Utah State Prison Relocation Feasibility Eval 2005

The Habeas Citebook Ineffective Counsel - Header

Utah State Prison Relocation Feasibility Eval 2005

• Topics: Crime/Demographics, Cost of Prison Systems

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail

This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.

Evaluation of the
Feasibility of Relocating the
Utah State Prison
Prepared for

Division of Facilities Construction
and Management
Department of Administrative Services
Department of Corrections
State of Utah

October 2005

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants, Inc.
Carter Goble Lee
LECG
DMJM

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study . State of Utah

Evaluation of the Feasibility of
Relocating the Utah State Prison
Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants, Inc.
Carter Goble Associates, Inc.
LECG
DMJM
October 2005

INTRODUCTION

Abstract: The estimated cost to relocate
the prison functions from the Draper site
and construct comparable prison facilities at another location exceeds the anticipated proceeds from the sale of the real
estate by an estimated $372 million.
This conclusion is based on:
• market research analysis of alternative uses of the prison site;
• an appraisal of future land-use scenarios;
• consideration of full or partial relocation options; and
• cost estimates for construction, operation and transition related to each
scenario.

This study was commissioned by the State of Utah to determine the
feasibility of relocating the main Utah State Prison from its present
location to an alternative site within the state. The prison is located in
Draper City at the southern end of Salt Lake County, which is the
heart of the Wasatch Front – the most urbanized area of the state.
Over the past several decades, growth in the Draper area – and all of
southern Salt Lake County – has resulted in urban encroachment
around the prison. There has been a great deal of speculation regarding the value of the prison property if put into alternative uses and
whether this would be sufficient to offset the costs of building a new
facility on a different site. The test of feasibility is a product of the
value of the real estate that could be sold after relocation, the impact
of relocation on local communities and the estimated cost of rebuilding
equivalent facilities. These factors provide the framework for the following report and serve as the basis for the report’s findings.
This report summarizes extensive research and analysis performed during third quarter 2005 by a team of real estate, construction and prison
planning experts. The complete research and analysis are in Appendices A through E. The reader is referred to the appendices for more detail regarding any specific area of analysis discussed in this document.
Scenarios Evaluated

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants, Inc., is a Salt Lake City based
economic, planning and real estate
advisory services firm. Carter Goble
Associates, Inc., provides planning
services for correctional facilities
worldwide. LECG is an international
economics and finance consultancy
firm dealing in litigation support.
LECG recently acquired J. Phillip
Cook and Associates, a Salt Lake City
appraisal firm. DMJM is an international construction and engineering
firm. DMJM is currently designing the
expansion of the Gunnison Prison for
the Utah State Department of Corrections.

The report addresses the feasibility of relocating all prison functions
from Draper to another location in the state. It also addresses the feasibility of relocating a portion of the prison functions to another location in the state. In the case of a full relocation, a complete, new stateof-the-art facility would be constructed and all prison functions relocated. The scenario for a full relocation assumes moving the prison at
its present capacity of approximately 4,000 beds. This allows a clear
“apples to apples” comparison. (It would be more economical to assume relocation of the prison with approximately 4,000 beds and the
potential to expand to 6,000 beds in the future. This scenario is fully
outlined and priced in Appendix A.) Following construction and relocation, the current buildings, structures and improvements would be
demolished and the site prepared for marketing as a development site.
In the case of a partial relocation, the male medium-security and the
minimum-security pre-release functions would be moved to a new facility. Following relocation, the present medium-security facility would
Public Review Draft

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants

be remodeled to accommodate the women’s facility,
the substance-abuse-intensive-treatment and the forensic-mental-health in-patient diagnostics, treatment
and management facilities. Following the remodel
and relocation, the now-empty facilities on the northeast side of the site would be demolished, leaving a
reduced prison operation on the southwest. The 483
empty acres would then be prepared for sale as a development site.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The analysis is summarized in Tables EX-1 and EX-2.
These include all elements of the study and are
grouped by potential revenues/benefits and estimated
costs related to relocation. All estimates are based on
2005 present-value dollars and are based on the consultant’s experience with Utah construction costs, real
estate market values and trends and the prison planning and construction industry.
The information in the tables indicates that the substantial costs of relocating the Draper facilities —
about $461 million — are not recoverable through the
sale of the roughly 670 acres of land that the State of
Utah could dispose of upon the prison’s closure and
relocation. The additional benefits of returning the
land to private development and “back onto the tax

Carter Goble Associates

LECG

DMJM

rolls” will not be sufficient to close the gap.
Appraised value ranges from $51 million to $93 million. This range exists because the consultant team
approached the appraisal question from a number of
perspectives. First, because the owner is a public
agency with a very low cost of capital, the team has
taken two approaches: the market value essentially
assumes the state sells to a private developer and
uses costs of capital available to the private sector;
the investment value assumes the public sector (the
state) is the investor and uses the state’s more beneficial cost of capital.
In addition, two different development scenarios
have been used. The first assumes that the land is
sold as residential land which is its current highest
and best use. The second takes a longer-term view
that is more reflective of the desires of Draper City
for a mixed-use employment center on the site.
Finally, the team was asked to review the potential
of moving only a portion of the Draper prison functions to another location, selling the excess real estate
and thereby maintaining some operations at Draper
while realizing the benefits of releasing certain areas
of the Draper campus for private use. This is referred
to in the Tables as the “Partial Relocation” option.

Table EX-1: Executive Summary Feasibility Summary – Full Relocation
Highest and Best Use
Market
Appraised Value
Plus Value of Water Shares
Plus Benefit to Draper
Subtotal

Mixed Use

Investment

Market

Investment

$72,000,000

$93,000,000

$51,000,000

$1,800,000

$77,000,000
$1,800,000

$13,600,000

$87,400,000

$108,400,000

$66,400,000

$92,400,000

$421,800,000

$6,600,000

$900,000

$10,700,000

$330,000

$11,200,000

$2,000,000
$7,500,000

Costs
Construction
Demolition
Transition
Operating
Transportation
Staff Relocation
Recruitment/Training
Site Acquisition
Repayment of ESCO Debt
Cost Subtotal
Net (Cost) Gain to State

$461,030,000

($373,630,000)

($352,630,000)

($394,630,000)

($368,630,000)
($372,000,000)

Average (Cost) Gain to State (rounded)

Note: Moderate cost estimates from the ranges provided in Appendix E were used to minimize the number of iterations of this summary. The costs
could vary from $5 million less to $54 million more than the "moderate" estimate. In the full report, the site and operating costs vary by site, but
averages are used in this executive summary

Public Review Draft

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study . State of Utah

Under none of the approaches or the full or partial relocation options does the proposal generate sufficient
revenues to cover the costs of moving all or a portion of
the prison functions.
The study also evaluates the fiscal impacts to Draper
City of having the full or partial prison property returned to private use. Under the mixed-use development scenario, the city would realize nearly $1 million
annually (after the project was fully built out) in net tax
revenues if the prison were totally relocated. Under the
partial relocation option, Draper is projected to receive
about $245,000 in annual net revenues.
Should the state decide to move the prison, a preliminary evaluation of alternative sites identified areas in
Box Elder, Juab and Tooele Counties that would provide reasonable alternatives for a full replacement of the
Draper facilities. Partial relocation of prison functions
could be reasonably accommodated in areas of Iron and
Carbon Counties. The full-relocation sites could also be
considered. These areas would require additional study.
There are additional costs related to the relocation of
the prison that have been identified in the analysis.
New facility designs can have the potential to provide
staffing efficiencies over older facility designs that result
in operating cost savings. The consultants examined
this potential, but found that significant staff reductions are not likely as the UDOC staffing at the Draper
complex is extremely efficient as is. Other operational

costs such as transportation costs, staff recruitment
and training, staff relocation and transition costs are
addressed in detail in the study.
Expenses related to retirement of debt for the energy system have been taken into account. Costs for
replacement of unrelated facilities (Surplus Property, Forestry/Fire and Juvenile Justice Services)
have not been provided for in the analysis.

While the value of the prison property does not support full or partial relocation of the Draper prison
functions, the unused portion should not be left idle
or simply sold as surplus property. The remaining
property is a valuable asset of the state that the
consultants recommend be the subject of a strategic
planning effort to map its long-term use. This
analysis has determined that Department of Corrections facility requirements on the Draper site including future growth will likely never need more than
about 300 to 350 of the roughly 670 acres, but these
needs will require further refinement now that the
feasibility of relocation of the prison has been addressed. The future Department of Corrections
needs and remaining land should be jointly planned
for long-term state use – for state facilities or other
uses such as a technology center as envisioned in the
Governor’s economic development planning.

Table EX-2: Feasibility Summary – Partial Relocation/Mixed-Use Scenario
Investment Value
Appraised Value
Plus Benefit to Draper (20-year NPV)
Subtotal

Market Value

$49,000,000

$34,000,000

$3,500,000

$52,500,000

$37,500,000

$128,000,000

$1,700,000

$730,000

$100,000

$4,700,000

$680,000

Costs
Construction
Demolition
Transition
Operating
Staff Relocation
Recruitment/Training
Site Acquisition
Cost Subtotal

$135,910,000

Net (Cost) Gain to State

($83,410,000)

($98,410,000)
($91,000,000)

Average (Cost) Gain to State (rounded)
Public Review Draft

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants

LECG

DMJM

Table of Contents

Figure 1: Aerial view of Draper facility

Draper Prison Site

Bangerter Hwy
200 W.

Carter Goble Associates

Section 1: Major Elements of Feasibility — Capital Cost, Land and Economic
Benefits…………….……………….....page 4
Section 2:Communities Recommended
for Consideration…………………..page 15

I-15

Legend

13800 S.

Current Prison
Property Boundaries

Section 3: Transition, Operating and
Site Acquisition Costs……….….page 18

North Point

Section 4: Other Issues, Findings and
Conclusions…………………….......page 21

South Point

°
14600 S.
Miles
0

0.125

0.25

0.5

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants, Inc.

SECTION 1: MAJOR ELEMENTS OF
FEASIBILITY — CAPITAL COST, LAND
AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS

ORGANIZATION OF REPORT

CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF RELOCATION

This report is divided into four sections. The first
sets forth the major elements of the evaluation of
feasibility: the costs of building a new prison, the
appraised value of the land that could be sold and the
anticipated benefits to Draper City of having the
land returned to private use. Also included in this
section is the market and planning research that was
used to inform the appraisal process.

Construction of the Draper facility began in 1948.
Many of the facilities have been constructed over the
intervening years — several in the 1980s. It now contains 1,093,893 square feet of special-purpose building
improvements and various site improvements including
asphalt, concrete, landscaping, lighting, fencing and
security. The estimated capital costs for constructing
and equipping a replacement of the Draper prison are
substantial.

The second section evaluates potential prison sites for
full or partial relocation options. Potential sites are
considered on the basis of existing community resources, available infrastructure, suitability of available land, and community impacts. This portion of
the report is concluded with an estimate of potential
impacts to communities that may host a prison in
the future.

All estimates in this analysis are based on 2005 presentvalue dollars and are based on the consultant’s experience with Utah construction costs as well as recent,
comparable prison construction projects elsewhere in
the U.S. mainland.

Operational and site costs associated with relocation
of prison functions in full or in part are discussed in
the third section of the study.

Table 1: Construction Cost - Full Relocation

Moderate
Low

$421,800,000
$416,800,000

Final findings and conclusions summarize the principle issues outlined in each of the major sections of the
report and provide an evaluation of feasibility.

High

$475,000,000

Cost Level

Carter Goble Associates, Inc.

Public Review Draft

Total Cost ($2005$)

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study . State of Utah

In order to estimate the probable size and cost magnitude of constructing a “New Draper Complex,” a
computation of the August 2005 actual total bed capacity of all Draper facilities by physical security
level, gender and custody/classification assignments
was made from data provided by the Utah Department of Corrections (“UDOC”). Additionally the
Adult Corrections Needs Assessment completed by
Carter Goble Associates (“CGA”) in 1995 was also
reviewed since that study conducted a more in-depth
assessment of the capacity ratings by American Corrections Association standards and conditions of each
UDOC facility. Up-to-date existing building space
gross square footage for Draper was also provided by
the UDOC for all buildings at the complex. Table 2
provides a listing of the facilities currently located at
Draper.
The costing model assumes seven new correctional
facilities, plus a number of centralized support functions or services (see Table 3). These facilities would
be collocated inside a single-perimeter security system similar to the existing Draper complex. While
the total number of beds to be replaced remains
3,968, there are some variations in the distribution of
beds for the proposed replacement facilities. These
variations result from standard corrections planning
and population management related to the need for
special management, infirmary and mental health inpatient beds.

Table 2: Total Beds to Replace by Facility, Location and

FACILITY AND CLASSIFICATION

UDOC 2005
TOTAL BEDS

Wasatch – Medium/Diagnostic/Infirmary – South Pt.

900

Uinta – Maximum/Special Management – South Pt.

794

Oquirrh – Medium/Minimum – South Pt.

828

Timpanogos – Female All-Custody – North Pt. (143
males temporary)

569

Olympus – Forensic Mental Health – North Pt.

177

Promontory – Med/Min Substance Abuse THC –
North Pt.

400

Lone Peak – Minimum Work Release/Re-entry –
North Pt.

300

Complex Total

Source: UDOC

3,968

Table 3: New Prison Facilities
Male Maximum Security Unit

672

Central Clinic and Infirmary

Male Medium and Intake Reception/Orientation Unit

936

Male Medium Security Unit

870

Forensic Mental Health Unit

212

Women’s All-custody Unit

426

Male Minimum/Medium Substance Abuse Unit

402

Male Minimum Work Release/Re-entry Unit

402

Total

3,968

New Central Support Facilities
Complex Administration & Visit Center
Central Kitchen
Industries Center
Source: Carter Goble and Associates, Inc.

The cost estimates are derived from computations
using size and component-cost estimators and the
following approach:
• define each facility by general mission/function;
• assign bed counts by custody and security type for

housing;

• define centralized-support services and functions

to serve all facilities;
• apply building gross square footage per bed esti-

mators applicable to each housing type, each facility’s internal support core spaces and the proposed
centralized support services and functions to derive a total facility size;
• apply construction cost per square foot estimators
for 2005 present values; and
• add project/soft costs estimators to derive a total
construction cost estimate.
Since this analysis is being done at a limited macro level
without the benefit of any architectural space programming or preliminary design development for a specific
site, the estimates must be considered preliminary and
“likely order of magnitude” in nature rather than precise. Consequently, a series of estimates were developed to provide a high, medium and low range of estimates.
The complete analysis, methodology and data used
to develop the cost estimates are included as Appendix A.

Public Review Draft

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants

For those readers not familiar with the common
size requirements of contemporary prisons Appendix A includes a summary of 20 different exemplary prisons by type and size with square footage
per bed and whether or not expansion capacity was
built during the initial construction.
The estimate is for construction-related costs only
and does not represent what might be the State’s
actual future cost. There will be additional costs
such as future years’ construction-cost inflation
(which have been very high in recent years), costs
related to site-specific conditions and the possibility of extraordinary environmental-conditions
mitigation. Such costs can only be accurately estimated with detailed investigations of a specific site
and the development of a schematic design for that
site. It would be more practical to assume relocation of the prison with approximately 4,000 beds
and the potential to expand to 6,000 beds in the
future because of economies of scale related to construction of the core facilities (including such structures as the kitchen and the industry building).
This scenario is outlined and priced in Appendix A.
Partial Relocation Costs
Under a partial relocation scenario, a new 1,052
bed medium security facility and a 402 bed prerelease facility would be built allowing the current
North Point functions to move to the vacated
space. The Draper South Point facility would be
remodeled for 1,052 beds for the forensic-mentalhealth unit, women’s unit and substance-abusetherapeutic community. The remaining existing
beds would not require additional investment
above planned expenditures.
Low, high and moderate costs were developed to
construct new facilities at another location. UDOC
proposes a relatively limited remodel at the South
Point facility to accommodate the North Point

Table 4: Construction Cost—Partial Relocation
Cost Level

Total Cost ($2005$)

Moderate

$128,000,000

Low
High

$119,100,000
$131,500,000

Carter Goble Associates, Inc.

Carter Goble Associates

LECG

DMJM

functions. The North Point facility would then be
demolished and prepared as a development site.
APPRAISED VALUE OF PRISON SITE
Appraising the prison site is more complicated than
a traditional property appraisal. First, in the absence of existing public policy direction for land use
in the area, values have been prepared for a number
of alternative development scenarios. Second, timing of the delivery of the property to market is impacted by a number of uncontrollable or uncertain
events. Third, consultants have been asked to address both market value and investment value for
each scenario. Fourth, values are further refined to
reflect both full and partial relocation scenarios.
Value is generally determined based on development
opportunities at the property and the investor’s cost
of capital. Development opportunities are established through what the local government will allow
to be developed on the site based on land-use laws
and policies (the general plan and zoning) and demand in the market. The prison site is unique because there are no local policies or laws currently
established for the site, given its long public ownership and institutional use as a prison. Therefore, the
consultants relied on interviews with local government officials regarding the desired direction for future development of the property and an evaluation
of current and prospective market conditions to establish potential development scenarios for the
state-owned land. Detailed market research was
used to prepare alternative land use scenarios as
part of the appraisal process — a situation not typically addressed as part of an appraisal process. A
full discussion of the scenarios is provided following
this section.
It is not uncommon to assume that future land use
may differ from the present if current zoning or use
is inconsistent with market demand. Therefore shift
of use from prison to other uses is not an unusual or
extraordinary condition. The timing related to the
transition of uses will create a somewhat extraordinary condition for a market transaction for the entire site because it may take up to seven years to
build a replacement facility, relocate the prison
functions and demolish the existing facilities. The
seven-year timeframe assumes that all administra-

Public Review Draft

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study . State of Utah

tive and legislative approval processes work seamlessly.
This study uses two approaches to value: the market
value essentially assumes the state sells to a private
developer and uses costs of capital available to the
private sector and the investment value which in this
case assumes the public sector (the state) is the investor and uses the state’s cost of capital.
Summary
LECG performed a complete appraisal of the prison
site. (See Appendix B.) The appraisers were asked to
evaluate the “highest and best use” of the land,
which is essentially housing, as well as a scenario that
reflects the community’s objective of an employment
center with only ancillary housing. The values are
as follows:
Table 5: Summary of Value Estimates

Valuation Scenario
Highest & Best Use

Market Value

Investment Value

$72,000,000

$93,000,000

$51,000,000

$77,000,000

$34,000,000

$49,000,000

(residential development)
Full Relocation
(mixed-use development)
Partial Relocation
(mixed-use development)

The appraisal takes two approaches in the valuation
of the prison property: market value and investment
value. These are specifically defined terms in the appraisal industry as follows:
Market Value is the most probable price
which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions
requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller
each acting prudently, knowledgeably and
assuming the price is not affected by undue
stimulus. Implicit in this definition is consummation of a sale as of a specified date and
passing of title from seller to buyer under
conditions whereby:
• Buyer and seller are typically motivated;
• Both parties are well-informed or well-

advised and each acting in what they consider their own best interest;
• A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in
the open market;
• Payment is made in terms of cash in U.S.
dollars or in terms of financial arrangement
comparable thereto; and
• The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by
special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the
sale.

Source: LECG

Market value also assumes a discount rate of
12 percent which is market supported.

Just on the basis of the capital cost and appraised
values, the economic feasibility of relocating the
prison seems doubtful at best.
Appraisal Methodology
Only a land valuation is made. This is accomplished
using a discounted cash flow methodology that incorporates a sales comparison approach to value the
land under the assumption of marketing in multiple
development pods of 50 acres. Also taken into account are the cost of spine infrastructure and other
costs incurred in taking the property to the status
necessary to market as development pods. Net cash
flows are then discounted to present worth using an
appropriate discount rate.

Investment value is defined as: “The specific
value of an investment to a particular investor or class of investors based on individual
investment requirements; as distinguished
from market value, which is impersonal and
detached.” In this appraisal, investment
value is specific to the State of Utah. The
State of Utah has a AAA Bond Rating. The
current 10-year bond rate for AAA-rated borrowers as of September 14, 2005 is 3.65 percent. This is the State’s assumed cost of capital and is assumed to be accurate.
The market would quickly absorb this acreage at
relatively high prices for near-term residential development in the event of a full relocation of the prison.

Public Review Draft

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants

That is why it has been identified as the “highest and
best use.” However, residential housing alone, while
potentially maximizing present value, does not maximize community benefits or the long-term potential
of the property. That is why the alternative scenario
was developed.
Two valuation premises are considered, involving a
full and partial relocation of the prison facility, respectively.
The value estimates assume that:
•

•

•
•

Necessary zoning and entitlements would have
been secured for the property at the time of
valuation;
A grade-separated interchange will have been
provided at Bangerter Highway and 13800 South
at no cost to the project;
No buildings on the site; and
No cost to retire debt associated with the financing for energy improvements or the lease revenue
bond that financed the surplus property facility.
(See discussion below.)

Demolition Costs
The value that would be recovered by the state
would be offset by the cost of demolishing the existing improvements on the site. The structures are primarily steel and concrete. The preliminary estimate
of demolition and clearing of the entire site is
$6,600,000. Under the partial relocation scenario,
the cost of demolition is estimated to be $1,700,000.

Summary
A full economic and market analysis of the nation,
state and surrounding area was conducted and is included in this report as Appendix C. The market
study looks at various factors to determine the most
likely development program to occur on the site
given current economic and employment conditions.
The market study area includes the jurisdictions of

LECG

DMJM

Bluffdale, Draper, Herriman, Lehi, Riverton, Sandy,
South Jordan and West Jordan. Given current economic trends and market demand, the land would be
most marketable in the shortest timeframe as primarily residential property (mostly single family
with some limited multifamily) and a small portion
of retail space near the freeway interchange. If, however, the planning objectives provided by Draper
City are implemented through its planning process, a
much reduced amount of single and multi-family
residential with substantial amounts of light industrial, office, and retail uses would be reasonable in
the event of a full relocation. Only multi-family, industrial and office uses would occur in the event of a
partial relocation.
There are a number of factors which are taken into
consideration in developing both the full and partial
property development programs. These include existing and planned infrastructure improvements; national, statewide and area economic forces; current
and anticipated development patterns in the area;
and compatibility with the prison (for the partial relocation option).
Existing and Planned Infrastructure Improvements

These values do not include the value of water
(including the geothermal pools) associated with the
site that total an additional $1.8 million.

CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Carter Goble Associates

The site has immediate access to Interstate-15 and
Bangerter Highway. The area surrounding the site
includes two existing interchanges for I-15 –
Bangerter Highway and 14600 South. There is currently one access point from the property onto
Bangerter Highway. Proposed improvements include a second Bangerter Highway access at 13800
South and a commuter rail station on or immediately
adjacent to the site. The proposed improvements are
conceptual at this point. In the case of the commuter
rail station, identification of the final location will
follow completion of the environmental and design
processes. Currently there is not public funding for
the 13800 South access to Bangerter Highway, funding is assumed for construction of the gradeseparated intersection in the event that it is built in
association with this development program.
Economic Forces
Statewide job growth during 2004 was stronger than
job growth in the nation as a whole. Utah job
growth was 2.5 percent whereas nationally jobs grew

Public Review Draft

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study . State of Utah

at just 1.0 percent. The strongest sectors showing
growth in Utah were construction at 5.6 percent,
professional and business services at 5.2 percent,
and education and health services at 3.2 percent.
Employment in the professional and business services and education and health services sectors is
more highly represented in the study area than in
the state as a whole. Employment growth is expected to continue through 2005 and the near term
at approximately the same rate experienced in 2004.
Population growth in Utah is also higher than the
national average. Utah’s population grew at 2.3
percent during 2004. Two of the fastest growing
communities in the state for the period 2002-2003
were Herriman at 34.7 percent and Bluffdale at 16.6
percent. Both are part of the market study area.
Utah’s population is expected to continue to grow as
a result of natural population growth and net inmigration.
At the same time that population and employment
have been expanding, Utah’s wages have been increasing. Growth in non-agricultural wages for 2004
was 2.6 percent, just above the national average of
2.3 percent. Although this is an improvement over
the 2003 growth in wages of 1.7 percent it is still low
relative to historic wage growth.
Current and Anticipated Development Patterns
The prison site is in the fast developing southern
Salt Lake/northern Utah County area of the State.
The City of Draper would prefer redevelopment of
the prison site as a mixed-use area including commercial, office and industrial development. Note:

% Change 2003 - 2004

2.5
2
1.5
Utah
1

U.S.

0.5
0
Employment
Growth

Population
Growth

Draper further indicated that they would only consider residential uses at the prison site in the event
that commercial, office and industrial uses were
proven unachievable. In the near term, the market
for residential uses is the most strong. Over the
long term, and with active promotion from Draper
City and the Governor’s Office of Economic Development, a mixed-use development could be successful.
Single-Family Residential
Data in the study area reflect strong performance
in the single-family home entry-level market with
32 percent of new homes selling in the $150,000 to
$174,999 range and 93 percent of new homes selling
for under $300,000. Existing homes in the study
area are reselling with the largest percentage (17
percent) in the $150,000 to $174,999 range and 69
percent selling for under $300,000. This would indicate that the strongest performance in housing
sales at the prison site can be expected from subdivisions showing similar characteristics to this market. This market has dominated the west side of
the Salt Lake Valley. It has also become the predominant market of the recent past as the “move
up” market was nearly fully absorbed with the initial drop in interest rates in the mid to late 1990s.
There is a mid- to upper-range priced housing project placed directly west of the prison on 14600
South that has been relatively successful. This suggests that, if properly planned and executed, the
prison property could contain a mix of singlefamily housing types. However, the proximity to
the freeway and the preponderance of demand in
the area indicates that the bulk of the housing
would be in the entry-level price range.
Absorption rates for single-family homes have been
increasing in the study area over the last several
years, reflecting development patterns oriented
towards the southern end of the Salt Lake Valley.
The study area absorbed an annual average of
2,372 single-family units over the last three years.
The full relocation development program assumes
the site will capture three percent of the singlefamily market in the study area annually which is
approximately six units per month. The partial

Public Review Draft

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants

relocation development program does not include singlefamily residential development. The proximity of the
remaining prison facility makes this type of development
unlikely.
Attached Single-Family Residential
A sub-set of the single-family residential market is attached single-family homes/condominiums. Historically
this has been a relatively small market in the study area.
In 2004 the study area absorbed 438 attached singlefamily residential units compared to 389 in 2003 and 460
in 2002. Demand for attached single-family housing is
expected to increase as the area becomes more built out
and interest rates rise. Attached single-family units are
included in the numbers discussed above.
Apartments
Vacancy rates in the apartment market of Salt Lake
County, including the study area, peaked in January
2003 at 10.9 percent. Apartment vacancy in southern
Salt Lake County was even higher at 11.7 percent. Prior
to January 2003 southern Salt Lake County vacancy
rates were higher than the county as a whole. Since then
they have been, on average, lower. In June 2005 the Salt
Lake County vacancy rate was 7.3 percent; while at the
same time the rate for south Salt Lake County was 6.9
percent.
Average rents in the southern end of Salt Lake County
have remained relatively steady over the last five years.
As vacancy rates continue to drop however, rents will
most likely increase.
According to data from local brokers, an average of 734
apartment units in large developments (over 40 units)
have been constructed per year from mid-year 2002 to
mid-year 2004 in the south end of Salt Lake County (the
area south of 6200 South). If Salt Lake County’s average
vacancy rate of 9.1 percent (mid-year 2002 – mid-year
2005) were applied to this total, the estimated number of
new units rented per year would be about 670. If the
prison site were to capture 30 percent of this average,
roughly 200 units could be rented per year. Under the
full relocation scenario, this represents an absorption period of about 11 years.

Carter Goble Associates

LECG

DMJM

Retail
The amount of new retail space a given location can expect to attract and support is a result of the buying power
of existing and anticipated households with reductions for
existing and anticipated retail outlets competing for that
buying power. Retail space is typically broken down into
three types – neighborhood, community and regional.
Neighborhood retail attracts the buying power of the
nearest households, community retail draws from multiple
neighborhoods and regional retail attracts the buying
power of a much larger area.
The proposed development program and existing
neighborhoods in the region can support the amounts of
retail outlined in Table 6. Each retail category is then
adjusted by the amount of new and planned retail square
footage in the area. (See Table 7.)
Table 6: Supportable Retail Space, Prison Site and
Surrounding Area

Building & Garden
General Merchandise

Neighborhood Retail
Square Feet

Community
Retail
Square
Feet

46,000

122,000

175,000

168,000

572,000

540,000

Regional
Retail
Square
Feet

Food Stores
Motor Vehicle
Dealers
Apparel & Accessory

33,000

-28,000

-7,000

45,000

112,000

-67,000

12,000

15,000

31,000

Furniture

24,000

71,000

85,000

Eating Places
Miscellaneous
Retail

42,000

86,000

68,000

52,000

131,000

158,000

422,000

1,081,000

983,000

Totals

Source: Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants, Inc.
Table 7: Adjusted Supportable Retail Space, Prison
Site and Surrounding Area
Community
Regional
NeighborRetail
Retail
hood Retail
Square
Square
Square Feet
Feet
Feet
Totals
Less major new
or planned
Adjusted Total

422,000

1,081,000

983,000

-377,000

-1060,000

-1,510,000

45,000

21,000

-527,000

Source: Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants, Inc.

Public Review Draft

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study . State of Utah

Opportunities for retail development at the prison
site are limited. Eliminating residential development
from the development program would further limit
retail opportunities at the site.
Office
Vacancy rates in the Salt Lake County office market
declined to 13.7 percent in the second quarter of 2005
from a 2004 vacancy rate of 15.3 percent. Vacancy
rates in the southeast and southwest areas of Salt
Lake County are lower at 6.5 percent and 7.4 percent
respectively. Note that the southwest area of the
county has a limited amount of office space. These
areas follow the county-wide trend of declining vacancy rates and increased absorption in Class A and
B office space. Class C office space shows increasing
vacancy rates most likely as a result of opportunities
for businesses to access Class A and B space at lower
rents.
The average annual absorption of new office space in
Salt Lake County over the past five years has been
1,041,914 square feet. This absorption rate is expected to remain stable over the near term. The full
relocation development program assumes an office
space annual capture rate of 38 percent. The partial
relocation development program assumes an office
space annual capture rate of 34 percent. The capture
rates for office are aggressive based on the assumption that Draper City and the Governor’s Office of
Economic Development will lend its endorsement
and active support to generating interest in the site.
Industrial

ture rate for industrial space at the prison site. The partial relocation development program assumes a 13 percent annual capture rate. As with the office space capture rates, the industrial capture rates assume that
Draper City and the Governor’s Office of Economic Development will lend its endorsement and active support
to generating interest in the site.
Governor’s Economic Development Initiative
A key component of Governor Huntsman’s 10-Point
Plan for Economic Revitalization is to actively market
areas of the state to target industries in order to increase
employment opportunities in high wage sectors. This
site is an ideal location for a technology center. Redevelopment of the prison site as a location for one or
more of these target industries would enhance the absorption rates anticipated in the development program.
Development Program — Full Relocation
The development scenario for the “highest and best use”
is outlined in Table 8. The current market supports primarily residential development with ancillary retail
uses.
Table 8: Development Program for Highest and Best Use
Land Use

Units

Square Feet

Gross
Acreage

Single-family

2,500

416

Multifamily-16

3,000

183

Regional retail

150,000

Trunk road system
Total

Vacancy rates in the Salt Lake County industrial
space market decreased to 7.6 percent in the first half
of 2005 from 8.5 percent in 2004 and 10.5 percent in
2003. However, vacancy rates in the study area are
appreciably higher at 29 percent. This area is not in
the high-traffic industrial corridors of the valley such
as the SR201 corridor or other major distribution
centers. County-wide there are 562,137 square feet of
industrial space under construction, with an average
annual absorption rate of 769,708 square feet annually over the last five years. The full relocation development program assumes a 14 percent annual cap-

Public Review Draft

47
5,500

150,000

670

Proportionate Share of Land Uses
Highest and Best Use

Single-family
Multifamily
Retail
Trunk road
system

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants

Carter Goble Associates

LECG

DMJM

Figure 2: Full Relocation Mixed-Use Development Scenario
DRAPER PRISON SITE
LAND USES
FULL RELOCATION

Rail

Land Use
Business Park
CR Station
Institutional
Light Industrial
Mixed Use
Multifamily - 16
Neighborhood Comm
Office
Open Space
Regional Retail
Single-Family

W 13800 S

BANGERTER HWY

15
§
¦
¨

Streets

°
Miles

W 14600 S

0.125

0.25

0.5

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants, Inc.

Table 9: Mixed-Use Development Program For
Full Relocation
Land Use

Units

Square Feet

Gross
Acreage

Proportionate Share of Uses

Commuter Rail Station

Institutional

Commuter Rail

Institutional

176

Mixed Use

Mixed Use
Multifamily – 16

150

120,000

3,000

Mixed-Use Scenario

85,000

Multifamily

General Office

1,100,000

Retail

Regional Retail

175,000

General Office

Single-Family

156

High Tech

Neighborhood Retail

Single-family

550

Light Industrial/
Business Park

2,000,000

Trunk Road System

Trunk Road System
Total

70
3,700

3,480,000

670

Public Review Draft

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study . State of Utah

Alternatively, if the planning objectives of
Draper City are met, the development program
illustrated in Figure 2 represents a reasonable
development program for the site. This scenario is summarized in Table 9.

Table 10: Development Program For Partial Relocation
Land Use

Units

Square Feet

Commuter Rail Station
Light Industrial

Development Program — Partial Relocation
The partial relocation development program is
based on the assumption that 190 acres of the
site will be retained by the State of Utah for
prison operations which would remain in
Draper. This results in the uses outlined in Table 10.

Multifamily – 16

Gross
Acreage

n/a

1,500,000

104

1,300

Neighborhood Retail

50,000

General Office

1,500,000

134

Business Park

1,000,000

Trunk Road System

Subtotal

480

Prison
Total

1,300

n/a

190

4,050,000

670

Figure 3: Partial Relocation Development Scenario

DRAPER PRISON SITE
LAND USES
PARTIAL RELOCATION

Land Use
Business Park
CR Station
Light Industrial
Multifamily - 16
Neighborhood Comm
Office
Open Space
Prison
Rail
Commuter Rail Station

W 13800 S

BANGERTER HWY

Streets
15
§
¦
¨

°
Miles

W 14600 S

0.125

0.25

0.5

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants, Inc.

Public Review Draft

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants

Carter Goble Associates

LECG

DMJM

Figure 4: Area Remaining in Prison Use—Partial Relocation Option

Draper Prison Site
Partial Relocation

200 W.

Bangerter Hwy
I-15

Legend

13800 S.

Boundaries of Reduced
Prison Operation
Current Prison
Property Boundaries

°
14600 S.
Miles
0

0.125

0.25

0.5

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants, Inc.

IMPACT OF RELOCATION ON DRAPER
The City of Draper currently receives about
$100,000 from the 670-acre prison site. Conversely,
it provides limited services and incurs no expenditures at the location. Following relocation and redevelopment, the property would be returned to
the tax rolls and would generate revenue for
Draper. The City of Draper would also have an
obligation to provide services to the new residents
and businesses at the site thereby incurring expenditures as well.
An analysis of the expected revenues and projected
expenditures under both the full and partial relocation development programs was completed as part
of this feasibility analysis. The complete fiscal impact report is included as Appendix D.

In the event of a full relocation of the prison, and
future use of the property as primarily residential
development (the “highest and best use” scenario)
the City of Draper could expect a net increase in
ongoing annual revenues of approximately
$150,000. (This reflects increases in tax revenues
offset by increased costs of providing municipal
services to the area after it is fully developed.) If
the future use is generally a technology and business park with associated retail and residential development (the mixed-use scenario), the anticipated
annual net revenues to Draper are approximately
$970,000 .
Under the partial relocation option (which only
occurs under the mixed-use scenario), the City of
Draper is expected to experience annual net revenue of roughly $245,000

Public Review Draft

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study . State of Utah

SECTION 2: COMMUNITIES RECOMMENDED FOR
CONSIDERATION
A number of factors were identified as the initial criteria in the analysis of potential locations for either full
or partial prison relocation. A full report of the analysis, methodology, data sources and anticipated impact
on the recommended communities is included as Appendix E. The factors evaluated include proximity to
medical services, a labor and volunteer pool, community and professional services, major highways and
roads and other infrastructure such as potable water,
communications capacity, sewer, and electrical and
natural gas supply. Other considerations include the
impact of the location on transportation costs and the
likelihood of future urban encroachment.
The initial evaluation of suitability was primarily
based on whether an area:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Has at least 30,000 people living within 30 miles;
Is less than 30 minutes from a hospital with a full
trauma center;
Has access to potable water;
Is less than 30 miles from a city with a reasonablysized police or sheriff department; and
Is less than 5 miles from a major state highway or
interstate.
Has land available with less than a 5 percent slope;
Is not federal land;

Figure 5: Box Elder County Possible Locations
(Promontory Point location not shown)

The resulting map is attached to this report as Exhibit
1. The communities were further evaluated using a
total of 45 factors outlined in Appendix E.
The alternative site analysis is not focused on specific
pieces of real estate but rather focuses on communities
that have sufficient available sites and the requisite
attributes that provide a suitable range of options for
prison relocation. All communities in Utah were initially considered as candidate sites for prison relocation. The suitability of each community was evaluated
through an objective analysis of data. Communities
have been identified as suitable for a complete relocation or a partial relocation.
Full Relocation Communities
Box Elder County —Box Elder County from Promontory east to the Wasatch range meets many of the cri-

Figure 6: Juab County Possible Locations

Public Review Draft

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants

Carter Goble Associates

LECG

DMJM

teria that would make the area highly suitable to both
partial and full relocation. Proximity to major population centers and availability of suitable land augment the area’s suitability. Relatively stagnant
wages, slow economic growth and higher than average
unemployment may provide some incentives to accept
a relocated facility. Initial contacts with county officials were not met with a positive response, particularly related to the southeastern portion of the
county.
Northeast Juab County — This area is located relatively close to the existing facilities at Gunnison and
may draw from the same labor pool, but proximity to
the Wasatch Front and its attendant services make

Figure 7: Tooele County Possible Locations

The areas shaded
in green in the
maps included as
Figures 5
through 8 are the
portions of the
counties that
have been identified as suitable
for further
evaluation for
possible prisons.

Figure 8: Partial Relocation Communities

Public Review Draft

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study . State of Utah

this area a highly suitable location for a full relocation. There is sufficient land that is distant from the
most severe growth pressures of the Wasatch Front
to remain out of the direct path of development.
County officials are willing to participate in further
evaluation to determine if there are suitable sites
available.
Tooele County (Rush Valley) — The Rush Valley
area of Tooele County is located in relatively close
proximity to the existing prison location. This proximity maximizes the opportunity to retain existing
employees and to continue to utilize the resources
offered in Salt Lake County. This location would
provide the least amount of disruption to current operations in the event of a full relocation. Representatives of County government have indicated, however,
that they are highly resistant to any locations within
Tooele County.
Partial Relocation Communities
Communities recommended for partial relocation are
located farther a field from the urbanized center of
the state because the inmates who rely on close proximity to services found in more urban areas could be
maintained at the Draper prison while others could
be relocated at the new facility. The locations discussed above for full relocation would also be suitable
for partial relocation.
Carbon County — Carbon County meets all of the requirements for a partial relocation site; the population is adequate and there are available supporting
institutions. The local workforce may not be adequate in terms of the possible draw of jobs in the
mining and extractions sectors. Carbon County officials view the prison as an economic development
opportunity.
Iron County (Cedar City/Enoch) — The booming
growth of Washington and Iron Counties creates an
environment supportive of relocation. The growing
population is supporting the expansion of local hospitals and community services at a rapid pace. The
Cedar City/Enoch area benefits from the proximity of
institutional support. This location is the furthest
from Salt Lake City. Local officials responded favorably to initial inquiries regarding a prison site.

Impacts to Communities
As with Draper, any community hosting a prison
facility would receive revenues related to energy
use, which, with a full relocation, would approximate the current revenues received by Draper City
of about $100,000 annually. A partial relocation
would produce about one third to one half that
amount, assuming the community charges the full
six percent energy use tax. DOC officials indicated
that prisons place some demands on communities
for EMT services, but these costs were not discussed by Draper officials. Literature searches did
not identify any major economic development
gains to communities that became hosts to prison
facilities, although in rural settings with few employment opportunities and low wage rates, prison
jobs offer better than average wages. Full relocation is estimated to bring between 500 and 900 new
jobs to its new location; while partial relocation
will bring between 200 and 360 new jobs. Prisons,
do not generally purchase goods and services in local areas — particularly if rural. Most contracts
are let on a statewide basis. Greater economic
benefit could be created with a shift of purchasing
to local economies, if at all possible.
Each of the recommended communities is of sufficient size to have in place the types of services necessary to accommodate the prison population and
the families which may choose to relocate. These
services include a local school district and a higher
education institution within 50 miles. All recommended communities, with the exception of Iron
County, have adequate mental health and substance abuse services. Additionally, each of the
recommended communities has available religious
and charitable organizations capable of providing
religious and other volunteers to the prison.
The 2004 annual operating cost experience for
Draper was used for estimating related changes
that might occur with totally new facilities.

Public Review Draft

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants

SECTION 3: TRANSITION, OPERATING AND SITE
ACQUISITION COSTS
Transition Costs
Prior to moving into a new facility there are preparation and start-up costs related to training, setup and
relocation of inmates. The costs for transition activities to move approximately 4,000 inmates in a full
relocation scenario are summarized in Table 11. The
cost estimate assumes a five-person corrections staff
“move-in” team to coordinate the set up and training
necessary as well as to coordinate the actual process
of moving the inmates. The estimate also assumes
that twelve days will be necessary for the move.
Under the Partial Relocation option, the costs for
transition activities to move approximately 1,500
inmates are summarized in Table 15. The cost estimate still assumes a five-person corrections staff
“move-in” team will be necessary but a five-day
process of moving inmates.
Operating Cost Differences
It is well known in corrections construction that due
to their complexity, 24-hour operation and staffing
and special security conditions, the initial cost of
building a prison is small compared to its annual operating expense over time. History has consistently
shown that the cost of building a prison is only ten
percent to 20 percent of the government’s total combined expenditure for construction and annual operations over the first 20 to 30 years of a new facility’s
life. In other words, in replacing Draper the State of
Utah can expect that 80 percent to 90 percent of
what it spends on both building and operating a new
facility for the next 20 to 30 years will be for operations.

Carter Goble Associates

LECG

DMJM

tremely efficient as is. The FY 2004/05 housing officer staff to inmate ratio was 1:7.6 (3,576 ADP ÷ 469
housing officers). The consultant prepared two optional 3-shift staffing concept plans, each with a 7day 24-hour relief factor of .7 as is currently used by
the UDOC.
One optional plan was for direct supervision inmate
management and the other was for indirect supervision and it was found that neither could afford savings over the UDOC’s 2004/05 housing staff plan for
Draper. For the direct supervision model applied to
the “Full Replacement” option assuming a 3,920
ADP (all beds full excluding infirmary) a total of
594.2 FTE staff were needed, which yields a staff to
inmate ratio of 1:6.7. For the indirect supervision
model applied in the same manner a total of 635.0
FTE housing staff were needed, which yields a 1:6.2
staff to inmate ratio. It is thus assumed that the
UDOC would continue its same staffing pattern for
housing officers even with a new design in order to not
require a less efficient staffing pattern.
The primary factors considered in estimating the
probable change in operating costs are listed below.
All ongoing costs are calculated as a 2005 cost and
then a 20 year present value is determined to allow
the long term operating impacts to be evaluated.
These include:
•
•
•

Transportation costs
Staff relocation expenses
Training and recruiting replacements

Personnel Efficiency Gains

The Fiscal Year 2004 cost per inmate per day for the
Draper site of $60.87 is the basis for comparison for
estimated costs at alternative sites. Labor costs
make up 64 percent of the direct operating cost
share of the amount, with the remaining 36 percent
coming from other costs directly associated with
housing the inmates.

The staffing needed for inmate housing units is where
new facility designs can have the potential to provide
some operating cost savings over older facility designs. The consultants examined this potential, but
found that significant staff reductions were not likely
as the UDOC staffing at the Draper complex is ex-

Transportation Costs — Currently the Draper
complex generates 21,372 inmate trips a year that
total 787,028 miles driven. In 2004 a total of $1.6
million was spent on inmate transportation at the
Draper Complex. Table 12 presents the estimated
change in transportation cost for each of the three

Public Review Draft

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study . State of Utah

Full Relocation

Partial Relocation
Table 15:Transition/Activation and Move-in Cost

Table 11: Transition/Activation and Move-in Cost
2005 Present
Function
Value Cost
Estimate
UDOC 5-Person Transition Team

$416,000
$180,000
$96,000

UDOC transition team expenses
Inmate move

2005 Present
Value Cost
Estimate

Function

UDOC chase/escort cars

UDOC 5-Person Transition Team

$416,000

UDOC transition team expenses

$180,000

Inmate move

$40,000
$5,000
$4,000
$88,600
$733,600

$12,000
UDOC extra drivers & security escort
$9,600
State /local police escort allowance
$178,800
Total
$892,400
Rounded $900,000

UDOC chase/escort cars

Source: Carter Goble Associates, Inc.

Source: Estimates by Carter Goble Associates, Inc.

UDOC extra drivers & security escort
State/ local police escort allowance
Total

Rounded $700,000

Table 12: Change in Transportation Costs
Box Elder
County
Increased
miles/trip
Est. inmate
trips

Rush
Valley

Box
Elder
County

9,587

15,979

278,035

623,181

223,706

$2.04

$567,191

$1,271,289

$456,360

$8,000,000

$17,800,000

$6,400,000

Change in
miles driven
Cost per mile
Change in
Transportation
Costs
20-Year PV
Cost

Table 16: Estimated Relocation Allowances

Juab
County

Allowance
Total Allowances

Rush
Valley

Allowance

$3,000

$120,000

$90,000

Total
Allowances
Paid

Source: Carter Goble Associates, Inc.

Juab
County

Box
Elder
County

Rush
Valley

$3,000

$459,000

$276,000

$255,000

Source: Carter Goble Associates, Inc
Table 14: Relocation-Related Recruitment
and Training
Box Elder
Juab County
Rush
County
Valley
New Employees Needed
Cost per Employee
Recruitment/
Training

Juab
County

Number
of staff
relocations

Table 13: Estimated Relocation Allowances

# of staff relocations

Iron
County

Table 17: Relocation-Related Recruitment/Training

Source: Carter Goble Associates, Inc.

