Full Text
MURRAY CITY GENERAL PLAN CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND June 2003 Page 1-1 1 Introduction History of Murray 1 Before being established by Mormon pioneers in 1848, the area where Murray City is presently located was a natural area that served as the seasonal home of Piute, Shoshone, and Bannock Native American tribes, who camped along local creek banks and stream beds during their migrations. When the pioneers arrived they named the area South Cottonwood. By 1860, approximately 20 pioneer families lived in the area, and as the population grew a flour mill was constructed, followed by the establishment of a livery stable, a brickyard, woolen mills, and a cannery. The railroad arrived soon after, and the area became known as which was the name of a local railroad spur. In 1883 the South Cottonwood Post Office name was changed to the Murray Post Office after the territorial governor of the era. Over time the city became known by the same name. Early pioneers divided the land into homesteads or parcels, where they raised dairy cows, cattle, and cereal grains. The animals provided meat and dairy products, and wheat, corn, and some rye were grown to feed the families and animals. Large herds of sheep were tended in what are now the western wetlands of the Jordan River. The discovery of gold, silver, copper and lead in nearby canyons contributed to the industrialization of Murray, and by the late 1800’s the area had expanded to accommodate large ore smelters. Over the next several decades, sixteen smokestacks operated in the southern portion of the Salt Lake Valley, eight of those dotting the Murray skyline. The smelters employed thousands of people, many of whom arrived from south and central Europe. Many of the early settlers built dugouts for homes until a log cabin or adobe structure could be built. Such structures were common throughout the area. A large settlement of poor immigrants in the area called Bergertown represented one of the largest clusters of the simple structures. By the end of the 19th century, local businesses and commercial enterprises were prospering alongside the industries. The success of the local economy was evidenced by stately homes built along prominent streets, and numerous businesses in the town center. The area also had a number of saloons, with over 42 operating along State Street near the turn of the century. Some of the unruly behavior of the saloon patrons created a drive for incorporation, which took place in 1902. Soon after incorporating, Murray established an independent water and power service to help run the community. In the following years the city annexed land several times, eventually reaching a critical size for establishing its own school district. Smelters and other heavy industries continued to dominate the local economy until the Great Depression of the 1930's, when many operations began to be closed or moved. Murray was quick to take advantage of various federal projects to aid hard-hit cities, receiving federal money to refurbish and expand Murray Park and other public works projects. Following WW II Murray City gradually increased in population as new neighborhoods began to replace agricultural areas, which resulted in the need for new schools, recreation areas, and shopping centers. 1 Compiled from the following sources: Mary Ann Kirk, Between the Cottonwoods - A Murray History Children's Workbook (1995); Murray City Corporation, History of Murray City (1976); Raymond R. Rasmussen, History of Murray, State of Utah (1936); David L. Schirer, History of Murray Utah (from the Utah History at www. onlineutah.com/murray history), and personal conversations with Mary Ann Kirk. The closure of the American Smelter and Refinery Company (ASARCO) lead smelter in 1950 signaled the end of Murray's industrial era. The establishment of State Street as the Murray Auto Row in the 1950's, construction of Interstate15 during the 1960's, and development of Fashion Place Mall in the 1970's represented major milestones in the shaping of contemporary Murray. Important recent changes include the expansion and improvement of Interstate 15, and the extension of the north-south light rail line through the center of the community. Community Profile and Demographics Population Murray City is estimated to have a 2002 population of 44,7872. This estimate includes six recently annexed areas located on Murray’s east side. It is estimated that Murray will have a population of approximately 49,250 by the year 2010 (see Table Table 1-1 shows population projections for Murray City, Salt Lake County, and the state of Utah. The projections for Murray City include the six recent annexations, and were made by applying WFRC growth rates to the 2000 population that was reported