03/15/1984 - Minutes PUBLIC UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Minutes
Meeting of March 15, 1984
7 A.M. at 1530 South West Temple
The following committee members were in attendance: Howard Dunn, Emanuel
Floor, Ralph Steenblik, Roger Boyer, Ray Arnold, Marvin Tuddenham and
Jack Bonnett. Also present were Ray Montgomery of the city attorney's
office; Dave Evans and Tom Krumsick and of CH2M Hill; John Johnson of
Horrocks & Carollo; Glen Warchol of the Deseret News and Nick Sefakis of
the Metropolitan Water District. Staff members present were: LeRoy
Hooton, Jr., Joseph Fenton, Ray Ahlander, Jim Lewis, George Jorgensen,
Maury Johnson, Barbara Despain, Tim Doxey, Lin Fitzgerald, Wendell Evensen,
Anna Wilson and Jackie Gillen.
Chairman Steenblik brought the meeting to order at 7:04 a.m.
I. Approve minutes of February 24, 1984 meeting
Mr. Dunn motioned that the minutes be approved as written and Mr. Arnold
seconded the notion with all voting aye.
Chairman Steenblik opened nominations for a new chairman. Mr. Boyer
nominated Mr. Arnold, however, Mr. Arnold declined. Mr. Bonnett nominated
Mr. Tuddenham. Mr. Boyer moved that nominations cease. All approved
this motion, and Mr. Tuddenham accepted the position.
Chairman Steenblik then opened nominations for a new vice chairman. Mr.
Steenblik nominated Mr. Bonnett and Mr. Bonnett subsequently declined.
Mr. Arnold nominated Mr. Dunn and nominations were ceased. All members
voted aye to the motion that Mr. Dunn be nominated as vice chairman.
Mr. Dunn accepted this position.
II. FY 1984-85 Budget. Consider water rate increase
Sewer Utility Budget:
Mr. Hooton said that a Public Utilities Advisory Committee subcommittee
consisting of Mr. Steenblik, Mr. Tuddenham and Mr. Bonnett has been
working with the value engineers regarding improvements at the wastewater
plant. They had met with the City Council last Thursday to present
proposed improvments and scheduling. The biggest item in the budget
was adopting the improvements at the wastewater plant.
Item IV. on the agenda, "Value Engineering Report" was combined in this
item.
•
-2-
Mr. Jorgensen went over the proposed program. The information was from a
predesign and treatment plan. He showed a chart illustrating the proposed
implementation schedule from 1984 to 1989. The report has been reviewed
inhouse, etc. , and the state is now reviewing it. We will spend $4,364,000
this year on these improvements. The balance is available through revenue
projections.
Mr. Steenblik mentioned that he felt that this study was a worthwhile effort.
Mr. Tuddenham said he felt that all aspects have been looked at and all
questions have been answered adequately. He said he felt good about it.
Mr. Hooton said that an annual increase for 0 & M of 8 percent is built in.
The sewer utility budget for 1984-85 is $17,643,000 which overall is down one
percent. The capital program totals $7.8 million and is up 27 percent but
reflects the implementation of improvements, which Mr. Jorgensen described.
The total operating budget is down one percent for the same number of full
time employees as last year--no increase in employees.
Mr. Tuddenham said that he felt that we should budget on the conservative
side. But does past history show that we are budgeting too much on the
conservative side? He requested that we show a comparison between actual
expenditures and budgeted amounts.
Mr. Hooton said it should be pointed out that if there are savings in the
operations it goes into the reserve and becomes part of the cash reserve
that we use for improvements. It is always our goal to be under budget.
• Mr. Maury Johnson said that on the wastewater treatment plant side our
budget has come in right on the numbers this year with bad weather. We
budgeted for land injection and 0 & M because of the bad weather we could
not do it. Our expenditures are compared from budget to budget. If the
weather gets better it will change.
Mr. Floor motioned that we approve the sewer utility budget ending June 30,
1985 as prepared by the staff and recommend approval to the council. Mr.
