04/24/2014 - Minutes ��,NII ,.�. ,,,,,�„„„
Minutes
-^ DEPARTMENT of PUBLIC UTILITIES
I 'iii ADMINISTRATION
ITT, =
" RECEIVED
Salt Lake City
Public Utilities Advisory Committee JUN 2 0 2014
Minutes
April 24, 2014 CITY RECORDER
The Public Utilities Advisory Committee meeting was held at 7:oo a.m. April 24, 2014 at 153o
South West Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah. Committee members present Dwight Butler, Dixie
Huefner, Larry Myers, Allen Orr, Roger Player, Kent Moore and Jani Iwamoto. Salt Lake City
Public Utilities employees present were Jeff Niermeyer, Tom Ward, Jim Lewis, Jesse Stewart,
Chuck Call, Laura Briefer, Brad Stewart, Giles Demke, Kasey Chesnut, Dale Christensen and Zee
Smith. Also in attendance were Rusty Vetter, SLC Attorney's Office; Jim Olson, and Cory
Christiansen, WaterWorks Eng.; Mike Wilson, MWDSLS; Keith Larsen, Bowen Collins &
Associates; Alan Demovoskic, Carollo Engineers; Stan Postma, MWH; Holly Hilton, SLC
Mayor's Office; Trevor Lindley,JUB Engineers; Jeff Denbleyker, CH2MHILL
Approve Minutes of March 27, 2014 Meeting
Committee member Roger Player moved and Committee member Jani Iwamoto seconded the
motion to approve the minutes of the March 27, 2014 meeting as amended. All members
present voted aye.
Financial Report —Jim Lewis
Mr. Jim Lewis briefed the Committee on the financial report for the period ending March 31,
2014. Mr. Lewis stated that all four funds are in good financial condition. He stated that in spite
of one of the hottest summers on record our water sales were below the previous year by 6.9%
due to the weekly rain storms that passed through with the hot weather. He then presented a
chart showing water consumption monthly for the past six years. He stated that you can see the
increase in water sales in May and June of this past year and how consumption changed as each
of the storms came through during July and August.
The next slide presented was a comparison of revenue for all four funds versus budget. Mr.
Lewis stated that revenues from the Sewer Utility are higher than last year due to the 6% sewer
rate increase effective July 1st of this past year. The Water Utility is below last year by
approximately $2.8 million due to the wetter than normal summer season. The Stormwater
Utility and Street Lighting are slightly below our expected levels for this time of year. It is
expected that Street Lighting will be under revenue estimates at the end of this year by as much
as $400,00o due to overestimating the new revenue potential of the new fund.
The next slide presented was a comparison of operating costs, comparing last year with the
current budget amounts. Mr. Lewis stated that operating costs for the Water Utility are lower
than last year by $1.3 million, which relates to a decrease in water purchases from MWDSLS
over the previous year, offsetting the decrease in revenues. The Sewer costs are higher than last
year by $1 million as legal and professional consulting fees are higher than last year. The
Stormwater costs are almost even with last year.
•
Mr. Lewis stated that overall the Department has been doing a very good job of controlling
expenditures over the last couple of years.
The last slide presented listed the capital improvements for each of the funds as compared to
budget. The chart was revised at the request of the Committee to show the anticipated capital
projects to be compared to the total budget amount. This will help show projects that are multi-
year projects and the related budget amounts. The Water Utility has expended $9.4 million in
capital improvements with $5.5 million encumbered at the end of March. The Sewer Utility has
expended $5.8 million with $11.9 million encumbered. The Stormwater has expended $2
million with $3.8 million encumbered. The Street Lighting Utility is just starting to upgrade
some of the lights to energy efficiency lights in the amount of$600,000. Total for all four funds
equals $17.8 million expended and $21.2 million encumbered as of March 31, 2014.
Open Meeting Training— Rusty Vetter
Utah Open and Public Meetings Act Requirements for PUAC
Statutory Obligation to Train
The "presiding officer of the public body shall ensure that all members of the public body are
provided with annual training on the requirements" of the Open and Public Meetings Act (the
"Act").
