Loading...
11/17/1983 - Minutes 4,144;* SALT'IrAla MT CORPORATION i4pp LEROY W. HOOTON, JR. ——— `"' -- �_ � - L"� T`�""`"�- --- O1sr DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES ��°° i ts JOSEPH S. FENTON WATER SUPPLY & WATERWORKS AN TED L. WILSON SUPERINTENDENT, WATER RECLAMATION WATER RECLAMATION o• /9('. MAYOR WENDEL E. EVENSEN, P.E. 1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE (��7/ SUPERINTENDENT SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115 C� WATER SUPPLY & WATERWORKS December 15, 1983 RECEI\I1 D DEC 16 1983 Honorable Mayor Ted L. Wilson 300 City and County Building Mayor's OfficQ Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Dear Mayor Wilson: RE: Public Utilities Advisory Committee Attached are the minutes of the Public Utilities Advisory Committee meeting of November 17 , 1983, which were approved in the committee meeting of December 14, 1983 . I request that the minutes be approved at the mayor' s executive meeting and filed in the city recorder's office . Sincerely, R Y W.i HOOTON, JR. Director : jg Attach: cc: City Council I M Pi PUBLIC UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE r;•PPROVEb Minutes siA N 31984; Meeting of November 17, 1983 CITY RECQADfR at 1530 South West Temple Committee members in attendance were Ralph Steenblik, Stephen Featherstone, Jack Bonnett, Ray Arnold, Genevieve Atwood and Howard Dunn. Also present were Ray Montgomery of the city attorney's office; Paul Barber of the mayor's office; Tom Krumsick, Dave Evans and Terry Hopsenstriger of CH2M Hill ; Dave Schneider of the Deseret News and Brian Wilkinson of The Salt Lake Tribune; Ken Done and Dave Lamb of Arthur Young and Cheryl Cook, city treasurer. Staff members present were LeRoy Hooton, Joe Fenton, Ray Ahlander, George Jorgensen, Tim Doxey, Elgin Dyer, Maurice Johnson, Jim Lewis, Lin Fitzgerald, Anna Wilson, Wendell Evensen and Jackie Gillen. Chairman Steenblik brought the meeting to order at 7:00 a.m. I. Approve minutes of October 20, 1983 meeting Mr. Featherstone motioned that the minutes be approved as written and Mr. Arnold seconded the motion with all voting aye. II . Ordinance.allowing for sewer adjustments for plumbing repairs - Amending Section 37-6-2, Schedule 3 Lin Fitzgerald explained that under the present ordinance customers are charged for a full year based on the winter-use water. Therefore, after plumbing leaks are located and repaired the rate remains the same for an entire year based on that consumption. The proposed ordinance amendment is designed to reduce charges on a pro rata basis, allowing for adjustment when the repairs are made. (The proposed change in the ordinance is from (B) on. ) A reduction in consumption must be proven before an adjustment will be made. Mr. Arnold motioned that this ordinance amendment be adopted and Mr. Featherstone seconded the motion with all voting aye. III . Consider a monthly rather than bimonthly water and sewer bill Mr. Hooton said that we have had trouble complying with the bond resolution regarding collections (based on 60-day delinquency and over $50 bill ) . We are recommending that we go to a monthly bill . This way we could notify customers earlier that they are delinquent in paying their bill . Mr. Lewis handed out an information sheet which compared a monthly to the bimonthly billing (see attached) and described the proposal . -2- • Mr. Featherstone said that this is one approach but he felt that we should intensify the collections program and make our collections/accounting department very professional . He said that we should make sure we are undertaking the right problem and looking at the most cost-effective way, and that we are being businesslike enough because the real problem is collecting the money. He wondered if we should bill only the delinquent accounts on a more frequent basis. Mr. Hooton asked Ray Montgomery if we could bill the delinquent accounts more frequently and Mr. Montgomery said that we would have to change the ordinance, but he didn't see any problem with that. Chairman Steenblik wondered if we would have problems with customers when they got one high bill one month and a low bill the next. Mr. Featherstone thought that the biggest problem is with the delinquent accounts. If the people pay on time let them pay on a bimonthly basis and have the delinquent accounts make monthly payments. Mr. Dunn said it is more expensive to selectively bill than to have a full coverage. Ms. Atwood added that that would be cheaper than sending out a collector. Mr. Lewis said that we could try this approach. Mr. Arnold motioned that no action be made on this item until the December meeting so that the members have more time to make a decision. Mr. Featherstone seconded this motion with all members voting aye. IV. Auditors' Report - Arthur Young Mr. Dave Lamb of Arthur Young handed out their report on the financial statements, letters to the bond trustee and management letter for the year ending June 30, 1983, and briefly went over the contents. He said that they had no exceptions to the information that was provided by the accounting department and that it should be complimented on their work. The management letter showed suggestions for bond compliance, compensatory time, accounting for temporary cash investments, water company stock, etc. , which may be of value to the department. Arthur Young is in agreement with the department's comments. Mr. Hooton suggested that the board look over the report and it can be discussed in more detail at the December meeting. Mr. Featherstone said that it is apparent that this is a very complicated job, but that it is being run well . V. Property Transcations Mr. uoxey described the following proposals: 1 . BK Enterprises would like a right of way across the city' s property at 460U South and 850 East. This area is part of an artesian basin. We are using it as fill area. They want to come through the center of our property and put a development in. The staff feels that their proposal could be S ' -3- accepted if it was along the boundaries of the property on 900 East and that we reserve the right to use the storm drain system for future drainage problems. They would have to increase the capacity for our future needs and limit the easement to 15 feet. Mr. Featherstone motioned that the recommendation to allow EK Enterprises to have a right of way through the property be approved as Mr. Doxey described it. Ms. Atwood seconded the motion and all voted aye. 2. In the Northwest Quadrant there's a piece of property at 3200 West and 3200 South (approximately 25 acres) which Mr. Edward Gillmore would like to purchase from the City. This land is north of the old airport on the Davis county line and south of the Jordan River on an old lagoon bed. We feel that the property would not be used by the department for any use in the future, however the Gillmores do have property in the Northwest Quadrant area where we will have water and sewer pipelines in the future. We may be able to negotiate with them to trade