

1355 E 620 S

411 S 400 W

1799 S State

1450 W Center

1496 W 400 S

See Inset Mapfor Canyon Circuits

FEEDER CIRCUITS

101 OH 101 U

103 OH 103 U

104 OH 104 U

106 OH 106 U

201 OH 201 U

202 OH 202 U

203 OH 203 U

501 OH 501 U

502 OH 502 U

503 OH 503 U

601 OH 601 U

602 OH 602 U

603 OH 603 U

604 OH 604 U

46 OH 46 U

6042 OH 6042 U

701 OH 701 U

702 OH 702 U

703 OH 703 U

704 OH 704 U

705 OH 705 U

706 OH 706 U

6041 OH 6041 U

Switch 46kV138kV

138kV

1065 N SPRING CREEK

1415 W SPRING CREEK

1385 N IND CIR

1088 N 450 W

I15

PROJECT #4

PROJECT #6

PROJECT #5

PROJECT #7

PROJECT #11

PROJECT #8

PROJECT #15

PROJECT #2 (2A, 2B)

PROJECT #3

PROJECT #1

PROJECT #9

PROJECTS #10, #12 AND #14 ARE IN VARIOUS LOCATIONS

PROJECT #13


EXHIBIT 3

EXHIBIT 3

Page 1 of 2

Estimated Portion

Total Related to

Project Implementation Project Costs New

No. Year [1] Current $ [1] Development [1] Current $ Future $ [2]

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Priority One - High Priority

1 Additional Feed Under the Interstate 1 256,128$ 100% 256,128$ 262,531$

2A Circuit Switchers on Existing Transformers (2) 1 162,470 10% 16,247 16,653

2B Circuit Breaker Addition for 46 kV Loop 1 275,000 50% 137,500 140,938

3 Install Feeder 704 1 572,286 100% 572,286 586,593

Sub-total 1,265,884 982,161 1,006,715

Priority Two - Moderately High Priority

4 Upgrade 202 Conductor - Knight Sub 3 432,533 41% 178,122 191,818

5 Upgrade to 103 Conductor - From Baxter 3 356,946 41% 146,994 158,297

6 Upgrade to 103 Conductor - 4/0 UG 950 E. 400 S. 3 243,554 54% 131,173 141,258

7 Upgrade to 103 Conductor - From 1600 S. SR51 3 467,835 41% 192,660 207,473

8 Add New Feeder to North Sub 3 126,770 15% 19,016 20,478

9 New Substation Near Center Street 3 2,746,200 100% 2,746,200 2,957,357

10 Capacitor Additions to System 3 37,500 100% 37,500 40,383

SUVPS 6 Hale Line Improvement 3 TBD TBD - -

SUVPS 7 Power Factor Improvement (On-going) 3 TBD TBD - -

SUVPS 8 138/46kV Transformer / Substation Improvements 3 TBD TBD - -

SUVPS 9 Line Improvements 3 TBD TBD - -

SUVPS 10 RMP Coordination 3 TBD TBD - -

Sub-total 4,411,338 3,451,664 3,717,064

Priority Three - Medium Priority

11 Upgrade to 203 Feeder 6 12,560 41% 5,172 5,998


13a Upgrade to 203 Feeder 6 151,892 41% 62,276 72,221

13b Upgrade to 203 Feeder 6 140,208 5% 7,010 8,130

SUVPS 11 Power Factor Improvements (On-going and Taylor) 6 TBD TBD - -

SUVPS 12 Additional 138kV Line Support 6 TBD TBD - -

SUVPS 13 138/46kV Line Transformation 6 TBD TBD - -

SUVPS 14 Line Improvements 6 TBD TBD - -

SUVPS 15 RMP Coordination 6 TBD TBD - -

Sub-total 342,160 111,958 129,837

Priority Four - Low Priority


15 Upgrade to 103 UG Feeder 10 208,484 54% 112,285 143,734

Sub-total 258,484 162,285 207,738

Priority Five - Long Term Priority

SUVPS 1 NEBO Trans. DC Trans. 1 412,000 0% - -

SUVPS 2 Capacitor Additions to Baxter 1 434,280 0% - -

SUVPS 3 Line Improvements 1 1,483,790 0% - -

SUVPS 4 RMP Coordination 1 90,475 0% - -

SUVPS 5 SF-Whitehead to Dry Creek 1 54,285 0% - -

Sub-total 2023 2,474,830 - -

Total All Projects 8,752,696 4,708,068 5,061,355

Less: Long-term Priority Projects 2,474,830 - -

Total Projects Considered for Impact Fee Recovery 6,277,866 4,708,068 5,061,355

[1] See the 2019 IFFP / CFP Analysis.

[2] Calculated based on the Implementation Year and an assumed construction cost escalation rate of 2.50%

Project Description [1]

Project Costs

Eligible for Recovery

Total Impact Fee


Impact Fee Study for Years 2020 - 2029


20200501 SCP_2019 Impact Fee Analysis.xlsx Salient Power/eA XA cxÇwxÜ? \ÇvA

Exhibit 3

Page 2 of 2

10-year

Recovery

Line Period

No. 2020-2029

(a)

1 Total Cost of New Development-related Projects [1] $ 5,061,355

2 Add: Impact Fee Projects In Progress Not Accounted for In Current Study -

3 Total Project Costs to be Recovered through Impact Fees $ 5,061,355

4 Net Revenue (Deficit) Balance of Impact Fee Fund [2] $ 1,080,623

5 Less: Portion Designed to Recover Existing Facilities [3] $ -

6 Total Net Revenue Credit for Current Impact Fee Design $ 1,080,623

7 Net Impact Fee Project Costs to be Recovered $ 3,980,732

[1] See Exhibit 3, page 1.

[2] Taken from SCP Annual Audit Report to the Utah State Auditor, for Year Ending 06/30/19.

[3] Previously unfunded growth-related projects

Description






EXHIBIT 4

Exhibit 4

Page 1 of 1

10-year

Recovery

Line Period

No. 2020-2029

(a)

Calculation of Demand Placed on Existing System [1]

1 Last Year of Recovery Period Coincident System Peak Demand kW 80,886.5

2 2019 Historical Coincident System Peak Demand kW 62,496.0

3 Increase in System Coincident Peak Demand at Input kW 18,390.5

4 Estimated System Diversity Factor [2] 1.25

5 Increase in System Non-Coincident Peak at Input kW 22,988.1

6 Estimated System Losses @ 2.4% [3] kW 551.7

7 Increase in System Non-Coincident Peak at Meter kW 22,436.4

[1] Per the Impact Fee Forecast of Customers, Energy and Demands, 2020 - 2029.

[2] Based on an estimated coincidence factor of 0.80 per the load forecast (1/.80 = 1.25).

[3] Estimated based on a review of historical data.



Impact Fee Demand Analysis

Description



EXHIBIT 5

Exhibit 5

Page 1 of 1

10-year

Recovery

Line Period

No. 2019-2029

(a)

1 Net Impact Fee Project Costs to be Recovered $ 3,980,732

2 Future Demand Placed on Existing System kW 22,436.4

3 Base Impact Fee (Line 1 / Line 2) $/kW 177.42

4 Impact Fee at 30% Panel Utilization [1] $/kVA 53.23

5 Rounded Impact Fee $/kVA 53.20

[1] Per the May 2004 Impact Fee Study report.