Basic Principle (Section 52-4-201(1))A"meeting" of a public body must be open to the public,
unless an exception is available under the Act allowing the meeting to be closed.
B. Definitions (Section 52-4-103)
1. "Public Body"The PUAC (the"Committee") is a public body for purposes of the Act.
2. "Meeting"
A meeting is the convening of at least a quorum of a public body for the purpose of (a)
discussing, (b) receiving comments from the public about, or (c) acting upon a matter over
which the body has jurisdiction or advisory power.
Chance and social "meetings" are not subject to the open meeting law. However, they may not
be used to circumvent the Act. (Section 52-4-208)
Electronic meetings may be held subject to the Act and as described below.
3. "Convening"
The calling of a meeting of a public body by a person authorized to do so for the express purpose
of discussing or acting upon a subject over which that public body has jurisdiction or advisory
power.
C. Notice of Meetings (Section 52-4-202)
The Committee must give not less than 24 hours public notice of each meeting. The notice must
include the:
1. agenda; 2. date; 3. time; and 4. place.
The notice must be:
1. posted (a) at the principal office of the Committee and (b) on the Utah Public Notice
Website created under Section 63F-1-701, Utah Code; and
2. provided either to a newspaper of general circulation in Salt Lake City or(b) to a local media
correspondent.
In addition, the Committee must give annual notice of its annual meeting schedule, specifying
the date, time, and place of its scheduled meetings. The Committee is encouraged to develop and
use additional electronic means of providing notice of its meetings.
The notice requirement does not apply to emergency meetings, as long as the Committee gives
the best notice practicable of the time and place of the emergency meeting and the topics to be
considered at the emergency meeting. However, an emergency meeting may not be held unless
the Committee attempts to notify all members and a majority of the Committee members
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT of PUBLIC UTILITIES
^530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE STREET WWW SLCGOV COM
SALT LAKE CITY UTAH 84115 2 of 11 TEL 801-483-6770 rL i
approve holding the meeting.
D. Agendas (Section 52-4-202)
1. Degree of Specificity
A meeting notice that is required to include an agenda must provide reasonable specificity to
notify the public of the topics to be considered at the meeting. Each topic must be listed under
an agenda item on the agenda. (Section 52-4-202(6)(a))
2. Consideration of Matters Not On the Agenda
Except with respect to emergency meetings, and at the discretion of the presiding member of the
Committee, a topic raised by the public may be discussed during an open meeting even if the
topic raised by the public was not included in the agenda or advance public notice for the
meeting, but final action on the topic may not be taken by the Committee at that time. (Section
54-2-202(6)(b))
E. Open Meetings (Section 52-4-201)
1. A meeting is open to the public unless closed pursuant to the Act.
2. (a) An open meeting includes a workshop or an executive session in which a quorum is
present, unless closed in accordance with the Act.
(b)A workshop or an executive session in which a quorum is present that is held on the same
day as a regularly scheduled public meeting may only be held at the location where the
Committee is holding the regularly scheduled public meeting unless:
(i) the workshop or executive session is held at the location where the Committee usually holds
its regularly scheduled public meetings but, for that day, the regularly scheduled public meeting
is being held at different location;
(ii) any of the meetings held on the same day is a site visit or a traveling tour and proper public
notice is given;
(iii) the workshop or executive session is a properly conducted electronic meeting; or
(iv) it is not practicable to conduct the workshop or executive session at the regular location of
the Committee's open meetings due to an emergency or extraordinary circumstances.
F. Closed Meetings (Sections 52-4-204, 205
(Practice point — please note distinction between "executive session" and "closed session": The
Act uses the term "executive session" to refer to a type of open meeting. Committee may close
meetings for certain purposes if they follow the procedure set forth in the Act.
1. Purposes of Closed Meetings (Section 52-4-205)
a. Discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an
individual;
b. Strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
c. Strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
d. Strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including any
form of water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would:
(i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or
(ii) prevent the City from completing the transaction on the best possible terms;
e. Strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property if:
(i) public discussion of the transaction would:
(A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or
(B) prevent the Committee from completing the transaction on the best possible
terms;
(ii) the Committee previously gave public notice that the property would be offered
for sale;
(iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the City approves the sale;
f. Discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and
g. Investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct.