their property in the future. He said that it is the department's policy to notify all adjoining property owners of our intent to sell to see if they would be willing to negotiate for the purchase of this property. Ms. Atwood wanted to insure that included in any agreement for the sale of this land would be that they would take over any problems, such as with the lagoons. Mr. Featherstone motioned that this request be approved and Mr. Arnold seconded this motion with all voting aye. 3. Wanda C. Thomas' family for approximately 70 years has been trying to resolve a problem with the City. They own a landlocked piece of property (about 12 acres) in City Creek Canyon and we would like to be authorized to negotiate with the Thomas' family to purchase this land from them. Mr. Featherstone said that we should contact the other land owners in the canyon who may also be interested in selling and offer to buy their land. Ms. Atwood motioned that we negotiate for the purchase of this land, but that we don't hold our advantage in this situation over these people. We should recognize that we are in an enviable position and work with the people for the sale of the property. Mr. Arnold seconded the motion with all voting aye. 4. Mr. Walter Plumb is requesting that the City purchase approximately five acres of land in the Maxfield Lodge area including Maxfield Lodge. In reviewing this the staff doesn't see how the buildings, gravel parking lot, etc. , would enhance the watershed except that it would be one less commercial development in the canyon. The staff' s recommendation would be that Mr. Plumb negotiate with the Forest Service for sell of the land and that we could later negotiate with the Forest Service for trade of other land. Mr. Dunn motioned that this recommendation be approved; Chairman Steenblik seconded the motion with all voting aye. -4- 5. This issue was brought forward from October's meeting. Mr. Shirley Reynold' s request was to purchase a strip of property at approximately 4800 South and 1050 East in order for him to provide access to his property. We did not take a survey of this land, but a preliminary survey shows that the contours of this property are steep. This land would not be useful to the City for a pump station or well . If it was sold we could use the money to go towards purchase of land for a resevoir in the St. Mary's area. Our recommendation is that because of the steepness of the contours that this land be declared surplus and that we make the survey. Mr. Arnold motioned that the staff's recommendation be approved and Mr. Featherstone seconded the motion with all voting aye. VI. Sewer Adjustments Zoo Ms. Fitzgerald said that the department had inspected toilets, drinking fountains, lines, etc. , to determine if water was being wasted or if there were other methods to reduce the high water bills. One drinking fountain alone was costing $5,000 per year to run continuously. They have installed a shutoff/on device on it. Also, it was determined that 37 gallons per minute were being lost to leaks. Therefore, their account will be adjusted accordingly, which would amount to a $2,346 per month adjustment to their sewer bill . We recommended that they continue a conservation program, and asked them to consider using the low quality water from Emigration Creek (which would require a dual water system) . It was also suggested that they consider on-site treatment (recycling) which the University"of Utah may want to do research on. She recommended that the zoo's $16,140 monthly sewer bill be reduced by $2,346. Mr. Featherstone motioned that this recommendation be approved and Mr. Arnold seconded the motion with all voting aye. ** Ms. Fitzgerald referred to the sewer adjustments listed on the handout (see attachment) made recommendations and the committee members made the following motions: October List: 1 . Best Cleaners Action will be taken at another meeting when consumption is determined by use of a meter which they will be installing. 2. Self Refining and 3. Jordan River State Parkway Ms. Atwood motioned that a meter be installed and then the billing rate will be determined. Mr. Dunn seconded the motion with all voting aye. f ` -5- 4. Mr. A. Q. Howard Mr. Featherstone motioned that he be charged on the average of both meters and have it appear on only one bill at $8.64. Mr. Arnold seconded the motion with all voting aye. 5. J. L. Fullmer Mr. Fullmer was invited to attend the October meeting and didn't come in nor make an attempt to inform anyone of his intentions to come in at a later time. Therefore, this item has been indefinitely postponed. 6. George Gerontis • Mr. Arnold motioned that Mr. Gerontis pay the minimum charge of $1 .08 until his winter-use charges can be determined and Chairman Steenblik seconded this motion with all voting aye. 7. J. A. Haslam Mr. Featherstone motioned that Mr. Haslam be approved an adjustment of his bill to last year's rate; Mr. Bonnett seconded the motion with all voting aye. d. Mary E. Petty Ms. Fitzgerald snowed a chart illustrating her annual usage for the last five years. There was no significant change in the winter months' consumption. Ms. Atwood motioned that Mrs. Petty' s request be denied inasmuch as the winter- use charge is the fairest way of determining sewer rates and that at times Mrs. Petty's were high, but at times they were lower, which would probably equal out. Mr. Arnold seconded this motion with all voting aye. ** Mr. Featherstone said that maybe we should have a system where there is a survey taken on these charges in question. But we are reviewing these on a merit or lack of merit basis on a case-by-case basis in order to make adjustments as fairly as possible. 9. Melroy B. Harward Mr. Arnold motioned that we reduce Mr. Harward' s billing charge for two billing periods to $120 for the actual usage. Mr. Featherstone seconded this motion with all voting aye. November List: 1 . Transport Tire Service Mr. Steenblik motioned that the two billing periods be reduced by charging them on current consumption at our rate of $1 .08 and credit them with $82.08. Mr. Arnold seconded this motion with all voting aye. -6- [. Salt Lake Rape Crisis Center Mr. Featherstone motioned that this request be denied inasmuch as the usage was high for more than one year and the documentation is so vague. Mr. Arnold seconded the motion with all voting aye. 3. Mrs. Fred Staats Mr. Arnold motioned that an adjustment be made to last year' s charges and Chairman Steenblik seconded this motion with all voting aye. 4. Jay Apgood Mr. Featherstone motioned that we adjust his charge to last year' s charges and Mr. Arnold seconded the motion with all voting aye. IX. TPL Contract Mr. Paul Barber explained to the committee that the City has been negotiating with the TPL over the terms of the contract which covers the bonding and exchange of land in the mouth of Little Cottonwood Canyon. During the negotiating process the TPL has refused to keep in the contract that the land exchange will be only with the Forest