Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Improvement Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Herriman outlines constrained 10‑year capital plan, flags tradeoffs with public‑infrastructure districts
Summary
Herriman officials told listeners they must prioritize a long CIP list because impact fees and other restricted funds are finite; staff warned PIDs that advance road building can replace expected impact‑fee revenue and create funding gaps for other projects.
Herriman city hosts said the city’s 10‑year capital improvement plan (CIP) requires strict prioritization because “we have a very finite amount of money that is for these projects each year,” a host said on the city podcast.
The discussion recapped a council work meeting where staff and council members reviewed a long list of aging projects — from parks and streets to stormwater pumps and drainage — and emphasized the need to score and prioritize which projects move forward. The host said the list is “ever changing” and that timelines for replacements can move from a planned two years to four years depending on budget realities.
Officials explained Herriman pays for capital projects through impact fees, taxes and grants. Impact fees are collected as new residential units are built and “may not build the road for 5 or 10 years,” the host said, noting that fees collected today will likely cover a smaller share of future costs because of inflation and rising construction costs.
The podcast also highlighted a key funding tradeoff: public infrastructure districts (PIDs) let developers or property owners build infrastructure up front funded by a localized tax. "The roads get built beforehand," John LaFollette, the city communications manager, said, but he added PIDs “replace impact fees” the city had planned to collect over time. That replacement can leave projects that depend solely on impact fees without a clear funding source, he said.
City hosts framed the PID option as a tool that can accelerate road and infrastructure delivery but cautioned it can shift when and how impact‑fee revenue is realized, meaning some projects may need to be delayed, scaled down or re‑scored. No formal action or vote was taken during the meeting; officials described the discussion as preparatory as they refine the CIP and explore funding mechanisms.
Next steps: staff will continue to refine project scoring and timelines and present adjusted forecasts to the council; residents will see updates as the city refines its long‑range plans.