2. Procedure for Closing Meetings (Section 52-4-204)
a. An open meeting must be in session with a quorum present.
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT of PUBLIC UTILITIES
1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE STREET WWW SLCGOV COM
SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84115 3 of 11 TEL 801-483-6770 \ i
b. Two-thirds of the Committee members present must vote to approve closing meeting
c. The meeting may be closed only to discuss a matter listed in § 52-4-205.
d. The following information must be publicly announced and entered on the minutes:
(i) the reason or reasons for closing the meeting
(ii) the location of the closed meeting
(iii) the vote, by name, of each Committee member, either for or against the motion
to close the meeting.
G. Record of Meetings (Sections 52-4-203, 206)
i. Open Meetings (Section 52-4-203)
Both written minutes and a recording (i.e., an audio or an audio and video record) must be kept
of all open meetings.
However, either written minutes or a recording is adequate if the meeting is a site visit or a
traveling tour, if no vote or action is taken.
The recording and minutes must include: (a) the date, time, and place of the meeting; (b) the
names of the Committee members present and absent; (c) the substance of all matters proposed,
discussed, or decided by the Committee which may include a summary of comments made by
members; (d) a record,by individual Committee members, of each vote taken by the
Committee; (e) the name of each person who is not a member of the Committee and who, upon
recognition by the presiding member of the Committee, provided testimony or comments to the
Committee; (f) the substance, in brief, of the testimony or comments provided by the public
under(e); and(g) any other information that any Committee member requests be entered in the
minutes or recording.
The recording must be a complete and unedited record of all open portions of the entire meeting
and be properly labeled or identified with the date, time, and place of the meeting.
Approval of minutes
The written minutes (not the recording) are the official record of action taken at the meeting.
The Committee must establish and implement procedures for the approval of the written
minutes of each meeting. The written minutes or the recording that are required to be retained
permanently must be maintained in or converted to a format that meets long-term records
storage requirements.
According to the municipal retention schedule, the written minutes must be retained
permanently, and the recording must be retained for at least one year.
2. Closed Meetings (Section 52-4-206)
Except when a meeting is closed to discuss (a) the character, professional competence, or
physical or mental health of an individual or (b) the deployment of security personnel, devices,
or systems, the Committee must kept a recording of the closed meeting and may keep detailed
written minutes that disclose the content of the closed meeting.
The recording and any minutes must include: (a) the date, time, and place of the meeting; (b)
the names of the Committee members present and absent; and (c) the names of all others
present unless disclosure would infringe on the confidentiality necessary to fulfill the original
purpose of closing the meeting. The recording and the written minutes are protected records
under GRAMA.
No recording or written minutes are required for a closed meeting to discuss (a) the character,
professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual or (b) the deployment of
security personnel, devices, or systems. The person presiding at such a meeting must sign a
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT of PUBLIC UTILITIES
1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE STREET WNW/SLCGOVCOM , 1
SALT LAKE CITY.UTAH 84115 4 of 11 TEL 801-483-6770
•
sworn statement affirming that the sole purpose for closing the meeting was to discuss those
matters.
H. Electronic Meetings (Section 52-4-207)
The Committee may not hold an electronic meeting unless it has adopted a resolution, rule, or
ordinance governing the use of electronic meetings.
The resolution, rule, or ordinance may:
a. Prohibit or limit electronic meetings based on budget, public policy, or logistical
considerations;
b. Require a quorum of the Committee to (i) be present at a single anchor location for
the meeting; and (ii)vote to approve establishment of an electronic meeting in order
to include other Committee members through an electronic connection;
c. Require a request for an electronic meeting to be made by a Committee member up
to three days before the meeting to allow for arrangements to be made for the
electronic meeting;
d. restrict the number of separate connections for Committee members that are allowed
for an electronic meeting based on available equipment capability; or
e. establish other procedures, limitations, or conditions governing electronic meetings
not in conflict with 52-4-207
2. Notice
The Committee must:
a. Give public notice of the meeting in the usual way; and
b. Post written notice at the anchor location;
c. In addition to giving such public notice, provide:
(i) Notice of the electronic meeting to the Committee at least 24 hours before the
meeting so that they may participate in and be counted as present for all
purposes, including the determination that a quorum is present; and
(ii) A description of how the Committee members will be connected to the
electronic meeting.