Service. This presents the potential for sale to a private interest. TPL claims they need this option in the event that they cannot make the full exchange. Paul indicated that its quite possible that they will make the exchange in the canyon, but may sell the 15 acres at the mouth of the canyon. Therefore, the City has decided to have a side agreement that gives the City the option to purchase the remaining untraded property at a current appraised value. The City attorney feels that the option agreement should be separate from the main agreement. The primary concern is the development along the area will impact the water quality. After a time it will affect the ground water in the artesian basin. TPL has an option on property and they have arranged the financing on their own. They are prepared to acquire the land and perform the exchanges with the Forest Service as much as they can. We are pledging surplus revenues of the department on anticipated bond which will be due in five years. We are borrowing the first two years of interest and will be no cash flow for the first two years. They will pay the interest for the years 3, 4 and 5. They have agreed if there are remaining parcels of land to buy off the bond. In discussions focusing on the adoption we have set down to determining financing the contract. If they did not perform in five years we have a substantial bond debt. The other options are not stated in the contract--to pay off the bonds ourselves and the court would give us control of the property. Another area which we are most concerned about is that what if TPL gives us the money to pay the bonds and then takes title of the property. Will they continue to exchange the property and will the land end up in the control of the Forest Service. They were not willing to put this language in the contract. Mr. Hooton said that it was understood that ultimately all the land would end up in the Forest Service' s -7- hands. To rectify the problem they want to continue the process. If they put it in the contract and the City is taken out this could be very expensive. This gives us the option to get the property back. They said this would be okay. Mr. Featherstone said that he is very uncomfortable about this approach. The more complicated it is the more of a risk that we will lose. Cheryl Cook said we are no different on the bonding. We had to step in and assume the rates and pay off the bonds. The difference is that land must be traded to the Forest Service. The fact is that they would not put the option in the contract. The bonds are callable at any time period. They can come in at any time and pay us off. There would be a front-end risk and financing is now the problem. Mr. Barber said that TPL is a nonprofit organization. What we offered them was an option to purchase the property at what it cost them. We'd then pick up the staff expenses and incurred costs. They would not accept this. They would accept that the City would have the option to buy the property back or any portion of the property back for the original MI appraised price of $3.8 million. This would run the term of the bond. He feels that the appraised price is on the upper end. We are running a risk in the first, second and third years and would be losing money. We could purchase the remaining portion at an updated appraised price. This means that 74 percent of the land in value or 92 to 93 percent of the property in acreage would be in the Forest Service's control . Fifteen acres would be left which is on the north end of the canyon which is away from the stream and is the most developable piece. We have until Monday to sign the agreement. Paul said that mayor said two changes in the agreement must be made anyway before he will sign it: 1 . The property trades will De from the upper portions downward to the mouth of the canyon (TPL' s agreement gave them the right to select the parcels at random to be traded) . 2. That in the west that the land was to be sold and the City would have an option to buy it at a price set by a new appraisal . The advantage to going with it is that we would be controlling the process. Ninety four or 95 percent of the land would end up in the hands of the Forest Service. Mr. Montgomery said that we could refuse to allow them water service, however, they could get it from Sandy or the Salt Lake County Water Conservancy District. Mr. Hooton said that it might be acceptable if they would agree that the 74 percent could only go to the public ownership rather than private ownership. Mr. Featherstone said that he could see two problems with it: 1 ) we would be at risk with the development of the land; 2) we will have less control of the land and still have our money. Mr. Dunn emphasized that he had strong feelings with a lot of TPL' s terms and that he has reserves about the City acting as a financier. -8- Mr. Hooton said that we would see if TPL would accept the two changes in the agreement proposed by the mayor. If they do, we then form a Public Utilities Advisory Committee subcommittee to make refinements and final recommendations on this issue. Ms. Cook said that Zions Bank has given the City the deadline of November 20, 1983, to change the rate of the bonds or they will have to do another bond deal . This would be an open-end deal . She felt, however, that Zions would extend the deadline date. Mr. Barber said that the city council and mayor need the decision by the Public Utilities Advisory Committee, and inasmuch as the committee doesn't have all the information they feel necessary to make a recommendation, they will see if TPL will accept the mayor's two changes to the agreement and if so, a subcommittee will then make recommendations. The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 a.m. Mp� - List of Proposed Sewer Adjustments November 1983 1 . Transport Tire Service 2. Salt Lake Rape Crisis Center 3. Mrs. Fred Staats 4. Jay Apgood TO: LeRoy W. Hooton, Jr. , & Advisory Board FROM: Madolin A. Fitzgerald - Sewer Service Charge Administrator DATE: November 17, 1983 SUBJECT: Transport Tire Service 1872 S 300 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 Account #662-0012300 Mr. Frank S. Ford has written requesting that we adjust his sewer charge for 1982-83 for February through May billings of $123.12, since their major user of water on which the charge was made moved from the premises during January 1983. From the October 1982 reading through the October 1983 reading, the consumption has decreased as much as 50% during several of the billing periods. It is my recommendation that the two billing periods be reduced by charging on current consumption at our rate of $1.08. This would result in a one time credit of $82.08. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. TO: LeRoy W. Hooton, Jr. , & Advisory Board FROM: Madolin A. Fitzgerald - Sewer Service Charge Administrator DATE: November 17, 1983 SUBJECT: Salt Lake Rape Crisis Center 776 W. 200 North Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 Account #887-015290 The director of the rape crisis center has written requesting that an adjustment be made to their sewer charge for 1982-83, stating it is apparent they did not use the water and currently the agency is having budget problems. She also states there was a time when the upstairs toilet was running continuously. The usage at this address began to skyrocket with the July 1981 reading and continued through the July 1982 reading. As an example from July to September 1981 their consumption was 205 hundred cubic feet and from July 1982 to September 1982 it was 69 hundred cubic feet. While in most cases I would recommend that we adjust for a one time high consumption, the fact the usage was high for more than one year and documentation is so vague, I feel the charge is justified since we had to transport and treat all of this excess water. Thank you. TO: LeRoy W. Hooton, Jr. , & Advisory Board FROM: Madolin A. Fitzgerald - Sewer Service Charge Administrator DATE: November 17, 1983 SUBJECT Mrs. Fred Staats 430 Twelfth Avenue Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Account #645-014120 Mr. Ray C. Moody, nephew to Mrs Staats, who is 91 years old, has written requesting some relief for Mrs. Staats on sewer charges. A careful review of the account indicates the following: 1 . A steady increase in consumption for the past three years. 2. He states a plumber reapired a toilet and an outside faucet. 3. Sprinkler system has apparently not been shut off completely for an unknown period of time. I would appreciate any assistance you may provide in this matter as for the past three years her winter averages have steadily increased. In 1981-82 her winter average consumption bi-monthly' was 29 hundred cubic feet a charge of $31.32 at $1 .08. The average for 1982-83 was 74 hundred cubic feet, a charge of $79.92 and for 1983-84, 120 hundred cubic feet and a charge of $120.00. Perhaps if we charge the base rate of $17.28 for the 1983-84 fiscal year with a letter of caution of Mr. Moody that this is being done on a one time basis and that a careful watch should be maintained on the consumption in the future, it would be a fair compromise. TO: Mr. LeRoy W. Hooton, Jr. , & Advisory Board FROM: Madolin A. Fitzgerald - Sewer Service Charge Administrator DATE: November 17, 1983 SUBJECT: Jay Apgood 778 N. 300 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 Account #881-007860 Mr. Apgood has written requesting relief on his sewer charge of $777.60. This is a 24 unit apartment complex which he purchased in November 1982. He sites the following reasons for this request. 1 . The previous owner did not properly maintain the building including plumbing. 2. The extensive cost to make repairs to the plumbing. 3. A consistent reduction in consumption as repairs are completed. The two winter billing periods were the highest in consumption since January 1982. Since Mr. Apgood has provided receipts for all plumbing repairs and the consumption has dropped it is my recommendation that we adjust his charge to that of last year, which is $347.76 and represents a more accurate charge for the present type usage. Thank you. s Mtiy Revised September 9 , 1983 A PROPOSAL FOR A LITTLE COTTONWOOD CANYON LAND BANK: A COOPERATIVE EFFORT BY THE CITY OF SALT LAKE, THE UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, AND THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LANDS STEP 1 City Purchases the Property The City will purchase the Property from the Trust for Public Land (TPL) for $2,800,000 cash (i.e. , $1,000,000 less than fair market value of the Property as established by the Forest Service approved appraisal) . STEP 2 TPL Immediately Repurchases the Property TPL will immediately repurchase the Property from the City for a base amount of $2,800,000 plus an additional amount which corresponds to the interest costs incurred to Zions First National Bank as determined at the closing of the financing transaction. (The final interest rate will not be known accurately until closing but is anticipated to be about 9 .% . ) The City will convey the Property to a Trustee. As TPL pays down the repurchase price, the Trustee shall convey pro-rata portions of the Property to TPL beginning at the easterly end of the Canyon. Property shall be released upon escrowed payment of funds to the Trustee equal to the value of the property proposed for release in accordance with the Forest Service approved appraisal. When the obligation of TPL is paid in full any remaining property in trust shall be conveyed to TPL. All amounts paid by TPL shall be credited to the principal obligation of the City to Zions Bank until it is reduced to zero and then to the reduction of the interest costs outstanding. TPL shall be responsible for the payment of all interest as interest payments become due beginning with the fifth semi-annual payment of interest. All payments shall be made to the Land Transaction Trustee for disposition by the Trustee as directed by the City. STEP 3 Exchanges TPL will raise the money needed to pay off its repurchase obligation to the City by identifying suitable exchange parcels in consultation with the City and the USFS and negotiating contingent sales agreements with buyers. TPL will then enter into exchange agreements with the USFS whereby pre-sold exchange parcels are exchanged for portions of the Property of equal value. At each closing (transactions will be grouped so there will be as few closings as possible) TPL will use the money realized from the sale of exchange parcels to pay off its repurchase obligation to the City, take title to a portion of the Property, exchange that portion of the Property for exchange parcels with the USFS and convey the exchange parcels to the buyers. STEP 4 City Paid in Full If any Property remains in the hands of the Trustee after five years , TPL shall pay off its repurchase obligation in full and take title to the remaining Property. 2 40-.1- CONSUMPTION AND CHARGE SCHEDULE MONTHLY CONSUMPTION MONTHLY BI-MONTHLY ANNUAL AVERAGE DOLLAR DOLLAR DOLLAR INCREASE INCREASE INCREASE INCREASE 1 $ 1.08 $ 2.16 $12.96 2 2.16 4.32 25.92 3 3.24 6.48 38.88 4 4.32 8.64 51.84 - 5 5.40 10.80 64.80 . MP1- - MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN SALT LAKE COUNTY WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, CENTRAL UTAH WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, SALT LAKE CITY, METROPOLITAN -WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE CITY, AND THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Draft of October 17, 1983 The objective of this memorandum is to develop a procedure to assure early and coordinated delivery of a firm CUP water supply to SLCWCD, ensure the efficient development of certain local water supply projects, to allow conveyance of MWD's Provo River Project Water through CUP facilities to SLC and provide financing for the M&I portion of the Little Dell Project. This procedure has been prepared jointly by the Salt Lake - County Water Conservancy District (SLCWCD) , the Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD) , Salt Lake City (SLC) , the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City (MWD) , and the Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) . Planning for delivery of Bonneville Unit water of the ; Central Utah Project (CUP) has been based on the • assumption of y✓full ~ coordination of all municipal water supplies or sources of supply or to Salt Lake County. The efficient utilization of all water supplies had to be assured before substantial appropriation of Federal funds for construction of project facilities in Salt Lake County could::' '. ,. -few:p v.