Bonnett seconded the motion with all voting aye.
Water Utility Fund:
Subcommittee members on this topic are: Mr. Boyer, Mr. Dunn, Mr. Floor and
Mr. Featherstone.
Mr. Hooton said that the last operating rate increase was in 1980. We have
had a rate increase to finance our capital improvements program and over
the last four years have constructed more facilities than at any other
time in history. Actually we have had no rate incrase for four and one-half
years. We have been affected by increasing costs in several categories
and in the last two years the inclement weather has affected water sales
and has depleted our operating revenue and we have had extra ordinary
expenditures because of the weather. Every facility located along the
stream bed has been damaged. Abnormal weather patterns have affected us and
our revenues and our ability to balance the budget. Based on the budget we
submitted to the committee last time we are coming in $700,000 short in
•
` -3-
operations. This would provide no capital at all in terms of operating
capital. We are looking at a deficit of nearly $2 million plus $700,000 in
operating expenses or $2.7 million coming into the year. Also, we have not
included any of the items described on the blackboard, and as follows:
1. Hydropower development (minimum of $30,000 to $50,000) - We have been
looking at the possibility of developing at a $15 million capital
investment small hydropower plants to use the elevation changes in the
pipelines for supplies in Big and Little Cottonwood Canyon. We have
done preliminary work and are looking to see what kind of rate we can
get to make this cost effective, and also in order to try and offset
high power costs. But we have no funds to use to pursue this activity
in the coming year.
Mr. Montgomery said that under the FERC application we must proceed with
this within 18 months after the application has been approved.
2. Purchasing the Pitometer computer model ($50,000) - This is very important
in determining fire flows and being able to master plan our water system.
It will be nine years since it has been updated.
3. Funds to pay for additional flood control damages - With the way the
weather is going, we have need for additional funding this year.
4. Metropolitan Water District rate increase
A) Little Dell - if it is built then the Metropolitan Water District
will pick up the debt and pass the cost along to us, but we will
have no contingency.
B) Operational increases
Mr. Sefakis said that the Metropolitan Water District board hasn't met
to discuss the rate increase yet, but is selling water to the city at a
rate lower than cost. They probaoly will have a rate increase.
C) Jordan Aqueduct. Once the petition for 20,000 acre feet of water
is submitted and a contract signed there will ee costs associated with
this.
5. New city phone system
6. Utah Lake law suit ($50,000 to $100,000)
7. Unexpected capital improvements - involving development that comes in
that we are caught up in
8. Unknown costs caused by others - Curb and gutter, etc. , where our
facilities have to be changed.
9. Funds to compensate the Parley's Water Users for water rights - it's
costing $2000 per acre foot to supply $5 per acre foot worth of water.
We had a meeting with the water users the other night to discuss this,
and if an agreement is drawn up there will be expenses.
-4-
10. Repairs of Twin Lake ikon - We need to make repairs to this dam to
comply with the state engineer's requirement.
Mr. Lewis described the water utility funding in terms of the operating
revenue since our last rate increase. We have cut back employees and
our budgets are below the consumer price index. We have estimated our
operating revenue for FY 19d4-85 which is based on an average of the last
five years. Luring that time salaries have increased 40 percent or 52
percent by actual employees. Service fees are up by 23 percent. Data
processing has gone up 56 percent. Fleet management is up 36 percent;
utilities 60 percent; postage costs went up 71 percent and chemical costs
up 61 percent. During the same time frame controlled costs (actual maintenance
costs) have gone down. by 18 percent. Full-time employees are down 24; we
are up one hourly employee or down a total of 23 employees.
Mr. Lewis said that if we raise rates by 28 percent (in overall revenue--
or a 22 to 23 percent per average customer increase) we would generate $3.6
million. This would take care of the deficit in making the operations,
come up with capital outlay and create a $1 million per year contingency
fund.
Mr. Floor said that he felt there was no way that we could go without a
rate increase. He talked about the reserve concept. The minimum rates
have been flat for a long time. About 80 percent of our costs are fixed.