3.Anchor Locations
The Committee must establish one or more anchor locations for the meeting, at least one of
which is in the building where the Committee normally meets. The Committee must provide
space and facilities at the anchor locations so the interested persons and the public may attend
and monitor the open portions of the meeting.
I. Disruption of Meetings (Section 52-4-301)
The Act does not prohibit the removal of any person from a meeting if the person willfully
disrupts the meeting to the extent that orderly conduct is seriously compromised.
J. Consequences of Violating the Act(Sections 52-4-302 to 52-4-305)
Any final action taken in violation of the Act is voidable by a court. The suit must be commenced
within 90 days (or 3o days in the issuance of bonds, notes, or other evidence of indebtedness).
A court may not void final action for failure to post notice on the Utah Public Notice Website if
the failure was the result of unforeseen Internet hosting or communication technology failure
and the Committee otherwise complied with the public notice requirements.
A person denied a right under the Act may sue to compel compliance with or to enjoin violation
of the Act, or to determine the Act's applicability to discussions or decisions of the Board. A
Committee member who knowingly and intentionally violates or who knowingly or intentionally
abets or advises a violation of the closed meeting provisions of the Act is guilty of a class B
misdemeanor. There was no change to the Open and Public Meeting Act in the 2014 Legislative
Session.
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT of PUBLIC UTILITIES
1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE STREET WWW SLCGOV COM /1
SALT LAKE CITY.UTAH 84115 5 of 11 TEL 801-483-6770 \�'i
•
Mountain Accord Update — Laura Briefer
Laura Briefer provided an update of the Mountain Accord process. She reported that all of the
existing conditions and trendline reports are available for review and for public comment
through May 7, 2014. These reports summarize the condition of each system (environment,
transportation, economy and recreation) and give a sense of the future trends on of number of
metrics. In addition, during the week of April 28, each of the system groups will be asked to
develop a vision and goals for their respective systems. Finally Salt Lake City and other
Mountain Accord participants are beginning to develop a strategy for integration of the National
Environmental Policy Act. Public comments can be made on the website at comment
@mountain accord.com.
Street Light SAA Proposal— Brad Stewart
Mr. Stewart gave a report to the board asking their recommendations to the City for options for
the future management of existing street light Special Assessment Areas (SAA), In addition, this
report suggests a way to accommodate operation and maintenance (O&M) of enhanced street
light service in other areas not serviced by an SAA,including the International Center.
At the time the City Council created the Street Light Enterprise Utility and respective monthly
fee,the Council decided to defer any changes to the SAA program. Therefore, the $3.73 monthly
equivalent residential unit (ERU) basic street safety lighting utility fee does not include funding
of the enhanced lighting.
The Street Lighting Citizen's Committee of 2012, comprised of home owners, business owners,
and institutional representatives, recommended funding alternatives to the City Council for
consideration. It was recommended by the committee to convert the existing SAAs into
enhanced level surcharge groups. The groups would be charged an enhanced service level
surcharge,which would be a fee in addition to the base fee of$3.73 per ERU.
In addition, the City has continued to receive requests to provide options for neighborhoods to
request and fund enhanced street lighting in their community. After consultation with the City
Attorney's office and bond counsel, the Department has analyzed options for providing
continued enhanced lighting services in the City. One option is to create a hybrid surcharge
option, which allows these communities to utilize the established SAA process as a means to
obtain funding for the initial capital construction of the enhanced street lights. The hybrid
element of this system is that these neighborhoods would then be incorporated into the
enhanced service level groups, and charged a surcharge to pay for ongoing O&M of their
enhanced street lighting.