Box
Elder
County
153

Carbon
County

934

779

519

$15,000

$14,010,000

$11,685,000

$7,785,000

New Employees
Needed
Cost per
Employee
Recruitment/
Training
Cost

Carbon
County

Public Review Draft

Juab
County

Rush
Valley

360

300

200

$15,000

$5,400,000 $5,400,000 $5,400,000 $4,500,000 $3,000,000

Source: Carter Goble Associates, Inc.

Iron
County

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants

Carter Goble Associates

LECG

DMJM

full relocation recommended communities. Cost
differences in transportation do not apply in the
case of partial relocation. Transportation costs are
not expected to change due to the classification of
inmates who will be relocated.

tions are significantly further from existing employees, the assumption was made that no employees
would choose to commute to the new locations. All
employees would make the decision to relocate or
resign.

Staff Relocation Expenses — Presently, 1,084
FTE positions exist at the Draper facility. Current
employees reside along the Wasatch Front. The
ability to retain existing personnel is dependent on
the distance of the new facility from the employees’
homes. Retention percentages were established to
estimate the number of current Department of Corrections staff moving to the new facility.

The one-time additional cost of paying relocation
allowances to DOC staff is estimated for each of the
three full relocation plus two additional partial relocation recommended communities. (See Tables 13
and 16.)

The cost estimates assume that if the new location
is within 25 miles of the employee’s current address, and the employee chooses to remain with the
Department of Corrections, the employee will be
retained without any relocation expense. The remaining employees will either relocate or resign.
State policy is to reimburse staff up to $3,000 for
relocations of 50 miles or more.
In the event of a partial relocation the Department
of Corrections estimates that approximately 400
jobs will be moved from the Draper site to the new
site. Because the Carbon and Iron County loca-

Recruiting and Training Costs — Each of the employees choosing not to relocate will be replaced from
the labor pool in the new location. The Department
of Corrections estimates recruitment and training
costs an average of $15,000 per new employee. The
one-time additional cost for recruitment and training
is estimated for each of the three full relocation recommended communities. (See Tables 14 and 17.)
Site Acquisition Costs
Although specific locations within each area have not
been identified, a review of current real estate sales
prices provides general ranges for site acquisition
costs in each area. A site size of 500 acres would provide for a 3,968 bed facility with room for expansion
to 6,000 beds. A site of 250 acres is assumed adequate for a partial relocation.

Table 18: Estimated Site Acquisition Costs
Box Elder
County
Price per Acre
Acreage Needed
Total Cost

Juab County

Rush

Valley

$6,000
500

$2,000
500

$4,000
500

$3,000,000

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

yes

Water Rights

Source: Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants, Inc.

Table 19: Estimated Site Acquisition Costs – Partial Relocation
Box Elder
Carbon
Iron County
Juab County
County
County
Price per Acre
Acreage Needed
Total Cost
Water Rights

Rush Valley

$5,800

$1,500

$1,000

$1,250

250

$1,450,000

$375,000

$250,000

$312,500

$1,000,000

yes

Source: Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants, Inc.

Public Review Draft

$4,000

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study . State of Utah

SECTION 4: OTHER ISSUES, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

ning of value for the property. This is as true for
publicly-held land as it is in the private sector.

Timing

The State of Utah is in a unique position as a land
owner. If this property fits in the State’s overall
economic development initiatives, the State can
back the property’s development with the strength
of the economic development staff. To the extent
that transportation improvements could enhance
the attractiveness of the site in drawing jobs to the
state and to this site, the State is in a position to
implement them. The partnership that could be
formed with the City of Draper and a consortium of
local developers could be strong in serving as a
catalyst in promoting this area as a high technology
employment center.

While all costs and revenues have been expressed in
2005 dollars, it is important to understand relocation
of a major prison facility is a substantial undertaking
that will take a number of years. The administrative
and legislative analysis, planning and approval processes would likely take between one and two years to
complete. Site selection, planning and design would
take an additional 18 to 24 months. Construction of
the new facility is estimated to take 18 to 30 months
and demolition of the existing prison will take between six months and one year.
Therefore, a fully developable site will not be available for between five and seven years.
The appraisal stated that the absorption period for
the land is between three and seven years and of
course, there are portions of the site that could be
offered for sale prior to the abandonment and demolition of all or a portion of the prison facilities. There
is vacant land north of Bangerter Highway that
could be sold today with little impact from decisions
made regarding the prison. In addition, there is also
vacant land that is located to the south of Bangerter
Highway that is included in the “Partial Relocation”
option that could also be sold in the earlier years as
planning is underway for the relocation of all or part
of the prison functions. This property would be
more easily sold once expectations regarding the future use of the Draper facility were certain.
Disposition Strategies/Enhancing Value
One of the most important aspects of establishing the
value of any asset is guiding the public expectation of
its future use. Property that has been “out of circulation” because it has been in long-term institutional
use or tied up in complicated legal proceedings generally has little public expectation of having any value
or future beneficial use. Establishing the expectation about the prospects for the land through announcements of plans, administrative action, formal
plans for relocating the prison, requests for rezoning
or entitlement, etc. can create a more solid underpin-

Outstanding Debt
In 2003 UDOC entered into an agreement with
Johnson Controls, Inc., to build and finance an
$11.5 million energy and building systems project
that could take advantage of the unique geothermal
aquifer located on the Draper site. (This is often
referred to as the “ESCO Debt.”) The deal was
structured so the project costs would be repaid over
a 16-year period through energy cost savings realized from the project’s innovative design that would
produce at least $190,000 annually in natural gas
savings. This amount is guaranteed by Johnson
Controls in the agreement. The repayment is structured with monthly payments between September
2003 and July 2004 and annual payments in July
thereafter through 2022.
This study assumes that a relocation would not occur until 2012; payments on the debt that occur
prior to July 2012 are normal operating costs of the
Draper site. Payment of the then outstanding balance was a present value (in 2005 dollars) of $7.5
million. This is an additional cost of a full relocation
that would be incurred. Under a partial relocation,
the energy system would remain in place and the
value of the contract realized by UDOC.
Additional Facilities Located on Draper Site
The Utah Division of Surplus Property maintains a
warehouse on the northern edge of the prison prop-

Public Review Draft

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants

erty. This analysis has not provided for the replacement of this facility.

Carter Goble Associates

LECG

DMJM

ties (2) .
Negative responses most frequently noted that it
would be too high of a cost for taxpayers (12) and
would only benefit developers of the area (7). Other
concerns are displacement of current staff (7), impacts to families of prisoners (6), programs and treatments prisoners would be unable to receive such as
hospital (4), educational and rehabilitation programs
(2), volunteers for religious programs (1), disruption
for potentially mentally fragile prisoners (1) and the
loss of special programs in general (2). The increased
costs of transportation to hospitals and courts are
also mentioned (2). Some respondents fear that with
a change of land use will come disruption to current
community development patterns (1), increased traffic (3), new unwanted retail in the area (3), and loss
of open space (3).

In addition, Juvenile Justice Services has a facility
on the eastern perimeter of the property. Replacement of this facility was also not taken into account
in this analysis.
Public Input
The Division of Facilities Construction and Management has maintained a website that has solicited
public comment since the initial draft scope of services was made available for public review in April
2005. This section summarizes comments received
through September 30, 2005.
A public open house will be held in November 30,
2005. Comments will be taken at the open house as
well as through the Utah State web site through the
December 7, 2005. Information about the open
house and copies of this report are available for
download at the website http://www.utah.gov.

Advantages of the current location include access to
experienced staff (2), plenty of land for future expansion (1) and its proximity to the general population
that serves as a reminder of the consequences for misbehavior (2).

Numbers in parentheses in the summary indicate the
number of responses indicating the prior position or
statement. One respondent could make a number of
points that would be reflected in various parts of the
summary.
Public comment concerning the proposed prison relocation is closely split between people who favor the
move (20) and those who don’t (24). Those with neutral views on the ultimate location were more concerned that specific factors be taken into account
during the course of the study (6).
The most common reason cited favoring prison relocation is economic benefit to Draper and its surrounding communities (8). Comments include such
things as the prison is an eyesore (4), an embarrassment to the community (2) and poses a risk to the
safety of the community if there is an escape (4). The
prison land is too valuable for its current use (4), so
some offer alternative uses such as parks (2) and
housing. Benefits of relocation include reduction in
congestion along the Wasatch Front (1), an opportunity for jobs and economic development in smaller
counties (4), better living conditions for prison employees who would want to live in smaller communi-

People asked that special attention be paid to transportation planning for the area (2), infrastructure
that supports alternative energy sources (1), costs of
zoning changes (1), how other states have handled
this situation (1), that attention is paid towards the
benefits of privatization of the prison (2), that it is
proved the costs of needed renovation of the existing
facilities are too high (2) and that current employees
could be shuttled to the new site (2).
Suggested alternative locations include the Goshute
Lands (2), Tooele County (3), a remote location in
general (1) and anywhere but Tooele County (3).
Comments on this study can be
submitted by email to
PrisonStudyComments@utah.gov

Public Review Draft

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study . State of Utah

The relocation of the Utah State Prison Draper
Facilities does not appear to be economically feasible.

FEASIBILITY CONCLUSIONS
The feasibility equation is based on expected
revenue from the sale of the prison property and
other benefits derived from the relocation less the
cost of relocating the prison functions. This
study has addressed numerous issues that will
arise in the course of a prison relocation. Of
course, this has been a first look at what will be a
very complicated process.
In the event of a full relocation, the highest anticipated value of the prison property is $93 million. With the value of water shares and an estimated 20-year net present value of the net fiscal
impact to Draper City at build-out, total benefits/
revenues just top $108 million. Relocation of the
prison functions is expected to cost between $445
million and $462 million. Relocation costs include construction, demolition, one-time and ongoing operating expenses, site acquisition costs
and repayment of the ESCO debt. If the State
of Utah chooses to implement the full relocation
option, the net cost to the State would be between $352 million and $395 million (rounded).
Tables 20 a and 20b summarize this data.
Another option is to move a portion of the prison
population to another location, reconfigure the
prison services left at the Draper location and
market the remaining acreage for development.
Partial relocation of the prison functions is expected to cost between $135 million and $137
million. Relocation costs include construction,
demolition, one-time and ongoing operating expenses and site acquisition costs.
Tables 21a and 21b summarize the feasibility
analysis of a partial relocation for each of the recommended communities. If the State of Utah
chooses to implement the partial relocation option, the net cost to the State would be between
$86 million and $103 million.

Alternative Approach to Planning for Prison
and Excess Land
While the value of the prison property does not
support full or partial relocation of the Draper
prison functions, DOC is not projected to use the
entire 670 state-owned acres, leaving approximately 300 to 350 acres available for other uses.
This land provides opportunities for state use
beyond those explored in this study. Therefore,
the consultants suggest a strategic planning process that:
•

•

Identifies the amount of land DOC will require for future prison expansion at the
Draper location;
Identifies the facilities that will need replacement or substantial renovation that could
alter the footprint of the prison and potentially free frontage properties in the future
for alternative uses;
Addresses the long-term needs of Juvenile
Justice Services, Surplus Property and State
Forestry/Fire;
Evaluates state needs for the land such as
potential state office campus, technology research park or other potential uses; and
Generates site plan for future use that incorporates infrastructure requirements, coordinated phasing with DOC needs, coordination
with local government and other state agencies.

The remaining property is a valuable asset of the
state that should not be left idle or simply sold as
surplus property. Prior planning for state facilities has identified needs for office and other uses.
This land is strategically located to serve many
functions of state government. It could also be
supportive of long-term economic development
initiatives.

Public Review Draft

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants

Carter Goble Associates

LECG

DMJM

Table 20a: Feasibility Summary – Full Relocation Under Highest and Best Use
Box Elder County
Market
Appraised Value
Plus Value of Water Shares

Juab County

Investment

Market

Rush Valley

Investment

Market

Investment

$72,000,000

$93,000,000

$72,000,000

$93,000,000

$72,000,000

$93,000,000

$1,800,000

$13,600,000

$87,400,000

$108,400,000

$87,400,000

$108,400,000

$87,400,000

$108,400,000

$421,800,000

$6,600,000

$900,000

$8,000,000

$18,000,000

$6,000,000

$460,000

$280,000

$260,000

$14,000,000

$11,700,000

$7,800,000

Site Acquisition

$3,000,000

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

Repayment of ESCO Debt

$7,500,000

$462,260,000

$467,780,000

$452,860,000

Plus Benefit to Draper
Subtotal
Costs
Construction
Demolition
Transition
Operating
Transportation
Staff Relocation
Recruitment/Training

Cost Subtotal
Net (Cost) Gain to State

($374,860,000) ($353,860,000) ($380,380,000) ($359,380,000) ($365,460,000) ($344,460,000)

Table 20b: Feasibility Summary – Full Relocation Under Mixed-Use Scenario
Box Elder County
Market
Appraised Value
Plus Value of Water Shares
Plus Benefit to Draper
Subtotal

Juab County

Investment

Market

Rush Valley

Investment

Market

Investment

$51,000,000

$77,000,000

$51,000,000

$77,000,000

$51,000,000

$1,800,000

$77,000,000
$1,800,000

$13,600,000

$66,400,000

$92,400,000

$66,400,000

$92,400,000

$66,400,000

$92,400,000

$421,800,000

$6,600,000

$900,000

$8,000,000

$18,000,000

$6,000,000

$460,000

$280,000

$260,000

$14,000,000

$11,700,000

$7,800,000

$3,000,000

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

Costs
Construction
Demolition
Transition
Operating
Transportation
Staff Relocation
Recruitment/Training
Site Acquisition
Repayment of ESCO Debt
Cost Subtotal
Net (Cost) Gain to State

$7,500,000

$462,260,000

$467,780,000

$452,860,000

($395,860,000) ($369,860,000) ($401,380,000) ($375,380,000) ($386,460,000) ($360,460,000)

Public Review Draft

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study . State of Utah

Table 21a: Feasibility Summary – Partial Relocation/Mixed-Use Scenario (Investment Value)
Box Elder
County
Appraised Value
Plus Benefit to Draper (20 year NPV)
Subtotal

Juab County

Rush Valley

Carbon County

Iron County

$49,000,000

$3,500,000

$52,500,000

$128,000,000

$1,700,000

$730,000

Costs
Construction
Demolition
Transition
Operating
Staff Relocation
Recruitment/Training
Site Acquisition

$120,000

$90,000

$120,000

$5,400,000

$4,500,000

$3,000,000

$5,400,000

$1,450,000

$310,000

$1,000,000

$375,000

$250,000

Cost Subtotal

$137,400,000

$135,330,000

$134,520,000

$136,325,000

$136,200,000

Net (Cost) Gain to State

($84,900,000)

($82,830,000)

($82,020,000)

($83,825,000)

($83,700,000)

Table 21b: Feasibility Summary – Partial Relocation/Mixed-Use Scenario (Market Value)
Box Elder
Juab County
Rush Valley Carbon County
County
Appraised Value
Plus Benefit to Draper (20 year NPV)
Subtotal

Iron County

$34,000,000

$3,500,000

$37,500,000

$128,000,000

$1,700,000

$730,000

Costs
Construction
Demolition
Transition
Operating
Staff Relocation
Recruitment/Training
Site Acquisition

$120,000

$90,000

$120,000

$5,400,000

$4,500,000

$3,000,000

$5,400,000

$1,450,000

$310,000

$1,000,000

$375,000

$250,000

Cost Subtotal

$137,400,000

$135,330,000

$134,520,000

$136,325,000

$136,200,000

Net (Cost) Gain to State

($99,900,000)

($97,830,000)

($97,020,000)

($98,825,000)

($98,700,000)

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX A 1

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

APPENDIX A
COSTS OF RELOCATION
INTRODUCTION, FOCUS AND METHODS

Abstract: Provides the basis for estimated
construction costs for a full relocation
($421.8 million – moderate estimate) and
a partial relocation ($128 million—
moderate estimate). Estimates future operating costs for relocated facilities and functions and estimates demolition costs. Also
provides background information for understanding the costs of construction and operations for prison facilities and provides
alternative scenarios for construction and
operations.

This Chapter provides an analysis of the probable magnitude of cost
that is likely to be involved in relocating the existing Draper prison
complex to another site either in whole or in part. Preliminary estimates in 2005 present value dollars are included for: 1) construction, 2)
additional non-recurring project costs, 3) annual recurring operating
cost differences, and 4) site acquisition.
Construction Versus Operating Costs
Estimating the costs to rebuild the UDOC’s Draper prison complex,
either in whole or in part should consider both the one-time construction related costs, startup costs and annual operating cost differences.
While the capital project cost would be considerable and probably the first
and only consideration by many it is not the most important consideration
from a long-term public funding tax burden and economics standpoint.
It is well known in corrections construction that due to their complexity, 24-hour operation and staffing, and special security conditions that
the initial cost of building a prison is small compared to its annual operating expense over time. History has consistently shown that the cost
of building a prison is only 10% to 20% of the government’s total combined expenditure for construction and annual operations over the first
20 to 30 years of a new facility’s life. In other words, in replacing
Draper the State of Utah can expect that 80% to 90% of what it spends
on both building and operating a new Draper for the next 20 to 30 years
will be for operations.
For example, the most recent annual operating cost available for the
Draper complex was approximately $86 million for FY 2003-04. Thus
even in assuming zero growth in Draper’s size, which is unrealistic, the
State can expect that if annual operating cost inflation was held to a
low average of only 3% per year that it would spend approximately $1
billion to operate the complex for the next 10 years, $2.38 billion for the
next 20 years or $4.214 billion for the next 30 years. Thus, if $500 million was spent in 2005 present value dollars to replace the Draper complex that would only equal approximately 33% of the State’s combined
capital project and operating expenditure at 10 years, 17% at 20 years
and 11% in 30 years.
Consequently, in deciding whether or not to move the Draper complex obviously any alternate location that would increase operating expenses should
be very carefully considered since it’s long-term cost consequence could substantially increase the State’s tax burden. Although a totally new “Draper”
with all new buildings and building systems will clearly create savings on
annual maintenance, repair, replacement and energy costs the wrong locaPublic Review Draft

Carter Goble Associates

tion from an operating conditions standpoint will have serious cost disadvantages. Key factors such as labor force
availability, access to courts, hospitals, treatment and counseling specialists, and transport costs are major factors of
annual operating expense. While the one-time construction
costs of different locations could vary somewhat from site to
site it is the recurring annual operating cost impact that
will be the most substantial and must be funded every year.
Methods
The capital project costs for constructing and equipping
a replacement of the Draper complex, site acquisition
costs; one-time start-up transition/activation and building commissioning costs; and probable increases or decreases in annual operating costs all need to be considered. To help assure that all such preliminary cost estimates are comparable and do not include speculative
assumptions about future inflation or financing preferences all estimates in this analysis are based on 2005
present value dollars. To do so the most recent available annual operating cost experience for Draper, which
is from 2004 was used for estimating related changes
that might occur with totally new facilities. All capital
project cost estimates are based on the consultant’s experience with Utah construction costs as well as recent
comparable major prison construction projects elsewhere in the U.S. mainland. All operating cost analyses
are based on data provided by the UDOC and the consultant’s experience in correctional facilities operations.
The intent of this chapter is to provide a preliminary
order of magnitude estimate of the probable cost ranges
rather than attempting to pinpoint one possible figure
since doing so would require the completion of schematic design for a specific site and the related conditions
that would affect both construction and operating costs.
To do so the consultant: 1) obtained an existing total
bed count and existing building square footages; 2) inspected the complex to confirm the mission, custody
and general conditions of each facility; and 3) obtained
the most recent total annual operating cost experience
for the Draper complex. Using the agreed on maximum
count of 3,968 beds as one basis for the analysis a quantitative construct of the space needs for a replacement
complex was made.
The model developed assumes seven (7) new correctional
facilities, plus a number of centralized support functions
or services to be co-located inside a single perimeter security system similar to the existing Draper complex.

The final steps in the model apply 2005 present value
construction cost estimates to each facility, plus centralized support services and functions to derive an
estimated construction cost for the whole complex.
Since this analysis is being done at a limited macro level
without the benefit of any architectural space programming or preliminary design development for a specific site
the estimates must be considered preliminary and “likely
order of magnitude” in nature rather than precise. Consequently, a series of estimates was developed to provide a high, medium and low range of estimates.
Current Versus Expandable Initial Sizing
In the interest of long-term savings and economics,
building any major correctional facility today is usually done to include the construction of an “oversized” support core of space for centralized services
and functions, either for a single facility or a complex
of multiple facilities. By doing so future capacity expansions only require the addition of some equipment
or furnishings and construction of new housing units
and not the costly expense of having to remodel and
add onto the building space for kitchens, laundries,
offices, medical clinics, infirmaries, central plants, etc.
Thus, for comparison, both a “current capacity” replacement and an “expandable capacity” replacement
option have been estimated. To do so the centralized
services and individual facilities internal support core
spaces were size estimated at a nominal 4,000-bed capacity in the “current capacity” options, whereas a
6,000-bed support capacity was applied for all centralized support services and functions and individual facility internal support cores for considering the cost of
a new complex with “expandable capacity.” While
the 6,000-bed support core obviously costs more in
2005 dollars, it would enable the State to expand in
the short- and long-range by only adding housing
units to move up from 4,000 beds to 6,000 beds.
Long-term savings of having a built-in expansion capacity could be considerable in comparison to paying
for costly correctional construction in current or nearterm dollars rather then the inflated costs 10 years
from now. Although it is certainly possible to master
plan and design a complex such as this to be expandable
without having to build the expandable oversized support
core initially it would not be as economical for the State
in the long-run since future expansions requiring support
core space additions would be comparatively more costly.

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX A 3

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

Existing Capacity

Table A-1
Draper Prison Complex Capacity Ratings by Custody Groups

In 1995 CGA prepared a Needs Assessment
for Utah’s Adult and Juvenile Corrections
facilities.1 Part of that Assessment included making a capacity rating of all the
Draper facilities. At that time the Physical
Plant space standards of the American Correctional Association were applied in the
analysis to determine what a standardscompliant bed count would be for Draper.
Since the 1995 study the UDOC has made a
number of changes with remodeling and
some new construction at Draper that has
substantially increased the number of standards compliant beds available to 3,740.
This was done with a combination of new
housing construction at certain facilities,
the addition of one new facility (Lone
Peak/VOITIS) and remodeling usually with
double bunking at several locations.2 Table
A-1 summarizes the bed capacity rating for
Draper by facility, gender and custody
level in three different ways. First, column
one of Table A-1 shows the earlier referenced 3,968 beds that equal the current
maximum bed count used by the DOC.
Second, column two shows the
“Operational Bed Count” used by the DOC,
which are the number of beds that can be
used for long-term placements or the total
maximum population count. This count
excludes those beds needed for temporary
assignments such as the 20 infirmary beds
for medical observation and recuperation
and another 176 beds used for temporary
administrative segregation, disciplinary
segregation or special management needs
that require inmates to be separated for
temporary observation, isolation or movement.
The third count in column three shows the
standards-compliant rating from the results
of CGA’s 1995 Needs Assessment as prepared for the Utah State Building Author-

Existing Facility & Classification
W asatch - M edium & Diagnostic
A East - G en. Pop. - M ed
A W est - Diagnostic/R&O - M ed
B Block - G en. Pop. - M ed
B North - M R/DD - M ed
C Block - G en. Pop. - M ed
D Block - Sex O ffenders - M ed
SSD Dorm - Sex O ffenders - M ed
Infirm ary - M edical - M ed

2005 UDO C
Total
Incount Beds

Rated Capacities
2005 UDO C
ACA Design
1
Standard
O ps. Beds

Totals

95
170
192
28
68
192
135
20
900

91
163
180
26
67
180
134
20
861

95
170
192
28
60
192
135
20
892

Totals

96
192
192
192
122
794

85
180
180
180
116
741

96
96
192
192
70
646

Totals

144
144
144
144
252
828

138
138
138
138
234
786

144
144
144
144
252
828

Totals

143
143
140
143
569

135
135
125
135
530

144
144
144
144
576

22
48
48
23
36
177

18
40
40
20
36
154

24
48
48
24
35
179

400

319

300

3,968

3,772

3,740

978
2,030
960

970
2,041
761

906
2,164
670

20 in M edium

3,968

3,772

3,740

Uinta - M axim um
Unit 1 - Death Row/ Inten. M gt. - M ax
Unit 2 - G ang m em bers - M ax
Unit 3 - R&O / PV/ Sigm a - M ed/M ax
Unit 4 - Kappa - M ed/M ax
Unit 5 - R&O /Intake - M ed/M ax
O quirrh - M edium & M inim um
Unit 1 - G en. Pop. - M ed
Unit 2 - G en. Pop. - M ed
Unit 3 - G en. Pop. - M ed
Unit 4 - G ang m em bers - M ed
Unit 5 Annex - S/O /K - M in
T im panogas - Fem ale All Custody
Unit 1 - G en. Pop. - M ed
Unit 2 - G en. Pop. - M ed
Unit 3 - G en. Pop. - M ed
Unit 4 - Sub. Abuse THC - M ed
O lym pus - M ental Health
Unit A - Fem ale - M ed
Unit B - R&O /Intake - M ed
Unit C - M ale - M ed
Unit D - M ale - M ax
Dorm - M ale - M in
Totals
Prom ontory - M inim um
8 Dorm s @ 50 beds ea. - G en. Pop. - M in
Lone Peak - M inim um
6 Dorm s @ 50 beds ea.- G en. Pop. - M in
Com plex T otals
Security Level Distribution
M inim um Security
M edium Security
M axim um Security
Infirm ary
Com plex G rand T otals

Source: Utah Correcitonal System Needs Study by CG A November 1995 and UDO C for 2005 counts by facility, July
2005 .
1

Rated design capacity from 1995 System Needs Study findings and updated for subsequent additions.

1 Utah Correctional System Needs Study, prepared for the Utah State Building Board in cooperation with the Utah Department of Corrections and the Division
of Youth Corrections, by Carter Goble Associates, Inc., November 1995.
2 Remodeling and double-bunking to increase capacity since 1995 included: Wasatch with 105 beds added in three cell blocks and the SSD dorm; Uinta with 148
beds added via double-bunking Units 5 and 2; Oquirrh with 150 beds added via remodeling in Unit 5; and continued use of 81 beds above the CGA rated capacity of Promontory. Source: UDOC Facilities Management staff, September 2005.

Public Review Draft

Carter Goble Associates

ity and updated for the standards compliant changes
made to expand capacity since that time. The major
new construction expansions at Draper since 1995
have included: 1) re-opening of the Promontory Facility at 400 beds, which was just being activated in 1995
by a private operator; 2) the opening of the Lone
Peak/VOITIS Facility for 300 beds, which took the
place of the old Lone Peak Facility operated at Camp
Williams in 1995; and 3) new cell house additions to
Uinta for 384 beds. The other various remodeling/
additions and double-bunking to expand capacity are
as noted in footnote 2.
As Table A-1 shows the application of ACA standards
to the Draper complex indicates that the maximum
bed count exceeds the number that would be provided
by current space standards. The 2005 “Total In-count
Beds” at Draper of 3,968 is 228 beds more than the
updated standards rated capacity of 3,740 beds. In
comparison, the 1995 Needs Assessment found a total
of 3,098 beds being used versus a maximum rated capacity of 2,866 beds. Thus, the relative degree of
crowding above rated capacity at the Draper complex
is still about the same as it was in 1995. This finding
explains in part why replacing the entire complex today by current standards would require substantially
more building space than its existing 1.093 million
square feet.
The other part is the lack of sufficient support spaces
for inmate services, programs, staff spaces, facility
services, storage, etc. In other words, to replace
Draper its continuing space deficit needs to be corrected. In doing so the 3,968 bed count for 2005
shown in Table A-1 will be used for the replacement
analysis along with space needs estimators to yield a
conceptual construct for a standards-compliant correctional complex.

CGA in 1995 was also reviewed since that study conducted a more in-depth assessment of the capacity ratings by ACA standards and conditions of each UDOC
facility. Up to date existing building space gross square
footage for Draper was also provided by the UDOC for
all buildings at the complex.
Table A-2 provides the August 2005 count of all 3,968
beds by facility, gender and custody level that was used
to develop a total allocation of bed capacity for a replacement complex, which is computed in Table A-3.
Table A-4 simply gives the resulting percentage ratios of
the total allocation of the beds as derived in Table A-3.
These allocations were used to develop concepts for the
seven facilities that would replace the Draper complex.
In summary those facilities would replace the Draper
facilities as follows:

New Prison:

Replaces:

1. Male Maximum Security Unit
– 672 beds
1A. Central Clinic and Infirmary
– 48 beds
2. Male Medium Security & Intake R/O Unit – 936 beds
3. Male Medium Security Unit –
870 beds

1. Uinta – 794 beds
1A. Wasatch clinic and infirmary
20 beds

4. Forensic Diagnostic and
Treatment Unit – 212 beds
5. Women’s Unit – 426 beds

4. Olympus – 177 beds

6. Male Minimum Security Substance Abuse Therapeutic
Community – 402 beds
7. Male Minimum Security Work/
Transition – 402 beds
Total – 3,968 beds

REPLACEMENT CONCEPT OPTIONS AND CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES
Bed Capacity Replacement Model
In order to estimate the probable size and cost magnitude of constructing a “New Draper Complex” a computation of the August 2005 actual total bed capacity
of all Draper facilities by physical security level, gender and custody/classification assignments was made
from data provided by UDOC. Additionally the
Adult Corrections Needs Assessment completed by

2. Oquirrh – 828 beds plus 143
Timpanogos male beds
3. Wasatch & SSD – 880 beds

5. Timpanogos female section –
426 beds
6. Promontory – 400 beds

7. Lone Peak – 300 beds
Total – 3,968 beds

New Centralized Support Facilities
1. Complex Administration & Visit
Center
2. Central Kitchen
3. Industries Center
4. Central Laundry
5. Warehouse and Maintenance
Unit
6. Central Plant

Public Review Draft

Replaces:
1. Draper Admin Building and
separate visit areas
2. Wasatch central kitchen
3. Various separate industries
buildings
4. Wasatch and other separate laundries
5. Draper warehouses and
maintenance facilities
6. Draper power substation
and two pump houses

APPENDIX A 5

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

Table A-2

Table A–3

Existing 2005 Draper Facilities Total Bed Count

Proposed 2005 Draper Replacement Bed Allocations

August 1, 2005
Totals

Existing Facility & Classification

Bed Classification

Male

Female

Totals

838

140

978

1,865

165

2,030

817

143

960

3,520

448

3,968

250

288

Wasatch – Medium & Diagnostic
A East – Gen. Pop. – Med

1. Minimum Security Beds

A West – Diagnostic/R&O – Med

170

B Block – Gen. Pop. – Med

192

B North – MR/DD - Med

C Block – Gen. Pop. – Med

D Block – Sex Offenders – Med

192

SSD Dorm – Sex Offenders – Med

135

Infirmary – Medical - Med

2. Medium Security Beds

3. Maximum Security Beds
Total Capacity
Subtotal Infirmary & Seg. Spc. Mgt. Cells
4. Seg/Special Mgt. Cells (in all
sec)1

20
Totals

900

Uinta - Maximum

5. Infirmary Beds (in med sec)

Unit 1 – Death Row/ Inten. Mgt. – Max

Unit 2 – Gang members – Max

192

Unit 3 – R&O/PV/Sigma – Med/Max

192

Unit 4 – Kappa – Med/Max

192

Unit 5 – R&O/Intake – Med/Max

122
Totals

794

Source: Table 1 Bed Count with allocations by CGA, August 2005
1
Special Management beds add 5% to 10% of operating capacity and
are maximum security single-bunked cells needed in each separate
facility for temporary placements such as administrative and disciplinary segregation, behavioral observation, suicide watch, protective
custody, admissions fluctuations, maintenance downtime, etc.
2

Oquirrh – Medium & Minimum
Unit 1 – Gen. Pop. – Med

144

Unit 2 – Gen. Pop. – Med

144

Unit 3 – Gen. Pop. – Med

144

Unit 4 – Gang members – Med

144

Unit 5 Annex – S/O/K - Min

252
Totals

828

Timpanogas – Female All Custody
Unit 1 – Gen. Pop. – Max (male med temp.)

143

Unit 2 – Gen. Pop. – Med

143

Unit 3 – Gen. Pop. – Min

140

Unit 4 – Sub. Abuse THC – Med

Infirmary beds are recommended at a ratio of 5 per 500 general
population beds for non-acute medical care, observation, and recuperation, plus 1 per 500 beds for acute mental health in-patient care.
Locations remote from an acute care hospital would require additional
infirmary beds.

Table A-4
Proposed 2005 Draper Replacement Bed Allocations by Percentage
Bed Classification

Male

Female

Totals

1. Minimum Security Beds

21.1%

3.5%

25%

2. Medium Security Beds

47.0%

4.2%

51%

3. Maximum Security Beds

20.6%

3.6%

24%

89%

11%

100%

6.3%

1.0%

7.3%

1.1%

0.1%

1.2%

143
Totals

569

Olympus – Mental Health
Unit A – Female – Med

Unit B – R&O/Intake – Med

Unit C – Male – Med

Unit D – Male – Max

Dorm – Male – Min

36
Totals

177

Subtotal Infirmary & Seg. Spc. Mgt. Cells
4. Seg/Special Mgt. Cells (in all
sec)1
5. Infirmary Beds (in med sec)2

Source: Table 2 Bed allocation computations by CGA, August 2005

Promontory – Minimum Sub. Abuse THC
8 Dorms @ 50 beds ea. – Gen. Pop. – Min.

Total Capacity

400

Lone Peak – Minimum & Low Medium
6 Dorms @ 50 beds ea. – Gen. Pop.

300

Complex Totals

3,968

Security Level Distribution
Minimum Security

978

Medium Security

2,030

Maximum Security

960

Infirmary

20 in Medium

Complex Grand Totals

3,968
Public Review Draft

Carter Goble Associates

While the grand total number of beds to be replaced is
3,968 there are some variations in the distribution of
beds for the proposed replacement facilities. These
variations result from standard corrections planning
and population management guidelines noted in the
footnotes for Table A-3 related to the need for special
management, infirmary and mental health in-patient
beds.
The detailed results from the replacement model are
shown for different options and cost ranges in Tables
A-5 through A-13. The results are derived from the
following sequence of computations using size and
component cost estimators as the basis for the preliminary total construction cost estimates.
1. define each facility by general mission/
function;
2. assign bed counts by custody and security
type for housing;
3. define centralized support services and
functions to serve all facilities;
4. apply building gross square footage (BGSF)
per bed estimators applicable to each housing type, each facility’s internal support
core spaces and the proposed centralized
support services and functions to derive a
total facility size;
5. apply construction cost per square foot estimators for 2005 present values; and
6. add project soft costs estimators to derive a
total construction cost estimate.

Option 1: Full Replacement with Basic Support Core
The first set of estimates in Tables A-5 through A-7
provide a moderate, high and low range of probable
cost estimates for replacing the existing 3,968 beds at
Draper with a support core sized to support no more
than approximately the same number of beds. If the
State elected to build one of these options it would be
important that the master planning and design for
such a complex be done to be expandable in order to
accommodate future growth unless it was decided that
the complex would never be expanded beyond a cap of
4,000 beds. However, co-locating instead of dispersing
correctional facilities results in far more economical
annual operating costs since centralized functions do
not have to be replicated. In this regard the more expandable the design the more economical for the State
in the long-run before a new site for another complex
or another single prison is needed.
In summary the preliminary estimates for Option 1
“Basic Replacement” of the entire Draper complex as
detailed in the Tables A-5 through A-7 and rounded to
the nearest hundred thousand dollars are:
3,968 Beds with Basic 4,000-Bed Support Core

For those readers not familiar with the common size
requirements of contemporary prisons the Chapter 6
Appendix includes a summary of 20 different exemplary prisons by type and size with square footage per
bed and whether or not expansion capacity was builtin the initial construction.
Full Replacement
The following narrative and Tables A-5 through A-10
describe the results of the use of the replacement models to estimate costs for two different options to
achieve a “Full Replacement” of the entire Draper
complex. Following this section the results of the application of the same methodologies are described for
“Partial Replacement” scenarios.

Public Review Draft

Moderate
Low
High

$421,800,000
$416,800,000
$475,000,00

APPENDIX A 7

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

Table A-5
Full Replacement: Option 1 Basic at Moderate Construction Cost Estimate
(3,968 beds with 4,000-bed support core)
F acility
M ale M axim um S ecu rity U nit
1. O perational B eds - 608
S ingle-bunk cells 15x 32+8x 16
2. S pecial M gt. C ells
3. S upport Core

B ed Design
Capacity

608
64
na
672

T otal
M ale M ediu m S ecurity & In take Un it
1. O perational B eds - 854
S ingle-bunked cells - 2x 32
64
Double-bunked cells - 10x 32
640
50-bed dorm s - 3x 50
150
2. S pecial M gt. C ells
82
3. S upport Core
na
T otal
936
M ale M ediu m S ecurity Unit
1. O perational B eds -790
Double-bunked cells - 10x 64
640
50-bed dorm s - 3x 50
150
2. S pecial M gt. C ells
80
3. S upport Core
na
T otal
870
F o ren sic Diag no stic & T reatm ent Unit
1. O perational B eds - 192
S ingle-bunked cells 4x 24+ 2x 16 (16fem )
128
Double-bunked cells - 2x 16
64
2. S pecial M gt. C ells
20
3. S upport Core
na
T otal
212
W om ens' Un it
1. O perational B eds - 388
S ingle-bunked cells - 2x 16
32
Double-bunked cells - 4x 64
256
Dorm s - 2x 50
100
2. S pecial M gt. C ells
38
3. S upport Core
na
T otal
426
M ale M in im um S ecu rity Un it 1 (wk rel)
1. O perational B eds - 8x 50-bed dorm s
400
2. S pecial M gt. C ells
2
3. S upport Core
na
T otal
402
M ale M in im um S ecu rity Un it 2 (T H C )
1. O perational B eds - 8x 50-bed dorm s
400
2. S pecial M gt. C ells
2
3. S upport Core
na
T otal
402
S u pp o rt S ervices Facilities
1. Com plex A dm in/ V isit Center
4,000 beds
2. Central K itchen
"
3. Clinic and 48-bed Infirm ary
"
4. Industries Center
"
5. Central Laundry
"
6. W arehouse & M aintenance Unit
"
7. Central P lant
"
T otal
"

B uilding
G ross S F

Construction
Cost/ S F

179,360
18,880
43,680
241,920

$
$
$

18,880
112,000
28,500
24,190
79,560
263,130

$
$
$
$
$

112,000
28,500
23,600
73,950
238,050

$
$
$
$

37,760
11,200
5,900
20,140
75,000

$
$
$
$

9,440
44,800
19,000
11,210
40,470
124,920

$
$
$
$
$

76,000
590
26,130
102,720

$
$
$

76,000
590
38,190
114,780

$
$
$

32,000
24,000
20,000
40,000
4,000
20,000
10,000
150,000

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Com plex S ub total
O perational B eds
Infirm ary & S pecial M gt. B eds (48+288)
Unit S upport Cores
T otal A ll Units
Centralized Support S erv ices F acilities

3,632
336
na
3,968

753,440
84,960
322,120
1,160,520
150,000

Co m p lex G ran d T otal

3,968

1,310,520

275
275
150

275
275
175
275
150

275
175
275
150

275
275
275
150

275
275
175
275
150

175
275
150

120
150
200
125
180
110
250

257

T otal
Const. Cost

P roject C osts
1
@ 25%

E stim ated
1
C ost

1,638,000

$
$
$

15,267,000

76,335,000

5,192,000
30,800,000
4,987,500
6,652,250
11,934,000
59,565,750

1,298,000

7,700,000

1,246,875

1,663,063

6,490,000
38,500,000
6,234,375
8,315,313
14,917,500

$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$

49,324,000
5,192,000
6,552,000
61,068,000

$
$
$
$
$
$

12,331,000

1,298,000

61,655,000
6,490,000
8,190,000

2,983,500

$
$
$
$
$

14,891,438

74,457,188

30,800,000
4,987,500
6,490,000
11,092,500
53,370,000

7,700,000

1,246,875

1,622,500

$
$
$
$
$

38,500,000
6,234,375
8,112,500
13,865,625
66,712,500

$
$
$
$
$

10,384,000
3,080,000
1,622,500
3,021,000
18,107,500

$
$
$
$
$

12,980,000
3,850,000
2,028,125
3,776,250
22,634,375

$
$
$
$
$
$

2,596,000
12,320,000
3,325,000
3,082,750
6,070,500
27,394,250

$
$
$
$
$
$

3,245,000
15,400,000
4,156,250
3,853,438
7,588,125
34,242,813

$
$
$
$

16,625,000
202,813
4,899,375
21,727,188

$
$
$
$

16,625,000
202,813
7,160,625
23,988,438

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

4,800,000
4,500,000
5,000,000
6,250,000
900,000
2,750,000
3,125,000
27,325,000

2,773,125

13,342,500

2,596,000

770,000

405,625

755,250

4,526,875

649,000

3,080,000

831,250

770,688

1,517,625

6,848,563

13,300,000
162,250
3,919,500
17,381,750

3,325,000

40,563

979,875

4,345,438

$
$
$
$

13,300,000
162,250
5,728,500
19,190,750

3,325,000

40,563

1,432,125

4,797,688

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

3,840,000
3,600,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
720,000
2,200,000
2,500,000
21,860,000

960,000

900,000

1,000,000

1,250,000

180,000

550,000

625,000

5,465,000

$ 184,396,000
$ 82,864,000
$ 48,318,000
$ 315,578,000
$ 21,860,000

$
$
$
$
$

46,099,000
20,716,000
12,079,500
78,894,500
5,465,000

$ 230,495,000
$ 103,580,000
$ 60,397,500
$ 394,472,500
$ 27,325,000

$ 337,438,000

84,359,500

$ 421,797,500

Source: Prelim inary estim ates by Carter G oble Associates, Inc. and DM JM Design, August 2005.
1

Public Review Draft

Carter Goble Associates

Table A-6
Full Replacement: Option 1 Basic at Low Construction Cost Estimate
(3,968 beds with 4,000-bed support core)
F acility
M ale M axim u m S ecu rity U n it
1. O perational B eds - 608
S ingle-bunk cells 15x 32+ 8x 16
2. S pecial M gt. C ells
3. S upport C ore

B ed D esign
C apacity

608
64
na
672

T otal
M ale M ed iu m S ecu rity & In take U n it
1. O perational B eds - 854
S ingle-bunked cells - 2x 32
64
D ouble-bunked cells - 10x 32
640
50-bed dorm s - 3x 50
150
2. S pecial M gt. C ells
82
3. S upport C ore
na
T otal
936
M ale M ed iu m S ecu rity U n it
1. O perational B eds -790
D ouble-bunked cells - 10x 64
640
50-bed dorm s - 3x 50
150
2. S pecial M gt. C ells
80
3. S upport C ore
na
T otal
870
F o ren sic D iag n o stic & T reatm en t U n it
1. O perational B eds - 192
S ingle-bunked cells 4x 24+ 2x 16 (16fem )
128
D ouble-bunked cells - 2x 16
64
2. S pecial M gt. C ells
20
3. S upport C ore
na
T otal
212
W o m en s' U n it
1. O perational B eds - 388
S ingle-bunked cells - 2x 16
32
D ouble-bunked cells - 4x 64
256
D orm s - 2x 50
100
2. S pecial M gt. C ells
38
3. S upport C ore
na
T otal
426
M ale M in im u m S ecu rity U n it 1 (wk rel)
1. O perational B eds - 8x 50-bed dorm s
400
2. S pecial M gt. C ells
2
3. S upport C ore
na
T otal
402
M ale M in im u m S ecu rity U n it 2 (T H C )
1. O perational B eds - 8x 50-bed dorm s
400
2. S pecial M gt. C ells
2
3. S upport C ore
na
T otal
402
S u p p o rt S ervices F acilities
1. C om plex A dm in/ V isit C enter
4,000 beds
2. C entral K itchen
"
3. C linic and 48-bed Infirm ary
"
4. Industries C enter
"
5. C entral Laundry
"
6. W arehouse & M aintenance U nit
"
7. C entral P lant
"
T otal
"

B uilding
G ross S F

C onstruction
C ost/ S F

179,360
18,880
43,680
241,920

$
$
$

18,880
112,000
28,500
24,190
79,560
263,130

$
$
$
$
$

112,000
28,500
23,600
73,950
238,050

$
$
$
$

37,760
11,200
5,900
20,140
75,000

$
$
$
$

9,440
44,800
19,000
11,210
40,470
124,920

$
$
$
$
$

76,000
590
26,130
102,720

$
$
$

76,000
590
38,190
114,780

$
$
$

32,000
24,000
20,000
40,000
4,000
20,000
10,000
150,000

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

C o m p lex S u b to tal
O perational B eds
Infirm ary & S pecial M gt. B eds (48+288)
U nit S upport C ores
T otal A ll U nits
C entralized S upport S erv ices F acilities

3,632
336
na
3,968

753,440
84,960
322,120
1,160,520
150,000

C o m p lex G ran d T o tal

3,968

1,310,520

235
235
205

235
225
195
235
205

225
195
235
205

235
225
235
205

235
225
195
235
205

195
235
205

175
195
220
165
205
205
350

254

T otal
C onst. C ost

P roject C osts
1
@ 25%

E stim ated
1
C ost

2,238,600

$
$
$

13,885,200

69,426,000

4,436,800
25,200,000
5,557,500
5,684,650
16,309,800
57,188,750

1,109,200

6,300,000

1,389,375

1,421,163

5,546,000
31,500,000
6,946,875
7,105,813
20,387,250

$
$
$
$
$

25,200,000
5,557,500
5,546,000
15,159,750
51,463,250

$
$
$
$
$

8,873,600
2,520,000
1,386,500
4,128,700
16,908,800

$
$
$
$
$
$

2,218,400
10,080,000
3,705,000
2,634,350
8,296,350
26,934,100

554,600

2,520,000

926,250

$
$
$
$

42,149,600
4,436,800
8,954,400
55,540,800

$
$
$
$
$
$

10,537,400

1,109,200

52,687,000
5,546,000
11,193,000

4,077,450

$
$
$
$
$

14,297,188

71,485,938

6,300,000

1,389,375

1,386,500

$
$
$
$
$

31,500,000
6,946,875
6,932,500
18,949,688
64,329,063

$
$
$
$
$

11,092,000
3,150,000
1,733,125
5,160,875
21,136,000

$
$
$
$
$
$

2,773,000
12,600,000
4,631,250
3,292,938
10,370,438
33,667,625

$
$
$
$

18,525,000
173,313
6,695,813
25,394,125

$
$
$
$

18,525,000
173,313
9,786,188
28,484,500

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

7,000,000
5,850,000
5,500,000
8,250,000
1,025,000
5,125,000
4,375,000
37,125,000

3,789,938

12,865,813

2,218,400

630,000

346,625

1,032,175

4,227,200

658,588

2,074,088

6,733,525

14,820,000
138,650
5,356,650
20,315,300

3,705,000

34,663

1,339,163

5,078,825

$
$
$
$

14,820,000
138,650
7,828,950
22,787,600

3,705,000

34,663

1,957,238

5,696,900

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

5,600,000
4,680,000
4,400,000
6,600,000
820,000
4,100,000
3,500,000
29,700,000

1,400,000

1,170,000

1,100,000

1,650,000

205,000

1,025,000

875,000

7,425,000

$ 165,138,400
$ 72,585,600
$ 66,034,600
$ 303,758,600
$ 29,700,000

$
$
$
$
$

41,284,600
18,146,400
16,508,650
75,939,650
7,425,000

$ 206,423,000
$ 90,732,000
$ 82,543,250
$ 379,698,250
$ 37,125,000

$ 333,458,600

83,364,650

$ 416,823,250

S ource: Prelim inary estim ates by C arter G oble Associates, Inc. and D M JM D esign, August 2005.
1