The first 100 cubic feet are pretty expensive, but if we leave the rates
where they are we will not be getting revenues. We have to bring up the
minimums and are proposing a raise in the minimum rate from $4.50 to $5.50
in the city and from $4.50 to S6 in the county and increase the rate per 100
cubic feet in order to 1) fund the budget; and 2) have a reserve for these
flood damage episodes or for another wet weather year. This increase in
rates: 1) it would bring in an income of $1.1 million, whether or not we
sell water, and 2) we would get more income from those who are using the
water. He said that if the average customer pays $111 per year this increase
would cost each an extra $28 per year.
Mr. Hooton said that 28 percent of all billings are minimums (the minimum
is for the first 1,000 cubic feet of water used). The problem with the
water utility is that we have to maintain the entire system to be ready for
peak capacity in case of tire or if peak demand is required with rate increases
we would be able to have a good solid preventative maintenance program. If
we had no rate increase we would have to eliminate all these programs and
around 42 positions in the department.
Mr. Floor motioned that we adopt the water utility fund budget ending June
30, 1985 and recommend to the Mayor and City Council a rate increase increasing
the minimum by $1 in the city and $1.50 in the county and raise the rate
for 100 cubic feet after the first 1000 cubic feet from 31 cents to 39
cents in the city and from 46 to 58 cents in the county (for an overall
increase of revenues of 25 percent). Mr. Arnold seconded the motion with
all voting aye.
V. ordinance relating to special services
Anna Wilson distributed copies of the special services agreement. She said
that we have had requests from realtors to arrange for water and sewer
They would use a special code or name and be charged for every connection
-5-
they made. They will pay a special fee for these services, and would also
be charged an extra Eee to have water turned on at a specific time. Mr.
Hooton said that this would cover all transactions which the realtor has in
one transaction. It they want special consideration they will pay an extra
fee for these services.
Mr. Montgomery recommended that written notice be required for termination
of services.
Mr. Floor said that once the owner transfers the responsibility for the
water to someone else that someone else should have to make the arrangements.
for turnoffs. Ms. Wilson said that if a owner signs for water we do not
get involved in this. Mr. Floor said that we should be careful of how we
identify who our customer is.
Mr. Floor then motioned that this ordinance be approved subject to the
change (which would specify written notice for termination of services) and
Mr. Arnold seconded the motion with all voting aye.
VI. Sewer Adjustments
Ms. Fitzgerald described Eldred L. Carr's request (see attached history)
where he has had astronomical water usage since 1974. When he decided to
repair the entire line in August 1983 he noticed 16 major leaks on this
line. He is requesting that we adjust his bills for the past two years
based on what his average is from November 1983 through March 1984. This
would result in a credit of 562.
Mr. Arnold motioned that we approve the adjustment as Mr. Carr requested
and Mr. Bonnett seconded the motion with all voting aye.
Chairman Steenblik read a letter from the mayor to Leigh von der Esch of
the City Council in response to our letter to the mayor regarding the
presentation on CUP. In the letter the mayor requested that a meeting be
held with the Public Utilities Advisory Committee members and the City
Council.
Mr. Hooton requested that a subcommittee be formed to detail information
that we have been getting from the Central Utah Water Conservancy District
relative to costs and how it may impact the city.
Mr. Bonnett and Mr. Arnold volunteered to sit on this committee.
****
Mr. Floor thanked Chairman Steenblik for serving so well as chairman for
the past three years. He mentioned that he had headed this committee
through many difficult situations, i.e. , the flood, the wastewater plant
improvements, etc. He said that all this effort takes time. He motioned
the committee's official thanks to Chairmain Steenblik for serving as
chairman. Mr. Dunn seconded the motion with all voting aye.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 a.m.
TO: LeRoy W. Hooton, Jr. , & Advisory Board
FROM: Madolin A. Fitzgerald - Sewer Service Charge Administrator
DATE: March 15, 1984
SUBJECT: Eldred L. Carr
658 E 1700 South
Salt Lake City, Utah 84105
Account #490-019820
Mr. Carr has asked for relief on his sewer billing for the following reasons.