To further the discussion on "what to do with existing SAA's" and what to do with requests for
new SAA's"the following two slides were used:
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT of PUBLIC UTILITIES
1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE STREET WWW SLCGOV COM ,i+1
SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84115 6 of 11 TEL 801-483-6770 i
What to Do with Proposals for New Higher Service Level Areas
What to Do with Existing SAA's? Pick Options from the Dal ker Bozos Onore tha n one i,okay)
(Pick One from the Darker Boxes) p * Continue Coordinating i with City Eng&
s ito 1:"` Treasurer's Offices
.", = * . More Precise - k` . Have Caprtal SAA,Add
.; f,g04 Budgeting •" --� Properties to Surcharge
" c*ai w' Group
Proposed , Review and Approve
Exist ng SAA _---- Higher Service -.)r. Design,Add Properties
Take Balances ,!{`� g P
to Zero Level ` tosu cha•e Grou•
. y„_ ,yy ; wk._ '.pt Neves ApproveDes•
�§ create ° 'i`".,I AcuptUnder Revocabk
Surcharge „,: �-� Accept
Auenanceend
�,d Groupm•s �. . t•tt t Pu• .owner
t a1
Add to ; Hold to Base Level
'. Consolidated r+y& '_ ' Lighting
Fee Schedule -" �
The Committee made some recommendations regarding SAA's
1. Leave existing SAA's as they are, if they are current on their payments and want to
remain as SAAs.
2. If SAA is in arrears then designate a period of time for it to become current. If it is not
able to become current in the allotted time then shift the SAA to a surcharge.
3. Future New Higher Service level Requests: Do whatever is best for Public Utilities,
preference for Capital SAA and a utility surcharge.
State of Utah Nutrient Control Strategy&Technology Limits —Tom Ward
Summary Nutrients Background
National EPA initiative to reduce nutrients
Nutrients can negatively impact watersheds • Nitrogen and Phosphorous
• Blue-green algae andcyanotoams
Utah Nutrient Core Team established
Utah Nutrient Strategy-
z009 DWQ Study on costs to meet different standards
• state rulemaking May 1014
- Protects Category i"Pristine"water supply sources j 2012 SLCDPU completes independent cost study
• Wasatch Front.Provo watershed-SLCDPU supports •
zoiz Presentation to PUAC
• Proposed limits for all Waters of the State • Considered range of Nutrient limits and costs
• DWQ study off by almost S9oM
• Great salt Lake included i.o mgil limn for Phosphorous,not for Nitrogen
• State DWQ Report acknowledges•undetermined•need 2014 DWQ proposed rulemaking
Bad precedem of,mposmglonus wrthontlmnfcvuon • Now we know their target(i.o P. o N)
i.o Phosphorous-Costs • Great Salt Lake no nitrogen limit,yet.
• Capital Costs will be-s3oM Capital.sa-3M Annual O&M
• Increased chemical use.power.au emrssronsand cost to customers
Salt Lake City seeking change to Phosphorous rule on Great Salt Lake
7
wzv ' %,
Salt Lake City advocates
-Salt Lake City advocates protection and
preservation of water quality
If there is a problem,we will do our share to
solve it
Regulation must be based on Good Science
The proposed regulatory implement must
Solve the problem, not just spend money
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT of PUBLIC UTILITIES
1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE STREET W VV SLCGOV COM riii
SALT LAKE CITY.UTAH 84115 7 of 11 TEL 801-483-6770 1ei
•
Utah Nutrient Strategy
Utah Nutrient Strategy (Proposed Rule Timeline)
the "Good" .
Three Years After Program Implementation
jb eDischamiers provide DWQ with scieutificiurnfication for no P requirement
Rule limits protect Category i"Pristine"Waters 4117-provid<DWQ withdesiga for meeting P to luig/L
• Wasatch Front,Provo watershed
Five Years After Progi am Implementation
State report acknowledges Great Salt Lake is unique t *Comply with P TBL
and different 'Implement"TIN'TBL into rule for all waters except GSL
• Further study required before Nitrogen limits proposed Seven Years After Program Implementation
• Protects brine shrimp industry who need algae/nitrogen OW 0,vi,111 oeiTetacjifstifieatjorifor muiremrt
• Food chain for migratory flyway ' 2itgift vi;;;
Ten Years after Program Implementation-Full Compliance
;A..; witItTns for both P and TIN
Utah DWQ Nutrient Strategy Technology Limits(April 15,0014)
; # raaet for .