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX A 9

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

Table A-7
Full Replacement: Option 1 Basic at High Construction Cost Estimate
(3,968 beds with 4,000-bed support core)
F acility
M ale M axim u m S ecu rity U n it
1. O perational B eds - 608
S ingle-bunk cells 15x 32+ 8x 16
2. S pecial M gt. C ells
3. S upport C ore

B ed D esign
C apacity

608
64
na
672

T otal
M ale M ed iu m S ecu rity & In take U n it
1. O perational B eds - 854
S ingle-bunked cells - 2x 32
64
D ouble-bunked cells - 10x 32
640
50-bed dorm s - 3x 50
150
2. S pecial M gt. C ells
82
3. S upport C ore
na
T otal
936
M ale M ed iu m S ecu rity U n it
1. O perational B eds -790
D ouble-bunked cells - 10x 64
640
50-bed dorm s - 3x 50
150
2. S pecial M gt. C ells
80
3. S upport C ore
na
T otal
870
F o ren sic D iag n o stic & T reatm en t U n it
1. O perational B eds - 192
S ingle-bunked cells 4x 24+ 2x 16 (16fem )
128
D ouble-bunked cells - 2x 16
64
2. S pecial M gt. C ells
20
3. S upport C ore
na
T otal
212
W o m en s' U n it
1. O perational B eds - 388
S ingle-bunked cells - 2x 16
32
D ouble-bunked cells - 4x 64
256
D orm s - 2x 50
100
2. S pecial M gt. C ells
38
3. S upport C ore
na
T otal
426
M ale M in im u m S ecu rity U n it 1 (wk rel)
1. O perational B eds - 8x 50-bed dorm s
400
2. S pecial M gt. C ells
2
3. S upport C ore
na
T otal
402
M ale M in im u m S ecu rity U n it 2 (T H C )
1. O perational B eds - 8x 50-bed dorm s
400
2. S pecial M gt. C ells
2
3. S upport C ore
na
T otal
402
S u p p o rt S ervices F acilities
1. C om plex A dm in/ V isit C enter
4,000 beds
2. C entral K itchen
"
3. C linic and 48-bed Infirm ary
"
4. Industries C enter
"
5. C entral Laundry
"
6. W arehouse & M aintenance U nit
"
7. C entral P lant
"
T otal
"

B uilding
G ross S F

C onstruction
C ost/ S F

179,360
18,880
43,680
241,920

$
$
$

18,880
112,000
28,500
24,190
79,560
263,130

$
$
$
$
$

112,000
28,500
23,600
73,950
238,050

$
$
$
$

37,760
11,200
5,900
20,140
75,000

$
$
$
$

9,440
44,800
19,000
11,210
40,470
124,920

$
$
$
$
$

76,000
590
26,130
102,720

$
$
$

76,000
590
38,190
114,780

$
$
$

32,000
24,000
20,000
40,000
4,000
20,000
10,000
150,000

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

C o m p lex S u b to tal
O perational B eds
Infirm ary & S pecial M gt. B eds (48+288)
U nit S upport C ores
T otal A ll U nits
C entralized S upport S erv ices F acilities

3,632
336
na
3,968

753,440
84,960
322,120
1,160,520
150,000

C o m p lex G ran d T o tal

3,968

1,310,520

290
345
180

290
285
180
345
180

285
180
345
180

290
285
345
180

290
285
180
345
180

180
345
180

165
315
250
160
165
125
1,170

290

T otal
C onst. C ost

P roject C osts
1
@ 25%

E stim ated
1
C ost

1,965,600

$
$
$

16,597,600

82,988,000

5,475,200
31,920,000
5,130,000
8,345,550
14,320,800
65,191,550

1,368,800

7,980,000

1,282,500

2,086,388

6,844,000
39,900,000
6,412,500
10,431,938
17,901,000

$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$

52,014,400
6,513,600
7,862,400
66,390,400

$
$
$
$
$
$

13,003,600

1,628,400

65,018,000
8,142,000
9,828,000

3,580,200

$
$
$
$
$

16,297,888

81,489,438

31,920,000
5,130,000
8,142,000
13,311,000
58,503,000

7,980,000

1,282,500

2,035,500

$
$
$
$
$

39,900,000
6,412,500
10,177,500
16,638,750
73,128,750

$
$
$
$
$

10,950,400
3,192,000
2,035,500
3,625,200
19,803,100

$
$
$
$
$

13,688,000
3,990,000
2,544,375
4,531,500
24,753,875

$
$
$
$
$
$

2,737,600
12,768,000
3,420,000
3,867,450
7,284,600
30,077,650

$
$
$
$
$
$

3,422,000
15,960,000
4,275,000
4,834,313
9,105,750
37,597,063

$
$
$
$

17,100,000
254,438
5,879,250
23,233,688

$
$
$
$

17,100,000
254,438
8,592,750
25,947,188

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

6,600,000
9,450,000
6,250,000
8,000,000
825,000
3,125,000
14,625,000
48,875,000

3,327,750

14,625,750

2,737,600

798,000

508,875

906,300

4,950,775

684,400

3,192,000

855,000

966,863

1,821,150

7,519,413

13,680,000
203,550
4,703,400
18,586,950

3,420,000

50,888

1,175,850

4,646,738

$
$
$
$

13,680,000
203,550
6,874,200
20,757,750

3,420,000

50,888

1,718,550

5,189,438

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

5,280,000
7,560,000
5,000,000
6,400,000
660,000
2,500,000
11,700,000
39,100,000

1,320,000

1,890,000

1,250,000

1,600,000

165,000

625,000

2,925,000

9,775,000

$ 192,017,600
$ 90,871,200
$ 57,981,600
$ 340,870,400
$ 39,100,000

$
$
$
$
$

48,004,400
22,717,800
14,495,400
85,217,600
9,775,000

$ 240,022,000
$ 113,589,000
$ 72,477,000
$ 426,088,000
$ 48,875,000

$ 379,970,400

94,992,600

$ 474,963,000

S ource: P relim inary estim ates by C arter G oble A ssociates, Inc. and D M JM D esign, A ugust 2005.
1

Public Review Draft

Carter Goble Associates

Option 2: Full Replacement with Expanded Support Core –
A second set of estimates was made in Tables A-8
through A-10 for building the replacement complex to
include both an oversize internal support core at each
facility and for the centralized support functions and
services that would enable the addition of beds up to
6,000 rather than the 4,000-bed limit in the first set of
estimates.
These estimates provide for a strategy that is common
in building new prisons in the 21st century.3 As was already explained at the beginning of this chapter, the
primary benefit of building oversized support core
spaces for a prison today is simple economics. Since
prisons are relatively heavy and complex structures,
unlike a warehouse, factory shell or office building,
making modifications in the future after initial construction is relatively complex and expensive since secure wall construction and security electronics and communications systems must usually be altered with some
demolition likely.

It is important to remember that the estimates for
both options are for construction related costs only
and do not represent what might be the State’s total
capital project cost. As noted earlier there will be
additional costs such as future years’ inflation at the
time the project is actually bid; financing costs depending on the State’s preferred financing method;
site acquisition; and the possibility of extraordinary
site development and environmental conditions mitigation. Such costs can only be accurately estimated
with detailed investigations of a specific site and the
development of a schematic design for that site. Preliminary estimates for some of the probable additional one-time cost items and changes in recurring
annual cost items attributable to relocation are included later in this chapter under the heading
“Additional Project Costs.”

Also, by purchasing prison support function spaces and
centralized services spaces that will be needed in the future with today’s dollars instead of with future dollars
further savings results over the long-term and for future
generations of taxpayers. By building a Draper replacement today with 3,968 beds, but with internal facility
support core spaces and the centralized complex support
functions large enough for 6,000 beds instead of 4,000
beds only housing building would need to be added in
the future for the next 2,000 beds of growth. Today’s
total construction costs will obviously be much higher
than for Option 1 due to the larger support capacity,
but that investment will be less than the State would
pay in the future for adding 2,000 beds if the support
spaces also have to be added at that time.
The preliminary estimates for Option 2 “Expanded Support Core Replacement” as detailed in Tables A-8
through A-10 and rounded to the nearest hundred thousand dollars are:
3,968 Beds with Expanded 6,000-Bed Support Core
Moderate
Low
High
3 See

$484,500,000
$476,900,000
$543,900,000

Appendix section on “Exemplary Prisons Space Standard Sizes.”

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX A 11

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

Table A-8
Full Replacement: Option 2 Expanded at Moderate Construction Cost Estimate
(3,968 beds with 6,000-bed support core)
Facility
M ale M axim um Security Unit
1. O perational Beds - 608
Single-bunk cells 15x32+8x16
2. Special M gt. Cells
3. Support Core

Bed Design
Capacity

608
64
na
672

Total
M ale M edium Security & Intake Unit
1. O perational Beds - 854
Single-bunked cells - 2x32
64
Double-bunked cells - 10x32
640
50-bed dorm s - 3x50
150
2. Special M gt. Cells
82
3. Support Core
na
Total
936
M ale M edium Security Unit
1. O perational Beds -790
Double-bunked cells - 10x64
640
50-bed dorm s - 3x50
150
2. Special M gt. Cells
80
3. Support Core
na
Total
870
Forensic Diagnostic & T reatm ent Unit
1. O perational Beds - 192
Single-bunked cells 4x24+2x16 (16fem )
128
Double-bunked cells - 2x16
64
2. Special M gt. Cells
20
3. Support Core
na
Total
212
W om ens' Unit
1. O perational Beds - 388
Single-bunked cells - 2x16
32
Double-bunked cells - 4x64
256
Dorm s - 2x50
100
2. Special M gt. Cells
38
3. Support Core
na
Total
426
M ale M inim um Security Unit 1
1. O perational Beds - 8x50-bed dorm s
400
2. Special M gt. Cells
2
3. Support Core
na
Total
402
M ale M inim um Security Unit 2
1. O perational Beds - 8x50-bed dorm s
400
2. Special M gt. Cells
2
3. Support Core
na
Total
402
Support Services Facilities
1. Com plex Adm in/ Visit Center
6,000 beds
2. Central Kitchen
"
3. Clinic and 48-bed Infirm ary
"
4. Industries Center
"
5. Central Laundry
"
6. W arehouse & M aintenance Unit
"
7. Central Plant
"
Total
"

Building
G ross SF

Construct
Cost/ SF

212,800
18,560
77,280
308,640

$
$
$

22,400
112,000
28,500
23,780
112,320
299,000

$
$
$
$
$

112,000
28,500
23,200
104,400
268,100

$
$
$
$

44,800
11,200
5,800
26,500
88,300

$
$
$
$

11,200
44,800
19,000
11,020
53,250
139,270

$
$
$
$
$

76,000
580
44,220
120,800

$
$
$

76,000
580
50,250
126,830

$
$
$

48,000
36,000
30,000
60,000
6,000
30,000
12,000
222,000

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Com plex Subtotal
O perational Beds
Infirm ary & Special M gt. Beds (48+288)
Unit Support Cores
Total All Units
Support Serv ices Facilities

3,632
336
na
3,968

799,200
83,520
468,220
1,350,940
222,000

Com plex G rand T otal

3,968

1,572,940

235
235
205

235
225
195
235
205

225
195
235
205

235
225
235
205

235
225
195
235
205

195
235
205

175
195
220
165
205
205
350

246

Total
Const. Cost

Project Cost
1
@ 25%

Estim ated
1
Cost

3,960,600

$
$
$

17,553,000

87,765,000

5,264,000
25,200,000
5,557,500
5,588,300
23,025,600
64,635,400

1,316,000

6,300,000

1,389,375

1,397,075

6,580,000
31,500,000
6,946,875
6,985,375
28,782,000

$
$
$
$
$

25,200,000
5,557,500
5,452,000
21,402,000
57,611,500

$
$
$
$
$

10,528,000
2,520,000
1,363,000
5,432,500
19,843,500

$
$
$
$
$
$

2,632,000
10,080,000
3,705,000
2,589,700
10,916,250
29,922,950

$
$
$
$

14,820,000
136,300
9,065,100
24,021,400

$
$
$
$

14,820,000
136,300
10,301,250
25,257,550

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

8,400,000
7,020,000
6,600,000
9,900,000
1,230,000
6,150,000
4,200,000
43,500,000

$
$
$
$

50,008,000
4,361,600
15,842,400
70,212,000

$
$
$
$
$
$

12,502,000

1,090,400

62,510,000
5,452,000
19,803,000

5,756,400

$
$
$
$
$

16,158,850

80,794,250

6,300,000

1,389,375

1,363,000

$
$
$
$
$

31,500,000
6,946,875
6,815,000
26,752,500
72,014,375

$
$
$
$
$

13,160,000
3,150,000
1,703,750
6,790,625
24,804,375

$
$
$
$
$
$

3,290,000
12,600,000
4,631,250
3,237,125
13,645,313
37,403,688

$
$
$
$

18,525,000
170,375
11,331,375
30,026,750

$
$
$
$

18,525,000
170,375
12,876,563
31,571,938
10,500,000
8,775,000
8,250,000
12,375,000
1,537,500
7,687,500
5,250,000
54,375,000

5,350,500

14,402,875

2,632,000

630,000

340,750

1,358,125

4,960,875

658,000

2,520,000

926,250

647,425

2,729,063

7,480,738

3,705,000

34,075

2,266,275

6,005,350

3,705,000

34,075

2,575,313

6,314,388

2,100,000

1,755,000

1,650,000

2,475,000

1,050,000

10,875,000

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$ 175,892,000
$ 72,247,200
$ 95,985,100
$ 344,124,300
$ 43,500,000

$
$
$
$
$

43,973,000
18,061,800
23,996,275
86,031,075
10,875,000

$ 219,865,000
$ 90,309,000
$ 119,981,375
$ 430,155,375
$ 54,375,000

$ 387,624,300

96,906,075

$ 484,530,375

307,500

1,537,500

Source: Prelim inary estim ates by Carter G oble Associates, Inc. and DM JM Design, August 2005.
1

Public Review Draft

Carter Goble Associates

Table A-9
Full Replacement: Option 2 Expanded at Low Construction Cost Estimate
(3,968 beds with 6,000-bed support core)
F acility
M ale M axim um S ecu rity U nit
1. O perational B eds - 608
S ingle-bunk cells 15x 32+8x 16
2. S pecial M gt. C ells
3. S upport C ore

B ed D esign
C apacity

608
64
na
672

T otal
M ale M ediu m S ecurity & In take U n it
1. O perational B eds - 854
S ingle-bunked cells - 2x 32
64
D ouble-bunked cells - 10x 32
640
50-bed dorm s - 3x 50
150
2. S pecial M gt. C ells
82
3. S upport C ore
na
T otal
936
M ale M ediu m S ecurity U nit
1. O perational B eds -790
D ouble-bunked cells - 10x 64
640
50-bed dorm s - 3x 50
150
2. S pecial M gt. C ells
80
3. S upport C ore
na
T otal
870
F o ren sic D iag no stic & T reatm ent U nit
1. O perational B eds - 192
S ingle-bunked cells 4x 24+ 2x 16 (16fem )
128
D ouble-bunked cells - 2x 16
64
2. S pecial M gt. C ells
20
3. S upport C ore
na
T otal
212
W om ens' U n it
1. O perational B eds - 388
S ingle-bunked cells - 2x 16
32
D ouble-bunked cells - 4x 64
256
D orm s - 2x 50
100
2. S pecial M gt. C ells
38
3. S upport C ore
na
T otal
426
M ale M in im um S ecu rity U n it 1
1. O perational B eds - 8x 50-bed dorm s
400
2. S pecial M gt. C ells
2
3. S upport C ore
na
T otal
402
M ale M in im um S ecu rity U n it 2
1. O perational B eds - 8x 50-bed dorm s
400
2. S pecial M gt. C ells
2
3. S upport C ore
na
T otal
402
S u pp o rt S ervices Facilities
1. C om plex A dm in/ V isit C enter
6,000 beds
2. C entral K itchen
"
3. C linic and 48-bed Infirm ary
"
4. Industries C enter
"
5. C entral Laundry
"
6. W arehouse & M aintenance U nit
"
7. C entral P lant
"
T otal
"

B uilding
G ross S F

C onstruct
C ost/ S F

212,800
18,560
77,280
308,640

$
$
$

22,400
112,000
28,500
23,780
112,320
299,000

$
$
$
$
$

112,000
28,500
23,200
104,400
268,100

$
$
$
$

44,800
11,200
5,800
26,500
88,300

$
$
$
$

11,200
44,800
19,000
11,020
53,250
139,270

$
$
$
$
$

76,000
580
44,220
120,800

$
$
$

76,000
580
50,250
126,830

$
$
$

48,000
36,000
30,000
60,000
6,000
30,000
12,000
222,000

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

C om plex S ub total
O perational B eds
Infirm ary & S pecial M gt. B eds (48+288)
U nit S upport C ores
T otal A ll U nits
Support S erv ices F acilities

3,632
336
na
3,968

799,200
83,520
468,220
1,350,940
222,000

C o m p lex G ran d T otal

3,968

1,572,940

275
275
150

275
275
175
275
150

275
175
275
150

275
275
275
150

275
275
175
275
150

175
275
150

120
150
200
125
150
110
250

243

T otal
C onst. C ost

P roject C ost
1
@ 25%

E stim ated
1
C ost

2,898,000

$
$
$

18,804,000

94,020,000

6,160,000
30,800,000
4,987,500
6,539,500
16,848,000
65,335,000

1,540,000

7,700,000

1,246,875

1,634,875

7,700,000
38,500,000
6,234,375
8,174,375
21,060,000

$
$
$
$
$

30,800,000
4,987,500
6,380,000
15,660,000
57,827,500

$
$
$
$
$

12,320,000
3,080,000
1,595,000
3,975,000
20,970,000

$
$
$
$
$
$

3,080,000
12,320,000
3,325,000
3,030,500
7,987,500
29,743,000

$
$
$
$

58,520,000
5,104,000
11,592,000
75,216,000

14,630,000

1,276,000

$
$
$
$
$
$

73,150,000
6,380,000
14,490,000

4,212,000

$
$
$
$
$

16,333,750

81,668,750

7,700,000

1,246,875

1,595,000

$
$
$
$
$

38,500,000
6,234,375
7,975,000
19,575,000
72,284,375

$
$
$
$
$

15,400,000
3,850,000
1,993,750
4,968,750
26,212,500

$
$
$
$
$
$

3,850,000
15,400,000
4,156,250
3,788,125
9,984,375
37,178,750

$
$
$
$

16,625,000
199,375
8,291,250
25,115,625

$
$
$
$

16,625,000
199,375
9,421,875
26,246,250

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

7,200,000
6,750,000
7,500,000
9,375,000
1,125,000
4,125,000
3,750,000
39,825,000

3,915,000

14,456,875

3,080,000

770,000

398,750

993,750

5,242,500

770,000

3,080,000

831,250

757,625

1,996,875

7,435,750

13,300,000
159,500
6,633,000
20,092,500

3,325,000

39,875

1,658,250

5,023,125

$
$
$
$

13,300,000
159,500
7,537,500
20,997,000

3,325,000

39,875

1,884,375

5,249,250

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

5,760,000
5,400,000
6,000,000
7,500,000
900,000
3,300,000
3,000,000
31,860,000

1,440,000

1,350,000

1,500,000

1,875,000

225,000

825,000

750,000

7,965,000

$ 196,980,000
$ 82,468,000
$ 70,233,000
$ 349,681,000
$ 31,860,000

$
$
$
$
$

49,245,000
20,617,000
17,558,250
87,420,250
7,965,000

$ 246,225,000
$ 103,085,000
$ 87,791,250
$ 437,101,250
$ 39,825,000

$ 381,541,000

95,385,250

$ 476,926,250

S ource: P relim inary estim ates by C arter G oble A ssociates, Inc. and D M JM D esign, August 2005.
1

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX A 13

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

Table A-10
Full Replacement: Option 2 Expanded at High Construction Cost Estimate
(3,968 beds with 6,000-bed support core)
F acility
M ale M axim u m S ecu rity U n it
1. O perational B eds - 608
S ingle-bunk cells 15x 32+ 8x 16
2. S pecial M gt. C ells
3. S upport C ore

B ed D esign
C apacity

608
64
na
672

T otal
M ale M ed iu m S ecu rity & In take U n it
1. O perational B eds - 854
S ingle-bunked cells - 2x 32
64
D ouble-bunked cells - 10x 32
640
50-bed dorm s - 3x 50
150
2. S pecial M gt. C ells
82
3. S upport C ore
na
T otal
936
M ale M ed iu m S ecu rity U n it
1. O perational B eds -790
D ouble-bunked cells - 10x 64
640
50-bed dorm s - 3x 50
150
2. S pecial M gt. C ells
80
3. S upport C ore
na
T otal
870
F o ren sic D iag n o stic & T reatm en t U n it
1. O perational B eds - 192
S ingle-bunked cells 4x 24+ 2x 16 (16fem )
128
D ouble-bunked cells - 2x 16
64
2. S pecial M gt. C ells
20
3. S upport C ore
na
T otal
212
W o m en s' U n it
1. O perational B eds - 388
S ingle-bunked cells - 2x 16
32
D ouble-bunked cells - 4x 64
256
D orm s - 2x 50
100
2. S pecial M gt. C ells
38
3. S upport C ore
na
T otal
426
M ale M in im u m S ecu rity U n it 1 (wk rel)
1. O perational B eds - 8x 50-bed dorm s
400
2. S pecial M gt. C ells
2
3. S upport C ore
na
T otal
402
M ale M in im u m S ecu rity U n it 2 (T H C )
1. O perational B eds - 8x 50-bed dorm s
400
2. S pecial M gt. C ells
2
3. S upport C ore
na
T otal
402
S u p p o rt S ervices F acilities
1. C om plex A dm in & V isit C enter
6,000 beds
2. C entral K itchen
"
3. C linic and 48-bed Infirm ary
"
4. Industries C enter
"
5. C entral Laundry
"
6. W arehouse & M aintenance U nit
"
7. C entral P lant
"
T otal
"

B uilding
G ross S F

C onstruct
C ost/ S F

212,800
18,560
77,280
308,640

$
$
$

22,400
112,000
28,500
23,780
112,320
299,000

$
$
$
$
$

112,000
28,500
23,200
104,400
268,100

$
$
$
$

44,800
11,200
5,800
26,500
88,300

$
$
$
$

11,200
44,800
19,000
11,020
53,250
139,270

$
$
$
$
$

76,000
580
44,220
120,800

$
$
$

76,000
580
50,250
126,830

$
$
$

48,000
36,000
30,000
60,000
6,000
30,000
12,000
222,000

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

C o m p lex S u b to tal
O perational B eds
Infirm ary & S pecial M gt. B eds (48+288)
U nit S upport C ores
T otal A ll U nits
Support S erv ices F acilities

3,632
336
na
3,968

799,200
83,520
468,220
1,350,940
222,000

C o m p lex G ran d T o tal

3,968

1,572,940

290
345
180

290
285
180
345
180

285
180
345
180

290
285
345
180

290
285
180
345
180

180
345
180

165
315
250
160
165
125
1,170

277

T otal
C onst. C ost

P roject C ost
1
@ 25%

E stim ated
1
C ost

3,477,600

$
$
$

20,506,400

102,532,000

6,496,000
31,920,000
5,130,000
8,204,100
20,217,600
71,967,700

1,624,000

7,980,000

1,282,500

2,051,025

8,120,000
39,900,000
6,412,500
10,255,125
25,272,000

$
$
$
$
$

31,920,000
5,130,000
8,004,000
18,792,000
63,846,000

$
$
$
$
$

12,992,000
3,192,000
2,001,000
4,770,000
22,955,000

$
$
$
$
$
$

3,248,000
12,768,000
3,420,000
3,801,900
9,585,000
32,822,900

812,000

3,192,000

855,000

$
$
$
$

61,712,000
6,403,200
13,910,400
82,025,600

$
$
$
$
$
$

15,428,000

1,600,800

77,140,000
8,004,000
17,388,000

5,054,400

$
$
$
$
$

17,991,925

89,959,625

7,980,000

1,282,500

2,001,000

$
$
$
$
$

39,900,000
6,412,500
10,005,000
23,490,000
79,807,500

$
$
$
$
$

16,240,000
3,990,000
2,501,250
5,962,500
28,693,750

$
$
$
$
$
$

4,060,000
15,960,000
4,275,000
4,752,375
11,981,250
41,028,625

$
$
$
$

17,100,000
250,125
9,949,500
27,299,625

$
$
$
$

17,100,000
250,125
11,306,250
28,656,375
9,900,000
14,175,000
9,375,000
12,000,000
1,237,500
4,687,500
17,550,000
68,925,000

256,610,000
112,968,000
105,349,500
474,927,500
68,925,000

4,698,000

15,961,500

3,248,000

798,000

500,250

1,192,500

5,738,750

950,475

2,396,250

8,205,725

13,680,000
200,100
7,959,600
21,839,700

3,420,000

50,025

1,989,900

5,459,925

$
$
$
$

13,680,000
200,100
9,045,000
22,925,100

3,420,000

50,025

2,261,250

5,731,275

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

7,920,000
11,340,000
7,500,000
9,600,000
990,000
3,750,000
14,040,000
55,140,000

1,980,000

2,835,000

1,875,000

2,400,000

247,500

937,500

3,510,000

13,785,000

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$ 205,288,000
$ 90,374,400
$ 84,279,600
$ 379,942,000
$ 55,140,000

$
$
$
$
$

51,322,000
22,593,600
21,069,900
94,985,500
13,785,000

$
$
$
$
$

$ 435,082,000

$ 108,770,500

$ 543,852,500

S ource: P relim inary estim ates by C arter G oble A ssociates, Inc. and D M JM D esign, August 2005.
1

Public Review Draft

Carter Goble Associates

Partial Replacement

out a secure perimeter system. Its replacement could
thus be constructed at any suitable location.

An option requested for testing by State staff is for the
possible “partial replacement” of the Draper Complex.
This scenario as suggested by UDOC staff would be to
demolish and relocate new facilities only for the current
“North Point” section of Draper, which includes Lone
Peak, Olympus, Promontory, and Timpanogos. The
total bed capacity for replacing these four facilities as
shown in the preceding section is 1,458 beds (1,442 housing beds + 16 infirmary beds compared to the existing
total count of 1,446 beds).
Olympus is a correctional forensic mental health facility
and Timpanogos is the system’s all-custody female facility. These two specialized facilities need access to and
support from a variety of mental, medical, psychiatric
and social work specialists and normally require a
higher level of medical services compared to general
population prisons. Lone Peak is a pre-release minimum security facility and its replacement should thus
not be located inside a higher security complex as these
inmates are regularly transported to jobs and work assignments away from the facility every day to give them
appropriate transitional conditions and re-entry preparation for their upcoming release. As a substance abuse
therapeutic community the replacement of Promontory
should be designed for those inmates who achieve eligibility for this type of custody and treatment in low medium to minimum security conditions, primarily with
dormitory housing units, but also with a substantial
amount of space for programs, treatment services and
group activities.
Three of these facilities provide vital centralized special
functions for the entire UDOC system that make it important to keep them at or near the Draper site since the
large South Point compound (2,522 current beds) would
remain in this “Partial Replacement” scenario. Also,
because of their particular specialized nature (allcustody females, substance abuse intensive treatment,
and forensic mental health in-patient diagnostics, treatment and management) they all need ready access to an
acute care in-patient hospital, specialized medical services, psychiatric services and counseling specialists
available in the Salt Lake City metro area.
However, Lone Peak the 4th facility is a minimum custody transitional pre-release facility for inmates nearing
the end of their sentence and preparing for free world reentry, which should be located in an open setting with-

Third Site Plus Remodel Existing South Point Facilities
The UDOC proposed to replace the Olympus, Promontory and Timpanogos functions inside the Draper South
Point compound by relocating an equal number of medium security general population male inmates to a new
facility at a third location. Thereafter the Oquirrh and
Wasatch facilities would be remodeled for the three replacement functions. The equivalent number of medium security males from Oquirrh and Wasatch along
with the Lone Peak Pre-Release replacement would be
relocated to two new facilities (one medium security and
one minimum/community) at a third site elsewhere in
Utah because of a stated preference to not increase the
size of the Draper complex.
For the South Point remodeling to accommodate the
three North Point functions the UDOC proposes that it
would undertake a relatively limited remodeling project.
The remodeling needed should provide the specific treatment and programs oriented spaces needed for these
three special needs populations as well as making sure
the housing/sleeping areas to be used will be suitable.
The relocation of the 1,052 male medium security beds,
plus the 402 Lone Peak Pre-Release beds from Draper
to a third site in Utah could be done at one site for a
total of 1,454-beds. The male medium security facility
would be built inside a standard dual fence perimeter
security system. The new minimum security PreRelease Facility could be co-located on the same property, but outside the medium security facility’s perimeter system since it would be an open facility with most
inmates working, going to school or counseling in the
community during the day or other hours if they were
employed in shift work. The co-location would provide the
obvious cost savings benefits from the shared use of the large
medium security facility’s infirmary, kitchen and other major support components thereby avoiding the added cost of
duplication if it was on a separate site.
For the two new facilities in this “Partial Replacement”
option the same cost model principles were used as for
the “Full Replacement” model, but altered for the different sizes and the fact that these two would not be
part of a large complex with centralized support components. Thus, the results summarized below provide 2005
preliminary present value cost estimates for: (1) the
UDOC’s cost estimate to remodel the Draper South

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX A 15

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

Point Complex for 1,052 beds; and (2) the consultant’s
estimates for construction of a new 1,052-bed medium
security facility, plus a new 402-bed Pre-Release Facility co-located at another location in Utah.
Tables A-11 through A-13 show the detail of this cost
model’s applications for the low, moderate and high cost
range results for the two new facilities proposed in this
Partial Replacement option.

Partial Replacement Option – Remodel Draper South
Point Plus Build Two New Facilities at New Site
1. UDOC Remodel Estimate for 1,052 Beds at
Draper South Point*

$ TBD

2. Construct Two New Co-located Facilities for
1,052 Medium Security and 402 Pre-Release
Moderate
Low
High

$128,000,000
$119,100,000
$131,500,000

Grand Total Construction – 2,506 Beds*
Moderate
Low
High

$ TBD
$ TBD
$ TBD

* Cost ranges ranked by Grand Total result from three different estimators. The UDOC budget to remodel Draper South Point must be added
to complete this total construction estimate.

Table A-11
Partial Replacement Option: 2 New Facilities at Moderate Construction Cost Estimate*
(Remodel for 1,052 beds at South Point and Build 1,454 New at a third site)
Facility
N EW LO C AT IO N
M ale Pre-R elease Unit 1 (wk rel)
1. O perational Beds - 8x50-bed dorm s
2. Special M gt. C ells
3. Support Core
Total
M ale M edium Security U nit
1. O perational Beds - 980
D ouble-bunked cells - 11x64+1x26
50-bed dorm s - 5x50
2. Special M gt. C ells (16 infirm ary+56 SM )
3. Support Core
Total
New Location Subtotals
O perational Beds
Infirm ary & Special M gt. Beds (16+54)
Unit Support C ores
New Location G rand Totals

Bed Design
C apacity

Building
G ross SF

C onstruction
C ost/ SF

400
2
na
402

76,000
590
64,320
140,910

$
$
$

730
250
72
na
1,052

127,750
47,500
21,240
152,540
349,030

$
$
$
$

1,380
74
na

251,250
21,830
216,860

1,454

489,940

195
235
205

225
195
235
205

Total
C onst. Cost

Project C osts
1
@ 25%

$
$
$
$

14,820,000
138,650
13,185,600
28,144,250

3,705,000

34,663

3,296,400

7,036,063

$
$
$
$
$

28,743,750
9,262,500
4,991,400
31,270,700
74,268,350

7,185,938

2,315,625

1,247,850

7,817,675

18,567,088

52,826,250
5,130,050
44,456,300
$

209

$ 102,412,600

Estim ated
1
C ost

$
$
$
$

18,525,000
173,313
16,482,000
35,180,313

$
$
$
$
$

35,929,688
11,578,125
6,239,250
39,088,375
92,835,438

13,206,563
1,282,513
11,114,075

66,032,813
6,412,563
55,570,375

25,603,150

$ 128,015,750

Source: Prelim inary estim ates by Carter G oble Associates, Inc. and DMJM Design, August 2005.
1

Additions to construction cost reported as custom ary level for DFCM projects for professional fees, FF&E, com m unications system , legal, testing,
survey, inspections, transition/activation/com m issioning, and design and construction contingency in 2005 present value dollars. Additions do not
include land acqusition, financing costs, inflation, and any unusual site/environm ental conditions or m itigation.
* The UDO C's proposed budget to rem odel South Point to accom m odate the populations from O lym pus, Tim panogos and Prom ontory need to be
added to com pleted the construction cost estim ate for this option.

Public Review Draft

Carter Goble Associates

Table A-12
Partial Replacement Option: 2 New Facilities at Low Construction Cost Estimate*
(Remodel for 1,052 beds at South Point and Build 1,454 New at a third site)
Bed Design
Capacity

Facility
NEW LOCATION
Male Pre-Release Unit 1 (wk rel)
1. Operational Beds - 8x50-bed dorms
2. Special Mgt. Cells
3. Support Core
Total
Male Medium Security Unit
1. Operational Beds - 980
Double-bunked cells - 11x64+1x26
50-bed dorms - 5x50
2. Special Mgt. Cells (16 infirmary+56 SM)
3. Support Core
Total
New Location Subtotals
Operational Beds
Infirmary & Special Mgt. Beds (16+54)
Unit Support Cores
New Location Grand Totals

Building
Gross SF

Construction
Cost/ SF

400
2
na
402

76,000
590
64,320
140,910

$
$
$

730
250
72
na
1,052

127,750
47,500
21,240
152,540
349,030

$
$
$
$

1,380
74
na

251,250
21,830
216,860

1,454

489,940

175
275
150

275
175
275
150

Total
Const. Cost

$
$
$
$

13,300,000
162,250
9,648,000
23,110,250

$
$
$
$
$

35,131,250
8,312,500
5,841,000
22,881,000
72,165,750

Project Costs
1
@ 25%

3,325,000

40,563

2,412,000

5,777,563

8,782,813

2,078,125

1,460,250

5,720,250

18,041,438

56,743,750
6,003,250
32,529,000
194

95,276,000

Estimated
1
Cost

$
$
$
$

16,625,000
202,813
12,060,000
28,887,813

$
$
$
$
$

43,914,063
10,390,625
7,301,250
28,601,250
90,207,188

14,185,938
1,500,813
8,132,250

70,929,688
7,504,063
40,661,250

23,819,000

$ 119,095,000

Source: Preliminary estimates by Carter Goble Associates, Inc. and DMJM Design, August 2005.
1

Additions to construction cost reported as customary level for DFCM projects for professional fees, FF&E, communications system, legal, testing,
survey, inspections, transition/activation/commissioning, and design and construction contingency in 2005 present value dollars. Additions do not
include land acqusition, financing costs, inflation, and any unusual site/environmental conditions or mitigation.
* The UDOC's proposed budget to remodel South Point to accommodate the populations from Olympus, Timpanogos and Promontory need to be
added to completed the construction cost estimate for this option.

Table A-13
Partial Replacement Option: 2 New Facilities at High Construction Cost Estimate*
(Remodel for 1,052 beds at South Point and Build 1,454 New at a third site)
Facility

Bed Design
Capacity

Building
Gross SF

400
2
na
402

76,000
590
64,320
140,910

$
$
$

$
$
$
$

NEW LOCATION
Male Pre-Release Unit 1 (wk rel)
1. Operational Beds - 8x50-bed dorms
2. Special Mgt. Cells
3. Support Core
Total
Male Medium Security Unit
1. Operational Beds - 980
Double-bunked cells - 11x64+1x26
50-bed dorms - 5x50
2. Special Mgt. Cells (16 infirmary+56 SM)
3. Support Core
Total
New Location Subtotals
Operational Beds
Infirmary & Special Mgt. Beds (16+54)
Unit Support Cores

730
250
72
na
1,052

127,750
47,500
21,240
152,540
349,030

1,380
74
na

251,250
21,830
216,860

New Location Grand Totals

1,454

489,940

Construction
Cost/ SF

180
345
180

285
180
345
180

Total
Const. Cost

Project Costs
1
@ 25%

17,100,000
254,438
14,472,000
31,826,438

$
$
1,831,950 $
6,864,300 $
19,935,938 $

45,510,938
10,687,500
9,159,750
34,321,500
99,679,688

13,680,000
203,550
11,577,600
25,461,150

3,420,000

50,888

$
$
$
$
$

36,408,750
8,550,000
7,327,800
27,457,200
79,743,750

$
$
$
$

58,638,750
7,531,350
39,034,800
215

$
$
2,894,400 $
6,365,288 $

$
$
$
$

$ 105,204,900

Estimated
1
Cost

9,102,188
2,137,500

14,659,688
1,882,838
9,758,700

73,298,438
9,414,188
48,793,500

26,301,225

$ 131,506,125

Source: Preliminary estimates by Carter Goble Associates, Inc. and DMJM Design, August 2005.
1

Additions to construction cost reported as customary level for DFCM projects for professional fees, FF&E, communications system, legal, testing,
survey, inspections, transition/activation/commissioning, and design and construction contingency in 2005 present value dollars. Additions do not
include land acqusition, financing costs, inflation, and any unusual site/environmental conditions or mitigation.
* The UDOC's proposed budget to remodel South Point to accommodate the populations from Olympus, Timpanogos and Promontory need to be
added to completed the construction cost estimate for this option.

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX A 17

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

smaller numbers.
Those inmates from
Uinta and Olympus
should be moved in
2005 Present Value
Function
Cost Estimate
smaller numbers
with much higher
UDOC 5-Person Transition Team 24 months off-line full time (2 sgt/3 CO)
labor $416,000
UDOC transition team expenses and consulting assistance
expenses $180,000 security conditions
Inmate move with 10 secure busses leased at $800/day for 12 days @ 200 miles/bus/day
bus lease $96,000 than the general
round trip for 6 mpg @ $3/gallon.
bus fuel $12,000
UDOC chase/escort cars with 20 @ 200 miles/day for 15 mpg @ $3/gal.
car fuel
$9,600 population. For
UDOC extra drivers & security escort staff - 40 for 12 days (4 sgt/36 CO)
labor $73,200 each bus two chase
State and local police move escort allowance @ 20 squad cars with two officers each for 12
days at 8 hours per day @ $25/hour/officer plus fuel for 200 miles per car per day for 15
labor $96,000 cars with a driver
mpg @ $3/gallon.
car fuel $9,600 and armed officer
should be assigned.
Each bus or van
Total
$892,400
should have a driver
Source: Estimates by Carter Goble Associates, Inc., September 2005.
and two armed security escort staff at a minimum and all vehicles would
Additional Project Costs
need to be equipped with two-way radios and cell
phones. State and local police should provide suppleTransition/Activation/Commissioning and Move-in
mentary escort during the actual move. A preliminary
Irrespective of which relocation option the State may
present value cost estimate is summarized in Table Aelect to pursue an additional project cost that would be
20.
incurred would be to provide budget for staff and technical assistance time needed for the preparation and
Demolition Costs
start-up tasks to be completed before a major correcIrrespective of what is done with the Draper site if the
tional facility is ready to open and operate at full caprison complex is relocated demolition of the abandoned
pacity. Generally, in addition to building systems comfacilities will need to be paid for by either the State or a
missioning there are 12 categories of work that include
purchaser of the site. A preliminary estimate of what
approximately 131 non-construction tasks that need to
the total demolition costs might be for clearing the enbe completed by staff (with some outside technical astire site in 2005 present value dollars is approximately
sistance if desired) to prepare the staff and the facility
$6,601,000. The detail building-by-building computato be ready to operate and move in the inmates on the
tion of this estimate is included in the Appendix.
desired deadline.4 As suggested in the Appendix guideline approximately five (5) full-time staff should be
Other Project Costs
detached for a 24-month period to work full-time on
It is important to remember that these preliminary esticompleting all tasks. Estimated labor cost at current
mates for construction are not based on designs for a
salary averages and fringe benefit ratio, plus expenses
specific site and thus must be considered preliminary in
for a 5-person correctional staff team (2 sergeants, 3
nature and that a specific design for a specific site could
C.O.) for a 24-month term is estimated below in 2005
vary substantially beyond the 2005 present value estipresent value dollars.
mates herein. The decision as to when to design and
Table A-14
Transition/Activation and Move-in Cost Estimate

The actual transfer/move-in of inmates will be a substantial effort that will require the use of State and local police in addition to extra DOC transport and security escort staff. For moving approximately 4,000 inmates in a secure and orderly manner 10 full-size secure
busses would be leased (MCI or Bluebird) that could
seat up to 35 inmates. Assuming 10 vehicle trips a day
to the new site should allow 12 days to complete the
move since high security inmates will be moved in

build will affect the total project cost as to the amount
of inflation at the time of bidding the project, plus the
State’s selected financing method and costs for such a
major project.
Site acquisition and the need to build a dedicated water
and/or sewage treatment plant are also major cost factors that could increase the total construction and project costs above the estimates in Tables A-5 through A-

See Appendix for listing of specific transition/activation tasks to be completed for a successful move-in.
Public Review Draft

Carter Goble Associates

Table A-15
2004 Direct Operating Cost
Facility
Reception & Orientation
Oquirrh
Wasatch
Uinta
Timpanogos
Olympus
Diagnostic
Promontory -1
Lone Peak

2004
ADP
116
813
798
644
546
148
73
330
388

Total Staff
FTEs
21.0
93.7
101.7
117.7
67.5
34.3
12.0
36.7
37.3

Labor
Non-Labor
Total
Cost
Cost
Direct Cost
$1,162,200
$50,200 $1,212,400
$4,698,000
$337,600 $5,035,600
$5,290,400
$309,300 $5,599,700
$6,034,600
$338,000 $6,372,600
$3,335,000
$322,400 $3,657,400
$1,757,300
$55,200 $1,812,500
$562,400
$97,900
$660,300
$1,624,399
$145,000 $1,769,399
$1,806,500
$195,300 $2,001,800

Current Draper Complex
Operating Costs

Since they are the most
recent complete fiscal
year available, Draper’s
fiscal year 2004 operational costs were used as
the basis for comparing
cost to alternate sites.
Financial data at the
Draper site is allocated
Sub-total
3,857
521.8 $26,270,799
$1,850,900 $28,121,699 by facility except for
Cost Per Inmate/Day
$18.66
$1.31
$19.98
the special functions of
Source: Carter Goble Associates, Inc., August 2005 from data provided by
Reception & OrientaUtah Department of Corrections.
tion and Diagnostics
10. Neither of these costs is included in the construction
since they are provided primarily as a service for the
estimates since such costs would need to be estimated for
courts. The costs are segregated by two major components,
a specific site.
Direct Facility Cost and Central Services Cost. Centralized
services are costs that benefit the operating facilities and
Operating Cost Changes and Other One-Time Costs
are allocated to each facility based on Average Daily Population (ADP). The total direct cost excluding overheads
An important component of comparing the total cost of
and indirect costs of operating the Draper facilities was $28
relocating the Draper complex is to identify changes in
million in 2004, or $19.98 per day per inmate.
operational costs that may occur either annually or once
due to such a major move. As described in the IntroducIt should be noted that Promontory was not in operation
tion to this chapter it is the annual recurring operating
in 2004, therefore financial data was not available for that
expenses that are so critical as over time they will constiyear. Consequently, the costs for Promontory were estitute a much greater tax burden than the one-time conmated based on the UDOC’s similar minimum security
struction costs and other related non-recurring project
makes up 97% of the total direct cost. Transportation,
costs. Several key factors have to be taken into considmedical, mental health, and dental costs are all cost alloeration when comparing the existing site to potential new cated by using ADP. These categories total $14 million
sites. The primary operational factors that could have a
and add another $10.06 per day per inmate to the operatsignificant cost-change impact of relocation are: 1) transing cost as shown in Table A-16.
portation cost, 2) personnel efficiencies gained by a new facilTable A-16
2004 Allocated Centralized Support Services
ity, 3) staff relocation expenses,
and 4) training and recruiting.
Allocated
Total
Several of these factors would Facility
Trans. Cost
Medical
Mental Health
Dental
Alloc. Cost
$49,020
$287,711
$73,310
$18,457
$428,496
be further impacted by where Reception & Orientation
Oquirrh
$342,124 $2,008,022
$511,650
$128,814 $2,990,610
the new site is located, and if
$335,934 $1,971,691
$502,393
$126,483 $2,936,501
the relocation is full or partial. Wasatch
As noted in the tables that follow all financial data used in
this analysis was obtained from
staff at the Utah Department
of Corrections.

Uinta
Timpanogos
Olympus
Diagnostic
Promontory -1
Lone Peak

Sub-total
Cost Per Inmate/Day

$271,109
$229,777
$62,225
$30,635
$120,451
$163,243

$1,591,214
$1,348,627
$365,214
$179,804
$815,447
$958,122

$405,446
$343,634
$93,058
$45,815
$207,174
$244,132

$1,604,517

$9,525,851

$2,426,611

$610,563 $14,167,541

$1.72

$0.43

$1.14

$6.77

Source: Carter Goble Associates, Inc., August 2005 from data provided by
Utah Department of Corrections.