in the U.S. Census. Table 1-1 Murray Population Projections 2002-2020 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010 2020 Including all new annexations 44,787 45,137 45,490 45,833 49,246 51,448 Salt Lake County 867,700 879,294 894,896 914,190 1,028,508 1,223,218 Utah State 2,216,175 2,254,500 2,301,301 2,355,120 2,661,902 3,183,388 Source: U.S. Census, Wasatch Front Regional Council, Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants, Inc. Murray is predicted to grow somewhat slower than Salt Lake County through 2010 with a 2003-2010 average annual growth rate (AAGR) of 1.43 percent compared to the county’s 2.26 percent. This rate does not include any growth by annexation. Murray’s growth will slow considerably from 2010 to 2020 with an AAGR of .44 percent while the County will slow only mildly with an AAGR of 1.75 percent. The diminishing population growth is due to the limited availability of land for new development. As of June 2002 it is estimated that only 122.3 acres of land remain for building residential structures in Murray.3 If an average density of 6 units per acre is assumed, this translates into an additional 734 units of housing that can be built in Murray. This density will result in a maximum increase in population of 2,377 persons, assuming an average household size of 3.24, which according to the Census, was the average family size4 in 2000. If Murray continues to build an average of 159 units of housing per year as it has done over the past ten years, build-out will occur in 2008. Thus if Murray is to continue its population increase past this decade, it will be by building higher density housing in the place of existing structures. 2Calculated using the Census 2000 population and the 2000 - 2005 average annual growth rate in the Wasatch Front Regional Council’s May 2000 and July 2001 population projections. 3 Available land was identified as land that fell within agricultural, open space, or single and multiple unit residential zones and that was not part of a park or an easement. 4 Average family size is used in place of the average household size to reflect the calculation for maximum population increase. The actual population increase will depend on the types of housing that will be built. ---PAGE BREAK--- MURRAY CITY GENERAL PLAN CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND June 2003 Page 1-2 Age Throughout the nation, the median age of the population is increasing. This trend is also occurring in Murray City and Salt Lake County. According to the 2000 census, the median age in Murray City is 31 years of age. This is higher than the County’s median age of 28.9. Note that both the City and County’s median age is younger than the national median age of 35.3 years. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2000 the national median age had increased by 2.5 years since the 1990 census. However, the estimated median age for the state of Utah has increased by only 0.8 years during the same time period. As illustrated in Tables 1-2 and 1-3, Murray’s population is older than the County and State averages. The largest age group for the City, County, and State is of persons under the age of 18. This represents approximately 28 percent of Murray City residents. This is lower than the percentages for the County and State. Murray’s second largest age group includes persons between 30 to 44 years of age, which is common among the County and State as well. Compared to County and State percentages, Murray City has a higher percentage of persons in each group over age 45. Murray’s elderly, defined as persons 65 years or older, is equal to 11.3 percent of the population. Table 1-2 Population by Age 1990 and 2000 Murray City Salt Lake County State of Utah 1990 2000 % Change 1990 2000 % Change % Change Under 18 9,955 9,591 -3.7% 263,524 288,720 9.6% 16.0% 18 to 19 780 1,193 52.9% 21,188 30,675 44.8% 49.3% 20 to 24 1,982 2,835 43.0% 42,571 69,539 63.3% 69.5% 25 to 29 3,195 2,806 -12.2% 61,841 77,762 25.7% 29.1% 30 to 44 6,731 7,117 5.7% 169,822 198,319 16.8% 24.3% 45 to 54 3,016 4,119 36.6% 61,671 103,209 67.4% 69.5% 55 to 59 1,233 1,346 9.2% 22,932 33,198 44.8% 44.3% 60 to 64 1,186 1,078 -9.1% 21,328 24,489 14.8% 19.2% 65 yrs and over 3,204 3,826 19.4% 61,079 72,476 18.7% 27.3% Total 31,282 33,911 8.4% 725,956 898,387 23.8% 29.6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants, Inc. Table 1-3 Age Groups as Percentage Total Population Murray City, Salt Lake County and State of Utah Murray City Salt Lake County State of Utah under 18 28.3% 32.1% 34.2% 18 to 19 3.5% 3.4% 3.9% 20 to 24 8.4% 7.7% 8.2% 25 to 29 8.3% 8.7% 8.0% 30 to 44 21.0% 22.1% 20.2% 45 to 54 12.1% 11.5% 10.6% 55 to 59 4.0% 3.7% 3.6% 60 to 64 3.2% 2.7% 2.8% 65 yrs and over 11.3% 8.1% 