1. He purchased the property in March 1974. The usage has always
high. When the sewer charge doubled Mr. Carr began questioning
the consumption at the property. He made a repair to the service
line in October 1982, thinking he had corrected the problem.
However, after just one billing period of low consumption the
high usage continued.
2. In August 1983, out of frustration trying to determine where the
water was going, since it never surfaced, he replaced the entire
service line of 153 feet plus two stop and waste valves and all
sprinkler heads.
During the replacement he noted 16 major leaks on the service
line.
In excavating the service, line at approximately 3 feet down mud
was encountered to the depth of the line which was about 5 feet.
The water never surfaced because of an underground creek bed
which runs through the property.
Since Mr. Carr has made every attempt to correct the problem and his consumption
is now approximately one third of the past two winter periods he is requesting
that we adjust his sewer' bills for the past two years based on what his average
is from November 1983 through March 1984 inasmuch as the water was not entering
the sanitary sewer system.
With the information we presently have it would result in an approximate credit
of $562.00 for the two year period.
Thank you.
44 AN-2-
TABLE 2
PROPOSED PREDESIGN
MODIFICATIONS
TO EXISTING WATER RECLAMATION
FACILITIES
MODIFICATIONS NEEDED FOR 20 YEAR LIFE EXTENSION
Item Estimated Cost(1)
o Pretreatment Plant Modifications $1, 447,300
o Main Plant Modifications 3,042, 100
o. Administration/Laboratory
Expansion 737,800 -
o Plantsite Improvements 1,499,600
o Electrical Improvements 2,594,400
o Instrumentation and Control
Improvements 977,300 '
o Energy Recovery Additions (2) 2,363, 100
Total $12,661,600
C.
(1) Estimated Cost includes engineering and are reported in
mid-point of construction dollars.
(2) Estimated construction cost for Methane Gas Recovery
facilities of $1,074,000. is included.
•
SLC11/19 •
•
(• TABLE 3
4TOTAL PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS
TO EXISTING WATER RECLAMATION FACILITIES
ITEM Estimated Cost (1)
I MODIFICATIONS NEEDED FOR 20 YEAR
LIFE EXTENSION $12,661,600
iI MODIFICATIONS NEEDED TO MEET 15-10 STANDARDS
o Pilot Plant Recommendations (2) $12;650,000 (4)
III SLUDGE INJECTION
o Sludge Storage Facility Additions (3) $ 6,423,700 (5)
IV NEW TREATMENT
o Plant Site Land Acquisition $ 5,182,500
V EXISTING PLANT ADDITIONAL MODIFICATIONS
o Chlorine Contact Chamber $ 900,000
o 0 & M Manual $ 280,000
Total $ 38, 147,000
(1) Estimated Cost includes engineering and are reported in
mid-point ofconstruction dollars.
(2) Implementation Schedule
o Pilot Plant Study Completion - January 1985
o Design of facility to meet 15-10 Std - August 1985 to
August 1986
o Construction of facility to meet 15-10 Std - August 1986
to August 1988
o Date required by State Health Department for SLC to meet
15-10 Std - December 1989
(3) Requirements to be based on Sludge Injection Program
o Pilot Study - August 1983 to July 1984
o Full Scale Test - July 1984 to July 1985
(4) Based on 201 Facilities Plan estimates and updated to midpoint of
construction. Actual cost could range from $2,794,400 to
$12, 650, 000.
(5) Costs are based on 201 Facilities Plan estimates and
updated to midpoint of construction.
SLC11/19
TABLE 5
•
PUBLIC UTILIIIES
PROPOSED CASH FLOW FOR EXISTING WASTEWATER PLANT
•
•
INCREASE IN(2) INCREASE IN(3) LAND PILOT
REVENUE DUE OPERATING 6 EXISTING CHLORINE PURCHASE STUDY - .