Public Review Draft

$102,076
$86,514
$23,428
$11,534
$51,794
$61,463

$2,369,844
$2,008,552
$543,925
$267,787
$1,194,865
$1,426,961

$10.06

APPENDIX A 19

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

Other Centralized Services that are associated with the
Draper complex and the cost for each category is shown
in Table A-17. These costs total $43 million, or $30.83
per inmate per day.
Table A-17
2004 Other Allocated Centralized Services
Central Services Categories:
Department Executive Director
Department Administration
Division Administration
Motor Pool
Security
Food & Laundry
Support Costs
General Warehouse
Inmate Accounting
Mail
Maintenance
Programming

planned and budgeted by the UDOC. In current dollars
the total operating cost for the next 20 years for the
Draper complex with the scheduled improvements
would be approximately $1.7 billion assuming all improvement projects were completed. This data provides
the basis to make comparisons with alternative sites.

$3,274,040
$2,103,497
$5,058,574
$120,424
$12,469,105
$7,696,489
$1,897,252
$765,472
$337,480
$582,589
$4,265,969
$4,828,720

Sub-total

$43,399,611

Cost Per Inmate/Day

$30.83

GRAND TOTAL

$85,688,852

Cost Per Inmate/Day

$60.87

Source: Carter Goble Associates, Inc., August 2005 from data
provided by Utah Department of Corrections.

By adding these three components of Direct Cost,
Transportation and Health Care, and other Centralized
Services it is found that the total operating cost in 2004
for the Draper complex was $86 million, or $60.87 per
day per inmate. Another $21 million above and beyond
the operating cost is expected to be spent in the near
future at Draper for improvement projects previously

Table A-18
Recurring Inmate Transportation Cost Factors
Courts
Medical
Between Draper and CUCF
Board Hearings
Inmate Placement Program

# Inmates
9,390
5,253
1,334
2,110
3,145

Total
Less: Medical
Adjusted Total

21,232
(5,253)
15,979

Miles
na
219,085
na
na
256,687
787,028
(219,085)
567,943

Source: Carter Goble Associates, Inc. from data received from
Utah Department of Corrections, August 2005.
1

Miles do not add due to miles are not tracked for all purposes.
Public Review Draft

Carter Goble Associates

Prisoner Transport Cost
Currently the Draper complex generates 21,372 inmate trips a year that total
787,028 miles driven. In
2004 a total of $1.6 million
was spent on inmate transportation at the Draper
Complex. These trips were
generated for the trip purposes summarized in Table
A-18.

Table A-19
Estimated Recurring Present Value of Inmate
Transportation Cost – Full Relocation
Relocation Site

Additional Miles Per Trip
Est. Inmate Trips Requiring Extra Mileage
Additional Miles - Maximum
Cost Per Mile
Additional Cost
20-Year Additional Cost - Present Value

Rush Valley Box Elder
NE Juab
14
29
39
15,979
9,587
15,979
223,706
278,035
623,181
$2.04
$2.04
$2.04
$456,360
$567,191 $1,271,289
$6,398,816 $7,952,824 $17,825,280

Source: Carter Goble Associates, Inc., August 2005

The average trip is 37 miles and the average cost per
mile of these trips was $2.04, derived at by taking the
total transportation cost of $1.6 million and dividing it
by 787,028 miles.
Full Relocation Option
Out of the five possible relocation sites three have been
identified for a full relocation. They are Rush Valley,
Box Elder and Juab. Since these sites are located at
very different distances the annual time and distance
incurred and thus annual operating cost could vary substantially compared to the cost for the Draper complex.
Table A-19 below calculates a range of additional transportation cost to be expected based on these three relocation site possibilities. Using the Draper historical trip
records as a basis, and expecting that the average trip
length will increase the further away it is from Draper,
an incremental transportation cost for a full relocation
has been estimated. The number of trips requiring additional miles has been reduced by 40% at the Box Elder
option due to the amount of admissions from that area.
Medical trip cost estimates were not included since each
alternate site considered has a nearby acute care hospital. The maximum number of additional miles would
range from 223,706 to 623,181.
By multiplying the additional miles by the cost per mile
of $2.04, the added incremental cost per year ranges
from $.46 million to $.86 million for the three alternate
sites. Over a 20 year period the estimated incremental
cost in 2005 present value dollars ranges from $6.4 million to $17.8 million for the three sites in addition to the
present value of $32 million for 20 years at the Draper
complex.

Partial Relocation Option
Two other sites were added to the list for analyzing the
“Partial Relocation” Option; Carbon and Cedar City.
In a partial relocation approximately 37% of the inmate population would be moved to the new site. Due
to the classification of inmates being relocated no additional transportation costs are anticipated.
Personnel Efficiency Gains
The staffing needed for inmate housing units is where
new facility designs can have the potential to provide
some operating cost savings over older facility designs.
The consultant examined this potential, but found that
significant staff reductions were not likely as the
UDOC staffing at the Draper complex is extremely efficient as is. The FY 2004/05 housing officer staff to inmate ratio was 1:7.6 (3,576 ADP ÷ 469 housing officers). The consultant prepared two optional 3-shift
staffing concept plans, each with a 7-day 24-hour relief
factor of .7 as is currently used by the UDOC.
One optional plan was for direct supervision inmate
management and the other was for indirect supervision
and it was found that neither could afford savings over
the UDOC’s 2004/05 housing staff plan for Draper. For
the direct supervision model applied to the “Full Replacement” option assuming a 3,920 ADP (all beds full
excluding infirmary) a total of 594.2 FTE staff were
needed, which yields a staff to inmate ratio of 1:6.7.
For the indirect supervision model applied in the same
manner a total of 635.0 FTE housing staff were needed,
which yields a 1:6.2 staff to inmate ratio. It is thus assumed that the UDOC would continue its same staffing
pattern for housing officers even with a new design in order to not require a less efficient staffing pattern.

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX A 21

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

Table A-20
Estimated Present Value One-Time
Staff Relocation Costs - Full Relocation

One Time Personnel Costs

Relocation Site
The most recent personnel
data at Draper shows that
Rush Valley Box Elder
NE Juab
there is a total staff of 1,087.
Total
Draper
Staff
1,087
1,087
1,087
The salaries and wages of the
# of Staff Relocations
85
153
92
staff are not expected to
Cost per Relocation
$3,000
$3,000
$3,000
vary based on site location
$255,600
$459,000
$277,200
Total Relocation Cost
since the Utah Department
of Corrections’ pay scale does # of Staff to Recruit & Train
519
934
779
not vary geographically.
$15,000
$15,000
$15,000
Cost per Employee
However, if the new site is 50 Total Recruiting & Training Cost
$7,785,000 $14,010,000
$11,685,000
miles or more from Draper
Total One Time Staff Costs
$8,040,600 $14,469,000
$11,962,200
relocation cost would be exSource: Carter Goble Associates, Inc., August 2005
pected to be incurred by
Full Relocation Option
State regulation. Utah Department of Corrections’
Table A-20 computes the additional cost of a full relocation
policy is to reimburse staff up to $3,000 for relocaof the Draper complex for staff relocations and training and
tions that are 50 miles or more. For the personnel
recruiting for each potential site being considered in the
that did not relocate or commute the Department
would incur additional recruiting and training costs study. For Rush Valley it is estimated that 568 staff will be
retained and 85% of the retained staff will commute. For
to fill the open positions. It is estimated that recruiting and training costs average $15,000 per new Juab it is estimated that 308 staff will be retained and 70%
of those staff will commute.
employee.

The consultant used the addresses of the current
staff to calculate the distance from their current
residence to the proposed sites. Estimating that the
staff retention percentage would vary based on the
distance of the new location from their residence;
the following retention percentages were estimated:
(1) 0-25 miles = 50%; (2) 25-50 miles = 25%; and
(3) >50 miles = 10%.

The incremental costs for a “Full Relocation” Option for
staff moving expenses and recruiting and training are estimated to range from $8 million to $14.5 million. These costs
would be incurred one time, only in the year of the relocation.
Partial Relocation Option
Table A-21 uses the same methodology as above to estimate
the incremental costs for staff relocations and training and
recruiting for a “Partial Relocation” of the Draper complex.

Table A-21
Estimated Present Value One-Time
Staff Relocation Costs - Partial Relocation
Relocation Site

Draper Staff at New Site
# of Staff Relocations
Cost per Relocation
Total Relocation Cost
# of Staff to Recruit & Train
Cost per Employee
Total Recruiting & Training Cost
Total One Time Staff Costs

Rush Valley Box Elder
400
400
30
40
$3,000
$3,000
$90,000
$120,000
200
$15,000
$3,000,000
$3,090,000

360
$15,000
$5,400,000
$5,520,000

Source: Carter Goble Associates, Inc., August 2005

Public Review Draft

NE Juab
400
30
$3,000
$90,000
300
$15,000
$4,500,000
$4,590,000

Enoch/
Carbon
Cedar City
400
400
40
40
$3,000
$3,000
$120,000
$120,000
360
$15,000
$5,400,000
$5,520,000

360
$15,000
$5,400,000
$5,520,000

Carter Goble Associates

Again, Carbon and Cedar City have been added to the
analysis since they are both additional possible site locations in a partial relocation.
The incremental costs in a partial relocation for staff
moving expenses and recruiting and training are estimated to range from $3.1 million to $5.5 million.

Summary
Full Relocation Option
The total estimated 2005 present value operating
and one time costs for the full replacement of the
Draper complex over a 20 year period is estimated
to range from a cost decrease of $6.6 million to an
increase of $8.8 million depending on the site location. The scheduled Draper complex improvements of $21 million have been deducted from the
incremental costs since these expenditures would
not be made. Table A-22 summarizes the operating
cost increases for each site.

Table A-22
Summary of Operating Cost Changes – Full Replacement
Relocation Site
Rush Valley
Recurring Costs
Inmate Transportation Cost
Sub-total - Recurring Cost
20-Year Additional Cost - Present Value
One Time Costs
One Time Staff Relocation Cost
One Time Recruiting & Training Cost
Sub-total - One Time Cost
Total 20-Year Additional Cost - Present Value
Less: Scheduled Draper Improvements
Net 20-Year Cost Increase - Present Value

$456,360
$456,360
$6,398,816
$255,600
$7,785,000
$8,040,600
$14,439,416
$21,000,000
-$6,560,584

Source: Carter Goble Associates, Inc., September 2005

Public Review Draft

Box Elder

NE Juab

$567,191 $1,271,289
$567,191 $1,271,289
$7,952,824 $17,825,280
$459,000
$14,010,000
$14,469,000
$22,421,824
$21,000,000
$1,421,824

$277,200
$11,685,000
$11,962,200
$29,787,480
$21,000,000
$8,787,480

APPENDIX A 23

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

Appendices
•
•
•
•

Draper Demolition Preliminary Cost Estimates
New Correctional Facility Transition/Activation
Tasks
Exemplary Prisons Space Standard Sizes
Square Footage Space Estimators

Public Review Draft

Carter Goble Associates

Draper Demolition Preliminary Cost Estimates

BUILDING NAME

ADDRESS

CONST
DATE

SQ.FT

Cost per
SF

Estimated
Demolition
Cost

WASATCH
Housing
Housing
Housing
Housing
Housing
Housing
Housing
Housing
Housing
Housing
Housing
Housing

WASATCH ADMIN
WASATCH VISITING
WASATCH A BLOCK
WASATCH B BLOCK
WASATCH-B-NORTH BLOCK
WASATCH C BLOCK
WASATCH D BLOCK
WASATCH GYM
WASATCH CRO OFFICE
WASATCH DENTAL
WASATCH DIAGNOSTIC
WASATCH CORRIDOR
Subtotal Housing
Programs WASATCH INFIRMARY
Programs WASATCH CHAPEL
Programs WASATCH LIBRARY
Subtotal Programs
Support WASATCH HVAC SHOP
Support WASATCH CULUNARY
Support WASATCH LAUNDRY
Support WASATCH BOILER ROOM
Support WASATCH PIPE FITTERS STORAGE SHOP (DOG HOUSE)
Subtotal Support
Wasatch Grand Total

SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT

1948
1948
1951
1951
1951
1977
1951
1951
1951
1951
1951
1951

SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT

1976
1961
1951

SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT

1993
1951
1951
1951
1980

9,408
3,430
25,046
16,128
7,440
19,488
16,128
7,622
840
10,675
16,368
7,840
140,413
20,585
5,462
2,520
28,567
1,612
27,156
4,116
7,406
264
40,554
209,534

$10.00

$2,095,340

14,246
15,600
4,200
9,714
9,714
9,714
9,714
35,600
108,502
6,672
6,672
115,174

$8.50

$978,979

16,100
16,100
208
208
16,308

$6.00

$97,848

5,250
36,608
29,420
27,944
29,420
23,751
15,040
167,433

$7.00

$1,172,031

OQUIRRH
Housing
Housing
housing
Housing
Housing
Housing
Housing
Housing

OQUIRRH ADMINISTRATION
OQUIRRH GYM
OQUIRRH VISITING
OQUIRRH 1 DORM
OQUIRRH 2 DORM
OQUIRRH 3 DORM
OQUIRRH 4 DORM
OQUIRRH 5 DORMS
Subtotal Housing
Programs OQUIRRH CHAPEL
Subtotal Programs
Oquirrh Grand Total

SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT

1967
1967
1967
1987
1987
1987
1987
1967

SOUTH POINT

1980

SSD DORMS
Housing

SSD DORMS
Subtotal Housing
Programs SSD HOBBY CRAFT
Subtotal Programs
SSD Grand Total

SOUTH POINT

1959

SOUTH POINT

1970

UINTA
Housing
Housing
Housing
Housing
Housing
Housing

UINTA ADMIN
UINTA 1
UINTA 2
UINTA 3
UINTA 4
UINTA 5
UINTA SUPPORT
Unita Grand Total

SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT

Public Review Draft

1987
1987
1998
1987
1998
1968
1987

APPENDIX A 25

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

Draper Demolition Preliminary Cost Estimates (continued)

BUILDING NAME

ADDRESS

CONST
DATE

SQ.FT

Cost per
SF

Estimated
Demolition
Cost

TIMPANOGOS
Housing
Housing
Housing
Housing
Programs
Programs
Programs
Programs
Support
Support

TIMPANOGOS ADMIN.CENTER BUILDING 6
TIMPANOGOS STAR 1
TIMPANOGOS STAR 2
TIMPANOGOS STAR 3
TIMPANOGOS STAR 4
Subtotal Housing
TIMPANOGOS CHAPEL
TIMPANOGOS BUILD 5 AUTO VT
TIMPANOGOS BUILD 5 GYM
TIMPANOGOS BUILD 5 BUILDING VT
Subtotal Programs
TIMPANOGOS BUILD 5 MAINTENANCE
TIMPANOGOS BUILD 5 CULINARY
Subtotal Support
Timpanogos Grand Total

OLYMPUS
Housing

HOUSING MODULAR (OLY)
Subtotal

NORTH POINT
NORTH POINT
NORTH POINT
NORTH POINT
NORTH POINT

1983
1983
1983
1983
1983

NORTH POINT
NORTH POINT
NORTH POINT
NORTH POINT

1997
1983
1983
1983

NORTH POINT
NORTH POINT

1983
1983

NORTH POINT
NORTH POINT

1985
1993

21,493
17,656
17,656
17,656
17,656
92,117
5,850
3,144
6,335
8,721
24,050
2,229
9,855
12,084
128,251

$7.00

$897,757

36,560
2,662
39,222

$7.00

$274,554

PROMONTORY

NORTH POINT

1995

65,000

$5.00

$325,000

LONE PEAK

NORTH POINT

2000

37,500

$3.00

$112,500

SOUTH POINT
DRAPER
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
DRAPER
DRAPER
OLY
DRAPER
DRAPER
DRAPER
DRAPER
DRAPER
DRAPER
DRAPER
DRAPER
DRAPER
DRAPER

1966
1957
1960
1981
1995
1997
1998
1984
1944
1957
1960
1958
1950
1957
1981
1981
1957

10,560
96
25,900
21,563
9,072
15,147
5,200
3,210
6,350
8,843
3,192
6,449
1,600
1,800
5,000
9,856
1248
135,086

$3.00

$405,258

7,668
2,556
924
1,904
1,704
324
600
15,680

$3.00

$47,040

UTAH CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIES
Programs
Programs
Programs
Programs
Programs
Programs
Programs
Programs
Programs
Programs
Programs
Programs
Programs
Programs
Programs
Programs
Programs

UCI SIGN SHOP
UCI FLAMMABLE
UCI PLATE PLANT
UCI FURNATURE SHOP
UCI MODULAR SHOWROOM
UCI PRODUCTION BUILDING (SEWING)
UCI VT SEWING (BURNS BUILDING)
UCI WAREHOUSE
UCI STORAGE
UCI MILK PROCESSING PLANT
UCI DAIRY BARN
UCI MEAT PROCESSING
UCI HOG SHELTER
UCI FARM STORAGE
UCI FARM STORAGE (QUONSET HUT)
UCI AQUACULTURE BUILDING
UCI NORTH LOUNGE SHED
UCI Grand Total

MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAMS
Programs
Programs
Programs
Programs
Programs
Programs
Programs

VT MODULAR
EDUCTION MODULAR (2)
EDUCTIONAL MODULAR (OLY)
MENTAL HEALTH MODULAR (OLY)
NORTH POINT MODULAR CLASS-ROOM
GREEN HOUSE
CARWASH
Grand Total Misc. Programs

NORTH POINT
NORTH POINT
NORTH POINT
NORTH POINT
NORTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT

Public Review Draft

1996
1993
1993
1994
1987
1980
1983

Carter Goble Associates

Draper Demolition Preliminary Cost Estimates (continued)

BUILDING NAME

ADDRESS

CONST
DATE

SQ.FT

Cost per
SF

Estimated
Demolition
Cost

SUPPORT
Support
Support
Support
Support
Support
Support
Support
Support
Support
Support
Support
Support
Support
Support
Support
Support
Support
Support
Support
Support
Support
Support
Support
Support
Support
Support
Support
Support

FILE STORAGE BUILDING
PROPERTY WAREHOUSE/TOWER 7
ENTRANCE GUARD HOUSE
TOWER 1
VCC
TOWER 2
TOWER 3
TOWER 4
TOWER 5
NEW VDS
OLD VDS
NORTH GATE HOUSE
CONTROL TOWER/TRANSPORATION
MAINTENANCE CARPENTER SHOP
MAINTENANCE PLUMBING SHOP #1
MAINTENANCE PLUMBING SHOP #2
CENTRAL MAINTENANCE
MAINTENANCE CAR PORT
SWAT TRAINING BUILDING
LITTLE WILLOW PUMP HOUSE
FLAMMABLE STORAGE
CENTRAL WAREHOUSE
DOG KENNEL
SWAT KITCHEN
GEO THERMAL WELL PUMP HOUSE
WARDENS ADMINSTRATION BUILDING
MOTOR-POOL GARAGE
SWAT GARAGE
Grand Total Support

DRAPER
NORTH POINT
NORTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT
SOUTH POINT

2001
1983
1996
1951
1985
1951
1951
1951
1951
1998
1981
1986
1984
1957
1958
1958
1958
1985
1957
1976
1980
1980
1981
1982
1984
1984
1987
1996

GRAND TOTAL ALL FACILITIES
Support
Support
Support
Support
Support
Support
Support
Support

POWER SUBSTATION
UDC ADMINSTRATION BUILDING
FRED HOUSE TRAINING ACADEMY
PUMP HOUSE
MAINT.GARAGE/ARMORY
TRAINING ACADEMY MODULAR #2
TRAINING ACADEMY MODULAR #1
S.L. COUNTY WATER CONSERVANCY PUMP HOUSE
Total of buildings not included in replacement

2,500
10,640
1,600
140
2100
70
70
70
70
200
288
1,020
4,100
2,460
260
375
11,832
4,968
3,784
98
1,026
22,625
625
1,575
390
11,407
7,500
1,681
93,474

1,022,662
DRAPER
DRAPER
TRAINING
TRAINING
TRAINING
TRAINING
TRAINING
TRAINING

1985
2001
1985
1985
1985
1996
1996
1981

800
61,080
26000
304
720
1036
1036
361
91,337

Note: Shade cells excluded from the estimate based upon assumption that these facilities will remain in place.

Public Review Draft

$4.00

$373,896
$6,780,203

APPENDIX A 27

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

New Correctional Facility Transition/Activation Tasks

1. TRANSITION TEAM
1. Confirm Transition Team Approval, Authority, Composition and Funding
2. Select Transition Coordinator
3. Finalize Job Description for Transition Coordinator
4. Assumption of Position by Team Coordinator
5. Select Team Members
6. Identify Transition Office Area, Communication Systems, and Support Personnel
7. Orientation/Training of Team Members
8. Preparation of Transition Budget
9. Development of Transition Team Goals and
Objectives
10. Preparation of Team Action Plan Agendas
11. Review, Finalize, and Approve Action Plan
Agendas
12. Finalize and Schedule Team Member Assignments
13. Development of Transition Planning Report
System
14. Arrange Media Coverage of Transition Process

There are 12 general categories of transition/activation
work tasks that need to be completed before a new correctional facility can be successfully opened, occupied
and operated. Within those 12 categories there are 131
macro level tasks to complete, most of which have several subtasks within the macro tasks. For example,
category 12 Move Logistics alone can have up to 66 subtasks depending on the particular type and size facility.
A dedicated transition team needs to begin work on
these tasks usually no later than 18 months prior to
scheduled construction completion if the owner’s goal is
to open and operate the facility close to the time of completing construction. Ideally, as much of the work as
possible should be done by local staff who will work in
the new facility. The local team would be trained and
given substantial guidance and oversight assistance on
at least a monthly basis throughout the entire transition/activation term by CGA consultant specialists.
It is worth noting that in CGA’s experience 12 months is
the shortest time that has been required to complete a
successful activation for a major correctional facility,
which was for a 1,400-bed jail in Fort Worth, Texas in
1989. Even though it is much smaller, more time was
required for activating Bermuda’s new 200-bed Maximum Security Prison since it involved a major change in
the type of inmate management practices and procedures. In downtown Los Angeles in the early 1990s it
took three years to complete all the advance planning
and developmental transition/activation work needed to
open the 4,500-bed Twin Towers Correctional Facility
that included a 200-bed central medical clinic, plus the
County Jail system’s central intake/transfer/release system.

2. ADMINISTRATION

For a multi-facility complex of 4,000 beds as is being contemplated in Utah approximately 24 months time should be
allowed to complete all necessary transition/activation and
building commissioning tasks. A team of approximately
five (5) full-time experienced staff, each with different
strengths, but with one being designated the transition team
leader should be detached for the 2-year period to complete
all tasks and assure the readiness of the complex when desired. Typically such a team should include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Transition Team Leader
Security specialist
Policy and procedure writer
Design and construction specialist
FF&E specialist
Public Review Draft

1. Determine Administration Goals and Objectives
2. Development Administration Organizational
Structure
3. Develop Management Structure for the Jail
4. Prepare Preliminary Facility Operating
Budget
5. Determine System for Inmate Information
Flow and Management
6. Submit Operating Budget for Review
7. Revise Operating Budget and Disseminate
for Public Information
8. Identify All Forms Required in Facility
9. Design/ Prepare Forms, Disseminate for
Training
10. Requisition Necessary Equipment and Supplies
11. Arrange for Facility Tours
12. Determine Notification Requirements
13. Arrange for Notification of User/Allied Agencies
14. Determine Inmate Uniform and Property
Requirements

Carter Goble Associates

3. PERSONNEL

7. SECURITY AND CUSTODY
1.

1. Determine New Facility Personnel Requirements/Shift Factor
2. Prepare Job Descriptions
3. Determine Hiring Phase Schedule
4. Initiate Employment of New Staff
5. Identify Staff Equipment and Uniform Requirements
4. TRAINING
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Determine Training Goals and Objectives
Prepare Transition Training Budget
Prepare Training Curriculum and Materials
Implement Classroom Training Programs
Conduct Normal Pre-Service Training for New
Staff
Coordinate Scheduling of All ContractorSupplied Training for Building and Technical
Systems
Implement On-Site Transition Training
Orient Staff- Policies/Procedures/Post Orders
Evaluate Effectiveness of Transition Training

5. POLICY AND PROCEDURES
1. Develop Operational Plan
2. Develop Policy and Procedure Format
3. Implement Training in Policy and Procedure
Formulation
4. Develop List of Required Policies and Procedures
5. Prepare Initial Draft Policies and Procedures
6. Revise Draft Policies/Procedures Based Upon
Review
7. Prepare Second Drafts for Review and Revision
8. Prepare Final Draft and Disseminate for
Training
6. POST ORDERS
1. Develop Format for Post Orders
2. Implement Training for Post Order Development
3. Develop List of all Required Post Orders
4. Develop Initial Draft of Post Orders
5. Revise Post Orders Based Upon Review
6. Prepare Final Drafts/ Disseminate for Training

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.

Determine Security Approach Based Upon
Design Limitations
Determine Security Goals and Objectives
Determine Security Organization
Develop Evacuation Plan
Develop Supervision Plan
Develop Inmate Counts Plan
Develop Inspections Plan
Develop Control Room Operations Plan
Develop Key Control Plan
Develop Escapes and Disturbances Plans
Develop Search Plan
Develop Prisoner Movement Plan
Develop Facility Access Plan
Develop Weapons Control Plan
Finalize Security Plans
Facility Shakedowns & Determine Security
Weaknesses

8. INMATE PROGRAMS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.

Public Review Draft

Determine Inmate Programs Goals and Objectives
Determine Inmate Programs Organization
Project Inmate Volume for each Program
Develop Recreation Plan
Develop Religious Program Plan
Develop Educational Program Plan
Develop Library Services Plan
Develop Counseling Services Plan
Develop Psychological Services Plan
Develop Institutional Work Program Plan
Develop Custody Group Work Program Plan
Develop Industries Plan
Finalize Inmate Programs Plan
Identify External Agencies/ Volunteers/
Organizations
Identify Existing Programs/ Equipment/
Supplies
Prepare Contracts for Allied Agencies/
Organizations
Determine Phasing of Programs
Develop Work Schedules- Program Staff and
Develop Volunteers Program and Guidelines

APPENDIX A 29

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

9. SUPPORT SERVICES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

12. MOVE LOGISTICS

Establish Support Services Goals, Objectives
Determine Support Services Organization
Develop Facility Receiving Plan
Develop Food Services Plan
Determine Housekeeping Services Plan
Develop Sanitation and Safety Plan
Develop Commissary Plan
Develop Inmate Canteen Plan
Develop Mail/Communications/ Visiting Plan
Develop Laundry Services Plan
Develop Health Care Services Plan
Finalize Support Service Plans and New or
Amended Contracts As Applicable

10. CLASSIFICATION, INTAKE AND RELEASE
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Develop Intake/Release Plan
Develop Classification Goals and Objectives
(adapt current objective
classification system as appropriate)
Project Volumes of Prisoner Flows
Prepare/Amend Facility Classification Plan Related to New Design
Finalize Classification Plan
Determine Individual Housing Assignments

11. PHYSICAL PLANT SERVICES
1.

Develop/Review all Equipment Service Contracts
2. Establish Physical Plant Goals and Objectives
3. Determine Organization
4. Establish Staff Levels for Building Operations
5. Identify Necessary Equipment for Shop Operations
6. Develop Operation Plan
7. Recruit/Select Bldg. Maintenance Staff
8. Develop Maintenance Schedule for Building Operations
9. Develop Catalogue of all Equipment Manuals
10. Review Facility Furnishings, Fixtures &
Equipment for Non-contractor-provided FF&E
and Supplies Requirements
11. Inspect all Equipment Hook-Ups
12. Trial Tests on all Mechanical Systems and
Equipment Coordinated with Contractor/
Vendor-Supplied Training

Public Review Draft

1.
2.
3.

Establish Move Logistics Goals and Objectives
Determine Organization
Establish Inmate Movement Plan and Timetable
4. Identify Staff and Equipment Needs
5. Prepare Agreements for Equipment/ Supply
Movement
6. Develop Agreements With Other Agencies for
Assistance
7. Develop Written Plan/Process for Inmate
Movement
8. Train Staff on Movement Process
9. Orient Inmates to New Facility Procedures
10. Implement Movement of Inmates Into New
Facility

Carter Goble Associates

Exemplary Prisons Space Standard Sizes
For over 31 years CGA has been involved in prison
planning projects in 48 states and 13 countries, which
has given us a substantial variety of experience and
examples of what is needed to plan, design, build and
operate successful correctional facilities of all custody
types and sizes. In addition to the planning of hundreds of individual prison facilities and prison complexes that have ranged from 200 beds to 22,500 beds
our company has also been a consultant for the development of facility space standards for the American
Correctional Association, the States of Michigan, Tennessee, and South Carolina, the Singapore Prison Service, the Asian Development Bank and the Architect of
the Capitol for master planning the U.S. Congressional
Buildings.

Association’s minimum Standards for Adult Correctional Institutions 4th edition. To help readers of this
study understand the exemplary sizes of contemporary
prisons needed to comply with today’s security conditions and space standards a sample of the bed counts
and square footages for 20 different correctional facilities from throughout the U.S. are summarized below.
The last column notes if the facility’s initial construction included expanded or oversize support spaces to
allow the addition of beds without other construction
and if so how many beds would be supported.

The replacement of the Draper Prison complex will
require the construction of new facilities at sizes that
exceed the collective sizes of the now 50+ year old
Draper complex in order to meet today’s physical plant
standards including those of the American Correctional

Correctional Facilities
Built or In-Process Since 1992
(Initial Bed Capacity)

Sterling CF, Med Sec, CO (2,444)
Eldorado CF, Max Sec, KS (808)
Coyote Ridge CF, Med Sec, WA (2,176)
San Carlos SNF, MH/SOF, CO (248)
Multi-Custody CF, NE (960)
Men’s Medium Security CF, OR (1,614)
Southern State CF, Med Sec, VT (350)
Ellsworth CF, Med Sec, KS (352)
Las Colinas Women’s CF, CA (1,216)
Correctional Treatment F, DC (880)
Secure Treatment F, WI (300)
SCI Chester, Med Sec, PA (1,274)
SCC for Women, NV (168)
Colo. State Pen, Max Sec CO (504)
Max Security CC, IL (720)
Work Ethic Camp, Min Sec, NE (100)
Quehana Boot C, Min/Com Sec, PA (400)
Tri-Cities Work Rel, Min/Com Sec WA (40)
Women’s R&I Ctr, Multi Sec, OR (1,128)
Minimum Sec. CF, OR (400)
Averages (804)

Initial Gross
Square Feet

853,305
702,020
834,310
143,082
348,171
725,385
153,588
234,466
457,547
412,000
145,422
442,052
95,706
288,550
342,689
41,006
143,055
12,500
500,000
211,755
354,330

Gross
Square Feet
per Initial Bed

349
868
384
577
363
449
439
667
376
468
485
347
570
573
476
410
358
312
443
529
441

Expanded Support
Core
Space/ Beds

N/A
Yes/ 1,344
No
N/A
N/A
Yes/ 1,824
Yes/ 500
Yes/ 512
Yes/ 1,342
No
No
No
Yes/ 456
Yes/ 756
No
Yes/ 200
N/A
Yes/ 60
Yes/ 1,600
No
Yes/10 No6/+37%

Source: American Institute of Architects, Justice Facilities Reviews, 1992 to 2001 and Carter Goble Associates, Inc., projects from
1992 to 2001.

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX A 31

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

Square Footage Space Estimator
The following square footage estimators were used in
the five different Draper replacement models tested in
this Study. All estimators are in building gross square
feet. They are drawn from a combination of CGA’s experience and ACA Standards for Adult Correctional Institutions, 4th Edition.

Per Bed Space Estimators Used for Draper Replacements
Full
Full
Partial
Partial
Partial
Facility/ Function
4000 Bed 6000 Bed UDOC 1500 Bed 2200 Bed
Facility Support Cores
Male Maximum
65
115
n/a
n/a
n/a
Male Medium & Intake
85
120
n/a
n/a
n/a
Male Medium
85
120
145
n/a
n/a
Forensic Mental Health
95
125
85
95
125
Women's
75
125
95
95
125
Male Minimum Wk Rel.
65
110
160
65
110
Male Minimum THC
95
125
95
95
125
Centralized Functions
Complex Adm/Visit Ctr
8
8
n/a
8
8
Central Kitchen
6
6
n/a
6
6
Clinic & Infirmary
5
5
n/a
5
5
Industries Center
10
10
n/a
n/a
n/a
Central Laundry
1
1
n/a
1
1
Warehouse/Maint Unit
5
5
n/a
5
5
Central Plant (total lump sum)
10000
12000
n/a
5000
6000
Housing
Single-bunked cells
295
295
295
295
295
Sp. Mgt. cells
295
295
295
295
295
Double-bunked cells
175
175
175
175
175
50-bed Dorms
190
190
190
190
190

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX B 1

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

APPENDIX B
COMPLETE APPRAISAL
SUMMARY REPORT
Located at 14400 South Pony Express Road
Draper, Utah
EFFECTIVE APPRAISAL DATE:
August 17, 2005

Abstract: Under a full prison relocation,
current highest and best use is for residential development. For residential development, value estimates are $93 and
$72 million for “investment” and
“market” values, respectively. Programmed uses are based on a mix of office, industrial, business park, retail, residential and institutional development.
Programmed uses maximize potential
over the long term and are consistent with
Draper City planning goals.
“Market” value of full and partial relocations are $51 and $34 million, respectively. “Investment” value of full and
partial relocations are $77 and $49 million.

PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL
The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate market and investment values of the Draper Prison site under full and partial redevelopment scenarios.
DEFINITIONS
Market Value
The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive
and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer
and seller each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price
is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is consummation of a sale as of a specified date and passing of title from seller to
buyer under conditions whereby:
1. Buyer and seller are typically motivated;
2. Both parties are well-informed or well-advised and each acting in
what they consider their own best interest;
3. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;
4. Payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangement comparable thereto;
5. The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold
unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions
granted by anyone associated with the sale.1
The foregoing definition stipulates that value reflect cash or cash equivalent terms. The following elaborates on the concept of cash equivalency.
In applying this definition of market value, adjustments to the comparables must be made for special or creative financing or sales concessions.
No adjustments are necessary for those costs that are normally paid by
sellers as a result of tradition or law in a market area; these costs are
readily identifiable since the seller pays these costs in virtually all sales
transactions. Special or creative financing adjustments can be made to
the comparable property by comparison to financing terms offered by a
Public Review Draft

L.E.C.G.

third party financial institution that is not already involved in the property or transaction. Any adjustment
should not be calculated on a mechanical dollar for dollar cost of the financing or concession, but the dollar
amount of any adjustment should approximate the
market's reaction to the financing or concessions based
on the appraiser's judgment.2
Investment Value
“Investment value is defined as: “The specific value of
an investment to a particular investor or class of investors based on individual investment requirements; as
distinguished from market value, which is impersonal
and detached. 3
Complete Appraisal
“The act or process of developing an opinion of value
or an opinion of value developed without invoking the
Departure Rule. 4

sions. Supporting documentation is retained in the appraiser's file and is available to the client during regular
business hours, if required.
The subject comprises approximately 670 gross acres
and 1,093,893 square feet of special-purpose building
improvements and various site improvements including
asphalt, concrete, landscaping, lighting, fencing and
security. The improvements are not valued. Only a
land valuation is made. This is accomplished using a
discounted cash flow methodology that incorporates a
sales comparison approach to value the land under the
assumption of marketing in multiple development pods
of ±50 acres. Also taken into account is the cost of
spine infrastructure and other costs incurred in taking
the property to the status necessary to market as development pods. Net cash flows are then discounted to
present worth using an appropriate discount rate.
The valuation premises are as follows:

1. Full Relocation – Market Value - Current High-

Summary Appraisal Report

est and Best Use (residential)

2. Full Relocation – Investment Value - Current

“A written report prepared under Standards Rule 2-2
(b) or 8-2(b).” 5

Intended Use of the Report This report is intended to
assist the client with an Economic Feasibility Study
and to assist the State of Utah with planning matters.
Intended Users The intended users of this report are
the State of Utah Department of Facilities and Construction Management, Department of Administrative
Services and Department of Corrections.
Interest Valued Fee simple. Fee simple ownership is
defined as, "absolute ownership unencumbered by any
other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations
imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat. 6
Personal Property No personal property, FF&E, or intangibles are included in this valuation.
Effective Date of Appraisal August 17, 2005
Date Of The Report October 18, 2005
Scope This summary appraisal report is a brief recapitulation of the appraiser's data, analyses, and conclu-

4.
5.
6.

Highest and Best Use (residential).
Full Relocation – Market Value – Programmed
Uses (mixed-use).
Full Relocation – Investment Value – Programmed Uses (mixed-use).
Partial Relocation – Market Value – Programmed Uses (mixed-use).
Partial Relocation – Investment Value – Programmed Uses (mixed-use).

The value estimates are subject to assumptions and
limiting conditions contained in the report. Extraordinary assumptions and hypothetical conditions invoked
in this report are:
•

The concept of market value ties to highest and
best use of property. The immediate marketdriven highest and best use is different than the
desired long-term re-use. That is, the market
would quickly absorb this acreage at relatively
high prices for near-term residential development
in the event of a full relocation of the prison. However, residential housing alone, while potentially
maximizing present value, does not maximize community benefits or the long-term potential of the
property.

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX B 3

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

•

Related to the foregoing is the assumption that
necessary zoning is first procured and general development entitlements earned from the applicable
jurisdiction. The values therefore reflect the assumption of general entitlement.
Investment value is specific to the State of Utah.
The State of Utah has a AAA Bond Rating. The
current 10-year bond rate for AAA-rated borrowers
as of September 14, 2005 is 3.65 percent. This is
the State’s assumed cost of capital and the discount
rate used to calculate investment value.

discounted cash flow analysis involving sales comparison, cost and income approach techniques to
value the land.
Description Of Real Estate Appraised
Legal Description A legal description was obtained
from the Salt Lake County Recorder’s office and is reproduced in the addenda.
Real Estate Tax Information The subject is tax exempt. Assessed values for 2004 are summarized in the
following table.

Market value assumes a discount rate of 12 percent
which is market supported.
2004 REAL ESTATE TAX SUMMARY

•

The values assume a grade-separated interchange
will be provided at Bangerter Highway and 13800
South. Costs of construction have not been deducted from the estimated values on the assumption funds would come from other state and federal
agencies.
The values reflect land without building encumbrances. However, we have not deducted demolition costs which are currently estimated to approximate $6.6 million under the full relocation
alternative (as estimated by the engineering firm
DMJM).
The values do not consider the cost to retire debt
associated with the financing for energy improvements or the lease revenue bond that financed the
surplus property facility.

Appraisal Development and Reporting Process
In preparing this appraisal report, the appraisers:
•

inspected the subject site and building improvements;

•

reviewed proposed land use, development ratios
and absorption rates prepared by WEPC;

•

gathered information on zoning and master plans
of surrounding communities and comparable land
sales, and on market and investor (State of Utah)
conditions,

•

confirmed and analyzed the data and applied the

Tax I.D. Number
Market Value
Land
Improvements
Total
Taxable Value
Tax Rate
Indicated Taxes

33-01-300-005
$27,301,100
20,000,000
$47,301,100
$0
x 0.0150250
$0

Ownership and Property History According to Salt Lake
County records, current ownership is vested in the
name of the State Department of Administration and
Corrections Commission. According to Mr Greg Peay,
Facilities Manager at the Draper Prison, prison improvements were constructed beginning in 1948, continuing with expansion, remodeling and improvement
through to the present. There have been no ownership
changes during this time period.
Location and Neighborhood Please see the neighborhood
map in the addenda on which the project area is identified.
•

Public Review Draft

Jurisdiction and Proximity. The subject is located
within the corporate jurisdiction of Draper City in
Salt Lake County, at the southwest corner of the
city. The Salt Lake International Airport is
roughly 22 miles northwest, and the Central Business District of Salt Lake City is approximately 19
miles north. Draper City offices are to the northeast about three miles. Draper City is bounded by
Sandy and South Jordan to the north, Riverton
and Bluffdale to the west, and unincorporated Salt
Lake County to the south and east. There is an

L.E.C.G.

Interstate-15 interchange less than one-quarter
mile north of the subject via Bangerter Highway
and a second interchange at 14600 South, at the
south end of the subject property. Bangerter Highway is accessed at I-15, 200 West, and Redwood
Road. There is a proposed access at 13800 South.
•

Boundaries and Neighborhood Land Use. A
neighborhood can be defined as, "...a portion of a
larger community, or an entire community, in
which there is homogeneous grouping of inhabitants, buildings, or business enterprises." ...Neighborhood boundaries may consist of
well defined natural or man-made barriers or they
can be more or less well defined by a distinct
change in land use... 7
Based on the foregoing definition, neighborhood
boundaries are considered to be roughly the Draper
City limits to the north and south, which extend
from 11400 South to the Point of the Mountain.
The west boundary is the Jordan River and the
east boundary is approximately 700 East. Major
traffic thoroughfares in the area are I-15, 12300
South, Bangerter Highway, 14600 South
(Highland Drive), State Street which turns into the
east frontage road, as well as 700 East.
Land uses adjacent to the subject are as follows.
To the north is 13800 South, followed by vacant
land, Bangerter Highway, limited commercial and
industrial uses with multifamily residential and
single-family residential further north. To the
south is 14600 South, South Springs and Center
Point Industrial Parks and vacant land. Independence at Bluffdale, a ±800 acre mixed-use project is
located roughly one-half mile south. This project is
currently in the approval phase and will include
approximately 3,500 residential units, 18 acres of
neighborhood commercial development and 20
acres of regional commercial uses. To the east is I15 followed by the Prison Administration Building,
the Fred House Training Academy, Boondocks
Amusement Park, and various commercial properties along Minuteman Drive. Multifamily and single-family uses are further south and east at Traverse Mountain, South Pointe, SunCrest, Traverse
Ridge, and in various smaller projects. Further
south on I-15 are gravel mining and cement plant
operations. To the west of the prison is a rail corri-

dor (proposed commuter rail station at ±14000
South), a state-owned corridor for the Jordan
River Parkway, and Spring View Farms, a
mixed-density single-family residential development currently under construction.
In addition to Spring View Farms and Independence at Bluffdale, other recent market activity
west of I-15 includes the speculative sale of several commercial and light industrial parcels of
land north of the subject, along the I-15 and
Bangerter Highway frontage and sale of industrial land at the southwest corner of the subject
property. Mr. Wayne Whetman, a Realtor with
experience in the area, reported that buyers and
sellers of land along the west I-15 and Bangerter
Highway frontage foresee a shift from industrial
to more commercial uses. Also rumored is a potential location for an IKEA store, approximately one-half mile north of the prison. IKEA
has several other sites under contract, including
one at the Lehi exit, roughly five miles south of
the 14600 interchange. The Lehi exit is the entrance to the Traverse Mountain community as
well as the location of the new Cabela’s.
Mr. Grant Crowell, Draper City Planning Department, reported that under either full or partial
relocation, the city would like to see mixed-use
development at the prison consisting of commercial, office, and industrial development. This is
also the intention of areas of the Land Use Map
of the General Plan of Draper City designated as
“Growth Areas”. In the neighborhood of the
prison these areas are located southeast across I15 and north of 13400 South on the west side of
I-15. Crowell reported that for both of these
Growth Areas as well as for potential prison site
redevelopment, they would likely only allow residential uses if commercial, office and industrial
uses were proven unviable.
Draper has seen a significant amount of new residential development over the past decade. It has
been one of the fastest growing cities in the state
for the past several years on a population basis.
The surge in residential growth has spurred the
recent commercial boom being experienced along
12300 South, east and west of I-15. New residential growth has occurred primarily east of I-15.

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX B 5

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

New residential development west of I-15 is also
occurring but on a smaller scale.
With this growth, Draper City has emerged from
an agrarian community to a bedroom community
of Salt Lake. Residential development has included high-end homes with Draper City having
the third highest average home price in the state,
behind Park City and Salt Lake Avenues areas.
There are still ample amounts of vacant land for
development from agriculture to both residential
and commercial uses in the area surrounding the
prison. In the Draper neighborhood commercial
uses have developed at the 12300 South interchange and along Minuteman Drive. Commercial
development is expected in the near-term at 11800
South and State Street. West of I-15 at 12300
South and along Pony Express Drive development
is more industrial in nature, although real estate
agents report recent interest from commercial tenants. Residential development is occurring
throughout east Draper and into Utah County, at
SunCrest, Traverse Mountain (Lehi), Traverse
Ridge, South Mountain, South Pointe, etc. Except
for South Pointe, these are single-family detached
neighborhoods approved for eventual build-out of
some 14,000 units. South Pointe currently has approval for over 500 multifamily units. There is a
neighborhood retail center and office development
proposed at Highland Drive and Traverse Ridge
Road, but to date no anchor tenant has been secured.
•

rior locations. They see the prison as a premier
commercial location and do not want to lose the
opportunity for increasing their tax base.
•

Accessibility. The subject has frontage along Pony
Express Road, 13800 South, 14600 South and
Bangerter Highway. Access to Interstate-15 is
at14600 South Street, immediately south of the
subject and at Bangerter Highway which is north
of the subject. Pony Express Road connects with
14600 South to the south and 13800 South Street
to the north. Bangerter Highway connects to
13800 South Street by 200 West Street.
In concert with the subject economic feasibility
study, an interchange is suggested at 13800 South
and Bangerter Highway. At Bangerter Highway
and ±14000 South, along the west property line rail
corridor, UTA is considering a commuter rail station. Commuter rail is still in the planning stages
and location of a station at the prison site is dependent upon other station locations along the line.
As of this report date, no station site selection has
been made.

•

Age/Life Trend. As noted, Draper has experienced
a surge in growth in residential development for
several years. This has spurred the new commercial development that is now occurring primarily
near the 12300 South interchange. Older establishments are being completely razed to allow new
commercial development. Numerous new residential communities have been constructed over the
past several years which has led to a need for support services. Land at the 14600 South and
Bangerter Highway interchange is expected to be
developed to commercial use in the near future as
well. Regarding the prison site, Crowell reported
that the city would most likely encourage commercial development along the I-15 corridor with lower
density office and industrial uses toward the inte-

Public Review Draft

Influences. The subject area is positively influenced by the continued growing residential base of
the south valley and growing commercial development at 12300 South, at the Lehi exit to the south
and proposed commercial development in the
South Pointe and Independence at Bluffdale developments. These projects are east and west of I-15
at 14600 South, respectively. The close proximity
of I-15 and Bangerter Highway are positive factors
as well.
Our research revealed that the prison is perceived
as a negative influence to residential development.
It was reported that IKEA briefly considered a site
immediately north of the prison which was eliminated due to potential locational identification
with the prison. Other industry participants generally see the prison’s influence on retail, industrial,
or office development as essentially neutral. They
opine that as the area is developed the prison will
become “hidden” within other uses. No other
negative influences were noted.

