Herriman council weighs high transportation impact fee for proposed Beto’s site, agrees to study update and further discussion

Councilmembers spent the bulk of their Feb. 12 meeting debating transportation impact fees after staff presented three fee scenarios for a proposed restaurant at Main Street and 126 South.

Bryce, an engineering staff member, told the council the city’s impact-fee methodology comes from its transportation master plan to 2050 and Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip‑generation rates, and that the city adopted updated fees in 2023 that equal about $408 per daily trip. For the applicant’s site, the ITE average produced a fee in the neighborhood of $160,000; the developer’s site‑specific traffic study produced a lower fee of roughly $98,000; and using the most comparable land‑use category on the city’s fee schedule (a retail strip mall) would yield about $22,294.

The applicant’s representative said the land was purchased about six months ago and that Beto’s has already paid the $98,000 fee “in good faith.” The owner warned that other tenants planned for the same parcel, including a leased tenant listed as “7 Brothers,” could be lost if the fee remains at that level.

Councilmembers pressed two themes: fairness and fiscal prudence. Several members argued that lowering fees below the study recommendation would be unfair to earlier businesses that paid much lower amounts (the council noted a prior Quench It location paid about $7,000 under the old schedule) and would erode funds available for roads and maintenance. Others warned that a large fee could deter businesses from choosing Herriman and push development to neighboring municipalities.

Options discussed included: accept the applicant’s site study and charge $98,000; apply the ITE/default number; adopt a lesser schedule for this site; defer payment until the city completes a citywide impact‑fee update (with a contract requiring the applicant to pay the adopted fee later); or cap the fee with a potential refund if the next study results in a lower number.

Staff said a full update of the citywide impact‑fee analysis typically takes up to a year but could be prioritized; it also requires a budget amendment, consultant selection and a state‑required public hearing. City attorney and staff cautioned the council about legal limits on selective incentives under state law (SB 151), which can restrict offering discounts or waivers unless specific housing components or statutory exceptions apply.

Rather than grant an immediate fee waiver or adjustment for future tenants, the council signaled it would: (1) accept that the currently paid $98,000 stands under the ordinance as applied to the already‑permitted Beto’s parcel; (2) start or accelerate a citywide impact‑fee update and bring a work session to the council to evaluate economic‑development implications and possible policy changes; and (3) consider guardrails—contract terms, refund mechanics or caps—if the council decides to change its fee approach going forward.

The council did not take a final policy vote on an across‑the‑board fee reduction or a site‑specific exemption at the meeting. Staff was directed to proceed with planning for the study and to return to council for a detailed policy discussion.