Impact Fee Calculation

Description



EXHIBIT 6

Exhibit 6

Page 1 of 1

Current Proposed

Line Impact Impact

No. Fees Fees

(a) (b)

1 Impact Fees ($ per kVa) 60.74$ 53.20$

Impact Fee Charge for Applicable Panel Size

Residential (120/240, 1 phase)

2 200 Amp 2,916 2,554

3 400 Amp 5,831 5,107

Commercial (120/240, 1 phase)

4 200 Amp 2,916 2,554

5 400 Amp 5,831 5,107

6 600 Amp 8,747 7,661


7 200 Amp 4,376 3,833

8 400 Amp 8,753 7,666

9 600 Amp 13,129 11,499


10 200 Amp 10,099 8,846

11 400 Amp 20,199 17,691

12 800 Amp 40,397 35,383

13 1200 Amp 60,596 53,074

Description / Panel Rating

Summary of Charges For Residential & Commercial Customers

Current and Proposed Impact Fees





EXHIBIT 7

Exhibit 7

Page 1 of 1

An Electrical Service Impact Fee is required for all new and expanded electrical services

Calculate or enter service size: = input data

Amperage: 100.00 Main breaker size or differential current for upgrades

Voltage (in volts): 240 [Differential current = New breaker size - Old breaker size]

Single (1) or three (3) phase: 1.00

New kVA/KW Service: 24.00

Calculate Impact Fee:

Estimated Non-diversified Demand With Utilization: 7.20

Impact Fee (Est Demand x Diversified Base Fee): $1,277.42

Impact Fee Base = $177.42 Per kVA of system capacity

Utilization Factor = 30% Actual Demand vs. Installed Service Capacity

(Multiplier applied to requested service size.)

Applied Fee = $53.23

Impact Fee Table:

120/240 120/208 277/4801 PHASE 3 PHASE 3 PHASE

$128 $192 $443

$255 $384 $885

$383 $575 $1,328

$511 $767 $1,770

$639 $959 $2,213

$766 $1,151 $2,655

$894 $1,342 $3,098

$1,022 $1,534 $3,540

$1,150 $1,726 $3,983

$1,277 $1,918 $4,425

$1,597 $2,397 $5,531

$1,916 $2,876 $6,638

$2,235 $3,356 $7,744

$2,555 $3,835 $8,850

$3,832 $5,753 $13,275

$5,110 $7,670 $17,701

$6,387 $9,588 $22,126

$7,665 $11,505 $26,551

$8,942 $13,423 $30,976

$10,219 $15,340 $35,401

$11,497 $17,258 $39,826

$12,774 $19,176 $44,251

$21,093 $48,676

$23,011 $53,102

$24,928 $57,527

$26,846 $61,952

$28,763 $66,377

$30,681 $70,802

$32,598 $75,227

$34,516 $79,652

$36,434 $84,077

$38,351 $88,503

$47,939 $110,628

$57,527 $132,754

20

30

40

SPRINGVILLE CITY POWER

LESS THAN OR

Per kVA of customer requested service increase. Single phase

KVA is based on main breaker ampere size x normal line-to-line

voltage; ie 100a x 240v = 24kVA; Three phase KVA requires a

multiplier of √3

2019 IMPACT FEE CALCULATION WORKSHEET May 2020

The impact fee for all new or expanded electrical services shall be in accordance with the following worksheet. New services are based on

panel breaker size and voltage rating; expanded services are based on the differential current (new minus the existing main breaker size and

the voltage rating. The intent is to use the resultant kVA capacity increase as a measure of system impact.

200

300

400

REQUESTED

SERVICE SIZE

[AMPERAGE

100

125

150

10

700

EQUAL TO]

500

600

70

80

90

175

50

60

1400

1500

800

900

1000

1100

2000

2500

3000

VOLTAGE

1600

1700

1800

1900

1200

1300

SPC_Impact Fee Analysis_Final1 Salient Power/eA XA cxÇwxÜ? \ÇvA


EXHIBIT 8

SMITH'SSTRAP TANK

BREWING COMPANY

WIGGYWASH

MEADOW BROOK

ELEMENTARY

INFOMERCIALS

COUGARMITSUBISHI

PEPSI

MAVERIK

STATE LIQUORSTORE

CLYDERECREATION

CENTER

STOUFFERSTHRIFTSTORE

UDWRCENTRALREGION

RUSTICAHARDWARE

JOEBANDIDO'S

MACA

KnightSub

Spring CreekHydroelectric

Plant

Johnny +

Cindy

2452 W 400 S2452 W 400 S

108 N 500 N390 E 700 S

CompoundSub

NorthSub

Whitehead Sub

Dry CreekSub

BaxterSub

Hobble CreekSub

StouffersSub

52 W 400 S 1588 S 950 W

1496 W 400 S1496 W 400 S

1450 W. Center1450 W Center

108 N 450 N243 S 400 W

1008N 450 N411 S 400 W

18E N 450 N361 W 200 S

108 N 450 N251 S 300 W 108 N 50 N253 S 50 E

108 N 50 N720 S Main

108 N 50 N698 S Main

108 N 500 N 958 E 1000 S

108 N 500 N 1036 E 1000 S

108 N 500 N 1050 S 500 E

108 N 500 N 1355 E 620 S

1937 E 400 S1937 E 400 S

108 N 500 N418 N 500 E108 N 50 N450 N Main

1088 N 450 N240 N 400 W

108 N 500 N611 N 400 E

1088 N 450 N544 N 400 W

1415 W Spring Creek 1415 W Spring Creek

1065 n spring c reek1065 N Spring Creek

1088 N 450 N880 N 450 W1088 N 450 N865 N 400 W

1385 n ind circle 1385 N Ind. Circle

1937 E 400 S2830 E 1100 S

......................1799 S State

108N 450 N551 W 400 S

2452 W 400 S821 N 1750 W

To Vet

1385 n i circle 1375 N 1650 W

1385 nd circle 1705 N 1100 W

SH!TSWITCH

2452 W 400 S1010 N 1750 W

See Inset Mapfor Canyon Circuits

1088 N 450 N400 N 400 W

108 N 50 N450 N Main

\\Sp

vch1

3\gi

s$\G

IS\M

aps\

JB\M

aps

- PD

Fs a

nd M

XDs\

Map

MXD

s\C

ircui

t_M

ap.m

xd -

Dat

e: 6

/8/2

020

6/8/2020

2020 2020 Circuit & Switch MapCircuit & Switch Map

Hobble CreekHydro

Lower BHydro

Upper BHydro

Grindstone

Jolly's

Hatch

7th Day

Dee's

Holiday Hills

Haven

MeogieMower

Mt. Air

BYU House

Roney

Right Hand

Left Hand Fork Hobble Creek Canyon

County Center Street Alignment

0 1 20.5Miles

0 0.65 1.3 1.950.325Miles

FEEDER CIRCUITS101 OH 101 U103 OH 103 U104 OH 104 U106 OH 106 U201 OH 201 U202 OH 202 U203 OH 203 U501 OH 501 U502 OH 502 U503 OH 503 U601 OH 601 U602 OH 602 U603 OH 603 U604 OH 604 U

46 OH 46 U

6042 OH 6042 U701 OH 701 U702 OH 702 U703 OH 703 U704 OH 704 U705 OH 705 U706 OH 706 U

6041 OH 6041 UELECTRICAL

INFRASTRUCTURE

Junction Box

Hydroelectric Plant!!(dSubstation

SwitchÛÒNorm. Open SwitchÛÒ

TransformerÍÎÆ

!%J

$+S

$+S$+S

$+S $+S

$+S$+S

$+S$+S

$+S$+S

$+S

$+S$+S

$+S$+S$+S

$+S

$+S

$+S$+S

$+S

$+S

$+S

$+S

$+S

$+S

$+S")B

")B

")B ")B

Rocky Mountain PowerSpanish Fork Substation

50 A

50 B

Spanish Fork Switch Station 49 A

49 B64 G

50 J

49 C

47 A

65 D65 C64 C

64 D

64 E64 F

50 C

50 D

50 E

50 F

50 H

50 I

50 G

S.F. WhiteheadSubstation

SorensenSubstation

Baxter Substation

StrawberrySubstation

ArrowheadSubstation

SuterSubstation

LoaferSubstation

Nebo Power Station

TaylorSwitchStation

24 E

50 K

Dry CreekSubstation

50

4927 A

30 B

30 C30

29 A30 A

47

Baxter Substation12

65D

Dry Creek 11

$+S

65S

65E

47B

47A

47S

RMP

l

l

$+S

!%B

!%B

$+S

$+S

$+S$+S

!%B

!%B

$+S

$+S

102

103

102 B

103 A

!%B$+S

138 KVNeboPowerStation

206 206 C

Dry CreekSubstation

SUVPS

outherntahalleyowerystems

LegendBreakers))B

$+S Switches

Substations

46 KV Switch Map

Springville City and Spanish Fork City 46KV lines are shown in green

·Substations and Switch locationsare not drawn to scaleMap is for reference only. jSnow 2/17/11 Rev. 3