L.E.C.G.

Description of Improvements
Improvements are not valued in this appraisal and a
detailed description is not provided. However, the facilities are briefly identified.
Construction on the prison was begun in ±1948 and has
continued with expansion, remodeling, and maintenance through to the present. There are 1,093,893
square feet of building area and significant site improvements including landscaping, asphalt surfacing,
concrete, interior and perimeter fencing and various
security features.
The primary facilities are described below.
Lone Peak is a Class “S” metal building constructed in
2000. It is a minimum security facility that is demised
into ten 30-bed dormitories.
Promontory Facility is a 400 bed, medium security facility. The building is a Class “A” and “C” dorm style
structure constructed in 1995.
Timpanogos Facility (North Point) comprises the
Olympus Facility (forensic mental health), four housing buildings (Star 1-4), and two administration and
operations buildings. These are Class “C” concrete
buildings that were constructed from 1983 to 1985.
These are medium and maximum security facilities
with a total of 288 double-bunk housing cells. Additional buildings in the vicinity of this facility include a
tower/warehouse, various modulars, and Utah Correctional Industries (“UCI”) buildings.
South Point Facilities include Uinta, Wasatch, Oquirrh,
and SSD housing units as well as gate houses, control
tower, UCI buildings, chapel, administrative, and shop
and maintenance buildings. Additional buildings in
the vicinity of the South Point Facility include warehouse, garages, towers, administrative buildings, carport, geothermal well building, Utah Rose’s, fish
hatchery buildings, and miscellaneous agricultural
buildings.

The Wasatch Facility was constructed between 1948
and 1977 and is a medium security facility of Class
“B” construction components.
The Oquirrh Facility was constructed between 1967
and 1987. It is of Class “B” (concrete frame) construction components. It is a medium security facility.
SSD Housing is a Class “C” dormitory building constructed in 1959.
Property Description
The Utah State Department of Facilities and Construction Management (“DFCM”) provided WEPC
an Alta Survey prepared by APEX Land Surveyors
of Orem, Utah. This survey shows the subject comprises 609 acres southeast of Bangerter Highway and
64 acres northwest of Bangerter Highway for a total
of 673 acres. This acreage, rounded to 670 acres,
provides the basis for the net sizes of the full and partial relocations. A copy of the Boundaries for Prison
Relocation map is presented in the addenda. The
Salt Lake County Assessor’s Office plat map and legal description are also presented in the addenda.
The county identifies the subject as totaling 689.23
acres. This differs from the Alta Survey by 16.23
acres. For this report, we have utilized 670 acres
which is consistent with DFCM and WEPC. The 670
gross acre figure does not include deductions for
roads, infrastructure and open space. Below is the
proposed development breakdown under highest and
best use and under full and partial relocation scenarios prepared by WEPC and utilized as the basis for
the programmed uses valuation estimates concluded
in this report.
Development Program for Highest and Best Use
Land Use
Single-family

Units
2,500

Multifamily-16

3,000

Regional retail

The Uinta Facility was constructed between 1968 and
1998 and is a maximum security facility of Class “B”
construction components.

Square
Feet

183
150,000

Trunk road system
Total

Public Review Draft

Gross
Acreage
416

24
47

5,500

150,000

670

APPENDIX B 7

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

Development Program For Full Relocation
Land Use
Commuter Rail Station

Units

Square
Feet

Gross
Acreage
14

Institutional
Mixed Use
Multifamily – 16

14
150

120,000

3,000

Neighborhood Retail

21
176

85,000

General Office

1,100,000

Regional Retail

175,000

Single-family

550

Light Industrial/Business
Park
Trunk Road System
Total

92
2,000,000

3,480,000

670

Development Program For Partial Relocation
Land Use
Commuter Rail Station

Units

Light Industrial
Multifamily – 16

Square
Feet
n/a

Gross
Acreage
15

1,500,000

104

1,300

Neighborhood Retail

82
50,000

General Office

1,500,000

134

Business Park

1,000,000

Trunk Road System

Subtotal

480

Prison
Total

1,300

There are two major easements across the property: a
50-foot wide 45,000 volt power line easement and a
high-pressure gas pipeline easement. In addition, the
Jordan and Salt Lake Canal transects the property just
south of 13800 South Street and the East Jordan Canal
crosses the southeast quadrant of the subject, just
southeast of the South Point facility.

156
70

3,700

Highway at roughly 13800 South. All utilities are
available in surrounding streets. There is a 24,000 volt
substation on the prison property. The property
gradually slopes westerly toward the Jordan River and
is generally below the grade of abutting I-15 and
Bangerter Highway.

n/a

190

4,050,000

670

These tables show a gross area at 670 acres. Sales of
development pods exclude land taken for spine infrastructure (trunk and road system). Pod buyers would
be responsible for interior roads and open space requirements. Therefore, sellable land would comprise
600 acres for full relocation and 440 acres for a partial
relocation.
The subject tract is irregular in shape. It has frontage
and access on 13800 South, 14600 South and Pony Express Road. It has frontage but no access on I-15. For
programmed uses, this report assumes the subject will
have a grade-separated interchange with Bangerter

The subject is a large site with limited interior infrastructure. Sewer, water, electricity, and natural gas are
available at the perimeter and service the subject at a
few interior locations. There are limited interior
streets. For programmed uses, this report assumes that
a grade-separated interchange at Bangerter Highway
and 13800 South will be constructed using funds not
related to this project.
The subject is currently zoned M-1 under the jurisdiction of Draper City. This report assumes a zoning
change to accommodate a mix of uses as detailed in the
WEPC development scenarios tables presented above.
Water Rights and Shares The Department of Corrections owns 545 shares (.8 acre feet per share) of Draper
Irrigation Company water which provides irrigation
water between April 15th and October 15th annually.
According to Dave Gardiner of Draper Irrigation they
are a mutual water company and the company has the
first right-of-refusal to purchase all shares that become
available on the market. Currently they are buying
shares for $700 and selling shares for $1,000. Based on
this, the current value of the prison’s Draper Irrigation
shares is $381,500. The prison also owns 331 shares
(1,602 acre feet) of East Jordan Canal Company water
that is also available from April 15th to October 15th
annually. This water has an estimated value of $3,750
per share or $1,241,250. Finally, the prison has a contract with Jordan Valley Water Conservancy; however,
this is not assignable.

Public Review Draft

L.E.C.G.

Water Rights No.
Application/Claim No.
Change Application No.

Owner
Address
Type of Right
Source
Flow

Description

57-8412
A52451
A14232
State of Utah Division of
Facilities Construction and
Manage, Attn: Real
Property Manager
4110 South State Salt Lake
City UT 84114
Application to Appropriate
Underground Water Well
1.56 cfs
Geothermal: heating of
Utah State Prison Buildings
and fish culture

57-8313
A49831
-

State of Utah Department
of Corrections
P.O. Box 487 Draper UT
84020
Application to Appropriate
Underground Water Well
1.2 cfs
Domestic: 1,300 persons
and commercial: dairy &
meat processing plant

A summary of the geothermal rights and domestic
use rights from the State of Utah are presented in the
table above.

sion of Water Rights is not closed to appropriation for
use of the water, a maximum fee of $500 would be assessed for a drill permit. Therefore, we conclude the
value of the existing geothermal water right to be $500.
The prison has a 500-foot well and pump which is valued at $17,500. Total value of the geothermal water
rights, well and pump is estimated at $18,000.
Water Right No. 57-8313 provides water for 1,300 persons as well as use for a dairy and meat processing
plant. The water is available from January 1 to December 31. A total of 117 acre feet is estimated. Value
is estimated at $2,500 per acre foot based on water
sales data we have on file. This equates to $292,500.

Water Right No. 57-8412 provides a right to use underground water (fluid) as a conductor
of heat (resource). This right does not
Site Name
allow the consumption of any water.
Address
The prison only “uses” the water but
No. of tank
must return it to the same source from
DERR ID
in Use
which it was taken. The prison priority Currently
Tank ID
date allows that return to be made at
Substance Stored
Date Installed
the surface, hence, the current cooling
Tank ID
ponds. The Utah Division of Water
Substance Stored
Date Installed
Rights issues a right to use the water;
Tank ID
they do not issue, nor are they owners
Substance Stored
Date Installed
or appropriators of the heat. Thus,
Permanently Out of Use
while the entire Salt Lake Valley is
Tank ID
Substance Stored
closed to new appropriations of water,
Date Installed
since there is no water consumption, a
Date Closed
Corrective Action
new water right appropriation to only
required before closure
use and not consume would likely be
Tank ID
Substance Stored
granted.
The Utah Division of Water Rights requires a permit to drill a well for use of
geothermal water only to monitor the
use and full return of the water. Under
conditions where a “closed loop” system
is used to conduct the heat, a drill permit is required to make sure the system
does not consume any water. Where a
shallow surface grid system is used, no
Division of Water Rights permits are
required. That being said, it is still a
fact that the prison (State Department
of Corrections), owns and could sell this
water right. However, where the Divi-

LUST Release
Date Installed
Date Closed

Closure Description
Current Status
Site Description
Tank ID
Substance Stored
LUST Release
Date Installed
Date Closed

Closure Description
Current Status
Site Description

Bluffdale Prison
M otor Pool
14400 South Pony
Express Road
7
4001130
3
1
Diesel
9/1/1994
2
Gasoline
9/1/1994
9
Used Oil
12/16/1998

Utah State Prison
Oquirrh Gen.
14425 South
Bitterbrush Lane
2
4001781
1
2
Diesel
10/26/1998

Utah State Prison
North Gate
14425 South
Bitterbrush Lane
2
4001782
1
2
Diesel
10/26/1998

Utah State Prison
Unit 4A Maximum
Security
14400 South State
1
4002081
1
1
Diesel
9/27/1996

1
1
Diesel
1/1/1987
10/29/1998
4
6
Used Oil
KRQ
1/1/1989
10/26/1998
Tank Removed,
Permanantly out of
use
No further action
dated 1/7/1999*
Internal Close**
3, 7 and 8
Gasoline
ISD
1/1/1985
8/30/1994
Tank Removed,
Permanantly out of
use
No further action
Over filled

1
1
Diesel
KVB
10/27/1986
10/18/1999
Removed,
Permanently out of
use
No further action
dated 11/1/1999
Release of
Petroleum

* any detectable petroleum contamination at the site is not a threat to human health or the environmental as characterized using State
Underground Storage Tank Rules.
** from Jason Wilde and Dianna Rasmussen

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX B 9

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

•

Environmental Status Review. As requested by
the Division of Facilities and Construction Management, we have investigated the environmental
(contamination) history of the prison site through
the Utah State Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ), Division of Environmental Response and Remediation. A summary of
“open” (current) tank sites identified by DEQ is
shown below. Based on our review of DEQ information it does not appear that there are any active
environmental issues at the subject property.

The four tests of highest and best use are applied to the
full and partial relocation scenarios below.
As Vacant
•

Both of these are large sites and can easily accommodate a mix of uses. Access, frontage and exposure are good and all utilities are available. Soil
stability appears adequate. Extending through the
property is a high voltage overhead power corridor,
a high pressure natural gas transmission line and
the Jordan and Salt Lake and East Jordan Canals.
These are not overwhelming development challenges but do require consideration in site planning
and potentially may reduce site efficiency. Given
the amount of open space and roadways assumed,
it is probable these could be incorporated into nonsellable areas. Additional physical features include
a geothermal well, water rights and shares and potential wetlands. These factors are typical of land
in the area.

Wetlands. From our physical inspection of the
property there appears to be some “wet” areas, including geothermal pools and ditches. These are
probably minor and could be incorporated into
open space in all likelihood.

Highest And Best Use
Highest and best use is defined as, "...the reasonably
probable and legal use of vacant land or improved
property, which is physically possible, appropriately
supported, financially feasible, and that results in the
highest value." 8
There are four tests of highest and best use implicit
within the foregoing definitions. These include: (1)
physically possible, (2) legally permitted, (3) financially feasible, and (4) that use which having met the
foregoing tests results in the highest present land value.

•

Legally Permitted. The subject is currently zoned
M-1; however, M-1 is not considered terminal zoning. Under current market conditions, buyers
would most likely propose residential zoning. Under programmed uses rezoning to a mix of office,
business park, industrial, institutional, retail, and
residential is likely. Immediately surrounding development is predominantly vacant land with a
mix of industrial and low density commercial to the
north and industrial and the proposed commercial
portion of Independence at Bluffdale to the south.
I-15 and low density commercial and industrial
uses are east along the I-15 frontage and vacant
land and Spring View Farms are to the west. A
mix of uses is consistent with parcel size and surrounding uses.

•

Economically Feasible. Economic feasibility involves a number of factors, including existing and
future supply and demand for a given use, investment cost of the property, availability of affordable
financing, and developer expertise. All uses, in-

Highest and best use is typically considered as if the
land were vacant and available for development. For
this report, in addition to current value based on a
market-driven highest and best use, we have estimated
value based on programmed land use and absorption
from economic models prepared by WEPC.
The economic model for full relocation involves 600
sellable acres and a mix of uses including commuter rail
station, institutional, light industrial, business park
and general office, mixed-use, multifamily and singlefamily residential, neighborhood and regional retail.
Under partial relocation the South Point facility will
remain and the gross land area is reduced to 440 acres.
Uses include commuter rail station, light industrial,
business park and general office, multifamily and
neighborhood retail.

Physically Suitable. The subject will comprise either 600 or 440 sellable acres (net of spine infrastructure that will have to be installed, including
three to four perimeter-connecting interior streets
and utility main lines).

Public Review Draft

L.E.C.G.

cluding those proposed by WEPC and/or full build
out as residential development, are assumed to be
economically viable. However, a predominately
residential use results in the highest present value.

Retail Pod Values The sales comparison approach is
used to value the retail pods. This approach is based
on the appraisal principle of substitution and takes
into consideration the selling price of other parcels of
land which provide utility equal or similar to the subject. Comparative adjustments are made for variances to arrive at a value estimate for the subject.
Current highest and best use is concluded to be for
residential development. Programmed uses include
some or all of a commuter rail station, institutional,
light industrial, mixed use, multi- and single-family
residential, neighborhood and regional retail, general
office and business park. Given the long-term forecast build-out, general similarity of class of use, locational features (frontage, exposure, access), density
and size of pods, we have grouped or included land
uses into the following categories.

Based on these value conclusions, highest and best use
is concluded to be for predominately residential development.
Summary of Analysis and Valuation
Land Valuation The land is valued uing a discounted
cash flow model. The steps of the approach are:
1. Estimate the retail value of development pods,
served only by spine infrastructure, that can accommodate either one or multiple land uses;
2. Project an absorption period for sell-out of the
pods;
3. Project market conditions adjustment;
4. Deduct development costs:
a. Spine infrastructure
b. Marketing Costs
c. Carrying Costs
d. Closing Costs
e. Profit
5. Estimate an appropriate yield rate and discount
net cash flows to present value.

• Land Use I: Office, Industrial and Business

Park
•

Land Use II: Multifamily, single-family,
mixed use, neighborhood commercial, institutional and commuter rail

A search for recent land sales resulted in the data
summarized in the tables in the following sections.

OFFICE-BUSINESS PARK-LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LAND ADJUSTMENT GRID
ADDRESS

SUBJECT

ONE

TWO

14400 South Pony
Express Road

4448 South
6400 West

1300 South
5600 West

AREA (ACRE)
SALE PRICE

THREE

FOUR

4898 West
924 West
2100 South 14600 South

FIVE

SIX

SEVEN

EIGHT

2125 South
Constitution Blvd

290 South
5600 West

13553 South
Pony Express

9450 South
300 West

NINE

TEN

13800 South
774 West
Pony Express 10000 South

Draper

West Valley

SLC

Bluffdale

West Valley

SLC

Draper

Sandy

Draper

±50 acres
--

115.86

168.25

138.38

38.50

27.79

61.94

12.98

11.76

11.73

15.98

$4,981,980

$3,588,405

$2,626,000

$5,531,297

$2,262,000

$2,300,000

$3,000,000

$3,828,488

Mar-04

Dec-04

Jun-05

Jul-05

Apr-05

May-05

Mar-04

Jul-05

Jan-03

O/BP/LI

M-1

Lt Ind

M-1

I-F

$43,000

$60,984

$59,257

$93,208

$94,494

$89,298

$174,268

$195,578

$255,689

$239,580

SALE DATE
ZONING
SALES PRICE/Acre
PROPERTY RIGHTS
ADJUSTED PRICE
FINANCING TERMS
ADJUSTED PRICE

CONDITIONS OF SALE
NORMAL PRICE/Acre
EXP. AFTER SALE
ADJUSTED PRICE
MARKET (TIME) ADJ.
MARKET PRICE/Acre
ADJUSTMENTS
Location
Size

$10,260,558 $8,200,000

South Jordan

$43,000

$60,984

$59,257

$93,208

$94,494

$89,298

$174,268

$195,578

$255,689

$239,580

$43,000

$60,984

$59,257

$93,208

$94,494

$89,298

$174,268

$195,578

$255,689

$239,580

$43,000

$60,984

$59,257

$93,208

$94,494

$89,298

$174,268

$195,578

$255,689

$239,580

$43,000

$60,984

$59,257

$93,208

$94,494

$89,298

$174,268

$195,578

$255,689

$239,580

36%

20%

36%

$58,621

$73,415

$62,423

$95,430

$103,348

$96,344

$189,021

$266,629

$259,682

$326,616

+++

28%

35%

32%

-37%

-38%

-30%

-34%

Functional Utility

Utilities

Density
Total Quantitative Adjustments
Total Qualitative Adjustments
NET ADJUSTED PRICE
ADJUSTED AVERAGE/ACRE

28%

35%

32%

-37%

-38%

-30%

-34%

$75,035

$99,110

$82,398

$95,430

$103,348

$96,344

$119,083

$165,310

$181,777

$215,567

$123,340

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX B 11

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

south of the Bangerter Highway interchange on
200 West. Recall this analysis assumes a grade
separated interchange at ±13800 and Bangerter as
well as extension of a framework of interior roads.
Access and exposure are excellent. Surrounding
development includes large projects such as Independence at Bluffdale to the south, Spring View
Farms to the west, and the South Mountain, SunCrest, Traverse Mountain, etc. projects to the
southeast. In addition there is a successful industrial market to the southwest and a growing light
industrial and commercial market moving in from
the north.

Land Use I: (Office, Industrial and Business Park)
Before adjustments are applied, the foregoing data indicate a value range from $43,000 to $255,689 per acre.
Land price variances are normally attributed to seven
factors: property rights conveyed, financing terms,
conditions of sale, market conditions (date of sale), location, physical factors and use (density). Each factor
is discussed below.
•

Property Rights Conveyed. All of the sales involved the conveyance of fee simple ownership. No
adjustment is necessary.

•

Financing Terms. All transactions involved cash
or cash equivalent terms. No adjustment is needed.

•

Conditions of Sale. The transactions are reported
to be arm’s-length requiring no adjustments.

•

Market Conditions (Date of Appraisal). The increase in land values experienced in Salt Lake
County in the mid- and later 1990s slowed in the
early 2000s as the economy slowed. However, over
the past year the demand and prices for welllocated, easily accessible land has increased significantly. This has resulted in upward pressure on
land values in the subject neighborhood. A paired
sales analysis is made between Sales #8 and #9.
Both are similar in size and are located just west of
I-15. Over a 16-month period they show a 31 percent price increase or nearly two percent per
month. Sale #5 sold in August 2004 for $51,277
per acre and again in April 2005 for $95,494 per
acre. Even after downward adjustments to the
April sale for site work, engineering, and entitlement, a roughly seven percent monthly price increase is noted. Realtors report a significant increase in prices in the past year, several reporting
prices nearly doubling. The subject market is currently very active. Except for Sale #10, all of the
comparables transacted in 2004 and 2005. A 2.5
percent monthly increase in prices averages 30 percent annually. This is applied to all sales beginning
in June 2004.

Sale #1 is far to the west in the Salt Lake Valley.
I-80 is roughly six miles north and I-215 is five
miles west. It does not front any major traffic corridor. Significant upward adjustment is required.
Sales #2, #3, #4, #5, and #6 have good frontage
and access on a major traffic corridor; although in
all cases these features are inferior to the subject.
Surrounding development is generally in the development stages as these sites are located in the path
of growth. Small upward adjustment is warranted.
Sales #7, #8, #9, and #10 have good exposure and
access from I-15. Sales #7 and #9 are in the immediate neighborhood, just north of the subject. Sale
#10 is just west of the Sandy Civic Center and
South Towne Mall area. No adjustments are necessary.
•

Location. This refers to exposure, access, surrounding development as well as the overall perceptions of an area. The subject is very well located between two I-15 interchanges and is just

Public Review Draft

Physical Characteristics. This refers to parcel size,
functional utility, availability of utilities and infrastructure. Each factor is discussed separately below.
Size: The comparables range from 11.73 acres to
168.25 acres. The subject will be subdivided into
“super pads” which will average 50 acres. After
adjustments for market conditions, Sales #2 and
#6 show a 45 percent increase in the per acre price
where the total site size decreased 63 percent or 0.7
percent decrease in price for each one percent increase in size. Sales #3 and #5, adjusted only for
time show a 38 percent decrease in per acre price
where size decreases 80 percent, or roughly 0.5 percent decrease in price for each one percent increase
in size. Fifty-acre sites which are proposed at the

L.E.C.G.

subject, are mid-range of all the sales. A 0.5 percent adjustment in price per acre is made for each
one percent change in size.

•

Functional Utility The subject will be cleared of
the existing buildings and improved with a spine of
interior roads. Overall topography is unremarkable. There are surface-expressed geothermal pools
that would require monitoring and may result in
some wetlands dedication. There are two canals
that cross the property, a high-voltage power corridor and natural gas high pressure pipeline. These
are not insurmountable challenges, nevertheless all
of the comparables are considered superior to the
subject and downward adjustment is made. Water
and geothermal rights and water shares were discussed earlier in this report.

Land Use II: Multifamily, single-family, mixed use,
neighborhood commercial, institutional and commuter rail

Utilities All utilities are available to the subject.
This is the case with all of the sales except Sale #3
where some utilities had to be extended. In this
case an upward adjustment is made.
•

Value Conclusion. Sales #1 through #6 are industrial uses and indicate a value range at or
above $95,000 to $103,000 when considering both
quantitative and qualitative adjustments. Current value of industrial-use ground is concluded
at $100,000 per acre for large pods. Sales #7, #8,
#9, and #10 are in office locations, have surrounding office development or are proposed for
office uses. After adjustments these comparables
indicate a value below $150,000 to $175,000 per
acre. A value of $165,000 per acre is concluded.
Business Park land is a hybrid of these two uses
and a value of $130,000 per acre is reasonably
projected.

This is analyzed in two density sections. Below is the
first section which addresses the multifamily density
of 16 units per acre. This is followed by the singlefamily section which estimates value based on a density of 6 units per acre.

Use/Density. The sale comparables utilized include
industrial, office park and business park uses. No
adjustment is made. This factor is considered in
the reconciliation and final value conclusions to
follow.

RESIDENTIAL, MIXED-USE, RETAIL, INSTITUTIONAL, COMMUTER RAIL
SUBJECT

14400 South Pony
Express Road

65 East
Highland Dr

6755 South
950 East

3800 West
7000 South

3100 South
1600 West

2800 South
5600 West

1300 West
14000 South

3295 West
8600 South

15000 South
300 East

7000 West

7000 South
700 West

Draper

Midvale

W. Jordan

West Valley

Bluffdale

W. Jordan

Draper

W Jordan

Midvale

±50 acres
--

40.12

6.29

10.00

17.75

18.90

9.64

35.72

29.42

15.76

130.00

$4,429,000

$2,024,553

$2,300,000

$2,431,000

$3,785,000

$1,260,000

$4,260,000

$2,900,000

$2,585,000

$29,900,000

SALE DATE

Jan-03

Feb-04

Nov-03

Mar-01

Mar-03

Apr-02

Jan-05

Nov-02

Sep-03

U.C.

DENSITY/AC

13.4

12.4

17.7

12.1

3.6

PRICE/UNIT

$9,199

$24,020

$11,500

$11,045

$11,314

$10,892

$9,856

$27,381

$27,337

$11,500

ADDRESS

AREA (ACRE)
SALE PRICE

ZONING

MF-SF-Retail, etc.

SALES PRICE/ACRE
PROPERTY RIGHTS
ADJUSTED PRICE
FINANCING TERMS
ADJUSTED PRICE
CONDITIONS OF SALE
NORMAL PRICE/ACRE
EXP. AFTER SALE
ADJUSTED PRICE
MARKET (TIME) ADJ.
MARKET PRICE/SCRE
ADJUSTMENTS
Location
Size

19
± 8000 South

A-1

RM-25

A-1

R-M

M-1

R-MF

R-3

P-C

PUD

$110,394

$321,869

$230,000

$136,958

$200,265

$130,705

$119,261

$98,572

$164,023

$230,000

$110,394

$321,869

$230,000

$136,958

$200,265

$130,705

$119,261

$98,572

$164,023

$230,000

$110,394

$321,869

$230,000

$136,958

$200,265

$130,705

$119,261

$98,572

$164,023

$230,000

$110,394

$321,869

$230,000

$136,958

$200,265

$130,705

$119,261

$98,572

$164,023

$230,000

$110,394

$321,869

$230,000

$136,958

$200,265

$130,705

$119,261

$98,572

$164,023

$230,000

15%

$126,953

$370,149

$264,500

$157,501

$230,304

$150,311

$137,150

$113,358

$188,626

$230,000

-10%

-5%

-10%

-5%

10%

Functional Utility

10%

Utilities

Entitlement

13%

-9%

-3%

10%

13%

43%

22%

-7%

Total Quantitative Adjustments

18%

-7%

-19%

-8%

23%

43%

17%

Total Qualitative Adjustments

---

$149,170

$344,238

$213,187

$162,699

$211,880

$150,311

$168,146

$162,102

$220,315

$236,900

Density

NET ADJUSTED PRICE

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX B 13

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

16 units per acre

per acre at $14,500 per unit and a 17-acre parcel
with potential for 27 units per acre at $12,800 per
unit. These two sales seem to indicate current upward movement in prices in this sector. After adjusting for size, Sale #20 also results in some recent
increase in selling prices. Comparing the confidential 10-acre contract reported above with Sale #13
indicates a 26 percent increase over the past two
years. Given the lack of price increases noted by
the comparable sales, it is reasonable to say the
entire 26 percent increase has occurred within the
past few months.

Before adjustments are applied, the foregoing data indicate a value range from $98,572 to $321,869 per acre
or from $9,199 to $27,381 per unit. Land price variances are normally attributed to seven factors: property rights conveyed, financing terms, conditions of
sale, market conditions (date of sale), location, physical
factors and use (density). Each factor is discussed below.
•

Property Rights Conveyed. All of the sales involved the conveyance of fee simple ownership. No
adjustment is necessary.

•

Financing Terms. All transactions involved cash
or cash equivalent terms. No adjustment is needed.

•

Conditions of Sale. The transactions are reported
to be arm’s-length requiring no adjustments.

•

Market Conditions (Date of Appraisal). The increase in land values experienced in Salt Lake
County in the mid and later 1990s slowed in the
early 2000s as the economy slowed. However, over
the past year the demand and prices for most commercial real estate sectors have increased significantly. For the multifamily sector, this increase
has been only modest at best. Realtors and market
investors report flat rental rates and increasing
construction costs have kept downward pressure on
this sector of the market.

In summary, the multifamily land market has remained stable over the past three years as vacancies which peaked in 2002 have decreased slowly,
lease rates have remained flat and construction
costs have increased. The comparable data shows
stable land prices; however, market participants
indicate more current interest in this sector of the
market at higher prices. Based on this analysis,
except for Sale #20 which is not closed, a 15 percent upward adjustment is made to all of the sales.
•

The comparable sales likewise reflect flat to modestly increasing selling prices. For instance, Sales
#11, #14, #16, and #17 all have a density of approximately 12 units per acre and have sale dates
ranging from March 2001 to January 2005. For
these sales selling prices range from $9,199 to
$11,045 per unit, with the oldest sale reflecting the
highest price. Sale #20 is a proposed 130-acre multifamily project at 7000 South and 700 West that is
currently under contract for $11,500 per unit at a
density of 20 units per acre. Prior to any adjustment for size, this is essentially the same as the per
unit price of Sales #13 and #15, sales which transacted roughly two years ago. However, realtors
reported two other under contract transactions
that we were asked to keep confidential that include a 10 acre parcel with potential for 20 units

Public Review Draft

Location
Sales #11 and #18 are on the east side of I-15, just
south of the subject. This is the South Pointe, SunCrest, Traverse Ridge, Traverse Mountain, South
Mountain, etc. side of the freeway. Downward adjustment is warranted.
Sale #12 is an in-fill parcel in east Midvale. It has
good freeway access and is superior in terms of density of surrounding development and availability of
services. Downward adjustment is made.
Sales #13 is part of the Jordan Commons development. Access and surrounding development are
similar and no overall adjustment is required.
Sale #14 is along Redwood Road in West Valley
City. Access is and surrounding development are
inferior. Upward adjustment is made.
Sale #15 is accessible via 5600 West, but is not centrally located and is in an area with inferior surrounding development. Overall upward adjustment is required.

L.E.C.G.

Sale #16 is just north of the subject and no adjustment is necessary.

Entitlement. The subject will have density approval. All of the sales had density approval at
the time of sale and no adjustments are necessary.

Sale #17 has inferior access and surrounding development and upward adjustment is warranted.
This sale is part of the proposed mixed-use redevelopment at the West Jordan Trax Station.

•

Sale #19 has inferior access and surrounding development and requires upward adjustment.
Sale #20 is west of I-15 with similar access. Surrounding development is inferior and upward adjustment is made.
•

Physical Characteristics
Size The comparables range from 6.29 acres to
130 acres. As with the commercial land, pods of
an average 50 acres are assumed. Sales #13 and
#20 are similar in terms of density and represent
the range from smallest to largest parcel size.
After adjustment for market conditions and location a 9.5 percent adjustment for size is noted.
Appropriate adjustments are made to the very
largest and smallest comparables.
Functional Utility The subject will be cleared of
the existing buildings and improved with a spine
of interior roads. Overall topography is unremarkable. There are surface-expressed geothermal pools that would require monitoring and
may result in some wetlands dedication. There
are two canals that cross the property, a highvoltage power corridor and natural gas high pressure pipeline. Sales #11 and #16 had topographical challenges that required additional site work
and no adjustment is made. Sale #7 required
removal of existing buildings. This cost is converted to a percentage and applied as an upward
adjustment. All of the remaining comparables
are considered superior to the subject and downward adjustment is made.
Utilities All utilities are available to the subject.
This is the case with all of the sales except Sale
#11 and no adjustment is necessary. In the case
of Sale #11, utilities had to be extended roughly
500 feet and upward adjustment based on costs
reported by the broker is made.

Use/Density. The sale comparables utilized here
have a range of density from 3.6 to 20 units per
acre. The multifamily portion of the subject is
proposed for a 16 unit per acre density. The comparable sales do not give any clear quantitative
indication of a price adjustment for density. Mr.
Jim Taylor (formerly) of Jordan Landing, reported that after the sale of Sale #13, the buyer
purchased additional density credits at a price of
$4,000 per unit. A $4,000 per unit figure is applied to the sales to 16 units per acre.
The subject also includes smaller parcels of land
programmed for neighborhood and regional retail, a commuter rail station and parking, institutional and mixed use. Generally speaking any
upward adjustment required for higher density
uses permitted on the retail land is offset by the
lower density use of the commuter rail station
and parking and institutional use and overall no
adjustment is necessary. Sales #11, #14 and #17
had commercial and/or retail components within
their development plans but don’t show any price
differentiation. No adjustment for this factor is
made.

•

Value Conclusion. The sales indicate a value between $163,000 and $220,000 per acre based on
quantitative adjustments, and a slightly lower
value range when factoring in the qualitative adjustments. Given a density of 16 units per acre, a
per unit value between $10,188 and $13,750 is
indicated. Recall recent activity ranging from
$11,500 to $14,500 per unit. A value of $13,000
per unit or $208,000 per acre is concluded.

6 units per acre
The sale comparables utilized for the multifamily
land above are appropriate for the single-family section at a 6-unit per acre density. A density adjustment based on the previously applied factor of $4,000
per unit is applied to the sales in the following table.

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX B 15

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

We are relying on absorption analysis completed
by WEPC to project absorption for the subject
land. WEPC addressed supply and demand for
vertical construction of the various uses proposed
and concluded the following:

After quantitative adjustments the sales indicate a
range between $125,000 and $180,000 per acre or
$20,883 to $30,000 per unit. Qualitative adjustments,
on average, would suggest a similar range. Sale #19 is
most like the subject and has an adjusted value of
$179,195 or $29,886 per unit, and no net qualitative
adjustment. A value of $28,000 per unit or $168,000
per acre is concluded.
•

Single-Family Based on 2004 sales of subdivisions
containing over 100 units (2,678 total units), and a
capture rate for the subject of three percent,
WEPC projects an absorption of 80 units per year.
This equates to just under seven years based on 550
single family units (full relocation).

Summary. Value estimates on a per acre basis for
the proposed uses are as follows.
Office:
Business Park:
Industrial:
*Single-Family
*Multifamily:

$165,000
$130,000
$100,000
$168,000
$208,000

Land buyers would purchase the land at a quicker
pace than build-out of vertical construction. A
five-year projection is made.
Multifamily The average absorption for multifamily units in the valley has been 1,304 annually between 2001 and 2004. At this rate, and a 15 percent capture, WEPC forecasts just under 200 units
per year or 14 years total. At a density of 16 units
per acre, 200 units would require 12.5 acres.

* Includes a prorata share of neighborhood and
regional retail, commuter rail station and parking,
institutional and mixed-use.
•

Absorption. At the values concluded, the land
would not sell all at once. Therefore, it is necessary
to project the period over which super pads could
be sold.

Again, the absorption of units is slower than the
absorption of land. Major multifamily developers

RESIDENTIAL, MIXED-USE, RETAIL, INSTITUTIONAL, COMMUTER RAIL
SUBJECT

14400 South Pony
Express Road

65 East
Highland Dr

6755 South
950 East

3800 West
7000 South

3100 South
1600 West

2800 South
5600 West

1300 West
14000 South

3295 West
8600 South

15000 South
300 East

7000 West

7000 South
700 West

Draper

Midvale

W. Jordan

West Valley

Bluffdale

W. Jordan

Draper

W Jordan

Midvale

40.12

6.29

10.00

17.75

18.90

9.64

35.72

29.42

15.76

130.00

SALE PRICE

±50 acres
--

$4,429,000

$2,024,553

$2,300,000

$2,431,000

$3,785,000

$1,260,000

$4,260,000

$2,900,000

$2,585,000

$29,900,000

SALE DATE

Jan-03

Feb-04

Nov-03

Mar-01

Mar-03

Apr-02

Jan-05

Nov-02

Sep-03

U.C.

DENSITY/AC

13.4

12.4

17.7

12.1

3.6

PRICE/UNIT

$9,199

$24,020

$11,500

$11,045

$11,314

$10,892

$9,856

$27,381

$27,337

$11,500

ADDRESS

AREA (ACRE)

ZONING

MF-SF-Retail, etc.

19
± 8000 South

A-1

RM-25

A-1

R-M

M-1

R-MF

R-3

P-C

PUD

$110,394

$321,869

$230,000

$136,958

$200,265

$130,705

$119,261

$98,572

$164,023

$230,000

$110,394

$321,869

$230,000

$136,958

$200,265

$130,705

$119,261

$98,572

$164,023

$230,000

$110,394

$321,869

$230,000

$136,958

$200,265

$130,705

$119,261

$98,572

$164,023

$230,000

$110,394

$321,869

$230,000

$136,958

$200,265

$130,705

$119,261

$98,572

$164,023

$230,000

$110,394

$321,869

$230,000

$136,958

$200,265

$130,705

$119,261

$98,572

$164,023

$230,000

15%

$126,953

$370,149

$264,500

$157,501

$230,304

$150,311

$137,150

$113,358

$188,626

$230,000

-10%

-5%

-10%

-5%

10%

Functional Utility

10%

Utilities

Entitlement

-19%

-8%

-21%

-16%

-20%

-16%

-18%

-24%

Total Quantitative Adjustments

-14%

-18%

-31%

-21%

-25%

-26%

-8%

-5%

-14%

Total Qualitative Adjustments

---

$109,179

$303,522

$182,505

$124,426

$172,728

$111,230

$126,178

$123,561

$179,195

$197,800

Density

NET ADJUSTED PRICE
ADJUSTED AVERAGE/ACRE

Public Review Draft

L.E.C.G.

will take down larger tracts and build out at once.
The single-family market has been very strong in
recent years, and this has had a negative impact on
the multifamily market, but that is not expected to
always be the case. We project an absorption of
the multifamily super pads over seven and three
years, respectively, for the full and partial relocations.

Long-term inflation approximates 2.5 percent.
By contrast, prime development sites have generally experienced more rapid increases. For example, the Cottonwood Corporate Center project
was developed on a super pad of roughly 40 acres.
The original purchase price 12 years ago was
$3.50 per square foot. The last subdivided parcel
within the super pad sold for nearly $16.00 per
square foot. There are multiple variables that
explain the difference in price, with the primary
variables being the profit earned through entitlement of the land and the subdivision process.
However, during that time frame there has been
at least a doubling of raw land value, which
would imply a growth rate of six percent annually.

Office WEPC projects demand at 208,383 square
feet of office space annually, based on the average
office construction of 1,041,914 square feet over the
last five years, and a 20 percent capture rate. This
appears reasonable for the vertical construction.
However, the land would be sold much more
quickly. At the values concluded, land banking
would be anticipated. A five year absorption is
projected for the full relocation and a seven year
projection is made for the partial scenario.
Industrial The industrial market was strong in
2004 with high absorption compared to the previous years. WEPC assumes 100,000 square feet of
space absorption per year, which would equate to a
±10-year build-out. However, again, the land
would be taken down more quickly. A projection is
made at five and seven years for the full and partial
relocation scenarios.
Business Park This land is likely to sell in the same
time frame as the office and industrial land, projected at five years under both scenarios.
Other Commuter rail, institutional, mixed-use,
neighborhood and regional retail land has been incorporated on a pro-rata basis into the residential
land areas and is absorbed accordingly.
•

Market Conditions. Values are projected to trend
upward over time. There are likely to be periods of
stagnation and potentially even deflation; however,
the general trend is expected to be upward, and at
a rate in excess of inflation. This land is centrally
located between Salt Lake and Utah Counties.
There is a diminishing supply of such land along
the I-15 corridor, and supply/demand factors alone
suggest that as time goes on this tract will become
more desirable.

Cottonwood Corporate Center has been particularly successful. However, other areas of the valley have seen similar rates of appreciation, measurably in excess of standard inflation.
Given the subject’s advantageous location coupled with the declining inventory of such land
along I-15, a six percent annual appreciation factor is reasonably projected.
•

Development Costs. Costs of development include
spine infrastructure construction costs, and marketing, carrying and closing costs. Profit is also a
necessary cost considered here.
Construction Costs. It is anticipated the master
developer will minimize construction obligations
to the extent possible. However, certain primary
roads will have to be built. (It is assumed all entitlement work has already been accomplished.)
It is projected that 15,840 and 29,040 lineal feet
of primary road, together with necessary utility
work will have to be installed by the master developer under the partial and full relocation
mixed-use scenarios, respectively. Under a residential development full relocation the lineal feet
of roadway estimated at 20,000 lineal feet. A
cost for this road work of $600 per lineal foot is
projected in present dollar terms. Infrastructure
costs are incurred on a per acre basis at the pace
of development.

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX B 17

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

Marketing Costs. Promotional and marketing efforts would be coordinated in-house, but outside
broker participation would be encouraged. A marketing cost, including promotional efforts and commissions could be accomplished at two percent of
gross sales given the dollar magnitude of transactions.

As to the investment value scenario, the discount
rate is the state’s cost of capital rate, which is reported to be 3.65 percent.
•

Carrying Costs. Carrying costs comprise primarily
property management and payment of real estate
taxes. Under the investment value scenario, the
property prior to sale is not taxable. Carrying costs
are estimated at 0.25 and 0.15 percent of gross sales
under the market value and investment value scenarios.
Closing Costs. Closing costs are projected at 0.5
percent of gross sales.
Profit. Developers are motivated by the opportunity of earning profit through the development effort. In this case, we are assuming the tract is already entitled, which is a process that yields a relatively significant portion of development profit.
The remaining efforts include constructing certain
infrastructure and marketing the pods. A 10 percent factor is projected under the market value scenario, which includes an overhead factor. Under
investment value, the work can be handled inhouse by the state but there is still an overhead
cost to be allocated. A two percent factor is projected under this scenario.
•

Discount Rate. The discount rate is a weighted
average rate between equity and debt, and should
reflect inflationary pressures since prices are projected to increase with inflation as well as in real
terms. It is important to note that profit is deducted as a line item so that the discount rate is net
of profit.
Equity can be obtained at a cost of 15 to 20 percent. Debt is currently quite cheap but over a
longer term project, upward pressure should be anticipated. At an 18 percent equity rate and an
eight percent average debt rate, assuming a 60 percent loan to value, the weighted average discount
rate would be 12 percent. This is reasonable considering that profit is already accounted for.

Public Review Draft

Summary. Discounted cash flows are presented on
the following pages.

L.E.C.G.

Market Value - Full Relocation – Mixed Use
D I SC O U N T ED C A SH F L O W A N A L Y SI S
FULL RELOCATION - MARKET VALUE
FULL RELOCATION - MARKET VALUE

Period

TOTAL

27-Oct-05
IN CO M E
Office Land - 85 Acres
Price Per Acre
Sub Total - Office Land

165,000

174,900

185,394

196,518

208,309

2,805,000

2,973,300

3,151,698

3,340,800

3,541,248

15,812,046
85

Business Park Land - 85 Acres
Price Per Acre
Sub Total - Single Family

130,000

137,800

146,068

154,832

164,122

2,210,000

2,342,600

2,483,156

2,632,145

2,790,074

12,457,975
71

Industrial Land - 71 Acres
Price Per Acre
Sub Total - Industrial

14.2

100,000

106,000

112,360

119,102

126,248

1,420,000

1,505,200

1,595,512

1,691,243

1,792,717

Single-Family Land - 127 Acres*
Price Per Acre
Sub Total - Single Family

Sub Total - Multi-Family

18.1

178,080

188,765

200,091

212,096

224,822

238,311

3,048,007

3,230,888

3,424,741

3,630,225

3,848,039

4,078,921

4,323,656

25,584,478
232

33.1

208,000

220,480

233,709

247,731

262,595

278,351

295,052

6,893,723

7,307,347

7,745,787

8,210,535

8,703,167

9,225,357

9,778,878

Total Number of Acres Sold
Total Sales:

8,004,672

168,000

Multi-Family Land - 232 Acres*
Price Per Acre

127

57,864,793

600

16,376,730

17,359,334

18,400,894

19,504,948

20,675,245

13,304,278

14,102,535

119,723,964

EX P EN SES
Marketing/Commissions:

327,535

347,187

368,018

390,099

413,505

266,086

282,051

2,394,479

Closing Costs:

81,884

86,797

92,004

97,525

103,376

66,521

70,513

598,620

Real Estate Taxes:

74,827

64,592

53,742

42,242

30,051

17,129

8,814

291,398

Spine Infrastructure

4,078,684

4,180,651

4,285,167

4,392,296

4,502,104

2,335,094

2,393,471

26,167,466

Profit

1,637,673

1,735,933

1,840,089

1,950,495

2,067,524

1,330,428

1,410,253

11,972,396

NET INCOME:
10,176,128
10,944,175
11,761,873
12,632,291
13,558,684
PRESENT VALUE of NET INCOME:
$51,105,234
Rounded To:
$51,110,000
* Includes a prorata share of commuter rail station, institututional, neighborhood retail, regional retail and mixed-use land.

9,289,020

9,937,433

78,299,604

Market Value - Partial Relocation – Mixed Use
D I SC O U N T ED C A SH F L O W A N A L Y SI S
PARTIAL RELOCATION - MARKET VALUE
PARTIAL RELOCATION - MARKET VALUE

Period

TOTAL

27-Oct-05
IN CO M E
Office Land - 134 Acres
Price Per Acre
Sub Total - Office Land
Business Park Land - 97 Acres
Price Per Acre
Sub Total - Single Family
Industrial Land - 104 Acres
Price Per Acre
Sub Total - Industrial
Multi-Family Land - 105 Acres*
Price Per Acre
Sub Total - Multi-Family
Total Number of Acres Sold
Total Sales:

19.1

165,000

174,900

185,394

196,518

208,309

220,807

234,056

3,158,579

3,348,093

3,548,979

3,761,918

3,987,633

4,226,891

4,480,504

19.4

130,000

137,800

146,068

154,832

164,122

2,522,000

2,673,320

2,833,719

3,003,742

3,183,967

14,216,748

14.9

106,000

112,360

119,102

126,248

133,823

141,852

1,485,710

1,574,853

1,669,344

1,769,504

1,875,675

1,988,215

2,107,508

35.0

220,480

233,709

7,280,000

7,716,800

8,179,808

26,512,595
97

100,000

208,000

134

104
12,470,809
105
23,176,608

440

14,446,289

15,313,066

16,231,850

8,535,164

9,047,274

6,215,106

6,588,012

76,376,760

EX P EN SES
Marketing/Commissions:

288,926

306,261

324,637

170,703

180,945

124,302

131,760

1,527,535

Closing Costs:

72,231

76,565

81,159

42,676

45,236

31,076

32,940

381,884

Carrying Costs

47,735

38,707

29,136

18,991

13,656

8,002

4,118

160,345

Spine Infrastructure

2,847,978

2,919,178

2,992,157

3,066,961

3,143,635

2,037,645

2,088,586

19,096,140

Profit

1,444,629

1,531,307

NET INCOME:
9,744,789
10,441,048
PRESENT VALUE of NET INCOME:
$33,848,257
* Includes 15 acres for commuter rail station and 8 acres for neighborhood retail.

