7/29/2019 Executive Summary, 2005 Wikstrom Evaluation of Relocating the Utah State Prison

1/3

AbsLract: 'l.ha utinatcd cost b tplocutethe prison luncrions Jrom rhe Druper siLeand (onsrut! tumpurable prkon loti.li-ries ur attother Lotation exce(ls lhe dnli(i-parad proccetls.fron Lhc sole o.f rhe reqlcrtatp b) an esti.matc.l5372 nilliut.'1'his conrlusiort is lcreij orr;. nuhet rpsuni rnuksis ol ulLcrnu-

tipc u.ses ol tha prison siLr;c an nppnti';al ol Jurura lanl-use sttr lrlns arution oJ Iull or purrial relo-tion optio st dnl. cost ?slim|rlrr,In con:!rudion. op-prdtio at trunsiit) relutei to en:lt

Evaluation of the Feasibility ofRelocating the Utah State PrisonWjkstron Lconomi. & Planning Consulranrs. Inc.Carter C oble .\ssocla tes. Inc.LDCCDIIJTIOctobcI 2005INTRODUCTION'I'his stucly l'as cornmissioncd by Lhe StaLe of Utah to determine thelbasibilitr.- ol relocating the nrail Utah State Prison frorn its plesentlocation to an alternatiYe site $-ithin the state. The pri""on is located inDraper CiLv at the southern end oI SalL Lalr.e Couuty. rrhich is thehealt ofthe Wasatch Front the rnost urbanized area ofthe state.Over rhc past several decades, growth rn the Draper area - and all ofsorthern Salt Lake Countl - has resrrlted in urban encroachmentaround the prison. Ther e has been a grcat deal of speculation regard-ing tLc value of thc prison property if prrt irrto alLerrrative uses andrvhether this rvoulcl be sulficient to offset the costs of buildiug a nervfacilitv on a cli{ferelt site. The tesr of feasibility is a product oI thcwalue oI the real eslate lhaL corid be solcl after relocation, Lhe irnpactofrelocation on local comrnunities and the estinated cost ol rebuilclingcquivalenr facilities. These factors providc the framcv'ork for tLe fol-lorting report and serve as rhe basis for the report's linclings.This report srrmuradzes extcnsivc research and analr sis Jrerforure

7/29/2019 Executive Summary, 2005 Wikstrom Evaluation of Relocating the Utah State Prison

2/3

be remodeled to accomrnodate the wouren's facility,the srrbstance-abuse-intensive-treatnrent and the fo-rensic-mental-Iealth irr-patient diagDostics. Lr.eatmentand managemerrt facilities. Follorving the reurodelarrd relocation, the now-enrptv {aciliries on the no$h-east side ofthe site \r'ould be demolished, leaviug areduced prison operatjon on the southwe6r, The 483ernpty acres l'ould then be prepared lbr sale as a de-\.eloprnent siLe.EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe analysis is summarized in 'lables EX-1 and EX-2.'Ibese iuclude all elements ofthe study and aregrouped by potential revemres/benefits aud estimatedcosts related to relocation. Ali estimates are based on2005 present-value dollars and are based on the con-sultant'6 expe ence with Utah construction costs, realestate marhet values and trenrls and tlre prison plan-ning and construction industry.The infonnation in the tables indicates that the sub-stantial costs ofrelocating the Draper facilities -bout 9461 milliou - are noL recovcrable through thesale of tle roughly 6?0 acres of land thar the Stare ofUtah could dispose ofrrpon the prison's closure andrelocation. The additional benefits ofreturning rheland to private developrnent and "baek onto the tax

rolls" rvill not be sufficient to close the gap.Appraised value ranges from 55I miltion to $93 mil-Iiorr. This range exists because the consulLant tearnapproached the appraisal question from a nurnber ofperspectives. First, because the owner is a publicagency with a very low cost of cspital, the team hastaken two approach es'. the rnarhet t)dlue essentiallyassurnes the state sells to a privare developer anduses costs of capital available to the pdvate sector;rhe imteslrnent oalue assumes the public sector (thestate) js the investor and uses the state's more benefi-cial cost of capital.In addition, tvo differenr development scenadoslrave been used, The first assumes that the land issold as residenrial land wlrich is its current lrighesrand best use, The second takes a longer-rern vielvthat is more reflective of the desires ofDraper Cityfor a mixed-use employment center on tlre site.Finally, the team was asked to review the potentialof nT oving only a porrion ofthe l)raper prison func-tions to another location, selling thc excess rcal estatcand ther'eby rnaintainiDg some operations at Draperrrhile realizing the benefirs ofreleasing certain areesofthe Draper campus for private use. This is referredto iu thc Tables as the "Partial Relocation" option.