Utah Nutrient Strategy Intermediate Phosphorous Control
the "Bad" 1.0 mg/L Total Phosphorus,no Nitrogen lint
— .
Phosphorous limit of i.o P imposed on Great Salt Lake
• Treats same as all other waters of the state •Etir
DWQ places burden of collecting data and identifying
if there is a problem
• on the permitter(POTW)
Utah Nutrient Strategy
Tier 1N Nutrient Control
Impacts to Salt Lake City 0.1 mg/L Total Phosphorus;10 mg/L Total Nitrogen
Significant costs to comply with i P
Capital Cost -s3om
• $2-3M per year O&M costs/year
• additional treatment upgrade cost may be needed(biosolids)
• State understimated cost by ta8M(lox), '• r 4.41"
1=2
\
=Ale
Significant costs to comply with in TIN
, =MI MC MI
Capital Cost SissM to upgrade to a biological plant to achieve loTIN
Net negative impact—Financial,Environmental and Social
Reduces SLC potential for Class A biosolid
• May push biosolids to landfill waste rather than land recovery
resource NZA.
Increase sewer bill for no known benefit,
- Increase air emissions.power,and chemical consumption
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT of PUBLIC UTILITIES
1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE STREET WI/WV SLCGOV COM r.
SALT LAKE CITY UTAH 84115 8 of 11 TEL 801-483-6770
Summary
��Ig
Nutrients can negatively impact watersheds State Evaluation Approach
State rulemaking May 2014
Category i"Pristine"water supply sources-SLCDPU supports
N. SLCWRF EXISTING FACILITY
Proposed limits for all Waters of the State dlmg im,/Aauvated Sludge rrr/A51°,oaess
i
• Great Salt Lake included i o mg/I limit for Phosphorous,not Nitrogen
State DWQ Report acknowledges`undetermined"need
Bad precedent of imposing limits without justification CONSTRUCT BASE UNE SCENARIO
comen�°ry t°AOwaea wage Prote..
LoPhosphorous-Costs Irreat.,va,e,t°taa�gae,masla�eara=I
• Capital Costs will be-S3oM Capital,sz-3M Annual O&M , t , , r a ,
• Increased chemical use,power,air emissions and cost to customers 'It it
May not solve the problem,if there is one! TIER xN INTERMEDIATE TIER iN
mg/,Total Phosphorus ••••.4 t 0 mg/L Total Phosphorus—%.•ei o,mg/I,Total Phosphorus
• Benefit of reduced P,and SLC contribution to problem,are unknown! a m o g/,Total w en i
gtro t° g/L Tmal hsorga„rr
Salt Lake City seeking change to Phosphorous rule on • 0 •Nitrogen /
°mg/L Total Nitrogen a
Great Salt Lake
•rnaea arr�,a.n
Utah DWQ 2009 Study Results.:..''/•-''' i
Cost Impacts of Nutrient Regs to SLC Preliminary I
$i4o oo DWQ Cost Estimates are SM.45 Site Plant -
wrong! The assume SLC
c` has upgraded to a biological Tier 1N -_8� —
` $100.0o nutrient removal process:
f8o 00 _
-...:
560 00
772.—:*
x 54189 :::1.: __
_ $40 00 `.'
$zo 00 I .r c.'.
So.o° gi 56
Tier Tier zN Tieri Tier IN
c u..•. ar n .L.da• u rvo m,io,.,ry aen am�LTm.J Niroken ,
iI •
wost
Salt Lake City Study of Estimates- '„ " ,,, , t. :.,, "'
Cost Impacts of Nutrient Regs Nutrient Treatment Benefit and
Impacts
$300 00 �y1,174+aktuo ,gOvaatestt`
-+) -4 411:glg I' y rt
A*11.i ya t ieptrem**. S24812 Benefits
sa50 no ltsrute silt WressTrrcl
• Indeterminate at this point
tl�rn4UCR
sz0000 LO r lity.
i
i $i47 90 V54 oq • Improved wildlife habitat?0
ASo 00 sn°00
• Possible control of algae blooms in some receiving waters
Impacts
a.