1,623,185
11,181,575
Rounded To:

853,516

904,727

621,511

658,801

7,637,676

4,382,317

4,759,073
$33,850,000

3,392,571

3,671,807

47,573,180

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX B 19

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

Investment Value - Full Relocation – Mixed Use
D I SC O U N T ED C A SH F L O W A N A L Y SI S
FULL RELOCATION - INVESTMENT VALUE
FULL RELOCATION - INVESTMENT VALUE

Period

TOTAL

27-Oct-05
IN CO M E
Office Land - 85 Acres
Price Per Acre
Sub Total - Office Land
Business Park Land - 85 Acres
Price Per Acre
Sub Total - Single Family
Industrial Land - 71 Acres
Price Per Acre
Sub Total - Industrial
Single-Family Land - 127 Acres
Price Per Acre
Sub Total - Single Family
Multi-Family Land - 232 Acres
Price Per Acre
Sub Total - Multi-Family

165,000

174,900

185,394

196,518

208,309

2,805,000

2,973,300

3,151,698

3,340,800

3,541,248

15,812,046
85

130,000

137,800

146,068

154,832

164,122

2,210,000

2,342,600

2,483,156

2,632,145

2,790,074

12,457,975
71

14.2

100,000

106,000

112,360

119,102

126,248

1,420,000

1,505,200

1,595,512

1,691,243

1,792,717

8,004,672

18.1

168,000

178,080

188,765

200,091

212,096

224,822

238,311

3,048,007

3,230,888

3,424,741

3,630,225

3,848,039

4,078,921

4,323,656

25,584,478
232

33.1

208,000

220,480

233,709

247,731

262,595

278,351

295,052

6,893,723

7,307,347

7,745,787

8,210,535

8,703,167

9,225,357

9,778,878

Total Number of Acres Sold
Total Sales:

127

57,864,793

600

16,376,730

17,359,334

18,400,894

19,504,948

20,675,245

13,304,278

14,102,535

119,723,964

EX P EN SES
Marketing/Commissions:

327,535

347,187

368,018

390,099

413,505

266,086

282,051

2,394,479

Closing Costs:

81,884

86,797

92,004

97,525

103,376

66,521

70,513

598,620

Real Estate Taxes:

44,896

38,755

32,245

25,345

18,031

10,278

5,288

174,839

4,078,684

4,180,651

4,285,167

4,392,296

4,502,104

2,335,094

2,393,471

26,167,466

327,535

347,187

368,018

390,099

413,505

266,086

282,051

2,394,479

NET INCOME:
11,516,197
12,358,758
13,255,441
14,209,584
15,224,724
PRESENT VALUE of NET INCOME:
$76,523,400
Rounded To:
$76,520,000
* Includes a prorata share of commuter rail station, institututional, neighborhood retail, regional retail and mixed-use land.

10,360,214

11,069,161

87,994,080

Spine Infrastructure
Profit

Investment Value - Partial Relocation – Mixed Use
D I SC O U N T ED C A SH F L O W A N A L Y SI S
PARTIAL RELOCATION - INVESTMENT VALUE
PARTIAL RELOCATION - INVESTMENT VALUE

Period

TOTAL

19.1

165,000

174,900

185,394

196,518

208,309

220,807

234,056

3,158,579

3,348,093

3,548,979

3,761,918

3,987,633

4,226,891

4,480,504

19.4

130,000

137,800

146,068

154,832

164,122

2,522,000

2,673,320

2,833,719

3,003,742

3,183,967

14,216,748

14.9

106,000

112,360

119,102

126,248

133,823

141,852

1,485,710

1,574,853

1,669,344

1,769,504

1,875,675

1,988,215

2,107,508

35.0

220,480

233,709

7,280,000

7,716,800

8,179,808

26,512,595
97

100,000

208,000

134

104
12,470,809
105
23,176,608

440

14,446,289

15,313,066

16,231,850

8,535,164

9,047,274

6,215,106

6,588,012

76,376,760

EX P EN SES
Marketing/Commissions:

288,926

306,261

324,637

170,703

180,945

124,302

131,760

1,527,535

Closing Costs:

72,231

76,565

81,159

42,676

45,236

31,076

32,940

381,884

Carrying Costs

28,641

23,224

17,482

11,395

8,194

4,801

2,471

96,207

2,847,978

2,919,178

2,992,157

3,066,961

3,143,635

2,037,645

2,088,586

19,096,140

288,926

306,261

Spine Infrastructure
Profit

NET INCOME:
11,208,512
11,987,837
PRESENT VALUE of NET INCOME:
$49,374,209
* Includes 15 acres for commuter rail station and 8 acres for neighborhood retail.

324,637
12,816,415
Rounded To:

Public Review Draft

170,703

180,945

124,302

131,760

1,527,535

5,243,429

5,669,263
$49,370,000

4,017,282

4,332,255

55,274,994

L.E.C.G.

Market Value – Full Relocation – Residential Use
D I SC O U N T ED C A SH F L O W A N A L Y SI S
FULL RELOCATION - INVESTMENT VALUE - RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
FULL RELOCATION - INVESTMENT VALUE

Period

TOTAL

27-Oct-05
IN CO M E
Commercial/Retail - 24 Acres

24.0

Price Per Acre

208,000

Sub Total - Industrial

4,992,000

Single-Family Land - 416 Acres
Price Per Acre
Sub Total - Single Family

138.7

168,000

178,080

188,765

23,296,056

24,693,819

26,175,449

74,165,324
183

Multi-Family Land - 183 Acres
Price Per Acre
Sub Total - Multi-Family

4,992,000

61.0

208,000

220,480

233,709

12,688,000

13,449,280

14,256,237

Total Number of Acres Sold

416

40,393,517

224

200

623

40,976,056

38,143,099

40,431,685

119,550,841

Marketing/Commissions:

819,521

762,862

808,634

2,391,017

Closing Costs:

204,880

190,715

202,158

597,754

44,832

29,466

15,162

89,459

4,667,833

4,784,529

4,904,142

14,356,504

762,862

808,634

2,391,017

31,612,665
33,692,956
$92,890,178 Rounded To:

99,725,090

Total Sales:
EX P EN SES

Real Estate Taxes:
Spine Infrastructure
Profit

819,521

NET INCOME:
PRESENT VALUE of NET INCOME:

34,419,469

$92,890,000

Investment Value – Full Relocation – Residential Use
D I SC O U N T ED C A SH F L O W A N A L Y SI S
FULL RELOCATION - INVESTMENT VALUE - RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
FULL RELOCATION - INVESTMENT VALUE

Period

TOTAL

27-Oct-05
I N CO M E
Commercial/Retail - 24 Acres
Price Per Acre
Sub Total - Industrial
Single-Family Land - 416 Acres
Price Per Acre
Sub Total - Single Family
Multi-Family Land - 183 Acres
Price Per Acre
Sub Total - Multi-Family
Total Number of Acres Sold
Total Sales:

24.0

208,000
4,992,000

4,992,000

138.7

168,000

178,080

188,765

23,296,056

24,693,819

26,175,449

74,165,324
183

61.0

208,000

220,480

233,709

12,688,000

13,449,280

14,256,237

416

40,393,517

224

200

623

40,976,056

38,143,099

40,431,685

119,550,841

EX P EN SES
Marketing/Commissions:

819,521

762,862

808,634

2,391,017

Closing Costs:

204,880

190,715

202,158

597,754

44,832

29,466

15,162

89,459

4,667,833

4,784,529

4,904,142

14,356,504

819,521

762,862

808,634

2,391,017

Real Estate Taxes:
Spine Infrastructure
Profit
NET INCOME:
PRESENT VALUE of NET INCOME:

34,419,469

31,612,665
33,692,956
$92,890,178 Rounded To:

Public Review Draft

99,725,090
$92,890,000

APPENDIX B 21

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

Reconciliation and Final Value Estimates
Only one valuation was conducted for each of the scenarios addressed. Therefore, final values are those concluded above. They are made subject to the various hypothetical conditions and extraordinary assumptions
expressed throughout this report. The applicable valuation date is August 17, 2005. However, it will be several
years before this property could be developed, and several years before it would be attractive for the uses assumed herein.
Final values are summarized as follows
Summary of Value Estimates
Valuation
Market
Investment
Scenario
Value
Value
Highest & Best Use
$72,200,000
$92,890,000
(residential development)
Full Relocation
$51,110,000
$76,520,000
(mixed-use development)
Partial Relocation
$33,850,000
$49,370,000
(mixed-use development)

Not included in the preceding values are the following:
Draper Irrigation Shares:
East Jordan Irrigation Shares:
State Water Right 57-8313 (domestic)
State Water Right 57-8412 (geothermal)
Total

$ 381,500
1,241,250
292,500
18,000
$1,933,250

Public Review Draft

L.E.C.G.

APPENDIX B
ADDENDA
COMPLETE APPRAISAL
SUMMARY REPORT
Located at 14400 South Pony Express
Road
Draper, Utah

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX B 23

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

Neighborhood Map

Public Review Draft

L.E.C.G.

Property Plat

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX B 25

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

Legal Description
PARCEL #33_01_300_005_0000
TOTAL ACRES 689.23
STATE OF UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ADM SERV DIV FAC CONST & MGMNT
LOC: 14717 S MINUTEMAN DR EDIT 0 BOOK 8563 PAGE 4290 DATE 02/12/2003
BEG S 89¬58'46" E ALG SEC LINE 1038.34 FT FR NW COR SEC 1, T 4S, R 1W, SLM; S 89¬58'46" E 307.925 FT; S 0¬58'09"
W 2610.66 FT; S 89¬46'52" E 3802.39 FT; S 0¬13'03" W 37.6 FT; S 0¬13'03" W 2469.575 FT; SW'LY ALG A CURVE TO R
(CHORD S 19¬33'18" W 1200.3 FT); S 37¬54'46" W 438.58 FT; S 89¬35'19" E 788.73 FT; S 0¬21'24" W 664.93 FT; S
54¬36'21" W 787.85 FT; S 0¬38'36" W 1066.5 FT; SW'LY ALG A 1469.65 FT RADIUS CURVE TO R 357.46 FT; S 50¬47'55"
W 541.79 FT; N 0¬36'36" E 1468.4 FT; N 89¬31'32" W 2666.41 FT; N 0¬34'36" E 552.95 FT; N 89¬53'19" W 50 FT; N
0¬34'36" E 822.53 FT; N 89¬35'19" W 772.53 FT; S 0¬34'36" W 50 FT; N 89¬35'19" W 508.58 FT; S 89¬42'03" W 1400.31 FT;
N 0¬55'34" E 1319.88 FT; S 89¬31'31" E 79.61 FT; N 0¬34'54" E 1440.32 FT M OR L TO N LINE BANGERTER HWY;
NE'LY ALG A 2116.14 FT RADIUS CURVE TO L 355.42 FT M OR L; N 28¬45'39" E ALG W'LY LINE RR 4270.24 FT TO
BEG. LESS & EXCEPT STATE HWYS, CANALS, & RAILROADS. ALSO LESS & EXCEPT BEG N 0¬21'24" E ALG SEC
LINE 1329.87 FT & N 89¬35'19" W 33.31 FT FR E 1/4 COR SEC 12, T 4S, R 1W, SLM; S 0¬21'24" W 33 FT; N 89¬35'19" W
195.37 FT; NE'LY ALG A CURVE TO L 39.5 FT; S 89¬35'19" E 173.63 FT TO BEG. 689.23 AC M OR L. 7531_0651
7778_1370 THRU 1387 7937_2048 8486_0087 8529_6742

Public Review Draft

L.E.C.G.

Aerial Photogrpah

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX B 27

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

Boundaries For Prison Relocation –
Full and Partial

Public Review Draft

L.E.C.G.

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX B 29

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

CERTIFICATION

We certify that we have made an investigation and
analysis of the following property:
DRAPER PRISON
PROPERTY OWNED BY UTAH DEPARTMENT
OF ADMINISTRATION AND CORRECTIONS

10.
11.

Located at 14400 South Pony Express Road,
Draper, Utah
Salt Lake County Assessor's Parcel No. 33:01:300:005

12.

We certify that to the best of our knowledge and belief:

13.

1.
2.

4.
5.
6.

The statements of fact contained in this report are
true and correct.
The reported analyses, opinions and conclusions
are limited only by the reported assumptions and
limiting conditions, and are our personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions,
and conclusions.
We have no present or prospective interest in the
property that is the subject of this report, and we
have no personal interest with respect to the parties involved.
We have no bias with respect to the property that
is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment.
Our engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results.
Our compensation for completing this assignment
is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value
that favors the cause of the client, the amount of
the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated
result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event
directly related to the intended use of this appraisal.
Our analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report was prepared in conformity with the Uniform Standard of Professional
Appraisal Practice (USPAP), and the Code of
Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional
Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute.
J. Philip Cook and Virginia Hylton have made a
personal inspection of the property that is the
subject of this report.

14.

15.
16.

Tiffany Hall provided research assistance. We
have also relied heavily on economic and land use
analysis provided by Wikstrom Economic and
Planning Consultants.
The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute, relating to review by its duly authorized representatives.
J. Philip Cook has completed the requirements of
the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute.
The value conclusion as well as other opinions expressed herein, are not based on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation, or the approval of a loan.
Our state appraisal certification/registrations
have not been revoked, suspended, canceled, or
restricted.
The undersigned hereby acknowledge that they
have the appropriate education and experience to
complete the assignment in a competent manner.
The reader is referred to the appraisers' Statement
of Qualifications.
J. Philip Cook is currently a Certified General Appraiser in the State of Utah #5451057-CG00.
Virginia Hylton is currently a Certified General
Appraiser in the State of Utah #5485650-CG00.

Dated: October 18, 2005

Philip Cook, MAI, CRE
Utah State-Certified General Appraiser
Certificate 5451057-CG00 Expires 06-30-07

Virginia H. Hylton, Appraiser
Utah State - Certified General Appraiser
Certificate 5485650-CG00 Expires 04-30-07

Public Review Draft

L.E.C.G.

ASSUMPTIONS AND
LIMITING CONDITIONS

The appraisers assume no responsibility for hidden
or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil,
or structures that render it more or less valuable.
No responsibility is assumed for arranging for engineering studies that may be required to discover
them.

The property is appraised assuming it to be in full
compliance with all applicable federal, state, and
local environmental regulations and laws, unless
otherwise stated.

This appraisal has been based on the following limiting
conditions:
1.

For purposes of this appraisal, any marketing program for the sale of the property would assume
cash or its equivalent.

No detailed soil studies covering the subject property were available for this appraisal. It is therefore assumed that soil conditions are adequate to
support standard construction consistent with
highest and best use.

The date of value to which the conclusions and
opinions expressed in this report apply, is set forth
in the letter of transmittal. Further, the dollar
amount of any value opinion rendered in this report is based upon the purchasing power of the
American dollar existing on that date.

The appraisers assume no responsibility for economic or physical factors which may affect the
opinions in this report which occur after the valuation date.

The appraisers reserve the right to make such adjustments to the analyses, opinions and conclusions
set forth in this report as may be required by consideration of additional data or more reliable data
that may become available.

No opinion as to title is rendered. Data relating to
ownership and legal description was obtained from
the client or public records and is considered reliable. Title is assumed to be marketable and free
and clear of all liens, encumbrances, easements and
restrictions except those specifically discussed in
the report. The property is appraised assuming it
to be under responsible ownership and competent
management, and available for its highest and best
use.
If no title policy was made available to the appraisers, they assume no responsibility for such items of
record not disclosed by their customary investigation.

10. The property is appraised assuming that all applicable zoning and use regulations and restrictions
have been complied with, unless otherwise stated.
11. The property is appraised assuming that all required licenses, certificates of occupancy, consents,
or other legislative or administrative authority
from any local, state, or national government or
private entity or organization have been or can be
obtained or renewed for any use on which the
value estimate contained in this report is based,
unless otherwise stated.
No engineering survey has been made by the appraiser.
Except as specifically stated, data relative to size
and area was taken from sources considered reliable
and no encroachment of real property improvements is considered to exist.
13. No opinion is expressed as to the value of subsurface oil, gas or mineral rights or whether the property is subject to surface entry for the exploration
or removal of such materials except as is expressly
stated.
14. Maps, plats and exhibits included in this report
are for illustration only as an aid in visualizing
matters discussed within the report. They should
not be considered as surveys or relied upon for any
other purpose, nor should they be removed from,
reproduced, or used apart from the report.
15. No opinion is intended to be expressed for matters
which require legal expertise or specialized investigation or knowledge beyond that customarily employed by real estate appraisers.
16. Possession of this report, or copy of it, does not
carry with it the right of publication. It may not

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX B 31

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

be used for any purpose by any person other than
the party to whom it is addressed without the
written consent of the appraiser, and in any event
only with proper written qualification and only
in its entirety.
17. Testimony or attendance in court or at any other
hearing is not required by reason of rendering this
appraisal, unless such arrangements are made a
reasonable time in advance.
18. The appraisers have personally inspected the subject property and find no obvious evidence of
structural deficiencies, except as may be stated in
this report; however, no responsibility for hidden
defects or conformity to specific governmental
requirements, such as fire, building and safety,
earthquake or occupancy codes can be assumed
without provision of specific professional or government inspections.
19. Unless otherwise noted, no consideration has
been given in this appraisal to the value of the
property located on the premises which is considered by the appraisers to be personal property,
nor has consideration been given to the cost of
moving or relocating such personal property;
only the real property has been considered.
20. Information obtained for use in this appraisal is
believed to be true and correct to the best of our
ability; however, no responsibility is assumed for
errors or omissions, or for information not disclosed which might otherwise affect the valuation
estimate.
21. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the appraisers signing this report have no knowledge
concerning the presence or absence of toxic materials in the improvements and/or hazardous waste
on the land. No responsibility is assumed for any
such conditions or for any expertise or engineering to discover them.
22. Disclosure of the contents of this appraisal report
is governed by the Bylaws and Regulations of the
Appraisal Institute.

is connected, or any reference to the Appraisal
Institute or to the MAI designation) shall be disseminated to the public through advertising media, public relations media, news media, sales media, or any other public means of communication
without the prior written consent and approval of
the appraiser.
23. This is a Summary Appraisal Report which is
intended to comply with the reporting requirements set forth under Standard Rule 2-2(b) of the
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice for a Summary Appraisal Report. As
such, it might not include full discussions of the
data, reasoning, and analyses that were used in
the appraisal process to develop the appraiser's
opinion of value. Supporting documentation concerning the data, reasoning, and analyses is retained in the appraiser's file. The information
contained in this report is specific to the needs of
the client and for the intended use stated in this
report. The appraiser is not responsible for unauthorized use of this report.
24. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous substances, including without
limitation asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyl,
petroleum leakage, or agricultural chemicals,
which may or may not be present on the property, or other environmental conditions, were not
called to the attention of nor did the appraisers
become aware of such during the appraiser's inspection. The appraisers have no knowledge of
the existence of such materials on or in the property unless otherwise stated. The appraisers,
however, are not qualified to test such substances
or conditions. If the presence of such substances,
such as asbestos, urea formaldehyde foam insulation, or other hazardous substances or environmental conditions, may affect the value the property, the value estimated is predicated on the assumption that there is no such condition on or in
the property or in such proximity thereto that it
would cause a loss in value. No responsibility is
assumed for any such conditions, nor for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them.

Neither all nor any part of the contents of this
report (especially any conclusions as to value, the
identity of the appraiser or the firm with which he
Public Review Draft

L.E.C.G.

25. The Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") became
effective January 26, 1992. We have not made a specific
compliance survey and analysis of this property to determine whether or not it is in conformity with the various
detailed requirements of the ADA. It is possible that a
compliance survey of the property, together with a detailed analysis of the requirements of the ADA, could
reveal that the property is not in compliance with one or
more of the requirements of the Act. If so, this fact could
have a negative effect upon the value of the property.
Since we have no direct evidence relating to this issue, we
did not consider possible noncompliance with the requirements of ADA in estimating the value of the Property.
26. Extraordinary assumptions and hypothetical conditions
invoked in this report are:
•

The concept of market value ties to highest and best
use of property. The immediate market-driven highest and best use is different than the desired longterm re-use. That is, the market would quickly absorb this acreage at relatively high prices for nearterm residential development in the event of a full
relocation of the prison. However, residential housing alone, while potentially maximizing present
value, does not maximize community benefits or the
long-term potential of the property.

•

Investment value is specific to the State of Utah.
The State of Utah has a AAA Bond Rating. The current 10-year bond rate for AAA-rated borrowers as of
September 14, 2005 is 3.65 percent. This is the
State’s assumed cost of capital and the discount rate
used to calculate investment value.

•

Market value assumes a discount rate of 12 percent
which is market supported.

•

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX B 33

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

REFERENCES:
1. This definition of market value is taken from the
final rule issued by the Department of Treasury, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (12CFR Part
34, August 24, 1990), which are the implementing
regulations for Title XI of FIRREA. The definition
is also supported by most regulatory agencies as follows: Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System
(CFR Parts 208 and 225, July 25, 1991); National
Credit Union Administration (CFR Parts 701, 722,
and 741, July 25, 1990); Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (12 CFR Part 323, August 20, 1990);
Resolution Trust Corporation (12CFR Part 1608,
August 22, 1990); Office of Thrift Supervision, Treasury (12CFR Parts 506, 545, 563, 564, and 571, August 23, 1990). This definition has been adopted by
the Appraisal Institute in their Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, and the Appraisal Foundation in the Uniform Standard of Professional Appraisal Practice (June 30, 1989, amended April 20,
1990 and June 5, 1990).
2. Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA)
and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
(FHLMC).
3. American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, The
Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Second Edition.
4. The Appraisal Foundation, Uniform Standards of
Professional Appraisal Practice, 2005 ed.
(Washington, D.C.: The Appraisal Foundation,
2005), 1.
5. Ibid., 4.
6. Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate,
Twelfth ed. (Chicago, Illinois: Appraisal Institute,
2001), 69.
7. Real Estate Appraisal Terminology, The American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, the Society
of Real Estate Appraisers, 1975, p.147.
8. Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate,
Twelfth ed, (Chicago, Illinois: Appraisal Institute
2001), 305.

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX C

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

APPENDIX C
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
MARKET AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH
SUMMARY REPORT
REGIONAL TRENDS
Abstract: At present, the market for single
family and multifamily homes is extremely
strong in the fast-growing southern end of
Salt Lake County. If marketed today, the
prison land could be quickly absorbed as
residential development. The office and
industrial markets have been in a downturn,
but now seem to be absorbing excess inventory that has been built in the past five to
seven years. Office demand is a longerterm land use program for the site. Retail
demand on the prison site will be limited by
the large amount of regional retail that has
recently been built, is under construction or
is planned for the near term.

Utah’s economy rebounded in 2004 after suffering the impacts of the national economic recession of 2001-2003. In fact, Utah’s economy outperformed the national economy in 2004. All standard economic measures
reflect Utah’s recovery with the recovery expected to continue through
2005. Standard economic measures such as job growth, construction activity, defense spending, tourism, population growth and business starts
were all positive for Utah.
During the most recent economic downturn job losses in Utah occurred
in the metropolitan area along the Wasatch Front. The technology sector experienced a 14.3 percent job loss between January 2001 and June
2004 and has been relatively slow to recover. While most other sectors
added jobs in 2004, the technology sector lost a few hundred jobs. The
State’s strongest job growth has come in professional and business services with a year-over increase in jobs of 5.2 percent second only to the
construction sector which showed a 5.6 percent increase for the same period.
The strength of the construction sector was also evident in total construction valuation. Utah has had two record setting years in a row for
construction valuation. Total construction value in 2003 was $4.6 billion
followed by $4.9 billion in 2004. The strong construction activity was
due to strong net in-migration, low mortgage rates and solid employment
gains.
Historically, one of Utah’s strongest sectors has been defense spending.
National defense spending grew by 12.1 percent in 2003. Utah’s 2003
defense spending increase was 24.7 percent. This growth has been driven
by job shifts and military spending changes caused by base realignment
activities and international conflicts. Defense spending is expected to
continue to grow in Utah due to continuing conflicts overseas and the
continued success of Hill Air Force Base.
Utah tourism returned to the levels achieved during the 2002 Winter
Olympic Games with 17.5 million non-residents visiting the state. Hotel
occupancies increased to 65.3 percent. Nearly 3.4 million skiers visited
Utah resorts in 2003-2004.
Utah’s population growth is primarily driven through a high birth rate
and a low death rate. However, Utah has experienced net in-migration
for the past 14 years. Net in-migration dipped in 2002 and rebounded
slightly in 2003. The rebound in net in-migration is attributable to the
Public Review Draft

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants

strength of the Utah economy. Net in-migration
can be expected to increase as long as Utah’s
economy remains stronger than the nation as a
whole.
Part of what is attracting people to Utah is the
strength in job growth. Utah gained more jobs
overall than were lost in 2004. State economists
tracked 30 firms announcing job additions of 50
or more, with seven firms announcing job subtractions of 50 or more. Utah's 2004 unemployment rate was 5.3 percent, just under the national
unemployment rate of 5.5 percent (December
2004).
Employment and Job Growth
The construction sector led the state in job
growth for 2004 (most likely fueled by low interest
rates and rising employment). Business, education
and health services all experienced job growth higher
than the state average of 2.5 percent.
The high technology sector has declined since 2001,
with 9,492 jobs lost. In 2004, this industry continued
to experience job loss in the first quarter, but appears
to be stabilizing. The sector continued to lose jobs
with over 1,000 jobs lost between 2002 and 2003 and
another estimated 500 jobs lost in 2004. The majority
of these losses occurred in the computer and peripheral equipment sector and the motion picture and
video production sectors. However, current trends
indicate a slowing in job losses for these sectors.
The largest number of employers in the computer systems design sector, which employs roughly 19 percent
of the state’s high tech workers, is located in southern
Salt Lake County and northern Utah County. As illustrated below, the concentration of high technology
establishments are within close proximity to the
Draper Prison site. Although this industry sector is
still on the rebound, wages tend to be much higher
than the Utah average, and salaries for top managerial positions are competitive.
The structure of employment in Salt Lake County and
Utah County can be expressed in a location quotient
(see Table C-1) which compares the regional or local
share of employment by industrial sector to that of
the state or nation. Typically, a deviation of +/- 25
percent indicates an over or under representation of a
given employment sector in a local or regional econ-

omy. Of particular interest is the degree of employment in the Professional and Business Services super
sector, in which many of the activities associated with
the computer and software industry are clustered.
When compared to the nation, Utah does not have
unusually high employment in Professional and Business Services, although Salt Lake County does show a
relatively higher representation. The figure above
illustrates the number of establishments in this super
sector by ZIP Code for the Prison market area. By
comparing Salt Lake and Utah Counties to the state
at a finer level of industry detail (Tables C-2 and C-3),
it is apparent that the share of professional and technical services sub-sector is overrepresented in this region. Professional and technical services include industries whose major output is human capital and is
Table C-1: Location Quotient for Industry Super Sectors with U.S. as Base
Area, 2003
Utah –
Salt Lake
Industry
Utah County
Statewide
County
Base Industry: Total, all
1
1
1
industries
Natural Resources and
Mining
0.82
0.29
0.49
Construction
1.27
1.11
1.4
Manufacturing
0.96
0.82
1
Trade, Transportation,
and Utilities
1.06
1.09
0.88
Information
1.13
1.27
1.86
Financial Activities
1.03
1.38
0.66
Professional and Business
Services
1.02
1.21
1
Education and Health
0.83
0.75
1.23
Services
Leisure and Hospitality
1.02
0.89
0.87
Other Services
Unclassified
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Public Review Draft

0.8

0.79

0.81

0.07

0.08

0.09

APPENDIX C

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

Table C-2: Location Quotient By Supersector, Utah as Base, 2003

thus reliant on a skilled workforce. Wages are typically higher in these industries and can be seen as
an indicator of a workforce component that draws
creative and skilled workers, as well as wealth.
Relevant occupations to the high tech field fall under this industry sub-sector as well as other professions such as accounting, architecture, engineering,
law and most consulting services.
Salt Lake County also appears to have a higher
representation of employment in the Management
of Companies and Enterprises sub-sector, which
also would offer higher compensation to its senior
employees. Although the number of jobs in this
sub-sector has fallen between 2001 and 2003, the
economy appears to be rebounding and there is
every indication that the importance of these jobs
in creating wealth for the region overall will continue to grow. The well paying jobs in the health
field continue to grow as they have in the past few
years, and this sub sector also represents a healthy
share of the regional economy, particularly in Utah
County.

Salt Lake
Utah
Utah
County
Statewide
Salt Lake
County
‘01-’03
Employment as County LQ
LQ
AAGR
% of Total

Industry
Base Industry: Total,
all industries
Natural Resources and
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Trade, Transportation,
and Utilities
Information
Financial Activities
Professional and Business Services
Education and Health
Services
Leisure and Hospitality
Other Services
Unclassified

Utah
County
’01-’03
AAGR

100%

1.00

-1.5%

-0.7%

1.3%

0.35

0.60

-7.4%

0.3%

7.9%
13%

0.88
0.85

1.10
1.04

-3.7%
-3.0%

-0.9%
-5.7%

24.7%

1.03

0.83

-1.6%

-0.4%

3.4%

1.12

1.65

-5.3%

-3.4%

7.6%

1.34

0.64

0.2%

4.6%

15.2%

1.18

0.98

-2.3%

-0.9%

12.3%
11.6%

0.90
0.87

1.48
0.86

2.3%
0.0%

3.1%
-0.3%

3.2%

0.99

1.01

-0.6%

-0.2%

0.01%

2.00

-8.8%

-5.4%

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Table C-3: Location Quotient By Subsector, Utah as Base, 2003
Salt Lake
Utah
Utah
County
County
NAICS Three Digit Sector
Salt Lake County 2001-2003 2001-2003
LQ
County LQ
AAGR
AAGR
NAICS 334 Computer and electronic
product manufacturing
1.32
1.14
-7.1%
-14.1%
NAICS 335 Electrical equipment and
appliance mfg.
1.27
1.52
-4.8%
4.2%
NAICS 516 Internet publishing and
broadcasting
0.96
3.19
-13.9%
-10.4%
NAICS 541 Professional and technical
services
1.14
1.21
-1.3%
-0.4%
NAICS 551 Management of companies
and enterprises
1.39
0.48
-2.4%
-3.1%
NAICS 621 Ambulatory health care
services
0.99
1.08
2.6%
4.2%
NAICS 622 Hospitals
0.98
1.17
2.0%
2.6%
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Table C-4: Projected Population 2000 – 2030
2000

2010

2020

2030

AARG

Bluffdale
Draper
Herriman
Lehi
Riverton

4,728
25,487
1,801
19,028
25,228

8,747
39,881
20,390
31,302
45,588

24,144
45,556
28,963
44,437
49,346

41,940
50,077
38,256
48,975
51,773

7.50%
2.40%
10.70%
3.20%
2.40%

Sandy
South Jordan
West Jordan

89,015
29,687
79,354

96,656
57,219
110,189

107,268
74,898
126,427

111,465
99,168
144,925

0.80%
4.10%
2.00%

2,305,652

2,833,337

3,486,218

4,086,319

1.90%

2002

2010

2020

2030

AARC

80,774

108,951

146,023

161,543

2.30%

1,392,275

1,697,725

2,084,097

2,493,070

2.00%

State

Source: Wasatch Front Regional Council, 2005
Table C-4a: Employment Growth 2000 – 2030
Employment
Study Area
State

Sources: State of Utah, DEA 2005 and Wasatch Front Regional Council 2005
Public Review Draft

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants

Site Specific Trends
Population growth and growth in housing starts has
been well above the state average for the study area
immediately surrounding the prison. A combination
of low interest rates and a growing economy appear
to be fueling this trend, as well as the preference of
young families to buy new housing in the southwestern part of the valley. Much of this growth has been
occurring since the 1990’s and, according to the most
recent population and employment information,
growth appears poised to continue for the foreseeable
future. As noted, professional and technical services
provide a healthy share of jobs in this area and could
have some important implications for future site development, which is further explored in the section
“Existing Land Characteristics and Potential for Redevelopment.”

Total Households by Income in Study Area, 1999
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0

Le
ss
t
$1 han
0,
00 $10
$1 0 to ,00
0
5,
0 0 $1 4
$2 0 to ,99
9
0,
0 0 $1 9
$2 0 to ,99
9
5,
0 0 $2 4
$3 0 to ,99
9
0,
0 0 $2 9
$3 0 to ,99
9
5,
0 0 $3 4
$4 0 to ,99
9
0,
0 0 $3 9
$4 0 to ,99
9
5,
$
44
00
$5 0 to ,99
9
0,
0 0 $4 9
$6 0 to ,99
9
0,
0 0 $5 9
$7 0 to ,99
9
5,
$
$1 000 74,
99
00
to
,0
$9 9
$1 00
9,
99
to
25
$
,0
12 9
$1 00
4,
to
99
50
9
$
,0
0 0 149
,9
to
$2
$1 99
00
99
,0
,
00 999
or
m
or
e

As of 2000, household structures indicated a higher
percentage of family households in the study area
with families larger than the state average as illustrated in Table C-5. This observation is further reinforced by the overall distribution of population,
which clearly points to a high number of dependents
(see population pyramid above).
Table C-5: Percent of Individuals by Household Relationship, 2000
BluffRiverState dale Draper Lehi
ton
Sandy

South
Jordan

West
Jordan

In Family
Household 89.1% 97.5% 94.5% 96.8% 97.5%

93.8%

96.8%

94.5%

Householder

24.8%

23.0%

23.9%

24.4% 21.9% 25.3% 24.3% 23.6%

Spouse

20.2% 20.4% 22.9% 21.6% 21.5%

21.4%

21.3%

20.0%

Child

37.8% 48.9% 42.1% 46.1% 47.7%

42.3%

47.4%

43.3%

Grandchild

1.7%

2.0%

1.0% 1.4%

1.5%

1.7%

1.9%

Other
Relative

3.1%

3.0%

2.1% 2.2%

2.1%

2.5%

3.4%

1.4%

1.0% 1.2%

1.2%

1.4%

1.0%

2.0%

2.5%

5.5% 3.2%

2.5%

6.2%

3.2%

5.5%

Non
Relative
1.9%
Non Family Household
10.9%

Average
Household
Size
3.13
4.23 3.40 3.70 3.93
3.42
3.92
3.60
Source: 2000 Census, Herriman was not included due to dramatic growth and
lack of population in 2000.

Table C-6: Study Area Per Capita Income, 1999
Bluffdale

$17,813

Draper

$22,747

Lehi

$16,074

Riverton

$17,643

Sandy

$22,928

South Jordan

$20,938

West Jordan

$17,221

Source: 2000 Census

Incomes were moderate to high across the study area in
2000 (Table C-6). Draper, Sandy, and South Jordan
exhibit notably higher per capita incomes associated
with wealthier, more established communities.
These traits are reflected in the pricing of housing submarkets within Draper and Sandy, though to a lesser
extent in South Jordan, which is discussed in the section on housing supply and demand. The fact that
most new housing starts are commanding a lower price
than what many existing households in these communities could afford in 2000 given current interest rates,
suggests a strong “move up” market which is not possi-

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX C

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

ble to detect with the 2000 Census statistics. This “move up”
market includes newer households with slightly lower incomes
who are inclined to buy homes in
these preferred locations. Based
on the characteristics of the existing communities as of 2000
and the types of units currently
being built, this market appears
to be made up of largely young
families.

Vacant Lot Inventory by Price
33%

35%
30%

24%

25%

18%

20%
15%

10%
5%
3%

0%
$40,000 - $50,000 - $60,000 - $70,000 - $80,000 - $90,000 - $100,000 $120,000 $150,000 $170,000
$49,999 $59,999 $69,999 $79,999 $89,999 $99,999
$119,999 $149,999 $169,999 $199,999
Lot Price

Residential Analysis
demand will remain strong in the area and are preparing to sell more lots in the future, or the demand for
homes in the area has decreased and the developers
have not yet scaled back development to better reflect
actual demand. Since home starts have increased during the same period, it is clear the increase in vacant lot
inventory is a sign that developers believe demand will
continue to be strong in this area.

Single Family Residential
Supply
Since the prison site would most likely involve largescale development, the subdivisions considered in this
analysis comprise more than 50 units and are located
with the surrounding cities of Draper, Sandy, Herriman, Bluffdale, Riverton, South Jordan and West
Jordan. In an effort to avoid any outlier influence,
the new construction and resale analysis excludes
homes with a sales price under $125,000 or over
$1,000,000.

Vacant lot inventory (see figure above) illustrates demand while the price of vacant lots illustrates the cost
of housing in the study area. It is assumed that land
costs represent approximately one-third of the total
housing price. Vacant lots priced between $50,000 and
$69,999 are the most common prices in current inventory. These lots provide for homes priced between
$150,000 and $210,000. Lots priced between $50,000
and $69,999 comprise 57 percent of the current vacant
lot inventory.

Vacant Lot Inventory
The total inventory of vacant lots in the southern end
of the Salt Lake Valley has increased over the past
five quarters. For comparison, there are 1,114 more
lots available in the study area today than one year
ago (see figure below). An increasing inventory trend
indicates one of two things. Either developers believe

Vacant Lot Inventory Trend
4500
4094

4000
3688

3500
3000

3644

3296
2980

2500
2000
1500

Interestingly, two clusters of pricing for new construction exist in the study area. The first cluster is the 57
percent of inventory priced between $50,000 and
$69,999 as previously mentioned.
A sharp drop
in inventory is seen with only 3 percent of inventory
in the $70,000 to $79,999 price range, followed by
another cluster of lots ranging from $80,000 to
$99,999. These two clusters alone comprise 84 percent of all lots in the study area. This two cluster
trend is seen both in Utah and Salt Lake Counties
and indicates two primary price points from
$150,000 to $210,000 and $240,000 to $300,000 for
homes.

1000
500
0
2nd Quarter 2004

3rd Quarter 2004

4th Quarter 2004

1st Quarter 2005

2nd Quarter 2005

Public Review Draft

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants

started in the second quarter of 2005, than were
44%
started during the same
50%
40%
quarter of 2004. Nearly
30%
94 percent of these home
14%
12%
12%
20%
9%
5%
starts occurred in the Salt
3%
10%
1%
1%
0%
Lake County portion of
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
the study area, while 28
9
99
99
99
99
,9
,9
,9
,9
29
-4
-6
-7
-9
17
21
11
13
r0
0
0
0
percent of all vacant lot
e
0
0
0
0
00
00
00
00
nd
30
70
50
80
,0
,0
,0
,0
U
8
0
2
4
inventory is located in the
1
1
1
1
Utah County portion of
Lot Square Foot
the study area. Currently,
most of the construction
in
the
study
area
is
happening
at
the southern end of Salt
The lack of inventory above $100,000 indicates deLake County, but this trend is expected to move to the
velopers and builders do not expect to sell a large
northern portions of Utah County in the future as the
volume of homes priced above $300,000. In fact,
land supply is reduced.
only four percent of lots provide for homes priced
between $300,000 and $500,000. In comparison, 9.2
Overall, supply in the study area is stronger than it has
percent of all Utah County vacant lots and 7.8 perbeen in the past five quarters. Both home starts and vacent of all Salt Lake County vacant lots fall within
cant lot inventories have gradually increased over time.
this same price range. Clearly, homes above
Builders and developers believe demand will remain
$300,000 are not as marketable in the study area as
strong, and as a result, have been ramping up supply to
they are in other parts of the Wasatch Front.
meet future demand.
The size of vacant lots can be helpful in identifying
Demand
demand characteristics. In many communities there
is a close correlation between lot price and lot size.
Demand is being driven by combined increases in employThis same two-cluster pattern in lot price does not
ment and a desire on the part of younger families to reloexist in lot size as lots of identical sizes are selling for
cate to this portion of the valley as noted earlier. Evidifferent prices. The strong supply of lots ranging
dence that lends further support to these conclusions is
from 3,000 to 6,999 square feet is not unique to the
discussed in terms of absorption for larger subdivisions
study area. Forty-five percent of all Utah County
and activity in the resale market.
inventory and 42 percent of all Salt Lake County
inventory falls between 3,000 and 6,999 square feet.
The size of lots in the Utah County portion of the
study area is noteworthy. Eighty-three percent of
all Utah County lot inventory in the study area falls
in the 3,000 to 6,999 square foot range. Lots in the
study area, and particularly in northern Utah
County, are smaller than lots
across the Wasatch Front.
Home Starts
Vacant Lot Inventory by Size

Home Starts

950

Another dimension of housing supply is reflected in the
number of home starts (see
figure “Home Starts”). In
the study area, home starts
have gradually increased
over the past five quarters.
Sixty-eight more homes were

900

918

850
800

798

810

807

818

750
700
2nd Quarter 2004

3rd Quarter 2004

Public Review Draft

4th Quarter 2004

1st Quarter 2005

2nd Quarter 2005

APPENDIX C

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

Absorption Analysis

Average Annual Absorption for Single Family
Residential

Wikstrom analyzed a total of 75 subdivisions in
Bluffdale, Draper, Sandy, Riverton, West Jordan,
South Jordan and Herriman. The selection of subdivisions from these seven cities was limited by two criteria: each subdivision needed to be over 50 units
when all phases were combined and each had to be
under construction or newly constructed.

Units Per Month

250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0

An extensive absorption analysis was conducted on
each subdivision to determine the rate at which homes
are being absorbed into the market. Overall findings
illustrate the average absorption rate for large subdivisions was 2.8 units per month per subdivision from
the day a subdivision was platted.

2002

Units Per Month

60.0

Bluffdale

50.0

Draper

40.0

Herriman
Riverton
Sandy

20.0

South Jordan

10.0

West Jordan

0.0
2004

2005

West Jordan and Herriman exhibit the highest
demand in the market area averaging 46.8 and
49.7 sales per month respectively for the fortytwo month period. In contrast, Bluffdale shows
the least activity in the new construction market
averaging only 0.8 units sold per month for the
last eighteen months. While the overall demand
in the area is increasing, Sandy and Draper show
decreasing demand. When looking at absorption
by city, Sandy and Draper stand out. Between
2002 and 2004 new home sales in Draper have
steadily decreased and 2005 sales data seems to
confirm sales will continue to decline. Sandy
subdivisions had an average absorption of 3.9
units per month between 2002 and 2005,

70.0

2003

2004

Total sales analyzed in the market area provide a more
comprehensive view of the total study area market (see
Table C-7). In the past 42 months (January 2002
through June 2005) the market absorbed 6,899 units,
averaging 164.3 units per month. Trends in sales show
increased demand and greater overall market capacity in
the southern region of Salt Lake County. Current demand is higher with the market absorbing 3,371 units
over the past 18 months, averaging 187.3 units every
month.

Average Annual Absorption Rate for Single
Family Residential

2002

2003

Years
* 2005 Covers January through July Only

The fastest rate of absorption was observed at Rosecrest in Herriman with just over 19 units per month
for 1,308 units over a 67 month period. Most subdivisions average between two and three units per month
absorption rate. Subdivisions with over 200 units had
absorption rates ranging roughly between five and ten
units per month

30.0

2005

Year

* 2005 Covers January through July Only

Table C-7: Total Single Family Home Sales by Year and City
Year of Sale
2002
2003
2004
2005
(Jan. – June)
Grand Total
Average Monthly Absorption per 18
Months
Average Monthly Absorption per 42
Month

Bluffdale

Draper
311
334
3
285

Herriman
404
581
589

Riverton
174
149
266

Sandy
77
45
33

South Jordan
260
324
373

West Jordan
288
581
752

Grand Total
1,514
2,014
2,301

12
15

124
1,054

306
1,880

141
730

8
163

133
1,090

346
1,967

1,070
6,899

0.8

22.7

49.7

22.6

2.3

28.1

61.0

187.3

0.4

25.1

44.8

17.4

3.9

26.0

46.8

164.3

Public Review Draft

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants

Table C-8: Total Single Family Residential Sales by Month
Year of
Sale

Jan

Feb

Mar

April

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Grand
Total

2002

133

131

133

134

128

143

115

161

129

127

1,514

2003

115

122

148

170

130

155

185

170

229

213

177

200

2,014

2004

141

155

191

193

201

208

217

232

199

192

172

200

2,301

2005
Grand
Total

133

142

210

202

185

198

477

511

682

696

649

695

1,070
530

545

543

566

478

527

6,899

Source: Salt Lake Recorder’s Office

whereas Bluffdale has seen very little single-family construction. Nonetheless, demand appears to be strong
considering areas of the study area that contribute the
largest overall number of units have experienced a
gradual increase in sales since 2002.
The number of units absorbed into the market per year
has been steadily increasing the last four years. This
shows an increasing demand for housing in the study
area. The strength of demand is further illustrated by
an increasing number of home starts. A portion of this
strong demand is attributable to historically low interest rates. The strength of demand in the study area is
also attributable, in part, to a healthy growing economy and steady population increases.
The sales period of January to June has always comprised less than 50 percent of total sales for the year. If
this trend continues into the future, 2005 will provide
roughly the same new home sales as seen in 2004. The

study area has seen 19 fewer new home sales than during the same time period of 2004.
Similar to citywide trends, subdivisions in Herriman
and West Jordan absorb faster than subdivisions in
surrounding areas (see Table C-9). The average absorption rate for subdivisions in the study area is 2.8,
while Herriman subdivisions average 5.7 homes per
month. South Jordan and Riverton follow Herriman
and West Jordan, which absorb 2.3 and 2.4 homes per
month respectively. It is interesting to note two of
the slowest absorbing communities, Draper and
Sandy, are both located on the eastern side of I-15.
The slower absorption in Draper and Sandy is most
likely caused by higher prices, the fact that much of
this market has already been brought to equilibrium
and less land is available. Similarly, large lot zoning
and limited land supply is constraining development
in Bluffdale.