22 D

21

Pays

on

22 23 24 25

Transfer PaysonPlant

NeboPowerStation

Taylorl

Suter l

24 D

24 C 25 C

Nebo Power Station

$+S$+S

$+S

$+S $+S!%B !%B !%B !%B !%B

l

Dry Creek Substation

61 62 63 64 65 66 67

Hobble Creek

Woodhouse - S.F. Bax

ter

Sore

nsen

ll l

68C64C 65C 67C62C 63C

68 69!%B$+S

!%B !%B !%B !%B !%B !%B$+S $+S $+S $+S $+S

!%B$+S

!%B$+S $+S

l

61C

Transfer

Xfmr Xfmr


EXHIBIT 9


Chapter 36a

Impact Fees Act

Part 1

General Provisions 11-36a-101 Title.

This chapter is known as the “Impact Fees Act.” Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-102 Definitions.

As used in this chapter: (1)

(a) “Affected entity” means each county, municipality, local district under Title 17B, Limited Purpose Local Government Entities - Local Districts, special service district under Title 17D, Chapter 1, Special Service District Act, school district, interlocal cooperation entity established under Chapter 13, Interlocal Cooperation Act, and specified public utility:

(i) whose services or facilities are likely to require expansion or significant modification because of the facilities proposed in the proposed impact fee facilities plan; or (ii) that has filed with the local political subdivision or private entity a copy of the general or long-range plan of the county, municipality, local district, special service district, school district, interlocal cooperation entity, or specified public utility.

(b) “Affected entity” does not include the local political subdivision or private entity that is required under Section 11-36a-501 to provide notice.

(2) “Charter school” includes: (a) an operating charter school; (b) an applicant for a charter school whose application has been approved by a charter school authorizer as provided in Title 53G, Chapter 5, Part 6, Charter School Credit Enhancement Program; and (c) an entity that is working on behalf of a charter school or approved charter applicant to develop or construct a charter school building.

(3) “Development activity” means any construction or expansion of a building, structure, or use, any change in use of a building or structure, or any changes in the use of land that creates additional demand and need for public facilities. (4) “Development approval” means:

(a) except as provided in Subsection (4)(b), any written authorization from a local political subdivision that authorizes the commencement of development activity; (b) development activity, for a public entity that may develop without written authorization from a local political subdivision; (c) a written authorization from a public water supplier, as defined in Section 73-1-4, or a private water company:

(i) to reserve or provide: (A) a water right; (B) a system capacity; or


(C) a distribution facility; or (ii) to deliver for a development activity:

(A) culinary water; or (B) irrigation water; or

(d) a written authorization from a sanitary sewer authority, as defined in Section 10-9a-103: (i) to reserve or provide:

(A) sewer collection capacity; or (B) treatment capacity; or

(ii) to provide sewer service for a development activity. (5) “Enactment” means:

(a) a municipal ordinance, for a municipality; (b) a county ordinance, for a county; and (c) a governing board resolution, for a local district, special service district, or private entity.

(6) “Encumber” means: (a) a pledge to retire a debt; or (b) an allocation to a current purchase order or contract.

(7) “Hookup fee” means a fee for the installation and inspection of any pipe, line, meter, or appurtenance to connect to a gas, water, sewer, storm water, power, or other utility system of a municipality, county, local district, special service district, or private entity. (8)

(a) “Impact fee” means a payment of money imposed upon new development activity as a condition of development approval to mitigate the impact of the new development on public infrastructure. (b) “Impact fee” does not mean a tax, a special assessment, a building permit fee, a hookup fee, a fee for project improvements, or other reasonable permit or application fee.

(9) “Impact fee analysis” means the written analysis of each impact fee required by Section 11-36a-303. (10) “Impact fee facilities plan” means the plan required by Section 11-36a-301. (11) “Level of service” means the defined performance standard or unit of demand for each capital component of a public facility within a service area. (12)

(a) “Local political subdivision” means a county, a municipality, a local district under Title 17B, Limited Purpose Local Government Entities - Local Districts, or a special service district under Title 17D, Chapter 1, Special Service District Act. (b) “Local political subdivision” does not mean a school district, whose impact fee activity is governed by Section 11-36a-206.

(13) “Private entity” means an entity in private ownership with at least 100 individual shareholders, customers, or connections, that is located in a first, second, third, or fourth class county and provides water to an applicant for development approval who is required to obtain water from the private entity either as a:

(a) specific condition of development approval by a local political subdivision acting pursuant to a prior agreement, whether written or unwritten, with the private entity; or (b) functional condition of development approval because the private entity:

(i) has no reasonably equivalent competition in the immediate market; and (ii) is the only realistic source of water for the applicant’s development.

(14)


(a) “Project improvements” means site improvements and facilities that are: (i) planned and designed to provide service for development resulting from a development activity; (ii) necessary for the use and convenience of the occupants or users of development resulting from a development activity; and (iii) not identified or reimbursed as a system improvement.

(b) “Project improvements” does not mean system improvements. (15) “Proportionate share” means the cost of public facility improvements that are roughly proportionate and reasonably related to the service demands and needs of any development activity. (16) “Public facilities” means only the following impact fee facilities that have a life expectancy of 10 or more years and are owned or operated by or on behalf of a local political subdivision or private entity:

(a) water rights and water supply, treatment, storage, and distribution facilities; (b) wastewater collection and treatment facilities; (c) storm water, drainage, and flood control facilities; (d) municipal power facilities; (e) roadway facilities; (f) parks, recreation facilities, open space, and trails; (g) public safety facilities; (h) environmental mitigation as provided in Section 11-36a-205; or (i) municipal natural gas facilities.

(17) (a) “Public safety facility” means:

(i) a building constructed or leased to house police, fire, or other public safety entities; or (ii) a fire suppression vehicle costing in excess of $500,000.

(b) “Public safety facility” does not mean a jail, prison, or other place of involuntary incarceration. (18)

(a) “Roadway facilities” means a street or road that has been designated on an officially adopted subdivision plat, roadway plan, or general plan of a political subdivision, together with all necessary appurtenances. (b) “Roadway facilities” includes associated improvements to a federal or state roadway only when the associated improvements:

(i) are necessitated by the new development; and (ii) are not funded by the state or federal government.

(c) “Roadway facilities” does not mean federal or state roadways. (19)

(a) “Service area” means a geographic area designated by an entity that imposes an impact fee on the basis of sound planning or engineering principles in which a public facility, or a defined set of public facilities, provides service within the area. (b) “Service area” may include the entire local political subdivision or an entire area served by a private entity.

(20) “Specified public agency” means: (a) the state; (b) a school district; or (c) a charter school.

(21)


(a) “System improvements” means: (i) existing public facilities that are:

(A) identified in the impact fee analysis under Section 11-36a-304; and (B) designed to provide services to service areas within the community at large; and

(ii) future public facilities identified in the impact fee analysis under Section 11-36a-304 that are intended to provide services to service areas within the community at large.

(b) “System improvements” does not mean project improvements. Amended by Chapter 196, 2018 General Session Amended by Chapter 415, 2018 General Session

Part 2

Impact Fees 11-36a-201 Impact fees.