Tablo EX-l! Execuiive Sufilnary Feasibltity Sumlnary - Full Retocation

Appralsed ValuePlus Value of Water SharesPlus Bcnefit to Dnper

SubtotalCosts

Markets72,000,000

$1,800,000$13,600,000$87,400,000

s421,800,000s6,600,000

sg00 000

s10 700,000s330 000

$11,200,000s2,000,00-ns7,500.000

s461 030 C00

lnveslment$93,000,000$1,800,000

$13,600,000$108,400,000

s421,800.000s6,600,000

s900,000

s10,700,00cs330.000

s11,200,000s2,000.000s7,500.000

s461 030 000

lnveslmenI$77,000,000

$1,800,000$13,600,000$s2,400,000

s421,800 000s6 600,00!r

s900 000

510,700,000s330 000

s11,200,000

ConslrucrionDemolilonTransalronOperaling

Slaff RelocationFiecruihrenUTroin ng

Site AcquisilionRepaynlentof ESCO Debrcosi subtotal

$51,000,000$1,800,000

$13,00,000$66,400,000

s421,800,000s6,600.000

$900,000

s10,700,000$330,000

s11,200,000s2,000,000 s2 000,000s7 500,000s461,030,000

s7 500 000s461 030.000

Nole:. Moderate cost eslimales frcn lhe rcnges $ovided in Appendix Ewere usod to minimize the number of iloatbns of this summary. The costscaul.l vary fran $5 million less to $54 millon norc lhan lhe "moclercle" estimate tn the lutt tepotl, the site and opercIing cosls vaty by; e, butavetages ate used in lhis executive sumnaty

7/29/2019 Executive Summary, 2005 Wikstrom Evaluation of Relocating the Utah State Prison

3/3

Urrder none of the approaohes or the full or partial relo-cation options does the propogal genelate sufficientrevcnues to col,er the costs of rnoving all ol a portiorr ofthe prison functions.The study also evaluates the liscal irnpacts to DraperCit.v of having the full or partial prison propertv le-turned to private use. Undcr the rnixed-usc devclop-ment scenario. the city rroulcl realize uearly $I rnillionannually (alier the project was {ully built ont) in net taxlevenues ifthe prisort ryere tota}lv relocated. Undcr thepartial relocation option, Draper is projected to receiveabotlt S245,000 in anrrual net revenues.Should the state decide to move the prison, a prelirni-nary evaluation of alternatiye sites identified areas inBor Elder, Juab and Tooele Counties that would pro-vidc reasonable alternativcs for a full replacernent oftheDraper facilities, Partial relocation of prison functionsco d be reasonabl). accomrnodatcd;n areas ol lron andCarbon Counties. The full-relocation sites could also beconsidered. 1'hese areas t'oulcl requite additional study.There are adrlitional costs rcleted to the relocation ofthe prison that have been identified in rhe analysis.Nerv facilitv designs can have the potential to providestaffing efliciencies over older facility designs thai resultin opcrating cost savings, The consultants examinedthis potential, but found that sigr ficant staffreauc-tions are not likelv as the I-I-DOC staffing a1 rhe lhapercornplex is extlemely efficient as is. Other oper.ationalTabl EX-2! - Partial Relocatloh/Mixe.l.Use Scenario

costs suclr as trallsportation costs. stalf IecNitmentarrd training, sta{lrclor"atiorr and lransition cosLs areaddresseil il derail in Lhe $tudy.Expenses related to retiremeDt of debt for the en-ergy system Lave beerr tRker inLo accorlnL. Costs forreplacernent of unrelated facilities (Surplus Prop-crt,v, Forestry/Fire ancl Juvcnile Justice Services)hawe nq1 lsal p'.\,ided lbr in the analysis.

rtrlWhile the value of the prison lropertv doe6 not 6up-port full 01 patial relocation of the Draper prisonfunctions, the unused portion should not be left idleor simply sold as surplus lropertv. The remainingproperty is a valuable asset ofthe state that theconsulIants recomrnend be the subject of a strategicplanning eflbrt to map its long-tenn use. Thisanalysis has determined that Deportrnent of Corrcc-tions facility recluireme ts on Lhe I)rapel site inclu(l-ing future grorvth rvill likely never need more thanabout 300 to 350 of the rotghly 6?0 acrcs, but lheseneeds will require furthel refinenrent nolv that theleasibilit--v of relocatiou of the prison has been ad-dressed. The luture Departlnent o{ Correctionsneeds and remaining land should be jointl-v planncdfor long-term stale use - {or state facilities or otheruses suoh as a Lechnology oenler as envisioned in theGovernor's econouric devclopment plaruring-

Appraised Value $49,000,000 $34,000,000Plus Benflt to Drap9l (20.year NPV)

SublotalCosts

Denclliion

OperntingSlafi llebcaiicnRexriirnenvTraining

Sil::;\,j!u;silionCosi Subto{al

$3,500,000ss2,500,000

s12ri,cc0,0ii51.r)0i.cl,r

s73E.0ti$100,4J00

3,1700 oCC$630 tr00

s135,910 C0C

s3,500,000s37,500,000

s124,0J0 0c0sl 7c0,Dao

373C OJt

s100 0a0s,:.700.+c0

sse .ccos r:15 910 .lco

Net {cost)Gain lo Stat (S83,110,C00) {S98,'f'a CCC;Average (Cosl) Gain to Stale (rounded) iS91,0L.a 000)