Table C-9: Average Monthly Absorption for Single Family Residential Housing Subdivisions Since Date Platted
50-99
Bluffdale
Draper
Herriman
Riverton
Sandy
South Jordan
West Jordan

Average Monthly Absorption Per Subdivision
Number of Subdivisions
Average Monthly Absorption Per Subdivision
Number of Subdivisions
Average Monthly Absorption Per Subdivision
Number of Subdivisions
Average Monthly Absorption Per Subdivision
Number of Subdivisions
Average Monthly Absorption Per Subdivision
Number of Subdivisions
Average Monthly Absorption Per Subdivision
Number of Subdivisions
Average Monthly Absorption Per Subdivision
Number of Subdivisions

Total Number of Subdivisions

100-149

150-200

>200

Grand Total

1.6
1
1.2
11
2.8
2
1.5
4
1.2
5
1.5
6
1.1
7

0
1.9
5
2.5
3
1.6
5
0
1.5
1
2.3
5

0
1.5
1
0
0
0
2.1
4
3.1
1

0
4.6
1
9.5
4
6.5
2
0
4.3
3
10.4
4

1.6
1
1.6
18
5.7
9
2.4
11
1.2
5
2.3
14
3.7
17

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX C

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

MLS Sales Price Distribution

Table C-10: MLS Sales Price Distribution
Home Price Range

Total

Cumulative
Percentage

16%

$100,000 - $124,999

$125,000 - $149,999

10%

$150,000 - $174,999

427

21%

26%

$175,000 - $199,999

342

17%

43%

$200,000 - $224,999

238

12%

55%

10%

64%

151

72%

$275,000 - $299,999

126

78%

$300,000 - $324,999

83%

$325,000 - $349,999

86%

$350,000 - $374,999

89%

$375,000 - $399,999

91%

$400,000 - $449,999

94%

$450,000 - $499,999

96%

$500,000 -$599,999

98%

$600,000 - $749,999

99%

$750,000 - $999,999

100%

$1,000,000 – Above

100%

457

100%

Source: MLS Data

West Jordan and Herriman subdivisions have sold
more homes than any other cities in the study area.
Developments in these two communities sold 3,847
homes in the past 42 months, or 56 percent of all
sales in the study area. Bluffdale has experienced the
lowest amount of sales with only two percent of total
sales. This will likely increase in the future with
newly approved projects moving into the market.
Demand is being driven by a number of factors. The
economy has been steadily growing, the birthrate
and migration rate have provided the study area
with a strong population base and interest rates have
provided an unparalleled opportunity for home ownership. Demand will likely slow somewhat as interest
rates are projected to rise in the near future.
Resale Analysis
Looking to recent absorption trends best illustrates
demand. However, resale analysis also provides insight into the preferences of demand in the study
area. For purposes of this study, home resales activity of the past three years was identified, for product
aged less than five years at the time of sale.

13%

12%

10% 11%
7% 7%
4%

5%
4% 4%

3%
1%

25
,
$1 000
50
, 0 $1
$1 00 49
75
- $ , 99
,
9
1
$2 000 74
00
- $ , 99
,
9
1
$2 000 99
,9
25
,0 $22 99
$2 00
4
50
- $ , 99
,
9
2
$2 000 49
75
- $ , 99
,
9
2
$3 000 74
,9
00
,0 $2 99
$3 00 99
25
- $ , 99
,
9
$3 000 324
50
- $ , 99
,
9
3
$3 000 49
,9
75
,0 $37 99
$4 00
4
00
- $ , 99
,
9
3
$4 000 99
50
- $ , 99
,0
9
4
$5 00 49 ,
00 - $ 99
$6 ,00 499 9
00 0 ,
$ 5 999
,0
99
$7 00
50 - $ ,99
,0
9
00 7 49
- $ ,9 9
9
99
9,
99
9

193

$250,000 - $274,999

14%

$225,000 - $249,999

17%

18%

Under $99,999

Total

The majority of resale homes sold for between $150,000 and
$300,000. Twenty-two percent of resales in the area were
purchased for over $300,000 (see Table C-10).
It is difficult to compare household incomes (Table C-11)
with resale home prices as they describe two separate time
periods. Because of recent high growth rates since 2000,
demographic characteristics have certainly changed in the
area. Resale home prices do not match up with household
incomes in the study area. Typically, housing costs represent
three times household income in any given area. In the
study area recent data does not coincide with demographic
data from 2000. This could be partially attributable to nointerest loans, but is more likely attributable to an increase
in the number of young families over the past five years.
Table C-11: Households by Income, 1999
Number of
Households

% of Total

Cumulative
Percentage

Less than $10,000

1,907

2.5%

$10,000 to $14,999

1,398

1.8%

4.3%

$15,000 to $19,999

1,914

2.5%

6.7%

$20,000 to $24,999

2,620

3.4%

10.1%

$25,000 to $29,999

2,960

3.8%

14.0%

$30,000 to $34,999

3,827

4.9%

18.9%

$35,000 to $39,999

3,662

4.7%

23.6%

$40,000 to $44,999

4,823

6.2%

29.9%

$45,000 to $49,999

4,364

5.6%

35.5%

$50,000 to $59,999

9,125

11.8%

47.3%

$60,000 to $74,999

12,215

15.8%

63.1%

$75,000 to $99,999

14,336

18.5%

81.6%

$100,000 to $124,999

7,215

9.3%

90.9%

$125,000 to $149,999

3,175

4.1%

95.0%

$150,000 to $199,999

2,183

2.8%

97.8%

$200,000 or more

1,676

2.2%

100.0%

Source: Census 2000
Public Review Draft

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants

In contrast, fifty-four percent of all new homes in the
study area are located on lots smaller than 7,000 square
feet. It is also interesting to note no new homes are
being built on lots larger than 22,000 square feet. This
is partially due to the small amount of construction in
Bluffdale where larger lots have been commonplace.

Table C-12: Lot Size Distribution

Total
Source: MLS Data

15%

15%
10%10%

3% 5%

2% 1% 1%

New Home Inventory by Lot Size
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

41%
14%

99
0-

21
,9

17
,9

13
,9
14
,00

12
,00

010
,00

99
11
,9

99
9
-9

99
9
80
00

-7

99
9
70
00

-6

99
9
50
00

-4
30
00

18
,00

13%

10%

12%
1%

Un
de
r-

The two distinct market segments mentioned in the
new construction lot size are not as visible when looking at the size of resale lots (see Table C-12). The most
common resale lot size is between 10,000 and 11,999
square feet. This explains why there are a greater proportion of upscale homes, which sell for over $300,000
in the resale data.

Lot Size Range in SF
Under - 2999
3000 - 4999
5000 - 6999
7000 - 7999
8000 - 9999
10,000 - 11,999
12,000 - 13,999
14,000 - 17,999
18,000 - 21,999
22,000 - 29,999
30,000 - 41,999
42,000 - Above

23%

25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%

29
99

Lot Size

MLS Lot Size Distribution

Un
de
r29
30
99
00
-4
99
50
9
00
-6
9
70
99
00
-7
99
80
9
00
10
-9
,0
9
99
00
-1
12
1
,9
,0
99
00
-1
14
3
,9
,0
99
00
-1
18
7
,9
,0
99
00
-2
22
1
,9
,0
99
00
-2
30
9
,9
,00
99
0
-4
42
1
,9
,0
99
00
-A
bo
ve

Ninety-three percent of all new homes in the study
area sold for under $300,000. This is dissimilar to the
price distribution of resale homes where only 69 percent of homes sold for under $300,000. This discrepancy for home prices between new homes and resale
homes is most likely due to the large number of luxury
homes that have been built in Sandy and
Draper over the past five years creating an excess of
homes priced above $300,000 in the area. Lower interest rates also have allowed consumers to purchase more
home for less money. The difference in the distribution
of home prices can also be partially described by the
luxury home market in northern Utah County. Alpine
and Highland have been marketing larger luxury
homes, which have taken a portion of this market
away from Draper and Sandy.

Lot Square Foot

Table C-13 shows the price of resale homes per squarefoot. Surprisingly, the majority (55 percent) had a
price of $75 per square foot or less. Homebuyers seem
to be interested in fairly large homes with low cost per
square-foot. However, these costs per square foot are
artificially low, because they take into account some
unfinished basement space. The prices are still useful
assuming, on average, homes through-out these areas
have the same amount of unfinished basement space.

Table C-13: Price per Square Foot

Total

%
60
96
307
178
295
461
197
194
119
46
14
23

3%
5%
15%
9%
15%
23%
10%
10%
6%
2%
1%
1%

1,990

100%

Cumulative
Percentage
3%
8%
23%
32%
47%
70%
80%
90%
96%
98%
99%
100%

Price/SF
> $60
$60 - $65
$65 - $70
$70 - $75
$75 - $80
$80 - $85
$85 - $90
$90 - $95
$95 - $100
$100 - $110
$110 - $115
> $115
Total
Source: MLS Data

Public Review Draft

7%
14%
18%
16%
12%
9%
6%
6%
4%

Cumulative
Percentage
7%
21%
39%
55%
67%
77%
83%
89%
93%

96%

23
48
1,990

1%
2%
100%

98%
100%

Frequency
132
286
365
316
238
189
129
115
75

APPENDIX C

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah
Table C-14: Single Family Home Resales Profile
Number of Homes
Sold
Bluffdale
Draper
Herriman
Lehi
Riverton
Sandy
South Jordan
West Jordan
Total

Average Home
SF

Average Lot SF

Average FAR

Average Price

Average Price/SF

10
480
273
110
249
137
281
450

4,865
3,639
2,822
2,929
3,175
3,882
3,626
2,751

39,465
11,088
13,882
8,672
12,746
10,369
11,846
9,636

0.13
0.56
0.28
0.72
0.28
0.66
0.46
0.34

$453,885
$321,371
$195,940
$212,602
$222,453
$352,499
$272,379
$190,594

$93.42
$87.21
$70.25
$73.62
$69.99
$89.65
$74.41
$70.97

1,990

3,250

11,417

0.44

$252,092

$76.70

Source: MLS Data

The average price per square foot of $93.42 (121
percent of the average price/SF) in Bluffdale is
clearly attracting a higher end market with larger
homes on larger lots (see Table C-14). The average
price of homes in Bluffdale is considerably more
than the next highest priced communities of
Draper and Sandy.
The average lot size of .26 acres indicates average
sized lots. Again, Bluffdale has the largest lot sizes
while Herriman has the smallest lots. This is not
surprising considering Bluffdale has traditionally
zoned for a more rural feel, while Herriman has attracted subdivisions with an urban or suburban
feel. This higher density is reflected in the price
per square foot of homes in these communities.
Bluffdale has the highest unadjusted price per
square foot of $93.42 while Herriman has the lowest unadjusted price per square foot of $70.25.

MLS Price Per SF
400

365

350

316
286

300

238

250

189

200
132

150

129

115

100

74
48

0
> $60

$60 $65

$65 $70

$70 $75

$75 $80

$80 $85

$85 $90

$90 $95

$95 $100

$100 - $110 - > $115
$110
$115

MLS Average Price/SF by City
$100.00

$93.42

$89.65

$87.21

$90.00
$80.00

$70.25

$73.62

$74.41

$69.99

$70.97

$70.00
$60.00
$50.00

Herriman and West Jordan are offering similar resale products. They both cater to entry-level
homes with an average sales price of $195,940 and
$190,594 respectively. These two cities also share
roughly the same square foot price of $70 and an
average unit size close to 2800 square feet, although buyers in Herriman seem to be getting a
slightly larger lot than those in West Jordan. Both
of these areas have been active markets, with over
one-third of all resale homes in the study area occurring in these two cities.

$40.00
$30.00
$20.00
$10.00
$0.00
Bluffdale

Draper

Herriman

Lehi

Riverton

Sandy

South
Jordan

West
Jordan

MLS Average Home and Lot Square Footage by City
45,000
40,000

6,000
4,865

5,000

35,000
3,882

30,000

3,639

4,000

3,626
3,175

25,000

2,822

2,929

2,751

3,000

20,000
15,000

2,000

10,000
1,000
5,000
-

Bluffdale Draper Herriman Lehi

Public Review Draft

Riverton Sandy

South West
Jordan Jordan

Average Lot SF
Average Home SF

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants

MLS Average Home SF and Sales Price by City
$500,000
$450,000
$400,000
$350,000
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
$0

Attached Residential

6,000
5,000

Supply

4,000
3,000

Average Sales Price
Average Home SF

2,000
1,000

Condominium and town home developments with
over 50 units falling within a five-mile radius
were taken into consideration for this study.

es
tJ
or
da
n

Jo
rd
an

Sa
nd
y

iv
er
to
n

So
ut
h

Le
hi

er
rim

ra
pe
r

Bl
uf
fd
al
e

Attached home vacant lot inventory has not increased as much as detached single family housing lots. Currently there are 317 fewer vacant lots
for attached housing in the area than seen a year
Concluding Remarks
ago. Part of this decrease is explained by strong sales
Overall, growth in employment, in-migration and low inter- of attached housing during the second quarter of 2005.
Despite the decrease in vacant lot inventory, condoest rates have caused strong housing demand in the study
area. The strength of the housing market in the study area is minium starts do not decrease significantly in the secevidenced by an increasing absorption rate over time. Build- ond quarter of 2005, indicating a relatively steady supply of inventory, regardless of the decrease in vacant
ers and developers have been successful in the recent past
and expect similar demand to continue in the future. Natu- lot inventory.
rally, the demand for housing in any area is a function of
population, incomes and interest rates. If any of these vari- The price distribution of recently sold attached homes
ables changes, it will affect the housing demand in the study is a relatively normal distribution with the most common price between $125,000 and $149,999 (see Figure
area.
“Attached Home Closings by Price”).
Housing trends in these areas follow similar trends across the
valley. On average, homes on the eastern side of I-15 cost
more and are larger than homes on the western side of the
interstate. Homes in Bluffdale provide an exception to this
general rule due to the rural zoning which has been in place
for a number of years. New home sales in Sandy and Draper
have tapered off in the past four years and are costing
more than other new homes in the study area.
Since 2002, development in West Jordan and Herriman
have sold the most homes, both resale and new. These
homes tend to be entry-level homes with smaller than
average square footage and purchase prices. These two
communities alone provide 53 percent of new home
sales and 33 percent of all resale homes over the study
period.

Attached home starts show that attached housing is
becoming slightly more expensive in the study area.
Still, no market exists for attached housing above
$225,000.

45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%

Attached Home Starts by Price
39%
35%

16%
7%

Under
$99,000

$100,000 $124,999

Attached Vacant Lot Inventory Trend
1,150

$175,000 $199,999

$200,000 $224,999

Attached Home Closings by Price

1,130
1,072

1,050

40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%

1,064

990

950
900
850
813

800
2nd Quarter
2004

$150,000 $174,999

Home Price

1,100

1,000

$125,000 $149,999

3rd Quarter
2004

4th Quarter
2004

1st Quarter
2005

2nd Quarter
2005

38%

35%

18%
8%

Under
$99,000

$100,000 $124,999

$125,000 $149,999

$150,000 $174,999

Home Price

Public Review Draft

$175,000 $199,999

$200,000 $224,999

APPENDIX C

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

Table C-15: Total Attached Housing Sales by Month
Year of Sale

Jan

Feb

Mar

April

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Grand Total

2002

460

2003

389

2004

438

2005

Grand Total

104

123

152

166

171

206

324
111

136

124

108

104

106

1611

Source: Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office

Demand
Annual Average Absorption By City

Condominium and other attached housing sales have
been strong over the last few years. The greatest
number of sales are seen in South and West Jordan.
In contrast, other fast growing cities such as Riverton
and Herriman contribute a much smaller share of attached housing to their overall development activity.
Attached housing in Herriman has just started developing and it appears that Riverton has only contributed approximately 20 to 25 units per year since 2003.
Overall, the market continues to grow with absorption
increasing from 38.4 units per month over the last
forty-two months to 42.3 units per month for the last
eighteen months (see Table C-15 and figure below) It
appears there will be opportunities to develop a
greater share of attached housing in many of the communities which to date have seen mostly single-family
residential development. Flat wages and rising interest rates may encourage such development over the
next few years. Demand appears to be higher in the
last eighteen months as compared to the period since
2002 for Bluffdale, Herriman and West Jordan (see
Table C-16 and figure above). West Jordan continues
to lead the market area with the fastest absorption
rates overall. Increasing construction costs, rising interests rates and smaller household formation will
likely accelerate this trend over the next decade.
Average Annual Absorption of Attached Housing
Units Per Month

80
60
40
20
0
2002

2003

2004

2005

Units Per Month

Absorption Analysis

18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Bluffdale
Draper
Herriman
Riverton
Sandy
South Jordan
West Jordan
2002

2003

2004

2005

Year

Average absorption by individual subdivisions varies
widely for each community. Overall average monthly
absorption is 2.5 units for all subdivisions and 4.6 units
for subdivisions with over 200 units (see Table C-17). By
city the average absorption rate for subdivisions from
date platted range from 1.8 to 5.8 units per month. Perhaps more informative is the average rate of absorption
for subdivisions by size for individual communities. Larger subdivisions have higher absorption rates and are
located in west side communities. Draper has nine subdivisions comprising 50 to 100 units and which have an
average absorption rate of 1.9 units per month. The majority of these lots were platted and sold prior to 2002.
As of 2002 the overall attached housing market has
picked up based on the fact that overall absorption rate
per subdivision in Draper is roughly one-half to one unit
per month slower than comparable subdivisions in Herriman, Riverton and West Jordan since the date of
plat. This suggests that west side communities
will continue dominating the attached housing
market in the future assuming lot supply remains
strong and local zoning continues to encourage
higher density development. Whether this is consequential for the proposed development at the
Draper Prison Site remains to be seen as the overall
demand for less expensive home ownership opportunities will likely increase as interest rates rise.

Year
*2005 Covers January through July only

Public Review Draft

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants

Table C-16: Total Attached Housing Sales by City and Year
Year of Sale
2002
2003
2004
2005
Grand Total
Average Monthly Sales per 18 Month
Average Monthly Sales per 42 Month

Bluffdale
0
68
64
30
162
5.2
3.9

Draper
97
32
5
34
168
2.2
4.0

Herriman
0
0
32
68
100
5.6
2.4

Resale Analysis

Riverton
69
25
21
10
125
1.7
3.0

Sandy
0
1
42
15
58
3.2
1.4

South Jordan
141
92
109
99
441
11.6
10.5

Grand Total
460
389
438
324
1,611
42.3
38.4

Table C-17: Average Monthly Absorption for Attached Housing Subdivisions
Since Date Platted

The greatest attached housing resale activity has been
observed in Draper, Lehi, and West Jordan (see Table
C-18). These three areas represent 73 percent of all attached housing sales in the study area. There has been
virtually no attached housing resale activity in
Bluffdale and limited activity in Riverton. Meanwhile,
there has been high activity in surrounding areas. This
may indicate a market opportunity for attached housing. This conclusion is evidenced in the new home
data, which suggests that inventory has been decreasing while absorption has been increasing in this area.

Size by Units
Average Monthly Absorption
Bluffdale Per Subdivision
Number of Subdivisions
Average Monthly Absorption
Per Subdivision

Draper

Number of Subdivisions
Average Monthly Absorption
Herriman Per Subdivision
Number of Subdivisions

Average prices and the average square foot price are
higher in both Draper and Sandy, suggesting the resale
market caters to higher incomes in these communities.
Riverton, Lehi and South Jordan have lower than average per square foot costs with higher than average
floor-to-area ratios indicating developers are offering a
more affordable product in these cities. In West Jordan the average unit size is smaller bringing the average price down, yet the average price per square foot is
slightly higher. In this instance developers appear to
be responding to a preference for higher quality units,
provided at a more affordable price point. This may
prove to be a viable niche market since West Jordan
has had the greatest number of sales of all cities for the
period.

Average Monthly Absorption
Riverton Per Subdivision
Number of Subdivisions
Average Monthly Absorption
Per Subdivision

Sandy

Number of Subdivisions
South
Jordan

Average Monthly Absorption
Per Subdivision
Number of Subdivisions

West
Jordan

Average Monthly Absorption
Per Subdivision
Number of Subdivisions

Total Number of Subdivisions

Concluding Remarks
Increasing household formation, relatively low
interest rates and increasing employment will continue to drive the market area’s attached and detached housing markets. Communities on the
western portion of the market are expected to
make the largest contributions to the overall market, especially in West Jordan, South Jordan and
Herriman. With overall increases in construction
costs and rising interest rates, attached housing
may become a more viable alternative to singlefamily residential units especially for young, newly

West Jordan
153
171
165
68
557
12.9
13.3

50- 100- 15099 149 200 >200

Grand
Total

5.8

1.9

1.7

1.8

0.6

2.7

2.0

0.3

2.5

2.4

1.7

2.6

2.2

1.7

5.1

2.7

3.6

2.8

3.5

4.1

3.3

MLS Attached Housing Square Footage
3,000

2,696

2,500
2,000

1,939

1,784

1,537

1,597
1,297

1,500
1,000
500
0
Draper

Public Review Draft

Lehi

Riverton

Sandy

South
Jordan

West
Jordan

APPENDIX C

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

Table C-18: Attached Home Resales Profile
Number of
Homes Sold
Draper

Average
Home SF
94

Average
Lot SF

1,939

Average
FAR
1,298

Average
Price
1.49

Average
Price/SF

$182,791

$94.27

Lehi

1,537

702

2.19

$133,640

$86.94

Riverton

2,696

436

6.19

$191,957

$71.20

Sandy

1,784

1.00

$257,500

$144.31

South Jordan

1,597

736

2.17

$145,950

$91.39

West Jordan

1,297

765

1.70

$130,226

$100.41

Source: MLS Data

formed households. These patterns are expected
to hold as long as employment remains robust
and young families are not priced out of the market by escalating costs.

MLS Attached Housing Price Distribution
$300,000

$257,500

$250,000
$182,791

$200,000

Apartment Market

$191,957
$133,640

$150,000

$145,950

$130,226

$100,000

The multi-family housing market along the Wa$50,000
satch Front suffered from the economic recession
$0
of 2001 to 2003. This market has continued to
Draper
Lehi
Riverton
Sandy
South
West
Jordan
Jordan
stumble, as historically low mortgage rates encouraged many would-be renters to become first
time homebuyers. Rising employment opportunities
encouraged this trend. However, mortgage interest
Vacancy Rates
rates began to rise in the middle of 2005 and are projected to continue rising for the next six to 12 months.
The vacancy rate as of June 2005 for southern Salt Lake
Higher interest rates will fuel the multi-family housing
County is 6.9 percent. Following countywide trends, the
market by reducing the opportunities for households to
vacancy rates in southern Salt Lake County have been
afford a mortgage payment. In Salt Lake County, vadeclining since the valley experienced an all time high in
cancy rates have continually declined from 2002, where
January 2003. Prior to January 2003, the southern porvacancy rates hit a peak of 10.9 percent, to a rate of 7.3
tion of Salt Lake County averaged a higher vacancy rate
percent in mid-2005. Apartment vacancy rates for the
of 7.6 percent than the county as a whole, which was 7.1
county are projected to drop to six percent during
percent. Since the spike in vacancy rates, the southern
2006.
portion of the county is showing lower than average vacancy rates of 8.2 percent compared to 8.9 percent. If
the demand for multi-family housing units continues to
grow as predicted, the southern portion of Salt Lake
County could achieve near market equilibrium, which is
estimated at five percent vacancy

New Attached Home Starts
600
550
500
450
400

544

522
500

483
444
2nd
Quarter
2004

3rd
Quarter
2004

4th
Quarter
2004

1st Quarter
2005

2nd
Quarter
2005

Public Review Draft

Increased demand is reflected in new and
large apartment developments in the valley
such as the new 152-unit apartment tower at
the Gateway and Overton Development’s
new 500-unit apartment community on 400
South and 500 East in Salt Lake City. Already, half of the 500 units in the latter community are pre-leased and construction on
phase two will begin soon.

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants

Rent
Market value rents have remained relatively steady
over the past five years. The average monthly rental
rate in southern Salt Lake County for June 2005 is
$731 compared to an average rate of $714 four years
ago (see Table C-20). Only studio apartments showed a
significant amount of change, decreasing from an average monthly rate of $515 in June 2001 to $399 in June
2005. The monthly rent in southern Salt Lake County
tends to be higher than the rates for Salt Lake County
as a whole. The average rent for apartments in Salt
Lake County in June 2005 was $636, a $95 difference.
Rent Per Square Foot
Local data is not available on price per square foot, but
the southern region of the county should follow similar
tends as the county (see Table C-21). The average
monthly rent per square foot in Salt Lake County
peaked in January 2003 at $0.78. This peak coincided
with the peak in vacancy rates discussed in the previous section. Since this peak in rates the average rent
per square foot has fallen below the average rate of
$0.74 for the past five years to the current average of
$0.70 in June 2005. All five types of apartments are
lower than the category averages in June 2005. This
decreased rate per square foot is a response to the high
vacancy rates in Salt Lake County. If current trends
continue, apartments can expect to see price per square
foot rise as vacancy rates decrease.
According to data from Equimark Properties, an average of 734 apartment units in large developments (over
40 units) have been constructed per year from mid-year
2002 to mid-year 2004 in the south end of Salt Lake
County (the area south of 6200 South). If Salt Lake
County’s average vacancy rate of 9.13 percent (midyear 2002 to mid-year 2005) were applied to this total,
the estimated number of new units rented per year
would be 667. If the prison site were to capture 30 percent of this average, an estimated 200 units could be
rented per year. Under the full relocation scenario, this
represents an absorption period of 11 years.
Retail Analysis
The goal of this retail market analysis was to estimate
the amount of retail square-footage that could be supported by the prison site development and the surrounding area. This analysis used existing area popula-

tion, estimated population based on the development
program of the prison site as outlined in this document
and estimates of future population in surrounding
planned developments as base data.
Buying power (the amount of money that would be
spent by the local population) was estimated by multiplying the population within one, three and five mile
radii from the prison by the statewide average percapita expenditures in the following major retail categories: Building & Garden, General Merchandise, Food
Stores, Motor Vehicle Dealers, Apparel & Accessory,
Furniture, Eating Places and Miscellaneous Retail.
Population was estimated using Census 2000 data for
each of the three areas. The 2005 populations for each
of these areas were then projected based on the 2000
Census numbers by using the average annual growth
rates from the 2000-2004 Census population estimates
for the cities of South Jordan, Sandy, Draper, Riverton
and Bluffdale.
Once buying power was determined, the amount of retail square-footage supportable within each area was
estimated. Buying power was converted into supportable retail square-footage by dividing buying power by
average sales per square foot. Total current sales by
retail category were determined for each radius by dividing total sales by retail category in each ZIP Code
by corresponding sales per square-foot averages for
each retail category. Since a number of the ZIP Code
boundaries did not fall completely within the radii,
supportable square footage was reduced by the proportion of retail acreage that fell outside the radii as determined by 2005 tax parcel data.
Existing and planned retail square-footage in the market area was subtracted from the total supportable
square-footage to arrive at adjusted supportable
square-footage. Typically, a buying power analysis
will result in an estimate of additional square-footage
that could be supported by the projected increase in
population. However, in the case of the prison site,
because there is a large amount of existing and planned
retail in the market area, there appears to be no opportunity for additional regional retail and very little opportunity for community retail on the prison site itself.
Table C-22 on page 20 displays the adjusted supportable square-feet by category.

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX C

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

Table C-19: Apartment Vacancy Rates
Southern Salt Lake
County

Average Rent in the Southern Region of Salt Lake
County

Salt Lake County

6.7%

6.3%

$1,000

June 2001

7.2%

5.8%

$900

Jan 2002

7.2%

7.1%

$800

Monthly

Jan 2001

June 2002

9.2%

9.3%

Jan 2003

11.7%

10.9%

$600

June 2003

9.0%

9.5%

$500

Jan 2004

9.2%

9.9%

$400

June 2004

8.4%

9.4%

$300

Jan 2005

8.4%

8.3%

June 2005

6.9%

7.3%

$700

Jan June Jan June Jan June Jan June Jan June
2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005
Studio

1B/1B

2B/1B

2B/2B

3B/2B

Average Rent

Source: Equimark, WEPC

Table C-20: Rental Rates South Salt Lake County, June 2001 – June 2005
Studio

1B/1B

2B/1B

2B/2B

3B/2B

Average Rent

Average Vacancy
Rates

June 2005

$399

$598

$666

$820

$882

$731

6.9%

East of I-15

N/A

$648

$674

$832

$926

$756

5.4%

West of I-15

$399

$548

$657

$807

$837

$705

8.3%

Jan 2005

$439

$609

$665

$804

$860

$715

8.4%

East of I-15

N/A

$635

$669

$822

$892

$742

8.5%

West of I-15

$439

$582

$660

$786

$828

$687

8.3%

June 2004

$626

$611

$664

$806

$861

$719

8.4%

East of I-15

N/A

$634

$673

$819

$896

$743

9.1%

West of I-15

$419

$588

$655

$792

$825

$694

7.6%

Jan 2004

$449

$611

$671

$795

$852

$712

9.2%

East of I-15

N/A

$626

$679

$806

$881

$ 727

9.4%

West of I-15

$449

$596

$662

$783

$823

$696

9.0%

June 2003

$409

$600

$660

$802

$839

$705

9.0%

East of I-15

N/A

$625

$675

$810

$889

$729

9.2%

West of I-15

$409

$575

$644

$794

$789

$681

8.7%

Jan 2003

$459

$626

$677

$819

$854

$723

11.7%

East of I-15

N/A

$639

$697

$821

$908

$749

12.9%

West of I-15

$459

$612

$657

$817

$800

$697

10.5%

June 2002

$499

$626

$669

$814

$854

$719

9.2%

East of I-15

N/A

$638

$698

$804

$914

$746

9.8%

West of I-15

$499

$614

$640

$823

$794

$692

8.6%

Jan 2002

$524

$617

$654

$855

$918

$720

7.2%

East of I-15

N/A

$618

$675

$797

$913

$727

7.4%

West of I-15

$524

$615

$632

$912

$923

$712

7.0%

Jun 2001

$515

$614

$652

$847

$903

$714

7.2%

East of I-15

N/A

$612

$685

$780

$899

$721

8.9%

West of I-15

$515

$615

$619

$913

$907

$707

5.4%

Source: Equimark; WEPC
Note: Southern End of the Valley was determined using submarkets 108 and 109 of the Equimark Study

Public Review Draft

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants

Table C-21: Price per Square Foot, Salt Lake County, January 2001 – June 2005
Studio
1B/1B
2B/1B

2B/2B

3B/2B

Average Price

Vacancy Rates

Jan 2001

$ 1.02

$ 0.85

$ 0.69

$ 0.76

$ 0.68

$ 0.75

6.3%

June 2001

$ 1.04

$ 0.68

$ 0.70

$ 0.77

$ 0.69

$ 0.76

5.8%

Jan 2002

$ 1.04

$ 0.89

$ 0.71

$ 0.78

$ 0.70

$ 0.77

7.1%

June 2002

$ 1.02

$ 0.89

$ 0.71

$ 0.78

$ 0.70

$ 0.77

9.3%

Jan 2003

$ 1.08

$ 0.87

$ 0.71

$ 0.78

$ 0.71

$ 0.78

10.9%

June 2003

$ 0.99

$ 0.85

$ 0.69

$ 0.76

$ 0.69

$ 0.75

9.5%

Jan 2004

$ 1.00

$ 0.85

$ 0.69

$ 0.76

$ 0.68

$ 0.74

9.9%

June 2004

$ 0.95

$ 0.80

$ 0.66

$ 0.73

$ 0.66

$ 0.70

9.4%

Jan 2005

$ 0.98

$ 0.81

$ 0.66

$ 0.72

$ 0.66

$ 0.70

8.3%

June 2005

$ 0.99

$ 0.82

$ 0.67

$ 0.73

$ 0.66

$ 0.70

7.3%

Average

$ 1.01

$ 0.83

$ 0.69

$ 0.76

$ 0.68

$ 0.74

8.4%

Source: Equimark

Vacancy Rate s

14.0%
12.0%

11.7%

10.0%
9.2%

9.0%

9.2%
8.4%

8.0%
6.7%

7.2%

8.4%

7.2%

6.9%

6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
Jan
2001

June
2001

Jan
2002

June
2002

Jan
2003

June
2003

Southern Salt Lake County

Public Review Draft

Jan
2004

June
2004

Salt Lake County

Jan
2005

June
2005

APPENDIX C

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

Currently, there is very little housing within the onemile radius and, therefore, current buying power is
very low. When the prison site is fully developed a significant amount of buying power will be added to the
area. However, the vast majority of the retail sales
generated by the prison site development would likely
occur on the large parcels of commercial land immediately adjacent to the prison site on the north. This
land is well situated to become a large retail center
with excellent access to the freeway and to Bangerter
Highway. As mentioned above, there does appear to
be “small” opportunities within the community retail
sector (a travel distance of three miles) or the neighborhood retail sector (a travel distance of one mile).

Depending on development density, there may be some
opportunity for community and neighborhood retail on
the prison site. These retail types can only be supported
if there is substantial residential development on the
prison site. There appears to be very little, if any, opportunity for regional retail within the foreseeable future even with full development of the prison site.
However, it may be prudent to plan for some future regional retail on the southeaster extreme of the property
near the 14600 South interchange. Assuming this interchange is improved at some point in the future, this area
would be an ideal site for additional regional retail.

The retail outlook for the prison site itself is not optimistic. Although the “Independence at Bluffdale” development – a mixed-use development to the south –
will add an additional 3,500 units to the area, it also
includes neighborhood, community and regional retail
components. The developer expects the market to absorb the residential units in this development in seven
to ten years.

Following the progress established in 2004, improved
market conditions continue in 2005, with an overall declining vacancy rate of 13.72 percent, from 15.25 percent in 2004 (see Table C-23). Specifically in the southeast area of Salt Lake County, the office market has a
vacancy rate of 6.48 percent, and a rate of 7.41 percent
in the Southwest. The total inventory of office space in
Salt Lake County is 27,071,052 square feet, of which
3,712,845 square feet are vacant.

Spring View Farms single-family development to the
west of the prison will also add some additional buying
power to the area. However, the total number of units
and absorption rate are of the development are not yet
known.

Table C-22: Adjusted Supportable SF Less New Development, Adjacent
Retail Land, and Additional Residential Communities
Neighborhood
Community
Regional
Retail
Retail
Retail
Building & Garden
General Merchandise

45,616

122,114

175,108

168,196

572,329

540,059

Food Stores

33,092

-27,880

-7,054

Motor Vehicle Dealers

45,246

111,787

-66,924

Apparel & Accessory

11,943

14,980

30,660

Furniture

24,288

71,298

84,812

Eating Places

41,706

85,536

67,854

Miscellaneous Retail

51,967

131,003

158,248

422,055

1,081,167

982,761

Totals

Cabelas and “The District”
422,055
1,081,167
-40,239
Parcels to the north of the
Prison*
80,555
56,667
-381,739
“Independence at
Bluffdale” Retail
45,557
21,669
-526,046
Source: Wikstrom
*Assumes 20% regional, 60% community, and 20% neighborhood retail

Office Market Analysis

When sublease space of 391,106 is included, the vacancy
rate increases by 1.44 percent.
The suburban areas of Salt Lake County also follow the
countywide trend of declining vacancy rates and increased absorption, with the exception evident in Class
C office space. Classes A and B, however, have shown
steady vacancy declines since 2002 (see Table C-24).
This impact is largely attributed to the upgrading of A
and B spaces, where tenants have taken advantage of
low lease rates, and improved the quality of their
spaces.
Lease Rates
According to Commerce CRG’s Mid-Year 2005 Market
Review, the countywide average lease rate per square
foot is $17.37. In the suburban areas of the county,
lease rates are akin to the countywide average. Overall
they remain moderately stable and have not increased
significantly in the last two quarters. The suburban
lease rates are summarized in Table C-26.

Public Review Draft

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants

Table C-24: Suburban Office Vacancy and Absorption

Table C-23: Office Market Vacancy Overview
2004

Q2 2005

Vacancy

Suburban
Areas

Direct Office Space
Q2 2005
Q2 2005
Total S.F.
Available S.F.

Q2 2005
Absorption

Southeast

9.87%

6.48%

Class A

5,360,079

460,062

276,157

Southwest

17.21%

7.41%

Class B

6,844,161

698,805

213,199

Salt Lake County

15.25%

13.72%

Class C

4,574,094

880,812

-65,574

Table C-25: Suburban Office Market Vacancy History
Suburban

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Q2 2005

Vacancy

Class A

9.53%

13.41%

18.72%

18.26%

11.55%

8.58%

Class B

8.47%

14.48%

18.11%

15.07%

13.83%

10.21%

Class C

12.08%

11.88%

15.77%

16.43%

19.02%

19.26%

Totals

9.61%

13.55%

17.74%

16.49%

14.48%

12.16%

Areas

Table C-26: Lease Rates
Suburban Areas
Class A
Class B
Class C
Total

Q2 2005 Rents
$20.23
$17.16
$13.35
$17.08

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX C

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

Q2 2005

Vacancy

2004

Vacancy

2003

Vacancy

2002

Vacancy

2001

Vacancy

2000

SUBURBAN OFFICE MARKET VACANCY HISTORY

Vacancy

0.00%

Totals
Class C
Class B
Class A

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

Public Review Draft

20.00%

25.00%

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants

Q2 2005

Absorption

Q2 2005

Available S.F.

Q2 2005

Total S.F.

SUBURBAN OFFICE VACANCIES AND ABSORPTION

-20%

Class A
Class B
Class C
Totals

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

OFFICE MARKET VACANCY OVERVIEW
20.00%

18.00%

16.00%

14.00%

12.00%
2004 Vacancy
Q2 2005 Vacancy

10.00%

8.00%

6.00%

4.00%

2.00%

0.00%
Southeast

Southwest

Public Review Draft

Salt Lake County

APPENDIX D 1

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

APPENDIX D
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF DRAPER
PURPOSE OF STUDY

Abstract: Redevelopment of the
Draper prison site into private uses
that are primarily residential- or employment-based does not produce substantial increases in net revenues to
Draper City. Market research indicates retail uses that would produce
larger fiscal impacts do not appear to
be feasible given the substantial
amount of retail development that is
in development or proposed for development in the areas immediately surrounding the prison property. (See
Appendix C.) Under the primarily
residential alternative, Draper City
will realize a slight loss or break-even
position.

The City of Draper currently receives a small amount of revenue from
the 673 acres of the prison site. Conversely, it provides very little services and incurs almost no expenditures at the location. Following relocation and redevelopment, the property would be returned to the tax
rolls and would generate substantial revenue for Draper. The City of
Draper would also have an obligation to provide services to the new residents and businesses at the site, thereby incurring expenditures as well.
This analysis evaluates the fiscal impacts of the potential relocation of
the prison on the City of Draper under both the full- and partialrelocation scenarios. Specifically, the analysis evaluates revenues that
will flow to Draper and expenses that the City will incur upon completion of the development.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The City of Draper would receive substantial revenues from redevelopment of the prison site. These revenues would more than offset the anticipated service costs under a full-relocation scenario. Once completed,
the development is projected to produce annual revenues of roughly $3.3
million under the full relocation scenario or $1.9 million under the partial
relocation scenario, with ongoing costs of approximately $2.3 million or
$1.7 million. The result will be an annual surplus of approximately $1
million under the full-relocation scenario or $200,000 under the partialrelocation scenario. Draper’s budget would increase by approximately
22 percent under the full-relocation scenario or 12 percent if part of the
prison remained.
The figures given above and throughout the remainder of the document
include only the land area of the prison site. There is also retail/
commercial land immediately north of the prison property. When developed, this area could generate sales-tax revenue in addition to the revenue produced by the prison site itself. This land to the north of the
prison site is vacant partly because of the influence of the prison. A relocation of the prison and development of the site would provide a stimulus to the development of retail on this land.
Development of the site would generate substantial construction-related,
one-time revenues in addition to projected annual revenues. It is estimated that building permits and planning and engineering fees would
reach a combined total of approximately $8.2 million under the fullrelocation scenario or $4.4 million under the partial-relocation scenario.
These estimates are based on conservative construction scenarios, which
are derived from the development programs used throughout this feasibility study.
Public Review Draft

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants

The project will significantly increase the budget of
the City of Draper. A comparison of the current
annual tax revenues and projected annual revenues
from the development of the prison site (Figure 1)
illustrates the substantial sales, property and franchise taxes that will be made available by the project.
$6,000,000

$5,000,000

$4,000,000

$3,000,000

FISCAL IMPACTS TO DRAPER CITY
In any discussion of budgetary impacts, it is much
easier to estimate the impacts to revenues than to
expenditures. This is because there are generally
set formulae for determining revenues, whereas expenditures are often based on a mix of fixed and
variable costs that can be difficult to separate. For
instance, revenues from property taxes are based
on the number and type of parcels, assessed value
and tax rate. Sales tax follows a population/point
of sale formula developed by the state. There are
specific formulas for the determination of road
funds based on weighted road miles and population.

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

$Sales Tax

Property Tax

Current Revenues

Energy Sales &
Use Tax

Franchise Tax

Motor Vehicle
Taxes

Projected Revenues

Figure 1. Full Relocation: Comparison of Annual Tax Revenues - Current
Draper Revenues and Projected Revenues with Prison Site Redevelopment.

APPROACH USED IN THE ANALYSIS
Service costs and revenues were estimated for each
land use and associated densities included in the
full- and partial-relocation development programs.
The FY 2004 City of Draper actual budget expenditures were used as the baseline for this analysis.
This information was supplemented by a wide variety of sources including interviews with Draper
City staff and data received from the Governor’s
Office of Planning and Budget, Utah Department
of Workforce Services, Utah State Tax Commission, the Urban Land Institute and the National
Research Bureau.
The estimates are based on an average household
size of 3.0 persons per household (from the 2000
Census estimate of Salt Lake County’s average
household size) and a projected 3,700 residential
units for full relocation or 1,300 units for a partial
relocation. This results in a projected 11,100 additional Draper residents in the event of a full relocation and 3,900 new Draper residents under the partial relocation scenario.

Expenditures can be divided into two categories:
fixed costs which do not vary greatly based on the
demand for services (i.e., department receptionist,
office overhead and maintenance) and variable
costs which vary based on demand (i.e., number of
patrol officers needed). We have worked with various city departments to identify fixed and variable
costs and to determine the extent to which each
department is impacted by new development. The
discussion outlines in greater detail the methodology used to estimate various revenues or expenditures.
Current Draper Budget
The starting point for reviewing impacts of the proposed development is to first review the current
budget of Draper City. Draper’s FY 2004 actual
revenues and expenditures shown on its fiscal year
2006 budget represent revenues and expenditures
of $1,748 per household, or $474 per person.
The major revenue generators in terms of percentage of total budget are sales taxes (41 percent),
charges for goods and services (20 percent), property taxes (18 percent) and Class C road funds
(eight percent).
Public Safety and Executive and Administrative
costs dominate the expenditures side of the budget;
combined, these represent just over 40 percent of
the budget.

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX D 3

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

Table D1. Draper City 2004 Actual Revenues & Expenditures
Revenues
Amount
Taxes
Property Tax
$2,548,839
Sales Taxes (Including Energy Tax)
$6,168,249
Franchise Taxes
$300,000
Fee in Lieu of Property Taxes
$558,377
Transient Room Tax
$10,790
Licenses and Permits
Animal Licenses
$4,353
Building, Structures & Equipment
$2,606,171
Business Licenses & Permits
$227,258
Intergovernmental Revenue
$1,184,433
Class B Road Fund Allotment
Liquor Funds
$15,435
Public Safety
$210,842
Charges for Services
Sale of Maps and Publications
$4,840
Animal Control Fees
$10,705
False Alarm Fees
$4,285
$493,545
Fines and Forfeitures
Miscellaneous Revenue
Interest Earnings
$41,128
Rents & Concessions
$25,660
Sale of Materials and Supplies
$105,617
Other miscellaneous revenues
$738,165
Total Revenues
Expenditures
General Government
Legislative
Commission or Council
Judicial
City & Precinct Courts
Executive & Central Staff Agencies
Executive
Personnel
Data Processing
Administrative Agencies
Attorney
Non-Departmental
General Governmental Buildings
Elections
Planning & Zoning
Public Safety
Police Department
Fire Department
Other Protective
Animal Control & Regulation
Highways & Public Improvements
Highways
Parks Recreation & Public Property
Park & Park Areas
Park Lighting
Community & Economic Development
Economic Development & Assistance
Transfers to other funds and other miscellaneous expenses
Total Expenditures
Source: Utah State Auditor’s Office

Amount per Household

Percent of Total

$291.96
$706.56
$34.36
$63.96
$1.24

16.70%
40.42%
1.97%
3.66%
0.07%

$0.50
$298.53
$26.03

0.03%
17.08%
1.49%

$135.67
$1.77
$24.15

7.76%
0.10%
1.38%

$0.55
$1.23
$0.49
$56.53

0.03%
0.07%
0.03%
3.23%

$4.71
$2.94
$12.10
$84.55

0.27%
0.17%
0.69%
4.84%

$15,258,692
Amount

Amount per Household

Percent of Total

$89,072

$10.20

0.58%

$291,056

$33.34

1.91%

$1,109,735
$5,923
$502,464

$127.12
$0.68
$57.56

7.27%
0.04%
3.29%

$326,518
$734,835
$261,389
$17,761
$2,235,928

$37.40
$84.17
$29.94
$2.03
$256.12

2.14%
4.82%
1.71%
0.12%
14.65%

$2,178,923
$1,558,876

$249.59
$178.57

14.28%
10.22%

$147,179

$16.86

0.96%

$671,573

$76.93

4.40%

$457,975
$84,943

$52.46
$9.73

3.00%
0.56%

$167,598

$19.20

1.10%

$4,416,944

$505.95

28.95%

$15,258,692

Public Review Draft

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants

Projected Prison Site Development Revenues and
Expenditures

Table D2. Summary of One-Time Fees to Draper City
Fee
Building Permits &
Plan Review
Planning & Engineering Fees
Impact Fees
Fire

Revenues and expenditures have been segregated
into two groups: one-time revenues and expenses
related to construction activities (e.g., buildingpermit fees), and ongoing annual revenues and expenses.
One-Time Fees
The construction-related revenues include planning
and development fees as well as building-permit
fees. Table D2 shows a summary of all one-time
fees that would be generated by the development of
the prison site.
Building Inspection – Licenses, Fees and Permits
The building-permit fees discussed here are those
that will be collected during the project’s construction. Annual building-permit fees will be discussed
later. It is assumed that the construction period
will last for 10 years. Conservative estimates indicate Draper City can expect to receive approximately $6.9 million in building-permit and plancheck revenues over the construction period of the
prison site development if the entire prison were
relocated. A partial relocation would result in total
revenues of approximately $3.4 million. This
equates to an annual revenue stream during the
construction period of approximately $687,000 for
a full relocation, or $343,000 for a partial relocation.
Planning and Engineering Fees As with buildingpermit fees, planning and engineering fees discussed
here are those that will be collected only during the
construction period. The planning and development fees are expected to equal approximately $1.3
million for the entire project under a full-relocation
scenario or $970,000 under a partial-relocation scenario. It should be noted that development and
planning revenues have been conservatively estimated and could be substantially more than the
above estimate.
Impact Fees Impact fees, by statute, must be directly equal to the costs of services provided by the
agency charging the fees. Therefore, impact fee
calculations are provided based on current fee
structures. However, it is implicitly understood
that the costs associated with the service demands
of the development for the impact-fee-based ser-

Full Relocation

Partial Relocation

$6,877,842

$3,428,139

$1,337,410

$974,393

$1,585,089

$1,329,454

Parks
Police
Storm Water

$9,953,675
$649,932
$10,170,520

$3,202,147
$395,844
$7,725,100

Transportation

$10,044,618

$7,502,225

Total Impact Fees

$32,403,834

$20,154,770

Total One-Time Fees

$40,619,086

$24,557,302

vices will be assumed to be equal to the fee amount.
Total impact fee revenues (and expenditures) for the
proposed development are estimated at $32.4 million
for full relocation or $20.1 million for partial relocation.
Annual Revenue Calculations
The ongoing revenue and expense projections for development of the prison site are detailed below. As noted
above, the potential development may produce annual
net revenues to Draper City of approximately $1 million for a full-relocation scenario or $200,000 for a partial relocation upon completion of the project.
In preparing estimates of individual revenues and expenditures related to the development of the prison
site, we have observed the methodology outlined in the
discussion of individual categories of revenue or expense that follows.
Revenues
Each revenue item is described below. All estimates are
based on current State enabling legislation. The legislature is engaged in ongoing discussions concerning the
overall tax structure. The discussions may result in
changes which could significantly impact the assumed
revenues from this project.
Taxes The discussion of taxes is broken into the following areas: property tax, sales and use tax, franchise tax
and fee-in-lieu tax (also known as the age-based or motor vehicle tax).
Sales and Use Tax With the development of the prison
site, Draper City would receive additional annual sales
tax in the amount of $932,000 for the entire project
under the full-relocation scenario or $274,000 under the
partial-relocation scenario.