(1) A local political subdivision or private entity shall ensure that any imposed impact fees comply with the requirements of this chapter. (2) A local political subdivision and private entity may establish impact fees only for those public facilities defined in Section 11-36a-102. (3) Nothing in this chapter may be construed to repeal or otherwise eliminate an impact fee in effect on the effective date of this chapter that is pledged as a source of revenues to pay bonded indebtedness that was incurred before the effective date of this chapter. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-202 Prohibitions on impact fees.

(1) A local political subdivision or private entity may not: (a) impose an impact fee to:

(i) cure deficiencies in a public facility serving existing development; (ii) raise the established level of service of a public facility serving existing development; (iii) recoup more than the local political subdivision’s or private entity’s costs actually incurred for excess capacity in an existing system improvement; or (iv) include an expense for overhead, unless the expense is calculated pursuant to a methodology that is consistent with:

(A) generally accepted cost accounting practices; and (B) the methodological standards set forth by the federal Office of Management and Budget for federal grant reimbursement;

(b) delay the construction of a school or charter school because of a dispute with the school or charter school over impact fees; or (c) impose or charge any other fees as a condition of development approval unless those fees are a reasonable charge for the service provided.

(2) (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a political subdivision or private entity may not impose an impact fee:

(i) on residential components of development to pay for a public safety facility that is a fire


suppression vehicle; (ii) on a school district or charter school for a park, recreation facility, open space, or trail; (iii) on a school district or charter school unless:

(A) the development resulting from the school district’s or charter school’s development activity directly results in a need for additional system improvements for which the impact fee is imposed; and (B) the impact fee is calculated to cover only the school district’s or charter school’s proportionate share of the cost of those additional system improvements;

(iv) to the extent that the impact fee includes a component for a law enforcement facility, on development activity for:

(A) the Utah National Guard; (B) the Utah Highway Patrol; or (C) a state institution of higher education that has its own police force; or

(v) on development activity on the state fair park, as defined in Section 63H-6-102. (b)

(i) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a political subdivision or private entity may not impose an impact fee on development activity that consists of the construction of a school, whether by a school district or a charter school, if:

(A) the school is intended to replace another school, whether on the same or a different parcel; (B) the new school creates no greater demand or need for public facilities than the school or school facilities, including any portable or modular classrooms that are on the site of the replaced school at the time that the new school is proposed; and (C) the new school and the school being replaced are both within the boundary of the local political subdivision or the jurisdiction of the private entity.

(ii) If the imposition of an impact fee on a new school is not prohibited under Subsection (2)(b)(i) because the new school creates a greater demand or need for public facilities than the school being replaced, the impact fee shall be based only on the demand or need that the new school creates for public facilities that exceeds the demand or need that the school being replaced creates for those public facilities.

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a political subdivision or private entity may impose an impact fee for a road facility on the state only if and to the extent that:

(i) the state’s development causes an impact on the road facility; and (ii) the portion of the road facility related to an impact fee is not funded by the state or by the federal government.

(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a local political subdivision may impose and collect impact fees on behalf of a school district if authorized by Section 11-36a-206. Amended by Chapter 415, 2018 General Session 11-36a-203 Private entity assessment of impact fees -- Charges for water rights, physical

infrastructure -- Notice -- Audit.

(1) A private entity: (a) shall comply with the requirements of this chapter before imposing an impact fee; and (b) except as otherwise specified in this chapter, is subject to the same requirements of this chapter as a local political subdivision.

(2) A private entity may only impose a charge for water rights or physical infrastructure necessary to


provide water or sewer facilities by imposing an impact fee. (3) Where notice and hearing requirements are specified, a private entity shall comply with the notice and hearing requirements for local districts. (4) A private entity that assesses an impact fee under this chapter is subject to the audit requirements of Title 51, Chapter 2a, Accounting Reports from Political Subdivisions, Interlocal Organizations, and Other Local Entities Act. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-204 Other names for impact fees.

(1) A fee that meets the definition of impact fee under Section 11-36a-102 is an impact fee subject to this chapter, regardless of what term the local political subdivision or private entity uses to refer to the fee. (2) A local political subdivision or private entity may not avoid application of this chapter to a fee that meets the definition of an impact fee under Section 11-36a-102 by referring to the fee by another name. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-205 Environmental mitigation impact fees.

Notwithstanding the requirements and prohibitions of this chapter, a local political subdivision may impose and assess an impact fee for environmental mitigation when: (1) the local political subdivision has formally agreed to fund a Habitat Conservation Plan to resolve conflicts with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531, et seq. or other state or federal environmental law or regulation; (2) the impact fee bears a reasonable relationship to the environmental mitigation required by the Habitat Conservation Plan; and (3) the legislative body of the local political subdivision adopts an ordinance or resolution:

(a) declaring that an impact fee is required to finance the Habitat Conservation Plan; (b) establishing periodic sunset dates for the impact fee; and (c) requiring the legislative body to:

(i) review the impact fee on those sunset dates; (ii) determine whether or not the impact fee is still required to finance the Habitat Conservation Plan; and (iii) affirmatively reauthorize the impact fee if the legislative body finds that the impact fee must remain in effect.

Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-206 Prohibition of school impact fees.

(1) As used in this section, “school impact fee” means a charge on new development in order to generate revenue for funding or recouping the costs of capital improvements for schools or school facility expansions necessitated by and attributable to the new development. (2) Beginning March 21, 1995, there is a moratorium prohibiting a county, city, town, local school board, or any other political subdivision from imposing or collecting a school impact fee unless hereafter authorized by the Legislature by statute.


(3) Collection of any fees authorized before March 21, 1995, by any ordinance, resolution or rule of any county, city, town, local school board, or other political subdivision shall terminate on May 1, 1996, unless hereafter authorized by the Legislature by statute. Renumbered and Amended by Chapter 3, 2018 General Session

Part 3

Establishing an Impact Fee 11-36a-301 Impact fee facilities plan.

(1) Before imposing an impact fee, each local political subdivision or private entity shall, except as provided in Subsection (3), prepare an impact fee facilities plan to determine the public facilities required to serve development resulting from new development activity. (2) A municipality or county need not prepare a separate impact fee facilities plan if the general plan required by Section 10-9a-401 or 17-27a-401, respectively, contains the elements required by Section 11-36a-302. (3) A local political subdivision or a private entity with a population, or serving a population, of less than 5,000 as of the last federal census that charges impact fees of less than $250,000 annually need not comply with the impact fee facilities plan requirements of this part, but shall ensure that:

(a) the impact fees that the local political subdivision or private entity imposes are based upon a reasonable plan that otherwise complies with the common law and this chapter; and (b) each applicable notice required by this chapter is given.

Amended by Chapter 200, 2013 General Session 11-36a-302 Impact fee facilities plan requirements -- Limitations -- School district or charter

school.

(1) (a) An impact fee facilities plan shall:

(i) identify the existing level of service; (ii) subject to Subsection (1)(c), establish a proposed level of service; (iii) identify any excess capacity to accommodate future growth at the proposed level of service; (iv) identify demands placed upon existing public facilities by new development activity at the proposed level of service; and (v) identify the means by which the political subdivision or private entity will meet those growth demands.

(b) A proposed level of service may diminish or equal the existing level of service. (c) A proposed level of service may:

(i) exceed the existing level of service if, independent of the use of impact fees, the political subdivision or private entity provides, implements, and maintains the means to increase the existing level of service for existing demand within six years of the date on which new growth is charged for the proposed level of service; or (ii) establish a new public facility if, independent of the use of impact fees, the political subdivision or private entity provides, implements, and maintains the means to increase the existing level of service for existing demand within six years of the date on which new growth is


charged for the proposed level of service. (2) In preparing an impact fee facilities plan, each local political subdivision shall generally consider all revenue sources to finance the impacts on system improvements, including:

(a) grants; (b) bonds; (c) interfund loans; (d) impact fees; and (e) anticipated or accepted dedications of system improvements.