•
TO RATE CAPITAL PLANT CONTACT POLISHING SLUDGE 0&N &SITE FOR SLUDGE INTEREST YEARLY(6 NET
RATE(') YEAR 'INCREASE OUTLAY MODIFICATIONS CHAMBER MODIFICATIONS MANAGEMENT 'MANUAL REVIEW MANAGEMENT 9% TOTAL( CASH FLOW
1.08 1982-1983 S 1,880,000 S 50,375 $1,829,625 :$ 1,829,625
1.08 1983-1984 S 7,537,000 S 396,000 $ 517,500 182,500 524,175 $ 432,480 6,383,905 8,213,530
1.08 1984-1985 8,247,000 815,000 4,335,100 $ 900,000 $ 257,100 S 70,000 1,000,000 250,000 824,560 2,721,060 10,934,590
1.08 1985-1986 8,882,000 1,260,000 7,463,200 642,900 $ 294,300 140,000 1,000,000 895,292 (91,608)1 10,842,982
1.08 1986-1987 9,373,450 1,732,000 158,500 5,385,400 2,832,200 70,000 1,000,000 819,750 (914,900)+ 9,928,082
1.08 1987-1988 9,047,77.5 2,231,000 187,300 6,364,600 3,347,200 1,000,000 526,078 (3,556,697)' 6,371,385
1.08 1988-1989 10,409,050 2,761,000 1,000,000 872,587 7,520,637 13,892,022
$55,375,825 $9,195,000 $12,661,600 $ 900,000 $12,650,000 $6,473,700 $280,000 $5,182,500 $824,550 4,370,747 $13,892,022
. i
(1) Current User Charge System rate in dollars/100cf of water use Ff"
(2) Only accounts for the increased revenues over previous user charge system rate of $0.54/100 cf. Assumes 3.1%growth per year. tFftf _
(3) Includes inflationary factor of 8%per year
- -. f n c:;wulative total plus 41% interest on current year revenues lees expenditures
(5) Includes revenues less expenditures plus interest
(6) Includes previous year cumulative total plus current yearly total - does not include Near-Term Improvement Bond moneys
(7) Assumes zero growth - all other footnote assumptions are the same.
SLC11/51
� i
•
Figure 2
PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
C
1984 1985 1986
1 ' I 1
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun ,Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb M4:Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Predesign(1) (2)
Reviews Design I Bid/Award Construction
•PRE TRT MOD
I 4
Predesign(1) (2)
Reviews Design Bid/Award Construction
ELECTRICAL
Predesign(1) (2) •
Reviews Design Bid/Award Construction
ENERGY REC E Construction
Predesign(1) Bid/Award (2) //
ReviewsI DesignI I i /-
DIG SLUDGE
HEAT REC Predesign(1) (2)
.Reviews Design Bid/Award Construction
MAIN PLANT
I 6 6
Predesign(1) (2)
Reviews Design Bid/Award Construction
SITE IMPR 1 4 I 1 Predesign(1) (2)
Reviews' Design Bid/Award Construction
C I & C MOD EI • I ,
Predesign(1) (2)
Reviews Design Bid/Award Construction
ADMIN BLDG .----~ I E 4 4
Predesign(1)
Reviews , Design Bid/Award(2) Construction
LAB BLDG ~-~ << Construction
Pilot Study - - /
Pilot Plant Study , Reviews Design Bid/Award(2) '
15-10 STD Demonstration I' /
Construction 2
Project !/
Sludge Demonstration Project Reviews Design Bid/Award(2) � '
SLUDGE STORAGE I
Preparation(2) E
O&M MANUAL i
Bid/Award(2) Construction
CHLORINE CONTACT CHAMBER I • i i
II
(1) Includes Value Engineering and
State Health Department Reviews
C.
(2) Includes State Health Department
Review - - -
•
Figure 2
PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE (Coned)
1987 1988 1989
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mir Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Construction
DIG. HEAT REC 10.