.17
• Increased power and carbon footprint
$5o 00 • Impact to air quality on site as well as chemical
so 00
production/transport impacts
• Potential economic and environmental impacts GSL/Farming Bay
Activated Tier zN Intermediate Tier iN (good or bad)
Sludge . n ,I ,; - ..
- SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT of PUBLIC UTILITIES
1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE STREET WWW SLCGOV COM r
SALT LAKE CITY UTAH 84115 9 of 11 TEL 801-483-6770 1'0/
Salt Lake City Nutrient Strategy .
and Next Steps Operation and Maintenance Costs
suo0
1.0 P treatment costs will be s3oM upgrade to plant slo 6o
am00 ^
•Seek amendment to proposed i.o mg/I P rule until data 1 ss 65 s9 04 s9 i}
justifies expense/impacts. sgoo IIINitrogen and lower phosphorous(<t.o mg/I P) s a600 lttww Itww ill
treatment capital costs will be s96M to Sz5oM g
•Salt Lake City actively participating in GSL nutrient II Sat 00
research AA
e az 00 ,_
• Increased from s5ok per year past 5 years to Stook this year , R ,
(s35ok increased to s5ook total for group) so 00 -- - •-_ -----
Focus on nitrogen study to validate no limit needed Activated Tier zN Intermediate Tier,N
Sludge rt„aw,r. - ",h,= om.=. :
r The a7 z7 shown is the current O&M costs for the Facility
Nutrient Removal Basics Salt Lake City Nutrient Strategy
__ Total Soluble Treatment Approach
Nibaq.n
soww. lntecmcdiatt•
Knldahl -- Li. Treatment
Nhrop.n ' Salt Lake City can implement Phased upgrades
•Upgrade or Replacement of Trickling Filter Process
regardless of Nutrient Removal
• Switching process to Activated Sludge aligns the Facility
-_ sotubleQpank.N Ammonu.N:Nitrs..NJ Nrtrale-N for any future nutrient removal limits
Tier
ersN&
• Upgrades can be phased for"interim"nutrient limits
To
NI•Idahl Nnro9.n �« -NO,•N —� • Future treatment process added only if nutrient limits
tN Limits.__•-...,_..._. reduce further
li
Project Drivers
Portions of the Reclamation Facility infrastructure nearing
end of its life
• Existing Trickling Filter Process in poor condition
• Trickling Filters have structural&mechanical condition issues
• Trickling Filter Pump Station has structural and hydraulic issues
• Existing Chlorine contact basin needs to be upsized
• Conversion away from Trickling Filter/Activated Sludge process to
Activated Sludge Tier IN results in"clearer"water This could make
UV disinfection more attractive(less expensive capital)
• UV still more expensive power operating cost and carbon footprint
Committee member Dixie Huefner made a motion and Committee member Jani Iwamoto
seconded the motion for The Department of Water Quality to make sure that any forthcoming
state rule requiring phosphorus limits in the Great Salt Lake not be issued until it can be based
on good science. All members present voted aye.
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT of PUBLIC UTILITIES
1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE STREET WWW SLCGOV COM(�riN
SALT LAKE CITY.UTAH 84115 10 of 11 TEL 801-483-6770 \P's1i
Sewer Warranty Information
Mr. Niermeyer explained to the board that, in regard to the new Home Serve Sewer and Water
Warranty program, the commission that Public Utilities is receiving from HomeServe is going to
the Red Cross and that Public Utilities also received $35,00o from HomeServe for Public
Utilities setup costs.
Adjourn 8:58 a.m.
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT of PUBLIC UTILITIES
1530 SOUTH WES f TEMPLE STREET VWVW SLCGOV COM }+1
SALT LAKE CITY UTAH 34115 11 of 11 TEL 801-483-6770 Ci