(3) A local political subdivision or private entity may only impose impact fees on development activities when the local political subdivision’s or private entity’s plan for financing system improvements establishes that impact fees are necessary to maintain a proposed level of service that complies with Subsection (1)(b) or (c). (4)

(a) Subject to Subsection (4)(c), the impact fee facilities plan shall include a public facility for which an impact fee may be charged or required for a school district or charter school if the local political subdivision is aware of the planned location of the school district facility or charter school:

(i) through the planning process; or (ii) after receiving a written request from a school district or charter school that the public facility be included in the impact fee facilities plan.

(b) If necessary, a local political subdivision or private entity shall amend the impact fee facilities plan to reflect a public facility described in Subsection (4)(a). (c)

(i) In accordance with Subsections 10-9a-305(3) and 17-27a-305(3), a local political subdivision may not require a school district or charter school to participate in the cost of any roadway or sidewalk. (ii) Notwithstanding Subsection (4)(c)(i), if a school district or charter school agrees to build a roadway or sidewalk, the roadway or sidewalk shall be included in the impact fee facilities plan if the local jurisdiction has an impact fee facilities plan for roads and sidewalks.

Amended by Chapter 200, 2013 General Session 11-36a-303 Impact fee analysis.

(1) Subject to the notice requirements of Section 11-36a-504, each local political subdivision or private entity intending to impose an impact fee shall prepare a written analysis of each impact fee. (2) Each local political subdivision or private entity that prepares an impact fee analysis under Subsection (1) shall also prepare a summary of the impact fee analysis designed to be understood by a lay person. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-304 Impact fee analysis requirements.

(1) An impact fee analysis shall: (a) identify the anticipated impact on or consumption of any existing capacity of a public facility by the anticipated development activity; (b) identify the anticipated impact on system improvements required by the anticipated development activity to maintain the established level of service for each public facility;


(c) subject to Subsection (2), demonstrate how the anticipated impacts described in Subsections (1)(a) and (b) are reasonably related to the anticipated development activity; (d) estimate the proportionate share of:

(i) the costs for existing capacity that will be recouped; and (ii) the costs of impacts on system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development activity; and

(e) based on the requirements of this chapter, identify how the impact fee was calculated. (2) In analyzing whether or not the proportionate share of the costs of public facilities are reasonably related to the new development activity, the local political subdivision or private entity, as the case may be, shall identify, if applicable:

(a) the cost of each existing public facility that has excess capacity to serve the anticipated development resulting from the new development activity; (b) the cost of system improvements for each public facility; (c) other than impact fees, the manner of financing for each public facility, such as user charges, special assessments, bonded indebtedness, general taxes, or federal grants; (d) the relative extent to which development activity will contribute to financing the excess capacity of and system improvements for each existing public facility, by such means as user charges, special assessments, or payment from the proceeds of general taxes; (e) the relative extent to which development activity will contribute to the cost of existing public facilities and system improvements in the future; (f) the extent to which the development activity is entitled to a credit against impact fees because the development activity will dedicate system improvements or public facilities that will offset the demand for system improvements, inside or outside the proposed development; (g) extraordinary costs, if any, in servicing the newly developed properties; and (h) the time-price differential inherent in fair comparisons of amounts paid at different times.

Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-305 Calculating impact fees.

(1) In calculating an impact fee, a local political subdivision or private entity may include: (a) the construction contract price; (b) the cost of acquiring land, improvements, materials, and fixtures; (c) the cost for planning, surveying, and engineering fees for services provided for and directly related to the construction of the system improvements; and (d) for a political subdivision, debt service charges, if the political subdivision might use impact fees as a revenue stream to pay the principal and interest on bonds, notes, or other obligations issued to finance the costs of the system improvements.

(2) In calculating an impact fee, each local political subdivision or private entity shall base amounts calculated under Subsection (1) on realistic estimates, and the assumptions underlying those estimates shall be disclosed in the impact fee analysis. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-306 Certification of impact fee analysis.

(1) An impact fee facilities plan shall include a written certification from the person or entity that prepares the impact fee facilities plan that states the following:”I certify that the attached impact fee


facilities plan: 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; or 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.” (2) An impact fee analysis shall include a written certification from the person or entity that prepares the impact fee analysis which states as follows:”I certify that the attached impact fee analysis: 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; or 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.” Amended by Chapter 278, 2013 General Session

Part 4

Enactment of Impact Fees 11-36a-401 Impact fee enactment.

(1) (a) A local political subdivision or private entity wishing to impose impact fees shall pass an impact fee enactment in accordance with Section 11-36a-402. (b) An impact fee imposed by an impact fee enactment may not exceed the highest fee justified by the impact fee analysis.

(2) An impact fee enactment may not take effect until 90 days after the day on which the impact fee enactment is approved.


Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-402 Required provisions of impact fee enactment.

(1) A local political subdivision or private entity shall ensure, in addition to the requirements described in Subsections (2) and (3), that an impact fee enactment contains:

(a) a provision establishing one or more service areas within which the local political subdivision or private entity calculates and imposes impact fees for various land use categories; (b)

(i) a schedule of impact fees for each type of development activity that specifies the amount of the impact fee to be imposed for each type of system improvement; or (ii) the formula that the local political subdivision or private entity, as the case may be, will use to calculate each impact fee;

(c) a provision authorizing the local political subdivision or private entity, as the case may be, to adjust the standard impact fee at the time the fee is charged to:

(i) respond to: (A) unusual circumstances in specific cases; or (B) a request for a prompt and individualized impact fee review for the development activity of the state, a school district, or a charter school and an offset or credit for a public facility for which an impact fee has been or will be collected; and

(ii) ensure that the impact fees are imposed fairly; and (d) a provision governing calculation of the amount of the impact fee to be imposed on a particular development that permits adjustment of the amount of the impact fee based upon studies and data submitted by the developer.

(2) A local political subdivision or private entity shall ensure that an impact fee enactment allows a developer, including a school district or a charter school, to receive a credit against or proportionate reimbursement of an impact fee if the developer:

(a) dedicates land for a system improvement; (b) builds and dedicates some or all of a system improvement; or (c) dedicates a public facility that the local political subdivision or private entity and the developer agree will reduce the need for a system improvement.

(3) A local political subdivision or private entity shall include a provision in an impact fee enactment that requires a credit against impact fees for any dedication of land for, improvement to, or new construction of, any system improvements provided by the developer if the facilities:

(a) are system improvements; or (b)

(i) are dedicated to the public; and (ii) offset the need for an identified system improvement.

Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-403 Other provisions of impact fee enactment.

(1) A local political subdivision or private entity may include a provision in an impact fee enactment that:

(a) provides an impact fee exemption for: (i) development activity attributable to:

(A) low income housing;


(B) the state; (C) subject to Subsection (2), a school district; or (D) subject to Subsection (2), a charter school; or

(ii) other development activity with a broad public purpose; and (b) except for an exemption under Subsection (1)(a)(i)(A), establishes one or more sources of funds other than impact fees to pay for that development activity.

(2) An impact fee enactment that provides an impact fee exemption for development activity attributable to a school district or charter school shall allow either a school district or a charter school to qualify for the exemption on the same basis. (3) An impact fee enactment that repeals or suspends the collection of impact fees is exempt from the notice requirements of Section 11-36a-504. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session

Part 5

Notice 11-36a-501 Notice of intent to prepare an impact fee facilities plan.

(1) Before preparing or amending an impact fee facilities plan, a local political subdivision or private entity shall provide written notice of its intent to prepare or amend an impact fee facilities plan. (2) A notice required under Subsection (1) shall:

(a) indicate that the local political subdivision or private entity intends to prepare or amend an impact fee facilities plan; (b) describe or provide a map of the geographic area where the proposed impact fee facilities will be located; and (c) subject to Subsection (3), be posted on the Utah Public Notice Website created under Section 63F-1-701.

(3) For a private entity required to post notice on the Utah Public Notice Website under Subsection (2)(c):

(a) the private entity shall give notice to the general purpose local government in which the private entity’s private business office is located; and (b) the general purpose local government described in Subsection (3)(a) shall post the notice on the Utah Public Notice Website.

Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-502 Notice to adopt or amend an impact fee facilities plan.

(1) If a local political subdivision chooses to prepare an independent impact fee facilities plan rather than include an impact fee facilities element in the general plan in accordance with Section 11-36a-301, the local political subdivision shall, before adopting or amending the impact fee facilities plan:

(a) give public notice, in accordance with Subsection (2), of the plan or amendment at least 10 days before the day on which the public hearing described in Subsection (1)(d) is scheduled; (b) make a copy of the plan or amendment, together with a summary designed to be understood by a lay person, available to the public; (c) place a copy of the plan or amendment and summary in each public library within the local


political subdivision; and (d) hold a public hearing to hear public comment on the plan or amendment.

(2) With respect to the public notice required under Subsection (1)(a): (a) each municipality shall comply with the notice and hearing requirements of, and, except as provided in Subsection 11-36a-701(3)(b)(ii), receive the protections of Sections 10-9a-205 and 10-9a-801 and Subsection 10-9a-502(2); (b) each county shall comply with the notice and hearing requirements of, and, except as provided in Subsection 11-36a-701(3)(b)(ii), receive the protections of Sections 17-27a-205 and 17-27a-801 and Subsection 17-27a-502(2); and (c) each local district, special service district, and private entity shall comply with the notice and hearing requirements of, and receive the protections of, Section 17B-1-111.

(3) Nothing contained in this section or Section 11-36a-503 may be construed to require involvement by a planning commission in the impact fee facilities planning process. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-503 Notice of preparation of an impact fee analysis.

(1) Before preparing or contracting to prepare an impact fee analysis, each local political subdivision or, subject to Subsection (2), private entity shall post a public notice on the Utah Public Notice Website created under Section 63F-1-701. (2) For a private entity required to post notice on the Utah Public Notice Website under Subsection (1):

(a) the private entity shall give notice to the general purpose local government in which the private entity’s primary business is located; and (b) the general purpose local government described in Subsection (2)(a) shall post the notice on the Utah Public Notice Website.

Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-504 Notice of intent to adopt impact fee enactment -- Hearing -- Protections.

(1) Before adopting an impact fee enactment: (a) a municipality legislative body shall:

(i) comply with the notice requirements of Section 10-9a-205 as if the impact fee enactment were a land use regulation; (ii) hold a hearing in accordance with Section 10-9a-502 as if the impact fee enactment were a land use regulation; and (iii) except as provided in Subsection 11-36a-701(3)(b)(ii), receive the protections of Section 10-9a-801 as if the impact fee were a land use regulation;

(b) a county legislative body shall: (i) comply with the notice requirements of Section 17-27a-205 as if the impact fee enactment were a land use regulation; (ii) hold a hearing in accordance with Section 17-27a-502 as if the impact fee enactment were a land use regulation; and (iii) except as provided in Subsection 11-36a-701(3)(b)(ii), receive the protections of Section 17-27a-801 as if the impact fee were a land use regulation;

(c) a local district or special service district shall:


(i) comply with the notice and hearing requirements of Section 17B-1-111; and (ii) receive the protections of Section 17B-1-111;

(d) a local political subdivision shall at least 10 days before the day on which a public hearing is scheduled in accordance with this section:

(i) make a copy of the impact fee enactment available to the public; and (ii) post notice of the local political subdivision’s intent to enact or modify the impact fee, specifying the type of impact fee being enacted or modified, on the Utah Public Notice Website created under Section 63F-1-701; and

(e) a local political subdivision shall submit a copy of the impact fee analysis and a copy of the summary of the impact fee analysis prepared in accordance with Section 11-36a-303 on its website or to each public library within the local political subdivision.

(2) Subsection (1)(a) or (b) may not be construed to require involvement by a planning commission in the impact fee enactment process. Amended by Chapter 84, 2017 General Session

Part 6

Impact Fee Proceeds 11-36a-601 Accounting of impact fees.

A local political subdivision that collects an impact fee shall: (1) establish a separate interest bearing ledger account for each type of public facility for which an impact fee is collected; (2) deposit a receipt for an impact fee in the appropriate ledger account established under Subsection (1); (3) retain the interest earned on each fund or ledger account in the fund or ledger account; (4) at the end of each fiscal year, prepare a report that:

(a) for each fund or ledger account, shows: (i) the source and amount of all money collected, earned, and received by the fund or ledger account during the fiscal year; and (ii) each expenditure from the fund or ledger account;

(b) accounts for all impact fee funds that the local political subdivision has on hand at the end of the fiscal year; (c) identifies the impact fee funds described in Subsection (4)(b) by:

(i) the year in which the impact fee funds were received; (ii) the project from which the impact fee funds were collected; (iii) the project for which the impact fee funds are budgeted; and (iv) the projected schedule for expenditure; and

(d) is: (i) in a format developed by the state auditor; (ii) certified by the local political subdivision’s chief financial officer; and (iii) transmitted to the state auditor within 180 days after the day on which the fiscal year ends.

Amended by Chapter 394, 2017 General Session


11-36a-602 Expenditure of impact fees.

(1) A local political subdivision may expend impact fees only for a system improvement: (a) identified in the impact fee facilities plan; and (b) for the specific public facility type for which the fee was collected.

(2) (a) Except as provided in Subsection (2)(b), a local political subdivision shall expend or encumber an impact fee collected with respect to a lot:

(i) for a permissible use; and (ii) within six years after the impact fee with respect to that lot is collected.

(b) A local political subdivision may hold the fees for longer than six years if it identifies, in writing:

(i) an extraordinary and compelling reason why the fees should be held longer than six years; and (ii) an absolute date by which the fees will be expended.

Amended by Chapter 190, 2017 General Session 11-36a-603 Refunds.

(1) A local political subdivision shall refund any impact fee paid by a developer, plus interest earned, when:

(a) the developer does not proceed with the development activity and has filed a written request for a refund; (b) the fee has not been spent or encumbered; and (c) no impact has resulted.

(2) (a) As used in this Subsection (2):

(i) “Affected lot” means the lot or parcel with respect to which a local political subdivision collected an impact fee that is subject to a refund under this Subsection (2). (ii) “Claimant” means:

(A) the original owner; (B) the person who paid an impact fee; or (C) another person who, under Subsection (2)(d), submits a timely notice of the person’s valid legal claim to an impact fee refund.

(iii) “Original owner” means the record owner of an affected lot at the time the local political subdivision collected the impact fee. (iv) “Unclaimed refund” means an impact fee that:

(A) is subject to refund under this Subsection (2); and (B) the local political subdivision has not refunded after application of Subsections (2)(b) and (c).

(b) If an impact fee is not spent or encumbered in accordance with Section 11-36a-602, the local political subdivision shall, subject to Subsection (2)(c):

(i) refund the impact fee to: (A) the original owner, if the original owner is the sole claimant; or (B) to the claimants, as the claimants agree, if there are multiple claimants; or

(ii) interplead the impact fee refund to a court of competent jurisdiction for a determination of the entitlement to the refund, if there are multiple claimants who fail to agree on how the refund should be paid to the claimants.


(c) If the original owner’s last known address is no longer valid at the time a local political subdivision attempts under Subsection (2)(b) to refund an impact fee to the original owner, the local political subdivision shall:

(i) post a notice on the local political subdivision’s website, stating the local political subdivision’s intent to refund the impact fee and identifying the original owner; (ii) maintain the notice on the website for a period of one year; and (iii) disqualify the original owner as a claimant unless the original owner submits a written request for the refund within one year after the first posting of the notice under Subsection (2)(c)(i).

(d) (i) In order to be considered as a claimant for an impact fee refund under this Subsection (2), a person, other than the original owner, shall submit a written notice of the person’s valid legal claim to the impact fee refund. (ii) A notice under Subsection (2)(d)(i) shall:

(A) explain the person’s valid legal claim to the refund; and (B) be submitted to the local political subdivision no later than 30 days after expiration of the time specified in Subsection 11-36a-602(2) for the impact fee that is the subject of the refund.