�Y ,', __ be justified. Full correlation and joint operation of the Provo:.River Project Deer Creek Reservoir and Bonneville Unit Jordanelle Reservoir along with other facilities of both projects -is essential. With the above stated objective, the following are the -:.key . steps to implemerltk the proposal for early and coordinated water deliveries and are understood by all parties to this Memorandum. 1. STRAWBERRY—DEER CREEK EXCHANGE (a) A Block Notice will be issued as soon as possible by the USBR to CUWCD for water to be delivered to SLCWCD by means ...-- . ._ - • 1 bMUKANUUM ur UNUtkSAD1NG OF THE SLCWCD, SLC, MWD, CUWCD, AND THE USBR Draft of October 17, 1983 ' of the Strawberry-Deer Creek, Exchange. Deliveries shall begin between April 1984, as stated by the USBR in their recent letter of intent, and January 1985, as requested by Resolution dated March 17, 1983 by SLCWCD. This Strawberry-Deer Creek Exchange water shall be Central Utah Project (CUP) water yielded by Bonneville Unit Facilities. Such deliveries shall be governed by the existing repayment agreement between USBR and CUWCD, and the existing. approved petition between SLCWCD and CUWCD dated June 10, 1971. CUP water under the existing petition between SLCWCD and CUWCD shall be marketed to SLCWCD in the amounts described in said petition. (b) The parties in this joint proposal shall support the USBR in obtaining the necessary agreements from the Provo: Rive'r Water Users Association (PRWUA) , the Strawberry Watet-:U4rs Association (SWUA) , and from any other entities' requiredto effectuate the Strawberry-Deer Creek Exchange. 2. PROVO RIVER PROJECT • (a)` It is understood by all parties that Provo .River Project• (PRP) water shall not be included as part of CUP ;yields. It is understood by all parties that the PRP is fully subscribed, that -all PRP waters are currently allocated and there shall • be no mandatory marketing of PRP water in preference to CUP water. (b) Under • a first right of refusal, SLCWCD is willing to negotiate with MWD to purchase any and all surplus PRP water owned by MWD in addition to water currently under contract to SLCWCD. It is understood that 2 SLC, MWD, CUWCD, AND THE USER V- ✓u� , • Draft of October 17, 1983 such negotiations shall be made with the intent of obtaining competitive and mutually satisfactory prices to n/ SLCWCD, which shall be the basis_ for any agreement for /�, . purchase of surplus PRP water from MWD. If SLCWCD and MWD r7 cannot reach an agreement for the sale and purchase of MWD ` surplus water, MWD retains the right to sell this water to other agencies but not within the boundaries of SLCWCD. & -1 /7" a sz �T�✓,s sG 3. JACOB-WELBY EXCHANGE (a) It is understood by all parties that the Jacob-Welby exchange will be developed as a local water supply project . , 0 -:SLCWCD. The project design, construction and operation .,a'•:ai1 be under the control of SLCWCD, which shall-make' all - necessary 'decisions. SLCWCD shall negotiate.with-the Jacob< . and Welby Districts of the Provo Reservoir Water Users Company to obtain the necessary exchange agreement, and shall submit all applications and pursue acquisition of all necessary approvals from the State Engineer regarding water rights changes, and shall be responsible for acquiring the necessary replacement water to effectuate the exchange. • (b) SLCWCD reserves the option of designing and constructing • the Jacob-Welby facilities in accordance with USBR standards to make possible the future inclusion of the Jacob-Welby Exchange in the Bonneville Unit of the CUP, to qualify the Jacob-Welby project for Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) electric power and project financing. This future option to include Jacob-Welby facilities as a feature of CUP may be exercised by the SLCWCD subject to approval of USSR and CUWCD. The essence of this understanding by all parties is that the Jacob-Welby Exchange shall be a local project under the control of SLCWCD, and that all decisions regarding the formulation, 3 SLC, MWD, CUWCD, AND THE USBR Draft of October 17, 1983 design and construction of the project, and all negotiations with the Jacob and Welby Districts of the Provo Reservoir Water Users Company shall be made by SLCWCD. (c) SLCWCD is willing to buy Utah Lake water owned by SLC for use as the first block of replacement water to accomplish the Jacob-Welby Exchange. Such purchase of SLC water by SLCWCD shall be made on the basis that the water is surplus to SLC needs and that the water is competitively priced with other waters available to SLCWCD for use as Jacob-Welby replacement water and meets SLCWCD availability requirements. (•.?l SLCWCD will negotiate with the USBR to make up the 7,800 AF annual average yield required for Provo River fishery flows under the Bonneville Unit of the CUP from Provo River water rights acquired by SLCWCD through the Jacob-Welby Exchange. However, if negotiations cannot provide a satisfactory water supply to protect the fishery flows, the Project M&I supply furnished by the Provo River (90,000 AF) will be reduced by any shortage up to a maximum of 7,800 AF, distributed among water agencies in Utah, Salt Lake, and Wasatch Counties on a pro rata basis according to the amount of M&I Water each agency has petitioned from CUWCD. In the event there is unpetitioned water, that water will be used first to satisfy the fishery releases. 