Start-up and
Construction Operator Training
15-10 STD Di
Construction
SLUDGE STORAGE lok
It
WATER UTILITY PROFORMA STATEMENT JL
FOR THE PERIOD 1984-1989 03/06/84
1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89
Oi'utvll.a., ca.i....i'.o
Metered_Sales $10,235,265 $10,439,970 i $10,648,770 $10,861,745 $11,078,980
Charges for Services 670,750 704,288 739,502 776,477 815,301
Interest Income 480,000 480,000 480,000 480,000 480,000
Total Operating Revenue $11,386,015 $11,624,258 $11,868,272 $12,118,222 $12,374,281
NON-OPERATING RECEIPTS
1981 Rate Increase $ 2,906,885 $ 2,965,023 $ 3,024,323 $ 3,084,809 $ 3,146,505
Sale of Land & Equipment 45,929 46,848 47,785 48,741 49,716
Contributions 991,235 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000
Reserves 1,766,000 -0- -0- -0- -0-
Bond Proceeds 700,000 -0- -0- -0- -0-
Total Non-Operating $ 6,410,049 $ 3,261,871 $ 3,322,108 $ 3,383,550 $ 3,446,221
Total Budget Receipts Without Rate
Increase $17,796,064 $14,886,129 $15,190,380 $15,501,772 $15,820,502
Proposed Rate Increase 20% $ 2,628,430 $ 2,680,999 $ 2,734,619 $ 2,789,311 $ 2,845,098
Total Budget Receipts $20,424,494 $17,567,128 $17,924,999 $18,291,083 $18,665,600
DISBURSEMENTS
Salaries and Operations $11,987,901 $12,587,296 $13,216,661 $13,877,494 $14,571,369
OPERATING EQUIPMENT
Water Stock $ 15,000 $ 10,000 $ 15,000 $ 10,000 $ 15,000
Culverts & Flumes 20,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Service Line Repair 426,204 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Meter Replacement Program 417,000 75,000 75,000 20,000 20,000
New Service Connections 135,000 135,000 135,000 135,000 135,000
Large Meter Repair 75,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
Automobiles & Trucks 365,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000
Pumping Plant Equipment 5,500 10,000 10,000 10,000 • 10,000
Treatment Plant Equipment 49,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Telemetering 30,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Office Furniture & Equipment 44,319 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Other Equipment 39,450 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000
Operating Equipment $ 1,621,473 $ 755,000 $ 760,000 $ 700,000 $ 705,000
r NJ
•
WATER UTILITY PROFORMA STATEMENT
FOR THE PERIOD 1984-1989
S s.... . . 1j.. ... ...
Debt Service 2,983,200 2,983,200 2,983,200 2,983,200 2,983,200
Total Required Disbursements $20,380,809 $17,567,128 $17,924,999 $18,291,083 $18,665,600
Reserve Fund $ 43,685 $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- $ -0-
Total Budget Disbursements $ 43,685 $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- $ -0-
TOTAL BUDGET DISBURSEMENTS $20,424,494 $17,567,128 $17,924,999 $18,291,083 $18,665,600
Assumptions
1. Operating Receipts are calculated as follows
Metered Sales 2% growth
Charges for services 5% growth
Interest Income - steady 9% interest rate
2. Non-Operating Receipts
1981 Rate increase 2% growth
Sale of Equipment 2% growth
Contributions - constant 250,000 for watermains and new services
3. Salaries and Operations - 5% inflation rate
WATER UTILITY '
Five-Year Water Capital Improvements ,
FOR THE PERIOD 1984-1989
5-Year Total 1984-1985 1985-1986 1986-1987 1987-1988 1988-1989