(e) A local political subdivision: (i) may retain an unclaimed refund; and (ii) shall expend any unclaimed refund on capital facilities identified in the current capital facilities plan for the type of public facility for which the impact fee was collected.

Amended by Chapter 215, 2018 General Session

Part 7

Challenges 11-36a-701 Impact fee challenge.

(1) A person or an entity residing in or owning property within a service area, or an organization, association, or a corporation representing the interests of persons or entities owning property within a service area, has standing to file a declaratory judgment action challenging the validity of an impact fee. (2)

(a) A person or an entity required to pay an impact fee who believes the impact fee does not meet the requirements of law may file a written request for information with the local political subdivision who established the impact fee. (b) Within two weeks after the receipt of the request for information under Subsection (2)(a), the local political subdivision shall provide the person or entity with the impact fee analysis, the impact fee facilities plan, and any other relevant information relating to the impact fee.

(3) (a) Subject to the time limitations described in Section 11-36a-702 and procedures set forth in Section 11-36a-703, a person or an entity that has paid an impact fee that a local political subdivision imposed may challenge:

(i) if the impact fee enactment was adopted on or after July 1, 2000: (A) subject to Subsection (3)(b)(i) and except as provided in Subsection (3)(b)(ii), whether the


local political subdivision complied with the notice requirements of this chapter with respect to the imposition of the impact fee; and (B) whether the local political subdivision complied with other procedural requirements of this chapter for imposing the impact fee; and

(ii) except as limited by Subsection (3)(c), the impact fee. (b)

(i) The sole remedy for a challenge under Subsection (3)(a)(i)(A) is the equitable remedy of requiring the local political subdivision to correct the defective notice and repeat the process. (ii) The protections given to a municipality under Section 10-9a-801 and to a county under Section 17-27a-801 do not apply in a challenge under Subsection (3)(a)(i)(A).

(c) The sole remedy for a challenge under Subsection (3)(a)(ii) is a refund of the difference between what the person or entity paid as an impact fee and the amount the impact fee should have been if it had been correctly calculated.

(4) (a) Subject to Subsection (4)(d), if an impact fee that is the subject of an advisory opinion under Section 13-43-205 is listed as a cause of action in litigation, and that cause of action is litigated on the same facts and circumstances and is resolved consistent with the advisory opinion:

(i) the substantially prevailing party on that cause of action: (A) may collect reasonable attorney fees and court costs pertaining to the development of that cause of action from the date of the delivery of the advisory opinion to the date of the court’s resolution; and (B) shall be refunded an impact fee held to be in violation of this chapter, based on the difference between the impact fee paid and what the impact fee should have been if the local political subdivision had correctly calculated the impact fee; and

(ii) in accordance with Section 13-43-206, a local political subdivision shall refund an impact fee held to be in violation of this chapter to the person who was in record title of the property on the day on which the impact fee for the property was paid if:

(A) the impact fee was paid on or after the day on which the advisory opinion on the impact fee was issued but before the day on which the final court ruling on the impact fee is issued; and (B) the person described in Subsection (3)(a)(ii) requests the impact fee refund from the local political subdivision within 30 days after the day on which the court issued the final ruling on the impact fee.

(b) A local political subdivision subject to Subsection (3)(a)(ii) shall refund the impact fee based on the difference between the impact fee paid and what the impact fee should have been if the local political subdivision had correctly calculated the impact fee. (c) This Subsection (4) may not be construed to create a new cause of action under land use law. (d) Subsection (4)(a) does not apply unless the cause of action described in Subsection (4)(a) is resolved and final.

(5) Subject to the time limitations described in Section 11-36a-702 and procedures described in Section 11-36a-703, a claimant, as defined in Section 11-36a-603, may challenge whether a local political subdivision spent or encumbered an impact fee in accordance with Section 11-36a-602. Amended by Chapter 215, 2018 General Session 11-36a-702 Time limitations.


(1) A person or an entity that initiates a challenge under Subsection 11-36a-701(3)(a) may not initiate that challenge unless it is initiated within:

(a) for a challenge under Subsection 11-36a-701(3)(a)(i)(A), 30 days after the day on which the person or entity pays the impact fee; (b) for a challenge under Subsection 11-36a-701(3)(a)(i)(B), 180 days after the day on which the person or entity pays the impact fee; (c) for a challenge under Subsection 11-36a-701(5):

(i) if the local political subdivision has spent or encumbered the impact fee, one year after the expiration of the time specified in Subsection 11-36a-602(2); or (ii) if the local political subdivision has not yet spent or encumbered the impact fee, two years after the expiration of the time specified in Subsection 11-36a-602(2); or

(d) for a challenge under Subsection 11-36a-701(3)(a)(ii), one year after the day on which the person or entity pays the impact fee.

(2) The deadline to file an action in district court is tolled from the date that a challenge is filed using an administrative appeals procedure described in Section 11-36a-703 until 30 days after the day on which a final decision is rendered in the administrative appeals procedure. Amended by Chapter 215, 2018 General Session 11-36a-703 Procedures for challenging an impact fee.

(1) (a) A local political subdivision may establish, by ordinance or resolution, or a private entity may establish by prior written policy, an administrative appeals procedure to consider and decide a challenge to an impact fee. (b) If the local political subdivision or private entity establishes an administrative appeals procedure, the local political subdivision shall ensure that the procedure includes a requirement that the local political subdivision make its decision no later than 30 days after the day on which the challenge to the impact fee is filed.

(2) A challenge under Subsection 11-36a-701(3)(a) is initiated by filing: (a) if the local political subdivision or private entity has established an administrative appeals procedure under Subsection (1), the necessary document, under the administrative appeals procedure, for initiating the administrative appeal; (b) a request for arbitration as provided in Section 11-36a-705; or (c) an action in district court.

(3) The sole remedy for a successful challenge under Subsection 11-36a-701(1), which determines that an impact fee process was invalid, or an impact fee is in excess of the fee allowed under this act, is a declaration that, until the local political subdivision or private entity enacts a new impact fee study, from the date of the decision forward, the entity may charge an impact fee only as the court has determined would have been appropriate if it had been properly enacted. (4) Subsections (2), (3), 11-36a-701(3), and 11-36a-702(1) may not be construed as requiring a person or an entity to exhaust administrative remedies with the local political subdivision before filing an action in district court under Subsections (2), (3), 11-36a-701(3), and 11-36a-702(1). (5) The judge may award reasonable attorney fees and costs to the prevailing party in an action brought under this section. (6) This chapter may not be construed as restricting or limiting any rights to challenge impact fees that were paid before the effective date of this chapter.


Amended by Chapter 200, 2013 General Session 11-36a-704 Mediation.

(1) In addition to the methods of challenging an impact fee under Section 11-36a-701, a specified public agency may require a local political subdivision or private entity to participate in mediation of any applicable impact fee. (2) To require mediation, the specified public agency shall submit a written request for mediation to the local political subdivision or private entity. (3) The specified public agency may submit a request for mediation under this section at any time, but no later than 30 days after the day on which an impact fee is paid. (4) Upon the submission of a request for mediation under this section, the local political subdivision or private entity shall:

(a) cooperate with the specified public agency to select a mediator; and (b) participate in the mediation process.

Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-705 Arbitration.

(1) A person or entity intending to challenge an impact fee under Section 11-36a-703 shall file a written request for arbitration with the local political subdivision within the time limitation described in Section 11-36a-702 for the applicable type of challenge. (2) If a person or an entity files a written request for arbitration under Subsection (1), an arbitrator or arbitration panel shall be selected as follows:

(a) the local political subdivision and the person or entity filing the request may agree on a single arbitrator within 10 days after the day on which the request for arbitration is filed; or (b) if a single arbitrator is not agreed to in accordance with Subsection (2)(a), an arbitration panel shall be created with the following members:

(i) each party shall select an arbitrator within 20 days after the date the request is filed; and (ii) the arbitrators selected under Subsection (2)(b)(i) shall select a third arbitrator.