8.5% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants, Inc. Household Composition According to the 2000 census, Murray City has 12,693 households. This number expands to 16,682 in 2002 when adjusted for growth and the recent annexations. The average household size is 2.68 persons. From 1990 to the year 2000, the number of households in Murray City increased by 930, a net change of 7.9 percent for the period. The number of Murray City households has been growing at an average annual rate of 0.8 percent from 1990 to 2000. While Murray City has been experiencing minimal growth, Salt Lake County has seen its number of households increase by 22.8 percent during this same period. The composition of households is moving away from the traditional family household. A family household is defined as a household with one or more related persons living with the householder. The trend is towards non-family households where the householder is either living alone or with non-relatives. Murray City has a large proportion of non-family households. According to the 2000 census, 31.2 percent of all Murray City households were non-family households as compared to 30.3 percent in 1990. In comparison, only 27.5 percent of Salt Lake County households were non-families, which is still higher than the County’s 1990 figure of 26.7 percent. Households with Children Family Households headed by either single men or single women represent 14 percent of all Murray households. In 2000, single-female-headed households with children under 18 years of age made up 6.1 percent of all households (see Table 1-4 below). Table 1-4 Households with Children, 2000 Murray City, Salt Lake County, and State of Utah Actual Percentage Murray City Salt Lake County` State of Utah Murray City Salt Lake County` State of Utah Total Households 12,700 295,290 701,933 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Family Households Married Couple with Children 3,410 96,812 253,122 26.9% 32.8% 36.1% Married Couple, no Children 3,548 77,105 197,643 27.9% 26.1% 28.2% Single Male with Children 220 6,550 13,892 1.7% 2.2% 2.0% Single Male No Children 242 6,416 12,510 1.9% 2.2% 1.8% Single Female with Children 772 17,461 38,408 6.1% 5.9% 5.5% Single Female No Children 544 11,520 24,153 4.3% 3.9% 3.4% Total Family Households 8,736 215,864 539,728 68.8% 73.1% 76.9% Total Non-family Households 3,964 79,426 162,205 31.2% 26.9% 23.1% Households with Children 4,402 120,823 305,422 34.7% 40.9% 43.5% Households without Children 8,298 174,467 396,511 65.3% 59.1% 56.5% Source: U.S. Census Bureau: Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants, Inc. Note: The 2000 U.S. Census is the most recent data available on household characteristics. The estimated growth rate in total number of households is the only current statistic available. ---PAGE BREAK--- MURRAY CITY GENERAL PLAN CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND June 2003 Page 1-3 Ethnic Background The predominant race in Murray is white, which is characteristic of Utah as a whole. The proportion of non- whites in Murray (6.1 percent) is significantly less than for Salt Lake county (11 percent). The largest non- white racial group is the Asian population, which comprises just 1.2 percent of the total Murray population. The next largest race represented is the American Indian, about 1.1 percent of the population. Ethnic diversity in Murray also extends to the Hispanic population. The term Hispanic refers not to a race but rather to an ethnicity (defined as persons that share distinctive ancestral, cultural, religious, or linguistic characteristics). This group as a whole represents 7.1 percent of the total City population. Just over 46 percent of the Hispanic population is considered to be non-white Hispanics, very close to the same percentage for the county as a whole The non-white Hispanic population represents approximately 3.3 percent of the City’s residents. Table 1-5 Population by Race for Murray City, Salt Lake County, State of Utah; 2000 Murray City Salt Lake County State of Utah Number of persons Percentage of population Percentage of population Percentage of population Total: * 33,911 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% White alone 31,160 91.9% 86.2% 89.2% Non-White 2,085 6.1% 11.0% 8.5% Black or African American alone 253 0.7% 1.0% 0.7% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 389 1.1% 0.8% 1.3% Asian alone 396 1.2% 2.6% 1.7% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 77 0.2% 1.2% 0.6% Some other race alone 970 2.9% 5.5% 4.2% Two or more races 6 0.0% 2.8% 2.3% Hispanic Origin 2,406 7.1% 11.8% 9.0% Hispanic Origin-White 1,298 3.8% 5.3% 3.9% Hispanic Origin Non-White 1,108 3.3% 6.5% 5.1% Source: U.S. Census Bureau; Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants, Inc. * The