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX D 5

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

As noted earlier, these revenues are calculated
based on the sales tax distribution formula used by
the state. Of the total local sales-tax revenues (one
percent local option tax), local jurisdictions receive
fifty percent based on point of sale and 50 percent
based on the ratio of the city’s population to the
state population applied against 50 percent of the
total state local sales tax.
The calculation is as follows:
(Total Local Sales Tax in Draper City) X 0.5 =
Point of Sale Distribution to Draper
Draper City Population ÷ Utah Population =
Population Ratio
(Total Local Sales Tax in State) X Population
Ratio X 0.5 = Population Distribution to the
Draper City
Point of Sale + Population Distribution = Estimated Draper City Sales Tax Receipts
This same methodology is applied to the prison
site development. Direct point of sale revenue
estimates are based on average retail sales figures
from the Urban Land Institute and the National
Research Bureau.
Property Tax At the present time, the City of
Draper charges a tax rate of .001327 and receives
approximately $2.6 million annually in propertytax revenues. With the development of the
prison site Draper would receive an additional
$594,000 (assuming full relocation) or $529,000
(assuming partial relocation) in annual propertytax revenues when the project is fully built out.
Revenues are based on total projected taxable
values of $447 million or $398 million for the total project.
Franchise Tax There are three franchise taxes
collected by Draper City -- the first is the Municipal Energy Sales and Use Tax as provided for in
the Utah Code §10-1-301 to §10-1-310, the second
is the Municipal Telecommunications License
Tax (outlined in Utah Code §10-1-401 through
§10-1-410) and the third is the Cable Television
Franchise fee, which is collected from Comcast
Corporation. The development of the prison site
could add an estimated $ 1 million in franchise

tax revenue for a full relocation or $723,000 for a
partial relocation. This has been estimated using
the following methods:
Municipal Energy Sales and Use Tax “A municipality may levy a municipal energy sales and use
tax on the sale or use of taxable energy within
the municipality of up to six percent of the delivered value of the taxable energy” [Utah Code
§10-1-304(1)]. “Taxable energy” is defined as gas
and electricity [Utah Code §10-1-303(9)]. The
development of the prison site will add an estimated $702,000 (full relocation) or $553,000
(partial relocation) in annual energy tax revenues. This has been calculated by estimating total annual utility expenditures by both commercial and residential uses and applying the six percent tax rate to these estimates. Current revenues from the prison site have been subtracted.
Municipal Telecommunications License Tax Municipalities may levy a tax of up to four percent
of telephone and mobile telephone service providers’ gross receipts from telecommunications services that are attributable to the municipality as
outlined in Utah Code §10-1-401 - §10-1-410. For
projection purposes, it has been assumed conservatively that there are 2.5 phones (including land
lines and cell phones) per business and 2.0 phones
per residence.
These fees have been estimated by applying a
revenue per phone estimate (based on Draper’s
2005 revenue and the number of households and
businesses within the city) to twice the number of
residences and 2.5 times the number of businesses
projected for the prison development.
Cable Television Franchise Fee State code allows
Draper City to collect a franchise tax on basic
residential cable service. Revenue from this
source - $41,000 for a full relocation or $14,000
for a partial relocation - has been estimated by
applying Draper’s 2005 per-household revenue to
the projected number of units in the prison site
development program.
Fee-in-Lieu of Property Tax The fee-in-lieu of property tax (also known as the motor vehicle tax, the
uniform fee on vehicles, or the age-based vehicle
tax) is an annual property tax on motor vehicles.

Public Review Draft

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants

The uniform fee in lieu of property tax is an age-based
vehicle tax (where fees are assessed based on the age of
the vehicle). The fees are:
Table D3. Age-Based Fees
Age of Vehicle

Equivalent Tax

Less than 3 years

$150

3 or more years but less than 6 years

$110

6 or more years but less than 9 years

$80

9 or more years but less than 12 years

$50

12 or more years

$10

Source: Utah State Tax Commission

These fees are collected at the county level at the time
of the vehicle’s registration. These fee-in-lieu revenues
are distributed to cities based on the municipal service
taxes generated in each community. Because of the
difficulty in determining the portion of revenue that
would go to the City of Draper, we have instead estimated this revenue by multiplying the estimated property tax generated by the development by the ratio of
motor vehicle taxes to property taxes from Draper’s
2004 revenue. Based on the ratio of motor-vehicle to
property-tax revenue of 0.096, we have projected revenue amounts of roughly $57,000 for full relocation or
$51,000 for partial relocation.
Summary of Taxes Total annual tax revenues that will
flow to Draper City as a result of the prison site development are estimated to be $2.6 million for full relocation or $1.6 million for partial relocation upon project
completion.
Business Licenses The City of Draper would see annual
business license revenues increase by $98,000 from the
entire project under a full relocation scenario. A partial relocation would result in an increase of approxi-

mately $112,000. These numbers are based on
Draper’s current business license fee schedule, which
requires a $75 per year annual base fee, along with an
annual per employee fee of $7.00. Based on data
from the Department of Workforce Services, it was
assumed that the average number of employees per
business was 11 for office, 14 for retail and 13 for industrial companies.
Building Permits Although at build-out major construction would cease, a certain amount of alterationand remodeling-related construction would always be
occurring. Even in a new community, there will be
alterations of commercial and residential structures
to accommodate changing needs of tenants and owners. These changes would require building and development permits and would generate revenues and
require expenditures. Industry estimates of annual
alteration costs per square foot provide the basis for
estimated ongoing building-permit revenue Draper
City would receive from the development of the
prison site. It is estimated that annual buildingpermit and plan-check revenues after build-out of the
site would amount to $181,000 for a full relocation or
$92,000 for a partial relocation.
Fines and Forfeitures are assumed to occur at a rate
of roughly $56.53 per household based on Draper’s
2004 revenues. The projected annual revenues are
$209,000 for full relocation or $73,000 for partial relocation.
Intergovernmental Revenues included in this analysis
are Class C road funds and state liquor control funds.
Road Funds are apportioned among counties and municipalities in the following manner [Utah Code 72-2108]:

Table D4. Summary of Ongoing Tax Revenues to Draper City

Source of Revenue

Full Relocation
% of Total
Amount
Revenues

Partial Relocation
% of Total
Amount
Revenues

Taxes
Sales Tax

$932,161

28.4%

$274,495

14.4%

Property Tax

$593,709

18.1%

$528,584

27.7%

$701,501
$358,993
$57,081
$2,640,445

21.4%
10.8%
1.7%
80.4%

$553,468
$168,761
$50,820
$1,576,128

29.0%
8.8%
2.7%
82.6%

Energy Sales & Use Tax
Franchise Tax
Fee in Lieu - Motor Vehicle
Total Tax Revenues

Public Review Draft

(a)
50 percent in the ratio that the
class B roads weighted mileage within
each county and class C roads weighted
mileage within each municipality bear to
the total class B and class C roads
weighted mileage within the state, and;
(b)
50 percent in the ratio that the
population of a county or municipality
bears to the total population of the state.

APPENDIX D 7

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

For purposes of calculating Class C (city) road fund
revenues, weighted mileage means the sum of the following: paved road miles multiplied by five; gravel
road miles multiplied by two; and all other road types
multiplied by one. It is estimated that the development of the prison site would result in approximately
163 new weighted road miles for a full relocation or
117 miles for a partial relocation.
By applying the estimated number of weighted miles
for the prison sited development to the formula described above, we arrive at total annual revenue estimates of approximately $302,000 under a full relocation scenario or $137,000 under a partial relocation
scenario.
Class C Road Funds are not included in the list of annual revenues in Tables D7 and D8 below because
these funds are reserved and transferred on an annual
basis to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Fund for use in capital projects. It was felt that including these revenues with other annual revenues
discussed in this analysis would overstate the annual
unrestricted net revenues that would be available to
the city. Class C Road Funds have instead been listed
separately in Table D8 to make clear that they are not
operating revenues and therefore have not been included in the calculation of net annual revenues.
State Liquor Fund. The distribution of LiqControl funds is as follows:

20 percent Local percentage of all state
liquor outlets and licenses; and
25 percent Divided among counties
based on population for confinement and rehabilitation.
Distribution of liquor funds is subject to the discretion of the Legislature and varies from year to year.
This analysis assumes this number remains fairly
constant. The per-household budget analysis results
in a per-household revenue of $1.77 for a total estimated additional revenue of approximately $7,000
for a full relocation or $2,300 for a partial relocation.
Total Intergovernmental Revenues Intergovernmental
revenues, then, comprise roughly 2.9 (full relocation)
or 1.8 (partial relocation) percent of the total annual
revenues generated by the prison site development,
or nearly $96,000 or $34,000 annually.
Table D6. Summary of Ongoing Intergovernmental Revenues
Intergovernmental Revenue

Liquor Funds

Amount
Full ReloPartial
cation
Relocation
$6,542
$2,298

Public Safety

$89,360

$31,397

Total Intergovernmental
Revenue

$95,902

$33,695

uor
Animal Control Fees have been estimated at approximately $4,500 or $1,600 based on a per household
revenue amount of $1.23.

25 percent Distributed based on the
ratio of local to state population;
30 percent Local convictions as a percent
of the statewide total for alcohol-related convictions;

Planning & Development Fees This section addresses
annual fees after build-out and assumes all major development fees would already have been collected.
Ongoing fees would be collected for such items as
conditional-use permits, sign permits and other mis-

Table D5. Class C Road Funds Calculation
Weighted Road Miles
Partial
Full Relocation Relocation
Entire Prison Development
Anticipated Revenue

Population
Full Relocation

Total
Partial
Relocation

Full Relocation

Partial
Relocation

163

117

11,100

3,900

$83,085

$59,638

$219,331

$77,062

$302,416

$136,700

Source: UDOT; Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants, Inc.

Public Review Draft

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants

cellaneous permits and services. However, these fees
are only a very small part of a planning department’s
revenues, most of which are related to new development. Because these revenues would be inconsequential, planning revenue has been assumed to be zero.
Miscellaneous Revenue is largely made up of interest
accruing from other funds, sale of materials and supplies, rents and concessions, etc. Only “Sale of Materials” and “Rents & Concessions” categories have
been included in this analysis since it is a reasonable
assumption that these revenue sources could increase
along with the population of the prison site development. Assuming a per-household revenue of $15.04,
the total new miscellaneous revenue resulting from
the prison site development would amount to approximately $55,600 for a full relocation or $19,500
for a partial relocation.

Summary of Revenues
Projected revenues by major category are summarized in
Table D7.
Expenditures
Current Draper City per-household expenditures have
been used as points of departure for the following estimates of future expenditures resulting from the development of the prison site. In other words, some expenditures have been calculated using current Draper City perhousehold expenditures as a multiplier, while others have
been estimated using the per-household amount as a base
number from which modifications were made based on
conversations with staff from various city departments or
by other means.
The per household method is a conservative one in that it
assumes there would be no economies of scale, and therefore, in order to supply the same level of services to the
prison site development, Draper would essentially need to
duplicate its current costs of government. This is a fairly
unlikely assumption, which is why each expenditure category has been addressed individually and adjusted as appropriate. Table D8 shows a summary of estimated new
expenditures by category assuming the prison site is fully
or partially redeveloped.

Table D7. Summary of Ongoing Revenues to Draper City
Source of Revenue

Full Relocation
Amount
% of Total Budget

Partial Relocation
Amount
% of Total Budget

Taxes
Sales Tax
$932,161
28.4%
$274,495
14.4%
Property Tax
$593,709
18.1%
$528,584
27.7%
Energy Sales & Use Tax
$701,501
21.4%
$553,468
29.0%
Franchise Tax
$355,993
10.8%
$168,761
8.8%
Fee in Lieu - Motor Vehicle
$57,081
1.7%
$50,820
2.7%
Total Tax Revenues
$2,640,445
80.4%
$1,576,128
82.6%
Licenses and Permits
Business Licenses (Annual)
$98,437
3.0%
$111,730
5.9%
Building Permits & Plan Review (Annual)
$181,274
5.5%
$91,941
4.8%
$279,712
8.5%
$203,672
10.7%
Total License and Permits
Intergovernmental Revenues
Public Safety
$89,360
2.7%
$31,397
1.6%
Liquor Fund Allotment
$6,542
0.2%
$2,298
0.1%
Total Intergovernmental
$95,902
2.9%
$33,695
1.8%
Charges for Services
Animal Control Fees
$4,537
0.1%
$1,594
0.1%
Planning & Development Fees (Annual)
$0
0.0%
$0
0.0%
Total Charges for Services
$4,537
0.1%
$1,594
0.1%
Fines and Forfeitures
$209,177
6.4%
$73,495
3.9%
Fines
Miscellaneous Revenue
Rents & Concessions
$10,875
0.3%
$3,821
0.2%
Sale of Materials & Supplies
$44,763
1.4%
$15,728
0.8%
Total Miscellaneous Revenue
$55,639
1.7%
$19,549
1.0%
Total Annual Revenues
$3,285,411
$1,908,132
Class C Road Funds (to CIP)
$302,416
$136,700
Note: Revenues do not include indirect or minor revenues such as: government grants, animal licenses, sale of maps and publications, false
alarm fees, GRAMA requests, and interest earnings.

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX D 9

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

Expense categories are described below. Unless otherwise stated, expenditures have been estimated by
multiplying Draper’s current per-household expenditure amount by the number of estimated new
households added to the city as a result of the prison
site redevelopment.
Commission or Council includes legislative expenditures (e.g., the city council as well as expenses for
committees and special bodies). According the
City’s Finance Department, these expenditures
would not increase appreciably. In order to be conservative, we have projected a 10 percent increase
over current expenditures resulting in an annual
expenditure increase of approximately $8,900.
Judicial services include the prosecutor, justice
court judge and clerks.
Executive and Administrative includes expenditures
for the mayor and boards and commissions, as well
as for personnel and administrative costs for the city
administrator, auditor, recorder, treasurer, city attorney and Public Works. This category also includes human resources management functions, as
well as oversight for the city’s computer systems.
Again, the City’s Finance Department indicated
that there would not be substantial expenditure increases. We have conservatively assumed a 15 percent increase would occur, resulting in additional
expenditures of $292,000.

Table D8.

Non-Departmental includes supplies, office-related equipment, insurance and various programs (e.g. tuition program). A 15 percent increase has been calculated to be
consistent with the increase in Executive and Administrative expenses.
General Government Buildings Maintenance of government buildings and properties.
Elections Facilitation of elections.
Planning & Business Licensing provides long- and shortrange land-use planning and development approval services. Business licensing is also included under this category. The figures given in this section are ongoing expenditures and would occur after the development is
built-out and no longer requires substantial development
services. The Community Development Department has
estimated approximately 25 percent of its resources are
generally spent on issues unrelated to new development.
This percentage has been used in estimated planning expenditures that would be incurred after redevelopment of
the prison site. We have estimated redevelopment of the
site will result in new planning-related annual expenditures of approximately $177,000 for a full relocation or
$153,000 for a partial relocation.

Building Inspections Expenditures for the Building Inspections Division are generally much less than fee revenues. The estimates shown in Table D8 above are based
on information from the city’s proposed budget, which
indicates that Building Division expenditures amount to
approximately 33 percent of total fee revenue. These
expenditures, therefore, represent
Summary of Ongoing Expenditures to Draper City
33 percent of projected fee reveFull Relocation
Partial Relocation
nue.
Amount
$8,907
$123,357

% of Total
Budget
0.4%
5.3%

Amount
$8,907
$43.342

% of Total
Budget
0.5%
2.6%

Executive & administrative

$291,696

12.6%

$291,696

17.6%

Non-Departmental

$110,225

4.8%

$110,225

6.6%

General Government Buildings

$110,783

4.8%

$38,924

2.3%

$7,528

0.3%

$2,645

0.2%

$177,494

7.7%

$153,134

9.2%

$60,362

2.4\6%

$30,615

1.8%

Engineering

$261,592

11.3%

$91,604

5.5%

Public Safety

$721,383

31.4%

$685,921

41.3%

Highways

$137,176

5.9%

$98,464

5.9%

Parks & Recreation
Economic Development & Assistance

$230,103

9.9%

$80,847

4.9%

$71,032
$2,346,638
$968,773

3.1%

$24,957
$1,661,251
$246,851

1.5%

Source of Expenditure
Commission or Council
Judicial

Elections
Planning & Business Licensing
Building Inspections

Total Annual Expenditures
Revenues less expenditures

Public Review Draft

Engineering is responsible for
transportation and infrastructure
planning, designing and maintaining public improvements and inspecting infrastructure improvements. According to the Community Development Department, of
which the Engineering Division is
part, about 50 percent of engineering resources are spent addressing issues unrelated to new
development. The engineering
budget amount was therefore reduced by 50 percent before calcu-

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants

lating the per-household expenditure, which was used
to estimate the new expenditures resulting from full
relocation of the prison site. Partial relocation estimates are proportionate to the amount of land area in
the partial relocation scenario compared to the full relocation scenario.
Public Safety Police, fire protection and animal control
services include all operations and maintenance. Facilities are constructed using impact fee revenue.
Draper contracts with the Unified Fire Authority
(UFA) for Fire Department personnel. According to
Draper City’s Finance Department, although city firerelated administration costs for the prison site would
increase, the amount paid for services would not increase substantially because the new fire station being
built on the west side should have enough manpower to
cover the prison development. Even so, we have assumed an increase in expenditures of $228,000, which
includes $178,220 for an additional ambulance contract
(Draper currently contracts for two ambulances) and
$50,000 for additional administrative costs that would
be incurred as a result of the new development.

Other Expenses
Capital Facilities/Impact Fees
In addition to Draper City’s operating budget, there
are capital improvements that will be required as new
development occurs such as new fire stations, police
stations, major infrastructure and parks. These expenses are covered through impact fees that are directly related to the costs of these improvements at
the time of development. Impact fees are required by
law to remain in segregated funds and be spent only
on the capital improvements designated at the time
the fee is established. Therefore, we have not included
a discussion of these fees in the expenditures section of
this document, as there will be no direct impact to the
community.

New Police Department expenditures were estimated
at 20 percent of Draper’s current budget based on interviews with Police Department staff.
Highways Street maintenance. This has been estimated by multiplying Draper City’s current expenditures per weighted road mile by the number of estimated weighted road miles in the new development.
Parks and Recreation Operating costs for parks, swimming pools, and other recreation facilities as well as
cultural activities and events, libraries and cemeteries
are included in this category.
Economic Development Assistance The Economic Development Division is responsible for retention and recruitment of businesses and for marketing the community.

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX E 1

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

APPENDIX E
RELOCATION SITES
SELECTION CRITERIA AND IMPACTS

Abstract: Eastern Box Elder
County, Northeastern Juab County
and the Rush Valley area of Tooele
County were identified as the most
suitable areas for a full prison relocation. Carbon County (in the
Price/Wellington region) and Iron
County (near Enoch/Cedar City)
are suitable for partial relocations.
These areas were identified after
an evaluation of all communities
within the state of Utah was completed.

Alternative site selection is a key component of the feasibility of relocation
of the Utah State Penitentiary. Identification of suitable alternate sites is
the first step in determining the operating cost impact of relocation. The
process for identifying and evaluating suitable alternate sites was governed
by the Prison Relocation Committee. The Committee established the criteria for suitability and then evaluated each suitable site. This process resulted in the identification of three recommended communities in the event
of a full relocation of the prison and five recommended communities in the
event of a partial relocation. Each of the sites was then evaluated for the
probable impact on the community of the prison and the impact of the site
on operating costs.
This process identified counties or sub-county areas and has not progressed
to identifying specific parcels for relocation. A much more comprehensive
review and analysis of suitability and costs will be required when parcels are
identified.
SELECTION CRITERIA
The entire state of Utah was evaluated for suitable sites for relocation of the
prison. Data was collected from a variety of agencies to assess relevant conditions within individual communities and counties. The Prison Relocation
Committee recommended several factors be considered for either scenario.
A general summary of relevant factors follows:
Medical

Any site should be within 30 miles of a hospital or clinic, which can
provide emergency services. It should be within two hours of a major hospital.

Staffing

The partial replacement scenario eliminates approximately 1,450
beds from the Draper site. Any location chosen for the replacement
would need a large enough labor pool to provide approximately 400
staff members with the range of skills and professions required by
the prison. A full relocation would require upwards of 4,000 beds for
the core facility and 1,100 staff members, a percentage of whom
would have to be drawn from the local labor pool depending on the
site and success of the Department of Corrections in relocating current employees.

Access

Accessibility issues are less important in a partial replacement scenario. However, the following would affect the suitability of a site
in either situation:
•
Distance from a highway
•
Road conditions
•
Availability of suppliers and services

Public Review Draft

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants

Community Availability and adequacy of community
services are a concern for a partial replaceServices
ment site but the level of need in these
areas is lower than for a total replacement
site. Law enforcement proximity and capacity. Access to other state agencies. Access to county services (such as mental
health / substance abuse treatment).

Infrastructure All required infrastructure ideally should be
available, though availability in many
cases is simply a function of the cost of
making missing components available.
The need for potable water is a primary
consideration for either full or partial relocation. Principle components necessary for
either case include:
•
Adequate potable water supply
•
Communication capacity (T1 or microwave)
•
Radio reception and repeater locations
(800 and 700 MHz)
•
Electrical supply and redundancy/
natural gas
•
Sewer treatment

METHODOLOGY

suitability throughout the state. Information regarding the above-mentioned criteria was generalized and
combined to a single index of one-kilometer cells that
covered the entire state. This coverage allowed the
working committee to consider the suitability of all
possible sites throughout the state.
The index illustrated on the final site suitability map is
cumulative and considers the following criteria:
In order to be an eligible site an area:

•
•
•
•
•
•

Must have less than a 5 percent slope.
Must have access to water.
Must be less than 30 miles from a hospital with ER
trained doctors.
Must have at least 30,000 people living within 30
miles.
Must not be on federal land.
Less than 30 miles from a city with a police or sheriff department.

Areas less than 5 miles from a state highway or interstate are shaded on the final map
The first five qualifying criteria provide the greatest
constraints in the analysis, particularly population, the
availability of water and non-federal land. The remaining four criteria overlapped with surprising agreement, excepting the requirement to be within five miles
of a highway. The map which is included in this appendix illustrates the areas of the state which are considered suitable for either a full or partial relocation of
the prison.

Data Sources
Information regarding the overall population, employment and infrastructure of individual communities and counties was collected and organized in a
spreadsheet. The proximity of key services was determined utilizing GIS. This information was organized in a matrix of all Utah municipalities and counties for the key subject areas of demographics, employment, infrastructure and staff support systems.
Key information and relevant sources are listed in
Table E1.

In addition to the site suitability criteria utilized to
develop the site map included in this appendix, the potential locations were further evaluated for their impact on transportation costs and the likelihood of future urban encroachment.

GIS Analysis
GIS was utilized to determine population density,
proximity of services, access to transportation and
adequacy of local infrastructure. Most of this information was expressed in terms of proximity to all
points in the state. For example, population was examined by summarizing the total population within
a thirty-mile radius for each of a series of one kilometer spaced cells covering the entire state. Thus, maps
of areas that were within reasonable distances to key
resources were developed and ultimately used to create a composite index to aid in the assessment of site

While the impact on transportation costs is implied in
the original five factors listed above, there are some
trips that can be replaced within the new community
and some trips which will have as their destination the
same location as when the prisoner was housed at the
Draper facility. The analysis of transportation costs
takes two forms. The first is the ability of the new
community to provide needed services and the other is
the new community’s distance from courts and other
similar facilities.

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX E 3

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

Table E1. Key Information Used in Analysis of Potential Communities
Category

Issue

Source

Demographics
Population 2000 (Census)

U.S. Census Bureau (“Census)

Population 2030 (Based on MAG Projected AAGR)
Capacity of Communities to Accommodate Prison Expansion (County Growth Projections 20002030)

Mountainlands AOG (“MAG”)
MAG

Racial diversity (Total Minority Population)
Percent Hispanic
Number of trained professionals and specialists for outside services and facility support

Census
Census
Division of Workforce Services (“DWS”)

Hospital (with ER Certified Staff) with 30 Miles

WEPC

Employment
Competitiveness of current wage rates for key professions. This index is a comparative average to
state wages for each county

DWS

Unemployment rate (2004)

DWS

Transportation Access
Acceptable distance to Interstate Interchanges (based on spatial analysis in GIS).
Acceptable Distance to Principle Highway (based on spatial analysis in GIS).

AGRC
UDOT

Road safety along major highways (based on UDOT safety index)

UDOT

Distance from Draper Prison

WEPC

Average distance to Salt Lake International Airport
Infrastructure
T1, microwave, communication capacity (Coverage is statewide with "open areas" only in most
remote locations)

WEPC

QWEST, Harris Corp.

Electrical supply and redundancy. Available in most places.

Utah Power

Natural Gas Availability. Available in most places.

Questar

Sewer Availability
Water Supply Adequate (All municipalities are within two miles of an urban water supply)

Dept. of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources

Staff Support System
Churches

Number of Schools (K-12)

AGRC

Distance to institution of higher education

AGRC

Distance to Mental Health / Substance Abuse Treatment Services

Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health

Availability of Public Transportation within Cities

WEPC

Availability of Retail Services (Warehouse and Supercenters)
Support Services Access Issues

DWS

Law Enforcement Proximity and Capacity
Local and County Correctional Officers as Percent of Total Law Enforcement

Department of Public Safety (“DPS”)
DPS

Emergency Service Access within 5-10 Miles (for municipalities)
Auto dealer access for warranty access to prison fleet (within county)

DPS
Division of Workforce Services

Distance from County Seats (Courts, Services)

AGRC

Number of Workforce Services Offices

DWS

Aging Services (Number of Offices)

Department of Human Services (“DHS”)

Family Services (Number of Offices)

DHS

Disabilities (Number of Offices)

DHS

Average Distance to DMV

Division of Motor Vehicles

Average Distance to Nearest County Health Department

WEPC

Hotel accommodations (Number of)

DWS

Doctors / PA’s/Relevant Medical and Social Service Professionals

Utah Occupational and Professional Licensing

Number of Charities
Volunteer workforce capacity (there are currently approximately 1,300 volunteers)

Utah Department of Commerce
Based on Population

Other
Climatic Conditions – Lightning Risk (Illustrated on NOAA Map)

Public Review Draft

NOAA

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX E 5

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

Public Review Draft

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants

One of the primary reasons the relocation of the prison
is under study is the fact that urban development has
begun to occur along the edges of the prison boundaries. As potential communities and sites are considered, the potential for a similar situation arising in the
near future was evaluated.
Recommended Communities
The alternative site analysis has not focused on specific
pieces of real estate but rather on communities with
sufficient available sites and requisite attributes that
provide the UDOC a suitable range of options for
prison relocation. All communities in Utah were initially considered as candidate sites for prison relocation. The suitability of each community was evaluated
through an objective analysis of data. Communities
have been identified as suitable for a complete relocation or a partial relocation.

•

Availability of sewerage in most interstate corridor
communities.

Water
According to the Utah State Engineer, there likely is
water available at sites mentioned in Box Elder
County. If water must be drawn from wells, there may
be an issue with salinity. The Bear River Water Conservancy District is the major water service provider in
the area. Minimal costs related to water acquisition are
assumed.
Sewer
The sewer is estimated to cost $2 million, not subject to
local control and should be same in any location under
consideration.
Local Government Response
Government officials were resistant, but particularly
resistant to any location from Brigham City south.

Full Relocation
Box Elder – High Suitability
Box Elder County provides many of the amenities that
would make the area highly suitable to both full and
partial relocation. Proximity to major population centers and availability of suitable land augment the
area’s suitability. The community may be willing to
accept a relocated facility due to stagnant wages, slow
economic growth and higher than average unemployment.
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•

Suitable surrounding population size and diversity.
Local need for employment (2004 unemployment
was 5.2 percent for the county).
Wages tend to be lower (approximately 93.1 percent of state average) except for key construction
jobs (electricians, plumber assistants, carpenters,
etc.).
Good transportation access (both state highway
and interstate).
Proximity to educational institutions.
Proximity to charities and population large enough
to sustain volunteer base.
Less expensive land (relative to Greater Wasatch
Front).
Proximity to Cache County and Wasatch Front
(providing access to more services, institutions, and
trained professional workforce).

Table E2. Specific Demographic Data Box Elder County
Capacity to
Accommodate
Population Prison Expan2030 (Based sion (County
Population on MAG Growth Projec2000
Projected
tions 2000Racial
Percent
2030)
Diversity Hispanic
(Census)
AAGR)
Box Elder
County
43,083
74,417
1.8%
Bear River
750
1,312
1.9%
3.7%
3.9%
Brigham
17,411
28,757
1.7%
8.7%
7.7%
Corinne
621
1,078
1.9%
10.1%
8.2%
Deweyville
278
503
2.0%
4.3%
2.2%
Elwood
678
1,118
1.7%
6.0%
4.3%
Fielding
448
745
1.7%
2.2%
2.2%
Garland
1,943
3,258
1.7%
11.0%
7.9%
Honeyville
1,214
2,117
1.9%
5.7%
5.3%
Howell
221
395
2.0%
0.9%
0.0%
Mantua
791
1,321
1.7%
3.7%
0.9%
Perry
2,383
4,698
2.3%
4.3%
3.7%
Plymouth
328
625
2.2%
0.9%
1.5%
Portage
257
443
1.8%
1.2%
5.4%
Snowville
177
292
1.7%
11.3%
19.2%
Tremon5,592
10,092
2.0%
8.5%
9.7%
ton
Willard
1,630
2,732
1.7%
3.7%
4.1%

Source: Census 2000; MAG (2004)

Northeast Juab – High Suitability
Growth in bedroom communities is driving population
growth and economic development in the northeast
Juab communities. This site is located relatively close
to the existing facilities, but suffers from a clear interest in residential development in this area among

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX E 7

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

Public Review Draft

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX E 9

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

households seeking quieter suburban locations. This
may affect the value of local real estate as well as impose greater pressure in terms of competing land uses.
Nonetheless, proximity to the Wasatch Front and its
attendant services makes this area a highly suitable location. This location is also relatively close to the Gunnison Prison site and would draw from the same labor
pool. This could negatively impact the Department of
Corrections’ ability to recruit suitable employees.
•

•

•
•
•

Local population meets required size but is less diverse. Communities are growing quickly (two to
three percent per annum on average).
Areas close to Utah County likely have similar employment characteristics to Greater Wasatch Front,
excepting longer commutes.
Good interstate and highway access.
Overall access to all services is good.
Proximity to Greater Wasatch Front.

Water
This area is fully appropriated. Water would have to be
purchased on the open market at an estimated cost of $5
million.
Sewer
The estimated sewer cost is $2 million, not subject to
local control and should be same in any location under
consideration.
Local Government Response
Local government responded with mixed feelings but is
willing to work through the process.

Rush Valley benefits from its proximity to the Wasatch Front as do Northeast Juab and Box Elder Counties. Rush Valley, however, is not experiencing the
same growth pressure in the immediate area. Most
growth is concentrated in the areas surrounding Tooele
and Enoch. With adequate water supplies and an easy
commute for existing prison employees, this location
offers some of the most favorable conditions of all sites
considered.
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•

Suitable surrounding population size and moderately diverse.
Local need for employment.
Wages tend to be close to Wasatch Front averages.
Good transportation access (both state highway
and interstate), though slightly farther from interstate than Grantsville.
Proximity to educational institutions.
Proximity to charities and population large enough
to potentially sustain volunteer base.
Proximity to Wasatch Front (providing access to
more services, institutions and trained professional
workforce).
Sewer not immediately available. Closest plant is
in Ophir.

Water
Some water is available. There has been some speculation in the water market in Rush Valley which may
indicate the existence of surplus. The State Engineer
believes part of the water will need to be acquired in
the private market at an estimated cost of $1.5 to $2.5
million.
Table E4. Specific Demographic Data for Tooele County

Table E3. Specific Demographic Data for Juab County

Juab County

Tooele County /Rush Valley – High Suitability

Capacity to Accommodate Prison
Expansion
Population
(County Growth
Racial
Percent
2000
Popula- Projections 2000(Census) tion 2030
2030)
Diversity Hispanic
8,332
14,712
1.90%
-

Capacity to
Accommodate
Prison Expansion
Popula(Growth
tion 2000 Population Projections
Racial Percent
(Census)
2030
2000-2030) Diversity Hispanic
Tooele County

Eureka

766

1,277

1.70%

2.30%

Levan

688

1,294

2.10%

2.60%

3.50%

Rush Valley

Mona

850

1,643

2.20%

1.80%

1.40%

Stockton

Nephi

4,733

8,209

1.90%

3.00%

2.50%

Tooele

403

710

1.90%

0.70%

1.20%

Vernon

4,834

25,860

5.70%

8.50%

8.60%

Wendover

Rocky Ridge
Santaquin

Source: Census 2000; MAG 2004

Grantsville

36,816

81,875

2.70%

6,015

9,684

1.60%

4.30%

4.50%

453

629

1.10%

2.00%

1.10%

443

580

0.90%

5.00%

6.30%

22,502

44,513

2.30%

9.00% 10.10%

236

662

3.50%

5.90%

1,537

2,264

1.30%

Source: Census 2000; MAG 2004
Public Review Draft

4.70%

56.00% 68.60%

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX E 11

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

Sewer
The estimated sewer cost is $2 million, not subject to
local control and should be same in any location under consideration.
Local Government Response
The County Commission intends to adopt a resolution opposing a prison anywhere in the county.

there are available supporting institutions, but the local workforce may not be adequate in terms of both its
current size and the projected draw of jobs in the mining and extractions sectors. Another consideration is
poor access to the Wasatch Front during winter
weather due to the sustained high elevation of Route 6
in Spanish Fork Canyon.
•
•

Partial Relocation
Carbon – Medium Suitability
Carbon County is on the cusp of economic change as
it courts a number of natural gas developments. In
the past, the relocation of the prison may have been
an attractive option for economic development in the
eyes of local officials but this is now changing in light
of gas development. The population is adequate and

•
•

Local population barely meets required size but is
quite diverse.
High local unemployment at 6.3 percent and lower
wages on average (95.5 percent of state average),
although mining industries drive up wages for
heavy machine operators and mechanics as well as
provide good wages for those involved with production. Gas industries also likely to influence labor
costs and availability.
Overall labor pool is small.
Fair access to state highways, poor access to interstates. Some question of winter safety along Spanish Fork Canyon.

Table E5. Specific Demographic Data for Carbon County
Population 2000
(Census)
Carbon County

21,876

Population 2030
24,839

Capacity to Accommodate Prison Expansion
(County Growth Projections 2000-2030)
Racial diversity
0.4%

Percent Hispanic

1,393

1,540

0.3%

18.9%

20.8%

Helper

2,025

2,242

0.3%

7.4%

11.3%

Price

8,402

9,655

0.5%

9.3%

10.1%

0.3%

0.0%

404

455

0.4%

9.2%

20.3%

1,868

0.4%

5.3%

4.9%

East Carbon

Scofield
Sunnyside
Wellington

1,666

Source: Census 2000; MAG 2004

Table E6. Specific Demographic Data for Iron County
Capacity to Accommodate
Prison Expansion (County
Population 2000
Growth Projections 2000(Census)
Population 2030
2030)
74,706
2.8%
Iron County
32,564
240
2.4%
Brian Head
118
51,076
3.1%
Cedar City
20,527
8,400
3.0%
Enoch
3,467
651
2.5%
Kanarraville
311
992
2.5%
Paragonah
470
Parowan
2,565
5,463
2.6%

Racial diversity

Source: Census 2000; MAG 2004
Public Review Draft

Percent Hispanic

Distance to Substance
Abuse and Mental Health
Centers (in miles)

0.8%

7.9%

4.1%

5.2%

2.5%

4.5%

1.9%
3.6%

1.5%
3.2%

58
49
55
37
70
65

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX E 13

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah
•
•

Proximity to educational institutions.
Small population to support charitable services
and volunteer base.

Only Price and Wellington offer reasonable proximity to sewer facilities.
Water
Water service is provided by the Price River Water
Improvement District. According to the State Engineer, there have been some water quality issues related to water from the Scofield Reservoir treated for
domestic use, but it is likely that sufficient water is
available in the area. Minimal costs related to water
acquisition are assumed.
Sewer
Sewer is estimated to cost $2 million, not subject to
local control and should be same in any location under consideration.

The booming growth of Washington and Iron County
create an environment that is supportive of relocation in terms of the population base, though challenging in light of community aspirations and competing land uses. The boom in residential development and the retirement population will likely provide some resistance to relocation efforts in this area.
Conversely, the growing population is supporting the
expansion of local hospitals and community services
at a rapid pace. The Cedar City/Enoch area benefits
from the proximity of institutional support but notably lacks proximity to substance abuse and mental
health services. The large distance from Salt Lake
City is also a consideration that challenges the suitability of this area.

•
•

Water
This is a closed water area – e.g., all water is fully appropriated. Water must be purchased on the open
market at an estimated cost of roughly $5 million.
Some areas have unacceptable groundwater nitrite levels. Enoch has no capacity. Water service would be
coordinated with a newly forming water conservancy
district.
Sewer
The estimated cost of sewer is $2 million, not subject to
local control and should be same in any location under
consideration.
Local Government Response
Local government is open to consideration

The impact of a full or partial prison relocation on each
of the recommended communities was evaluated for
the following areas:

Cedar City/Enoch – Medium Suitability

•

Reasonable access to all other services.
Over 200 miles from Salt Lake City.

Community Impacts

Local Government Response
Local government is open to consideration.

•

•
•

Local population meets required size but is less
diverse. Communities are growing quickly (2 – 3
percent per annum on average).
Unemployment closer to state average and wages
tend to be lower. Welders tend to command
higher wages.
Good interstate and highway access.
Poor access to mental health and substance abuse
services.

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Local school districts and higher education institutions.
Mental Health and Substance Abuse services.
Ability of the local community to replace the volunteer workforce available at the Draper Prison.
Employment impacts and available labor pool.
Local law enforcement/local government and
Courts.
Local emergency services including BCLS and
ACLS.
Anticipated future community growth and the impact it would have on the new prison site.

Each of the recommended communities is of sufficient
size to have in place the types of services necessary to
accommodate the prison population and the families
which may choose to relocate. These services include a
local school district and a higher education institution
within 50 miles. All recommended communities, with
the exception of Iron County have adequate mental
health and substance abuse services. Capacity needs of
the local providers will be assessed as the process moves
forward. Additionally each of the recommended communities has available church and charitable organizations capable of providing religious and other volunteers to the prison.

Public Review Draft

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX E 15

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

The current prison location employs 1,087 individuals. In the event of a full prison relocation, 100 percent of the jobs will be moved to the new facility. For
a partial relocation the Department of Corrections
anticipates a need for approximately 400 employees
at the new location. The model assumes if the new
location is within 25 miles of the employees’ current
home location, 50 percent of the employees will commute or relocate to the new location and 50 percent
will need to be replaced from the area labor pool. If
the new location is between 25 and 50 miles from the
employees’ current home location, 25 percent will
commute or relocate to the new location and 75 percent will need to be replaced from the area labor pool.
If the new location is more than 50 miles from the
employees’ current home location, 10 percent will
commute or relocate to the new location and 90 percent will need to be replaced from the area labor pool.
Data received from the Department of Corrections
indicates 85 percent of current employees at the
Draper facility live within 25 miles of the facility in
both Salt Lake and Utah Counties.
The following table illustrates the expected employment needs in each recommended community for a
partial and full relocation.
Table E7. Estimated New Local Employment Associated With Prison
Partial
Full Relocation
Community
Relocation
Box Elder
360
934
County
Carbon County
360
N/A
Iron County

360

N/A

Juab County

300

779

Rush Valley

200

519

Source: Wikstrom Economic and Planning Consultants Inc.

Each of the recommended communities has adequate
population to support the employment needs associated with the prison relocation; however, two other
considerations need to be made in evaluating the impact of the relocation on the community labor pool.
The first is current and historical unemployment
rates for the area and the second is wage rates in the
area when compared with the state average wage
rates.

The following table provides this information for each
recommended community.
Table E8. Unemployment in Potential Communities

Community
Box Elder County
Carbon County
Iron County
Juab County
Tooele County
(Rush Valley)
Statewide

1999 Unemployment
4.8
7.1
3.7

2004
Unemployment
5.2
6.3
3.8

Relative Wages
(Percent of State
Average)
93.1
95.5
92.6

5
5.5

6.8
7.2

89.5
97.8

3.7

4.7

Source: Utah State Department of Workforce Services

Iron County is the only community nearing full employment which may create a recruiting issue for partial relocation to the area. The rest of the communities
appear to have an adequate labor pool. The relative
wage index also indicates the Department of Corrections will be able to offer competitive wages for prospective employees in all jurisdictions. The Rush Valley location and areas of Juab County, however, may
experience more upward wage pressure than other locations due to proximity to Salt Lake and Utah Counties.
The current prison location is within the jurisdiction of
the Salt Lake County Sheriff, the Salt Lake County
Attorney and the Third District Court of Utah. Any
incidents at the prison are investigated by the Salt
Lake County Sheriff’s Office and prosecuted by the
Salt Lake County Attorney in the Third District or
Salt Lake County Justice Court. The volume of cases
originating at the prison has, historically, been approximately 47 per year. In the event of a full relocation, the new community can anticipate a similar experience. The following table shows the current volume of filings in each of the courts having jurisdiction
in the recommended communities. The column on the
far right indicates the percentage of increase that can
be anticipated in the event of a full relocation.
Table E9. Potential Impact on Local Courts

Community
Box Elder County
Juab County
Rush Valley

Judicial
District
1
4
3

2004 Filings
4,492
284
1,702

Source: Utah State Court Administrators Office, 2005

Public Review Draft

Percentage
Anticipated
Increase
1%
17%
3%

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants

In the event of a partial relocation, approximately 36
percent of the inmates would be relocated. The
populations which would remain at the Draper facility would include the women, maximum security and
special populations. Because the relocated populations are the medium, minimum, and pre-release
populations, it is assumed prosecutions occurring in
the new community would be minimal.
However, an analysis of the potential volume of
prosecutions can only go so far in identifying the potential impact on a recommended community’s law
enforcement and courts system. One trial in Sanpete
County, the Troy Kell Trial, is estimated to have cost
the Sanpete County Attorney’s Office between
$250,000 and $300,000 which represents a catastrophic impact on the budget of a small jurisdiction.
Table E10. Emergency Responders by County
County

License Holder
Brigham City Ambulance

Intermediate Ambulance

Tremonton Ambulance

Intermediate Ambulance

Box Elder County

Basic Ambulance

Plymouth Ambulance

Intermediate Ambulance

ATK Thiokol

Intermediate Ambulance

Box Elder
Curlew
County
Willard First Responders
Honeyville Fire Dept.

Carbon
County

License Level

Intermediate Ambulance

There are approximate 11,000 medical transports
annually of inmates at the Draper prison. It is unclear how many of the transports required paramedic
or ambulance level services. As the process progresses the level of emergency medical services available at each recommended community will need to be
further refined with adjustments or upgrades to the
system identified.
The final issue in evaluating community impacts at
the feasibility study level is the growth potential in
each of the recommended communities. The Draper
Prison location has been surrounded by suburban
growth which has resulted in pressure from the surrounding community to relocate. Of the recommended communities, projected growth through 2030
ranges from 0.40 percent to 3.5 percent. This compares with the Salt Lake County-wide projected
growth rate of 1.4 percent.
Table E11. Growth Potential By County

Quick Response Unit – Basic
Quick Response Unit – Basic

Community

2030 Growth Projections

Fielding First Responders

Quick Response Unit – Basic

Box Elder County

1.8%

Thatcher-Penrose Fire Department

Quick Response Unit – Basic

Carbon County

0.4%

Sunnyside

Intermediate Ambulance

Iron County
Juab County

2.8%
1.9%

Carbon County

Intermediate/Advanced Ambulance

Tooele County

3.5%

Rush Valley

2.4%

Helper Fire Department

Quick Response Unit – Basic

Iron
County

Iron County/Parowan

Intermediate Ambulance

Iron County/Parowan

Paramedic Rescue Ambulance

Juab
County

Juab County Nephi
Levan Town Ambulance
Wendover Ambulance
Tooele Hospital
Deseret Generation
Stockton Fire Department

Intermediate Ambulance
Intermediate Ambulance
Intermediate Ambulance
Intermediate Ambulance
Basic Ambulance
Quick Response Unit – Basic

Tooele
County

Each of the recommended communities has medical
facilities with board certified emergency room personnel within 30 miles. Additionally, emergency responder licenses are in place within each recommended community as presented in Table E10.

Source: Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, 2005

No. Tooele Fire Service Dis- Quick Response Unit – Intermetrict
diate

The projected growth rate is not constant across each
of the counties. For example, the growth rate in
Draper is 2.3 percent. As the process moves forward
areas of high growth will need to be identified and
evaluated for potential future impact on any proposed prison location.

Wendover First Responders Quick Response Unit – Basic
Source: Utah Department of Health, Emergency Medical Services
Website, 2005

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX E 17

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

Public Review Draft

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX E 19

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

Public Review Draft

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants

Public Review Draft

APPENDIX E 21

Prison Relocation Feasibility Study State of Utah

Public Review Draft

Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants

Public Review Draft

The Habeas Citebook Ineffective Counsel Side

The Habeas Citebook: Prosecutorial Misconduct Side