4. DELIVERY OF WATER TO SALT LAKE COUNTY (a) The parties understand that MWD and SLCWCD shall be entitled to gain capacity in the Jordan Aqueduct System, including treatment and storage facilities, necessary to treat and convey Provo River water to 2100 South 3800 West. The basis for such right to capacity in this system shall be as follows: 4 SLC, MWD, CUWCD, AND THE USBR Draft of October 17, 1983 (1) CUWCD must first receive from MWD and approve a petition for municipal water from the Bonneville Unit of the CUP. (2) The Jordan Aqueduct System flow capacity and repayment commitments assigned to MWD and SLCWCD shall be on a proportionate basis of CUP water for which they have petitioned. On this basis, with the SLCWCD having already petitioned for 50,000 AF and MWD to petition for 20,000 AF, then MWD shall be entitled to two-sevenths (2/7 or 78 cfs or 50 MGD) of Jordan Aqueduct System capacity, and SLCWCD shall be entitled to five-sevenths (5/7 or 192 cfs or 130 MGD) of said capacity, to which each shall be guaranteed. These capacity entitlements shall be on the basis of flow rates. Both MWD and SLCWCD shall be entitled to convey any volume of their own : .r waters through the Jordan Aqueduct System, provided K tiI:7 the instantaneous flow rate as entitled to each in. this paragraph is not exceeded at any time unless • approved by the other party. Operational and carriage agreements shall be in accordance with Reclamation Law and repayment contracts with CUWCD mutually acceptable to MWD and SLCWCD. (3) It is the intent of SLCWCD, SLC, and MWD to work cooperatively to trade or share total delivery system capacities, including the Salt Lake Aqueduct subject to existing agreements, and preferential rights, in some manner to the mutual benefit of the 5 >..u.... Uc U1vur,l�Jl�liltvb ue THE SLCWCD, SLC, MWD, CUWCD, AND THE USBR Draft of October 17, 1983 three agencies in meeting water delivery needs in Salt Lake County, including SLC. SLCWCD and MWD agree to negotiate to allow CUWCD use of the Jordan Aqueduct on a space-available basis. (4) Consistent with the present proposed USBR construction program CUWCD will defer the issuances of its block notices for delivery of Bonneville Unit CUP water to MWD until the year 2000 unless MWD makes request for earlier. delivery and the CUP can deliver such water. In the interim, MWD shall be entitled to convey its surplus .PRP water into Salt Lake County through the Jordan Aqueduct System in accordance with paragraph 2 above. (5) It is understood that the CUWCD will proceed to enlarge the Jordan Valley Treatment Plant to match ultimate aqueduct capacity in order to meet the needs of Salt Lake County, including SLC. (b) It is the intent of CUWCD to participate in funding of the municipal and industrial (M&I) water portion of capital • costs to construct Little Dell Dam. That portion of M&I water from Little Dell funded by CUWCD would become a CUWCD. water supply, to be marketed to MWD as project water at a rate which would recover the initial investment by CUWCD at Bonneville Unit repayment terms. Dated this day of , 1983. 6 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERS`I'A71DING OF THE SLCWCD, SLC, MWD, CUWCD, AND THE USBR Draft of October 17, 1983 SALT LAKE COUNTY WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT BY: ITS: ATTEST: CENTRAL UTAH WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT BY: ITS: ATTEST: SALT LAKE CITY BY: ITS: ATTEST: METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE CITY BY: ITS: ATTEST: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION BY: ITS : ATTEST: 7 List of Proposed Sewer Adjustments 1. Best Cleaners 2. Self Refining 3. Jordan River State Parkway 4. Mr. A. Q. Howard 5. J. L. Fullmer 6. George Gerontis 7. Mr. J. A. Haslam 8. Mary E. Petty 9. Melroy B. Harward 10. Spyro Harkis TO: LeRoy W. Hooton, Jr. , & Advisory Board FROM: Madolin A. Fitzgerald - Sewer Service Charge Administrator SUBJECT: Best Cleaners (Mr. Cooper) 576 S. 900 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 Account #434-007780 Mr. Cooper called, requesting an inspection of his dry cleaning business, stating the majority of the water does not enter the sanitary sewer, but is used in the cleaning operation to cool the pressing equipment etc. . Upon inspection of the premises we found only one (1) wash basin and one (1) water closet which contributed to the sewer system. Our recommendation is that we have the customer instal a meter to measure the flow of water used in the restroom and bill his sewer based on the usage or a minimum charge of $8.00 bimonthly. Also, we adjust their charges to the base rate of $17.28 bimonthly for 1982-83 sewer charge and those to date for 1983-84 for a total credit of $911.52. Thank you. TO: LeRoy W. Hooton, Jr. , & Advisory Board FROM: Madolin A. Fitzgerald - Sewer Service Charge Administrator SUBJECT: Self Refining (EKOTEC INC) 1636 Chicago Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 Account #882-0059-6-0 We recently received a request from Mr. Steven F. Miller, stating they believe more than 50% of their water use evaporates from their cooling tower. Upon making an on sight inspection, it was determined we could meter the water entering the cooling tower and then deduct this consumption from the regular meter reading and then bill for sewer on the differ- ence at our current rate with a minimum charge of $8.00 bi-monthly. It is my recommendation we have this installation made and begin to bill on this basis after installation is complete and checked for proper monitoring. Thank you. 1 TO: LeRoy W. E :oton, Jr., & Advisory Board FROM: Madolin A. Fitzgerald - Sewer Service Charge Administrator SUBJECT: Jordan River State Parkway 1180 West _700 South Salt Lake ;ity, Utah 84104 Account #(2 7-008850 1029 West =ndiana Avenue Salt Lake .ity,Utah 84104 Account #t 7-0182-6-0 In Novembe - 1982, the board approved the installation of a meter to measure the water used for restrooms at the Jordan River Parkway disc golf :nurse, account 978-009689. They are r )w asking for the same approval on the two subject accounts., the majori=y of water being used for irrigation with the restrooms also bein€ supplied through these meters. It is recc :mended that we have the meters installed to measure the water beir ; supplied to the restrooms and bill sewer based on these readings c: a minimum charge of $4.00 monthly. On Account 977-008850 they also would like to have their sewer charges re, uced to the base rate of $8.64 per month rather than the charge they presently receive based on actual usage for the 'June, July, August, September and October readings. This would result in a credit of $7,330.04 to this account. On Account 977-018260 we have never charged sewer since the meter was instal�ed in April 1981. It is not clear why it was set up in this ma :ner except the account was originally set up the our parks and ::;unicipals where until this year sewer has never been charged. I recommend we debit this account $8.64 per month from June :hrough October, when water has been used for a total debit of $-3.20. Thank you. TO: LeRoy W. Hooton, Jr. , & Advisory Board FROM: Madolin A. Fitzgerald - Sewer Service Charge Administrator DATE: October 20, 1983 SUBJECT: Mr. A. Q. Howard 3010 St. Mary's Circle Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Account #250-0108-1-0 #250-0109-9-0 On September 20, 1983, Mr. Howard came into the office and met with LeRoy and myself, regarding the fact he was being charged sewer of $8.00 on each of his two one inch meters. The two meters were installed initially to increase the volume of water he was receiving because the presure was not sufficient to provide an adequate volume to water his lawn as well as pro- vide inside water. Both meters provide water to one common water line. Since the time of this installation a new pump station has been installed in his area which has increased the pressure, however, Mr. Howard feels he still needs the two meters to adequately service his lawn sprinklers located in the rear of his house. Mr. Howard is requesting