total number of persons is not equal to the number of persons that reported their race for the census Income In 2001, Murray City median household income was $35,1615 and the mean was $47,107. Median income is the figure that has 50 percent of households making above this amount and 50 percent below. The mean income is the total of all income divided by the total number of households. The median income is 7.4 percent less than the county median household income of $37,989, and 5.5 percent lower than the state’s median. Table 1-6 illustrates the mean and median income figures for the City, County, and State. Employment As illustrated in Table 1-7, employment in Murray has increased dramatically during the 1990s, from 29,434 in 1990 to 44,472 in 2000. Most of the growth is attributable to increases in the Services, Construction, and Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (“FIRE”) industries. The Transportation, Communication, and Public Utilities (TCPU) industry is currently growing the fastest, increasing from 1,521 5 Median income figures came from the Utah State Tax Commission’s reports of Federal Adjusted Gross Income. employed in 1991 to 3,265 in 2000. Services and Trade (retail and wholesale) continue to offer the largest employment base. The largest 2000 Murray employers are illustrated in Table 1-8. Table 1-6 Household Income for Murray City, Salt Lake County, and State of Utah, 2001 Murray City Salt Lake County State of Utah Mean Household Income 47,107 52,798 52,199 Median Household Income 35,161 37,989 37,221 Persons per Household 2.68 3.00 3.13 Median Household Income per Person 13,120 12,663 11,892 Source: Utah State Tax Commission, U.S. Census 2000 Table 1-7 Murray City Employment, 1991 and 2000 Year 1991 Employment % of total 2000 Employment % of total Total change, 1991-2000 % Change, 1991-2000 Mining 19 0.1% 6 0.0% -13 -68.4% Construction 2,434 7.8% 4,744 10.7% 2,310 94.9% Manufacturing 2,820 9.1% 2,901 6.5% 81 2.9% TCPU 1,521 4.9% 3,265 7.3% 1,744 114.7% Trade 10,362 33.4% 11,003 24.7% 641 6.2% FIRE 2,275 7.3% 4,568 10.3% 2,293 100.8% Services 10,260 33.1% 15,395 34.6% 5,135 50.0% Government 1,340 4.3% 2,590 5.8% 1,250 93.3% Total non-agricultural 31,031 100.0% 44,472 100.0% 13,441 43.3% Source: Dept. of Workforce Services; Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants, Inc. Table 1-8 Murray City's Largest Employers, 2000 Business Name Employees Type of Business Cottonwood Hospital 1,750 Health Care Murray School District 830 Education 380 Clothing Murray City Corporation/Murray City Power 369 Government Workers Compensation Fund 325 Insurance Sear Roebuck & Co. 233 General Merchandise AT&T 232 Communications Hunter Douglas Intermountain 221 Window Coverings manufacturing Murray Ford/Utah Auto Collection 220 Vehicle Sales Karman Kitchens 220 Cabinets Dillard's 216 Clothing Zevex 202 Medical devices Pinkerton's 200 Security and Investigation Source: Murray City Corporation; Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants, Inc. ---PAGE BREAK--- MURRAY CITY GENERAL PLAN CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND June 2003 Page 1-4 Figure 1-3: TOTAL GROSS SALES, SL Co. (inflation adjusted) 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Year Sales in $000,000 Wages and Salaries The average wage in Murray City for the year 2000 was $2,556 per month. This is higher than the state average of $2,401 but still lower than the county average of $2,662. Average nonagricultural payroll wages for Murray City, Salt Lake County, and the State of Utah are shown in the table below. Murray City has an average wage higher than the County and State for the construction, trade, and government industries. Average wages in Murray fall below both the State and County averages for the mining, manufacturing, transportation, communication and public utilities, finance, insurance, and real estate industries. Table 1-9 Average Salary by Industry for Utah, Salt Lake County, and Murray City 1990 1995 2000 Industry type State County City State County City State County City Mining $2,976 $3,099 $3,558 $3,484 $4,038 $3,945 $4,043 $4,497 $3,774 Construction 1,843 1,952 2,050 2,042 2,244 2,199 2,477 2,773 2,991 Manufacturing 2,066 2,104 1,488 2,384 2,448 1,942 2,944 3,109 2,235 Trans., Comm, & Pub. Util. 2,424 2,552 1,756 2,703 2,753 2,599 3,223 3,313 2,965 Trade 1,173 1,359 1,368 1,414 2,058 1,651 1,779 2,120 2,270 FIRE 1,818 1,951 1,908 2,303 2,510 2,393 3,069 3,346 2,862 Services 1,458 1,582 1,505 1,789 1,918 2,069 2,301 2,526 2,480 Government 1,735 1,821 1,732 2,054 2,196 2,284 2,455 2,666 2,722 Source: Utah Department of Employment Security: Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants, Inc. Gross Taxable Sales Total Sales Total gross taxable sales in the City