(3) The arbitration panel shall hold a hearing on the challenge no later than 30 days after the day on which:

(a) the single arbitrator is agreed on under Subsection (2)(a); or (b) the two arbitrators are selected under Subsection (2)(b)(i).

(4) The arbitrator or arbitration panel shall issue a decision in writing no later than 10 days after the day on which the hearing described in Subsection (3) is completed. (5) Except as provided in this section, each arbitration shall be governed by Title 78B, Chapter 11, Utah Uniform Arbitration Act. (6) The parties may agree to:

(a) binding arbitration; (b) formal, nonbinding arbitration; or (c) informal, nonbinding arbitration.

(7) If the parties agree in writing to binding arbitration: (a) the arbitration shall be binding; (b) the decision of the arbitration panel shall be final; (c) neither party may appeal the decision of the arbitration panel; and


(d) notwithstanding Subsection (10), the person or entity challenging the impact fee may not also challenge the impact fee under Subsection 11-36a-701(1) or Subsection 11-36a-703(2)(a) or (2)(c).

(8) (a) Except as provided in Subsection (8)(b), if the parties agree to formal, nonbinding arbitration, the arbitration shall be governed by the provisions of Title 63G, Chapter 4, Administrative Procedures Act. (b) For purposes of applying Title 63G, Chapter 4, Administrative Procedures Act, to a formal, nonbinding arbitration under this section, notwithstanding Section 63G-4-502, “agency” means a local political subdivision.

(9) (a) An appeal from a decision in an informal, nonbinding arbitration may be filed with the district court in which the local political subdivision is located. (b) An appeal under Subsection (9)(a) shall be filed within 30 days after the day on which the arbitration panel issues a decision under Subsection (4). (c) The district court shall consider de novo each appeal filed under this Subsection (9). (d) Notwithstanding Subsection (10), a person or entity that files an appeal under this Subsection (9) may not also challenge the impact fee under Subsection 11-36a-701(1) or Subsection 11-36a-703(2)(a) or (2)(c).

(10) (a) Except as provided in Subsections (7)(d) and (9)(d), this section may not be construed to prohibit a person or entity from challenging an impact fee as provided in Subsection 11-36a-701(1) or Subsection 11-36a-703(2)(a) or (2)(c). (b) The filing of a written request for arbitration within the required time in accordance with Subsection (1) tolls all time limitations under Section 11-36a-702 until the day on which the arbitration panel issues a decision.

(11) The person or entity filing a request for arbitration and the local political subdivision shall equally share all costs of an arbitration proceeding under this section. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session

ORDINANCE #_ _-2020

AN ORDINANCE READOPTING THE SPRINGVILLE CITY POWER CAPITAL FACILITY PLAN, IMPACT FEE FACILITY PLAN AND THE IMPACT FEE STUDY; AND REENACTING POWER IMPACT FEES.








WHEREAS, on July 28, 2020, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed

public hearing to hear public input on and consider the “Springville City Power Capital

Facility Plan, Impact Fee Facility Plan and the Impact Fee Study, Update: 2019,” which

resulted in a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt this ordinance and all of

the attached documents; and

WHEREAS, on August 4, 2020, after the City properly noticed its intent pursuant to

the Act to (1) update and approve the “Springville City Power Capital Facility Plan, Impact

Fee Facility Plan and the Impact Fee Study, Update: 2019,” prepared and certified by Salient

Power Engineer, LLC and R.E. Pender, Inc., and (2) enact the Power Impact Fees, the City

approved the “Springville City Capital Facility Plan, the Impact Fee Facility Plan and the

Impact Fee Study” and enacted the Springville City Power Impact Fees; and

WHEREAS, the City has determined that its power impact fee assessed to new

development has allowed it to complete impact fee facilities as outlined in the City’s Impact

Fee Facility Plan; and


of the Springville City Power Capital Facility Plan, Impact Fee Facility Plan and Impact Fee

Study and this Impact Fee Enactment Ordinance, along with an executive summary of the

IFFP and the IFA that was designed to be understood by a lay person, were made available

to the public at the Springville City Public Library and posted on the City’s Website; and


time, and place of the public hearing to consider the Springville City Power Capital Facility

Plan, Impact Fee Facility Plan and Impact Fee Study and this Impact Fee Enactment

Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, on August 4, 2020, the Springville City Council held a public hearing

regarding the proposed and certified Springville City Power Capital Facility Plan, Impact Fee

Facility Plan and Impact Fee Study and this Impact Fee Enactment Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, the Springville City Council does now desire to hereby reapprove and

readopt the Springville City Power Capital Facility Plan, Impact Fee Facility Plan and Impact

Fee Study and the Power Impact Fee pursuant thereto and pursuant to the requirements of

Sections 11-36a-401 through 11-36a-403 of the Act.



The “Springville City Power Capital Facility Plan, Impact Fee Facility Plan and Impact Fee

Study, Updated: 2019” (the “Impact Fee Documents”) are hereby approved and adopted and

incorporated herein and attached as Exhibit “A.” The Power Impact Fees set forth in the

Impact Fee Study and this Ordinance are hereby approved and enacted. The impact fees

adopted by this ordinance will replace all previously adopted power impact fees.


The service area established in the Impact Fee Documents and for which the Power Impact

Fees are established and imposed is all of the Springville City Power Departments Service

Area, which area includes all of Springville City (the “Service Area”). The Service Area is

established based upon sound planning and engineering principles for the City’s power

system services.


The existing level of service provided by the City’s power system shall remain the same as it

was prior to this Ordinance and is hereby again adopted as the level of service to be

provided throughout the City. The existing and proposed level of service is fully defined in

Section 2.4 of the Impact Fee Documents, as follows:


As found in the Impact Fee Documents, the Power Impact Fee calculation is based on the

following:

1. Elements. In calculating the Power Impact Fee, the City has included those costs

allowed, including debt service, if any, that are found under Section 11-36a-305 of the

Act.

2. Proportionate Share Analysis. Included within the Impact Fee Documents is a

proportionate share analysis as required by Section 11-36a-304 of the Act.

3. Formula. The Power Impact Fee is based upon the Act’s required proportionate

share analysis in determining the total project costs to maintain the City’s current

power system level of service for new development activity that will occur during the

next six (6) to ten (10) years. The following schedule of Power Impact Fees is found

in the Impact Fee Study and specifies the amount of impact fee to be imposed for

each type of development activity and for each type of system improvement and/or

the formula the City will use to calculate each impact fee. The impact fee study

provides further detail regarding the schedule.



have upon the power system. This adjustment could result in a different impact fee if

evidence suggests a particular user will create a different impact than what is

standard for its category.



charged to:

i. respond to:







b. The impact fee may be adjusted for a particular development based on studies or data provided by a developer after review by the City’s Impact Fee Administrator and approval by the City Council.




the developer:












The Power Impact Fee shall be charged for all new service connections where no existing

power service has been provided by the City or whenever a customer desires to increase the

size of an existing power service. In the latter instance, the impact fee shall be based on the

difference in service capacity between the new and existing service. The impact fee shall be

charged throughout the Service Area for all classes of service.


The City may expend impact fees only for a system improvement identified in the Impact

Fee Facilities Plan and for the specific public facility type for which the fee was collected.

Impact fees will be expended on a first-in-first-out basis. Impact fees collected pursuant to

this Ordinance shall be expended or encumbered for a permissible use within six (6) years of

their receipt. The City may hold the fees for longer than six (6) years if it identifies, in writing,

an extraordinary and compelling reason why the fees should be held longer than six (6)

years and an absolute date by which the fees will be expended.

SECTION 7: Refunds.




















36a-601 of the Act.





SECTION 11: Effective Enactment Date.





ADOPTED by the City Council of Springville, Utah, this 4th day of August, 2020.

SPRINGVILLE CITY