Valve (New) $ 40,000 $ 20,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000
Redwood Road - 9th to 11th 85,000 85,000
East Bench Reservoir 325,000 325,000
Big Cottonwood Terminal 700,000 700,000
Carryover
Marcus Reservoir Roof 280,000 280,000
White Reservoir 285,000 285,000
White Reservoir Pipeline 100,000 100,000
Fort Douglas Reservoir 300,000 300,000
Fort Douglas Pipeline 450,000 450,000
Third East Pump Station 100,000 100,000
Highland Drive - 6200 South 100,000 100,000
to 6400 South - West
Building 120,000 75,000 25,000 10,000 10,000
21st South P.R. Station 90,000 , 90,000
Victory Road Pump Station 10,000 10,000
North Temple - 2200 West 541,420 300,389 241,031
to Gladiola - 36"
-2-
Five-Year Water Capital Improvements
5-Year Total 1984-1985 1985-1986 1986-1987 1987-1988 1988-1989
400 West North Temple $ 710,000 $ 710,000
to 500 Sou'.h - 30"
Various I ations 976,235 476,235 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000
300 East 2600 South to 230,000 230,000
Marcus Re::- rvoir
300 East - 2400 South 200,000 200,000
2600 South
7000 South - Promenade to 220,138 220,138
1700 East - 7000' 20"
Danish Ro., ; - 12" 150,000 150,000
Lakeline i,.-.- Suicide Rock 225,000 225,000
to East hok!,ch - 12"
Mission R- ,d - Burbank 22,000 22,000
to 1300 S( :th - 900' 6"
Glenrose - Navajo to 35,000 35,000
1500 West 1500' 6"
Carolyn - 1200 South 17,000 17,000
to 950 Ear: - 500' 8"
Chicago - ::00' 8" 8,000 8,000
1400 West • 1000 to 20,000 $ 20,000
1100 West - 700' 6"
Fayette - lain to West 30,000 30,000
Temple - . .0' 8"
Glendale -- :1avajo to 40,000 40,000
Montgomer: - 1500' 6"
-3-
Five-Year Water Capital Improvements
5-Year Total 1984-1985 1985-1986 1986-1987 1987-1988 1988-1989
2700 East - Delsa to $ 15,000 $ 15,000
Morningside - 400' 8"
1200 North - Victoria 30,000 30,000
to American - 900' 8"
Dupont - Valentine to 33,000 33,000
American - 1200' 6"
Illinois - Pueblo to 12,000 12,000
1400 West - 400' 6"
500 North - West of 12,000 12,000
500 West - 400'6"
300 West - Brookland 100,000 $ 100,000
to 1300 South - 1600'12"
1500 West - 1UU North 25,000 25,000
to end - 2800' 6"
700 West - 1800 to 1900 21,000 21,000
South
Glendale - Burbank to
Bell - 800'5" 25,000 25,000
4500 South - 700 to 900 50,000 „ 50,000
East - 1500' 8"
Mt. Olympus - Parkview to 75,000 75,000
Foubert - 2400' 8"
900 West - 2350 to 2450 35,000
$ 35,000
South - 900' 16"
-4-
Five-Year Water Capital Improvements •
5-Year Total 1984-1985 1985-1986 1986-1987 1987-1988 1988-1989
2480 South - West of 900 $ 30,000 $ 30,000
West - 80d' 12"
Redondo - East of 8,000 8,000
400 West - 300' 6"
Aloha - North Hills to 22,000 22,000
Terrace - 800'6"
1700 South - 300 to 500 80,000 80,000
West - 1600' 12"
500 West - South of 1200 15,000 15,000
South - 500' 6"
2700 East - Lincoln to 40,000 40,000
4300 South - 1600' 8"
3160 East - 3950 to 10,000 10,000
4000 South - 400' 6"
Warr Road - East of 10,000 10,000
Cascade - 400' 6"
Eastwood - South of 15,000 15,000
3400 South - 6U0' 6" •
Camille - South of 15,000 15,000
4340 South - 600' 6"
Foubert Drive - Gary to 25,000 $ 25,000
Parkview = 900' 6"
Contingency 18,632 $ 18,632
TOTAL: $ 7,131,425 $3,788,235 $1,241,632 $ 965,138 $ 730,389 $ 406,031
GJ:ETD/jg
2/23/84
33:48