increased 48.4 percent from 1992 to 2001, from $903,838,021 to $1,341,045,211. When adjusted for inflation the resulting average annual growth is 1.8 percent. From 1997 to 2001, taxable sales decreased by a rate of –1.9 percent per year. This trend continued into early 2002, where first quarter gross sales were down 3.9 percent from the first quarter of 2001 after adjusting for inflation. By comparing the change in sales in Murray City to changes in sales for the County, we can see that the City of Murray has been experiencing below-average growth in real taxable sales throughout the 1990s. Adjusting for inflation, countywide growth in real taxable sales from 1992 to 2001 equaled 48.4 percent or 4.5 percent per year. From 1997 to 2001, the County’s growth in taxable sales was 8.2 percent or 2.0 percent per year. Salt Lake County’s gross taxable sales for the first quarter of 2002, when adjusted for inflation, dropped 0.4 percent from the first quarter of 2001. The County figures represent substantial new growth, a situation that does not exist in mature communities, and should not be negatively construed. Sales by Major Industry The largest proportion of total sales each year from 1992 to 2001 occurred in the motor vehicle dealers’ retail trade. Gross retail sales from this sector totaled 27.45 percent of Murray’s gross taxable sales in 2001. The retail-furniture sector grew the most during these years and currently comprises 11.3 percent of all taxable sales. The retail-general merchandise sector also commands a large portion of taxable sales, currently making up 10.9 percent of Murray’s total. Similarly, Salt Lake County’s largest percentage of taxable sale dollars in 2001 came from the motor vehicle dealers retail sector. Wholesale durable goods and retail food stores followed with 10.8 and 10.6 percent of the County’s taxable sales respectively. In Murray City, the retail-eating and drinking sector had the largest increase in sales next to motor vehicle dealers between 1997 and 2001. Since 1997, the sector with the largest increase in sales for the County was communications with business services having the next largest increase in gross taxable sales. In Murray City, the communications sector and the education, legal, and social services sector showed the highest growth rates from 1992 to 2001 with average annual growths of 70.1 percent and 21.2 percent respectively. For Salt Lake County the finance, insurance, and real estate sector had the highest growth rate, with an average annual increase of 19.9 percent. Following this were the transportation industry with an annual growth rate of 13.1 percent and the communications industry at 12.8 percent. The largest drop in taxable sales for Murray City occurred in retail-general merchandise from just over $187 million in 1992 (adjusted for inflation) to under $167 million in 2001. The sector that is declining the fastest is the transportation sector, which fell by an average annual rate of –22.0 percent from 1992 to 2001 and has accelerated its annual rate of decline to –40.2 percent for the years since 1997. For the County, the only sectors that have declined since 1992 are the mining and health services industries at -5.2 percent and -2.1 percent annually. Since 1997, the taxable sales in the County declined for the construction and retail-furniture sectors: construction at an average annual rate of -2.7 percent and retail- furniture at -2.5 percent. Murray receives over 42 percent of its total sales tax from fifteen businesses. Figure 1-1: Average wages 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Year $ U.S. State County City Figure 1-2: TOTAL GROSS SALES, Murray City (inflation adjusted) $1,000 $1,100 $1,200 $1,300 $1,400 $1,500 $1,600 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Year sales in $000,000 ---PAGE BREAK--- MURRAY CITY GENERAL PLAN CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND June 2003 Page 1-5 Recent Trends in Construction Single and Multifamily Construction The last 10 years have seen a varying amount of residential construction each year. 1995 saw a peak of 173 units permitted for new construction of single-family housing. Single-family construction tapered off in 1996 and 1997, with only 57 housing units constructed in 1997. However, the City did experience a spurt of multi-family housing construction in 1996. In 1998, construction picked up and continued to increase through 2000 when the number of single-family and multi-family units constructed peaked again with 203 single-family units and 241 multi-family units constructed. Construction dropped off significantly in 2001 when only 64 total units were constructed. In 2002 the amount of new construction remained low with only 27 units being permitted as of June. Table 1-11 summarizes residential building permits issued in Murray from 1992-2000. Table 1-12 and Figure 4 illustrate this activity in comparison to Salt Lake County. The comparison is meant to detect whether Murray’s rates of construction diverge from or are consistent with the rates of the County. Indeed, the County also peaked and declined from 1994 to 1997, as did Murray City. As shown by figure 2 however, the County did not match Murray’s second peak in 2000. As the City becomes more built out and other communities continue to grow, Murray’s portion of the County’s total new construction slowly diminishes. Table 1-12 Murray Building Permits as Percent of County (1992-2001) Single Family Dwelling Units Duplex Dwelling Units Multi-Family Dwelling Units Mobile/ Manufactured Units Total Constructed Units 1992 4.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.8% 1993 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 1994 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 1995 3.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 1996 2.7% 1.6% 4.8% 0.0% 3.3% 1997 1.4% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 1.1% 1998 1.6% 0.0% 0.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1999 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 2.1% 2000 6.3% 2.5% 19.1% 0.0% 9.6% 2001 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5% 1.2% 2002 1.7% 2.6% 0.6% 2.8% 1.4% Total 2.8% 0.6% 2.2% 0.5% 2.5% Source: Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants, Inc., Bureau of Economic & Business Research. To summarize, the construction of new residential housing units has been primarily single-family housing. In fact, 75.8 percent of all residential construction in Murray over the past decade has been single-family. It appears that construction in Murray will continue into the near future at a slower pace than the average of 159 residential permits per year. This is a direct effect of the limited amount of developable land in the City. Because of the scarcity of land, future growth will likely require the development of higher density projects. Table 1-10 Gross Taxable Sales and Annual Percentage growth in sales by Industry For Murray City and Salt Lake County Percent of total taxable sales (2001) Percentage change in annual sales (1997-2001) Murray City Salt Lake County Murray City Salt Lake County Construction 1.46% 1.13% -1.28% -2.68% Manufacturing 2.89% 4.38% -0.87% -0.16% Communications 1.68% 5.66% 8.01% 14.04% Wholesale-durable goods 6.65% 10.08% -3.60% 0.29% Wholesale non-durable goods 1.68% 2.45% 3.24% 3.31% Retail-building & garden 3.08% 4.03% -5.12% -1.57% Retail-general merchandise 12.41% 7.65% -2.35% 1.35% Retail-food stores 4.07% 10.06% -1.55% -0.15% Retail-motor vehicle dealers 24.90% 10.42% 1.01% 3.84% Retail-apparel & accessory 7.57% 2.76% -4.70% -0.95% Retail-furniture 10.39% 4.57% -2.38% -2.47% Retail-eating & drinking 4.75% 6.27% 3.17% 3.51% Retail-miscellaneous 7.36% 6.57% -3.34% 2.71% Finance, ins. & real estate 0.14% 1.44% 1.83% 9.65% Services-hotels & lodging 0.42% 1.85% 1.20% 0.09% Services-personal 0.33% 0.74% -5.19% 1.19% Services-business 1.39% 4.60% -2.29% 12.16% Services-auto & misc. repair 3.80% 3.93% -2.42% -0.53% Services-amusement & recreation 0.70% 2.13% -11.30% 3.67% Services-health 0.28% 0.26% -8.00% -2.90% Services-ed., legal, social 0.15% 0.70% -8.49% 7.22% Public administration 1.35% 0.14% -1.29% 1.10% Private motor vehicle sales 0.66% 1.35% -9.39% -1.30% Non-classifiable 1.78% 2.17% -12.81% -0.44% SL County total gross taxable sales 100.00% 100.00% -1.87% 1.98% Source: Utah State Tax Commission; Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants, Inc. Table 1-11 Building Permits Issued for Housing Units, City of Murray Total Permit-Authorized Units (1992-2001) Year Single Family Units Duplex Dwellings Multi-Family Units Mobile/ Manufactured Total Constructed Units 1992 157 0 0 0 157 1993 79 0 0 0 79 1994 137 0 0 0 137 1995 173 0 0 0 173 1996 149 2 132 0 283 1997 57 0 4 0 61 1998 70 0 4 2 76 1999 112 0 0 1 113 2000 203 2 241 0 446 2001 63 0 0 1 64 2002 64 2 9 3 78 Total 1,264 6 390 7 1,667 Source: Wikstrom Economic & Planning Consultants, Inc., Bureau of Economic & Business Research ---PAGE BREAK--- MURRAY CITY GENERAL PLAN CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND June 2003 Page 1-6 Housing Unit Construction 1992-2001 of Decade High) 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0% 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Murray Salt Lake County Purpose of the Plan A general plan is a guide document adopted by the community to help decision-makers evaluate development proposals and implement a desired future for the community. Typically, it looks in general at a larger area and determines the kind of land uses (residential, commercial, manufacturing, parks), transportation systems (public transit, highways, trails), and the many other elements that make up a community. It generally has a life of 5 to 10 years, but it does look at least 20 years into the future to anticipate how the community will change. Every 5 to 10 years, the General Plan needs to be revisited and changed to reflect new information changing community priorities. In the case of the Murray City General Plan Update, more detail is provided than is normally found in a General Plan. Because Murray City is for the most part built-out, there is little opportunity for large-scale land use change except in areas with potential for redevelopment. Some redevelopment is already occurring where the IHC Hospital and new big-box retail centers are developing in the vicinity of 5300 South and State Street, and others are identified in the Plan. This General Plan Update looks carefully at the interface between residential neighborhoods and other land uses to document concerns and brings specific recommendations. In this way, the General Plan Update addresses urban design even more than land use, since livability and quality of life are important aspects of the Plan. Developing a General Plan is an opportunity to take a look at the community today, determine what is good about it and what needs to change to make it better, and to look into the future and “plan” for anticipated changes. When the General Plan is adopted, zoning ordinances, development guidelines, and other means of implementing the plan should be revised and updated as necessary. In the following chapters, a “snapshot” of Murray City is presented as an existing condition, input from residents and planners is analyzed, a desired future condition is defined, and recommendations are presented to assist in implementing the plan. More detailed information about public input and the public process are found in Appendix A. Flexibility of the General Plan While providing overall guidance to planning issues in the community, the General Plan is not necessarily inflexible. Its intent is to state clearly the overall policy objectives and goals – these should remain inflexible until such time as the General Plan is updated or amended. Within the context of the overall General Plan policy objectives and goals however, there is opportunity for flexibility, typically in execution and implementation. It is important to adopt the broader ideals to guide decision-making, while considering a range of creative solutions for site-specific issues that do not compromise those ideals. In this way, the General Plan remains a vital, living document that will serve the community for a minimum of 5 to 10 years. General Plan amendments should not be taken A great deal of effort, time, commitment, and consideration goes into the development of this General Plan. In order to be a trusted document, any proposed General Plan amendment should be considered carefully and within the context of its community- wide impact. Therefore, it is recommended that General Plan amendments only be considered semi- annually at special meetings devoted entirely to that process. In this way, the necessary time needed to fully understand and evaluate proposals is assured and the General Plan is not compromised due to haste or inadequate information. Additionally, it is recommended that no General Plan amendments be considered for a period of one year following the date of adoption. This gives the Planning Commission and the City Council time to work with the adopted plan without pressure for immediate change. Organization of the Plan Document The Revised/Updated General Plan addresses important community issues as a series of Elements. Although each Element is specific in its focus, there is an integral and essential relationship between them that is the essence of Community. The Elements are Land Use, Urban Design, Transportation, Historic Preservation, Parks and Recreation, Natural and Environmental Conditions, Economic Development, and Housing. Goals and Policies Goal: To maintain the objectives and goals of the Murray City General Plan within a clearly defined framework for possible future modification Policy: Carefully consider amendments to the General Plan only within the context of comprehensive, community-wide impacts. Implementation Measure: Entertain no amendments to the General Plan for a period of one year following the date of adoption. Implementation Measure: Consider potential amendments to the General Plan only during special meetings devoted solely to that process. Implementation Measure: Hold special meetings to consider potential General Plan amendments only on a semi-annual basis. Figure 1-4: Housing Construction 1992-2001 of decade high)