a variance to use the combined winter 'consumption of both meters and assess the charge against one of his accounts with no charge for sewer on the other. This would make his combined sewer charge for 1983-84 $8.64, instead of $16.00 as is presently being charged. This method would require an additional manual process in order to achieve the charge but does seem to be more equitable to the customer. Thank you. TO: LeRoy W. Hooton, Jr. , & Advisory Board FROM: Madolin A. Fitzgerald - Sewer Service Charge Administrator DATE: October 20, 1983 SUBJECT: J. L. Fullmer 635 S. State Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Account #104-0017-4-0 Mr. Fullmer has written requesting consideration .for an adjustment to his sewer bill on the basis there was a toilet leaking over the overflow, of which he was unaware until his tennant's lease was terminated in February 1983. He now has a new tennant and does not feel that this tennant should pay for his previous tennants negli- gence. In the first of his two letters, he stated he replaced the water closet and in the second letter providing the date of the lease termination he stated he adjusted the mechanism. Since February the usage has dropped to where is is from 5 to 8 times less than previous months consumption. As this is a commercial account, I would appreciate any assistance you may provide, since presently we do not change a sewer charge on a commercial property when a tennant changes. This went from a karate studio to a mobile glass company. Thank you. TO: LeRoy W. Hooton, Jr. , & Advisory Board FROM: Madolin A. Fitzgerald DATE: October 20, 1983 SUBJECT: George Gerontis 369 S. 400 East Salt Lake City, utah 84111 Account #188-0105-7-0 Mr. Gerontis came into this office as well as writing a letter, requesting that we charge sewer on this account on his current usage rather than winter history. He did not take over this restaurant until April 28, 1983 and feels he should not be penalized for the previous tennants problems with maintaining the premises. We have been out and checked for leaks and found a toilet leak in the mens restroom and a small one on his dishwasher. When the main valve inside the building was shut down there was no move- ment on the meter and only a small movement when turned back on. Mr. Gerontis was advised of these two problems. This is a commercial business and I would appreciate your help as we presently do not change the sewer charge on a commercial account when tennants change. Thank you. TO: LeRoy W. Hooton, Jr., & Advisory 1.oard FROM Madolin A. Fitzgerald - Sewer Service Charge Administrator DATE October 20, 1983 SUBJLCT: Mr. J. A. Haslam 2737 Grandview Drive Salt Lake City, Utah 84106 Account #907-0062-0-0 Mr. Haslam came into the office about his high sewer bill. In checking the account, his winter time usage from November 1982, through March 1983, was higher than any consumption before or since. In asking for possible causes, Mr. Haslam strongly indicated he had not leaks. I suggested the possibility of a leak inside or on the sprinkling system stop and waste valve, which he felt was impossible. We investigated for movement on the meter on October 12, 1983, and found none. Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. 111 TO: LeRoy W. Hooton, Jr. , & Advisory Board FROM: Madolin A. Fitzgerald - Sewer Service Charge Administrator DATE: October 20, 1983 SUBJECT: Mary E. Petty 945 Pioneer Circle (620 South) Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 Account #433-0203-0-0 Mary Petty has asked to appear before the board regarding her sewer charge. She feels it is too high and does not represent what she contributes to the sewer system since this past winter she had relatives staying with her which affected an increase in her charge and they no longer are with her. She stated other reasons which I feel she will cover. In checking the account for the past 5 winters, the usage has ranged from a low of 3200 cubic feet to a high of 5100 cubic feet. i TO : LeRoy W. Hooton, Jrl, & Advisory Board FROM: Madolin A. Fitzgerald - Sewer Service Charge Administrator DATE: October 20, 1983 SUBJECT: Melroy B. Harward 2393 & rear S. 800 East Salt Lake City, Utah 84106 Account #346-0104-0-0 Mr. Harwards account is a rental wingle dwelline with a present charge of $17.28. The meter at this address was shut off for rates on February 9, 1983 as well as vacancy. On March 14, 1983, the meter was pulled for illegal turn on. Due to the meter change, it resulted in an incorrect computation of the sewer charge of $228.96 which was corrected to $17.28 on August 31, 1983. He has called the Mayor's office which in turn contacted me to request an appearance before you the board. Thank you. TO: LeRoy W. Hooton, Jr. , & Advisory Board FROM: Madolin A. Fitzgerald - Sewer Service Charge Administrator DATE: October 20, 1983 SUBJECT: Spyro Harkis 1167 Ramona Avenue Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 Account #176-0165-1-0 Mr. Harkis is requesting some relief on his sewer bill of $444.96 on a 12 unit apartment. There are several circumstances surrounding this request. The first, is the unusually high consumption during the winter months. The second is the unusually low consumption from July 1982 through the September 1982 reading, and the third is inside plumbing problems. He would like us to establish his average on the usage from July 1982 through March 1983. This would reduce his sewer charge to $250.56. I suggested we go back to July 1982 and recompute his sewer charge on actual usage. The net difference between what Mr. Harkis proposes and my proposal is $157.14 less that he would have to pay. Since his request is a variance in the two methods by which we determine sewer charges, I would appreciate your assistance. Thank you. I SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 1983 (Meter deposits required from non-owners) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 49-6-64 OF THE REVISED- ORDINANCES OF SALT LAKE CITY , UTAH, 1965, RELATING TO WATER METER DEPOSITS REQUIRED FROM NON-OWNERS. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1 . That Section 49-6-64 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, be, and the same hereby is amended to read as follows: Sec. 49-6-64. Meter deposits required from non-owners. Water takers, who are not the owners of the premises or who do not have a long-term lease of 10 years or longer on which metered water service is being supplied, shall pay to the Department of Public Utilities for deposit with the City Treasurer, an amount sufficient to cover the cost of water rates which may accumu- late. --The amount deposited shall be not less than twice -any monthly or bi-monthly bill for water consumed over-the preceding year on such premises, but in no case shall it be less than fifty dollars. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect upon its first publication. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE NO. of 1983 (Sewer Charge Adjustment) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 37-6-2, SCHEDULE 3 RATES, OF THE REVISED ORDINANCES OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, 1965, RELATING TO SEWER SERVICE CHARGES. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION I . That the sewer charges imposed by Section 37-6-2, Schedule 3, Rates and Fees, be, and the same are hereby partially amended to read as follows: RATE SCHEDULE 1. Purpose * * * 2. Definitions * * * 3 . Sewer Charges * * * 4. Metering of Sewage Flows * * * 5 . New Sewer Connection of Change in Occupancy * * * 6 . Sewer Charge Adjustment (A) The director of Public Utilities may make adjustments as needed to ensure equitable sewer charges . The director may make such adjustments where excessive quantities of culinary water pass through the water meter, but are consumed on the premises and do not enter the sewer system. In each such instance, the user will have the burden of providing evidence of such inequities by showing that the quantity of water not entering the sewer, but passing through the meter exceeds 20 percent of the total flow in order to merit such consideration by the director. (B) The director may authorize his agents to make adjustments under the following conditions due to faulty inside plumbing: 1 . When the average winter water consumption exceeds the previous year' s average by twenty-five percent (25%) , there may be an adjustment made on a pro rata basis. The customer must provide evidence of such problems and the repairs and the length of time the -2- problem existed, with the repair for the plumbing, in the form of a plumber' s invoice of repairs made, accompanied by a letter outlining the date of resolution. 2 . When the repairs are accomplished by the customer, receipts for supplies purchased to make the repairs and a letter as outlined above must be provided. 3 . When neither a plumbers' invoice nor receipts for supplies are available, the customer must provide a notarized affidavit, in letter form, of repairs made, when made and by whom. If the consumption shows a significant reduction after the repairs, and is comparable to the usage for the same time of the two proceeding years, an adjustment may be made. 4. All adjustments will be on the basis of returning the sewer charge to that of the preceeding year. When the charge for the preceeding year is not established on winter average, the charge will be determined as outlined in Item 5, "New sewer connections or change in occupancy. " Each such adjustment made by the director shall be submitted to the Department of Public Utilities Advisory Committee for ratification. If said committee approves the adjustment, it shall be effective immediately. If the committee does not act upon the adjustment for thirty (30) days, it shall automatically be deemed approved at the end of said period. If said adjustment is disapproved, the director may submit the matter to the mayor whose decision will be final. LF: jg 27:10 n y fik October 21, 1983 Mr. A. LaMar Farnsworth Director Hogle Zoo P.O. Box 8475 Salt Lake City, UT 84108 Dear Mr. Farnsworth: Pursuant to my telephone conversation with Mr. Jim Hogle regarding water and sewer charges at the zoo, we have in conjunction with your staff conducted a water use audit at the zoo facility. Also, we have researched previous records dating back to 1947 and have prepared and enclosed a bar graph indicating the long-term water use at the zoo. Fran this research it is evident that the zoo, since 1956, has been a high-water user. The average daily water use fran 1956 to 1983 was 46,164 c.f. a day (345,306 gallons per day). Over the 18 year period your annual average use amounted to 126,000,000 gallon per year. The field audit indicated that the zoo has been experiencing sane leakage through the zoo's water system, however this leakage appears to be minor relative to the total water used. Therefore it is assumed that the water used within the zoo is being used for specific reasons and controlled by zoo personnel and necessary to the good operation of the zoo and the care of it's animals. Based on this information we make the following recommendations: o Continue your conservation efforts to reduce total water usage. o Consider using low-quality water from Emigration creek for non-public consumption uses. This would require a dual-water system and adequate cross-connection protection to guarantee public health standards. o Consider using on-site treatment and recycling waterflows. o Consider hiring a consulting engineer firm to evaluate the zoo water use practice and the feasibility of using low-quality water and/ or on-site treatment and recycling. Mr. LaMar Farnsworth October 21, 1983 Page 2 In regards to sewer and water adjustments based on the site audit and leak testing we found approximately 37 gallons per minute leakage at the beginning of the test which was reduced to 10 gallons per minute after corrections and adjustments were made in the zoo's system. Therefore, we will recommend to the Public Utilities Advisory Board the following adjustments: o Once the leaks have all been repaired we will adjust one months billing to reflect 50 percent of the water lost fram the leakage using 37 gallons per minute of leakage this amounts to 2,136 (100 c.f.) at a rate of 31 cents per 100 c.f. which amounts to a one-time adjustment of $331.00. o Based on the 37 gallons per minute leakage rate this calculates to 8,548-100 c.f. of water lost during the winter months (winter-use water consumption is used to determine the sewer charge) we will recommend an adjustment of $2,346.84 fran the current monthly charge of $16,140.60 resulting in a annual savings of $28,162.08. o There will not be a sewer charge on the two 1-inch meter connections that currently serve the buffalo pen and the maintenance shop if these two areas do not contribute to the sanitary sewer flows of the zoo. We hope that we have been able to serve you in evaluating your water and sewer uses and stand by ready to assist you in the future. Sincerely, LEROY W. HOOTON JR. Director LWH:ww 30:9 CC: Al Haines Jim Bogle • • 100,000 CU. FT. NN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08 0 O 0 0 0 0 tI . 1947 -Maim 1948 -411 1949 1950 -Mmomon 1951 - 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 0 1957 G7 1958 rn 1959 1960 tN O 1961 O 1962 1963 1964 1965 m 1966 1967 n 1968 itimimmimumimmilimmimiummiO 1969 Z 1970 C 1971 1972 4simimmiimsomnimmininm --� 1973 0 1974 Z 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 - 1983 CIE 9 MONTH TOTAL VIII I TAW T ► T I I I T I T T T T T I T • N W A c� 0 -1 O N W U Q� �t W �O�'Q N N W N NN r 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 O 8 O n M T H E TRUST_ _ F O R • PUBLIC LAN D H November 11, 1983 Honorable Ted L. Wilson, Mayor Salt Lake City Corporation City and County Building Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Re: Little Cottonwood Canyon Dear Mayor Wilson: I am pleased to enclose, in duplicate and signed by The Trust for Public Land (TPL) , the basic agreements necessary to carry out the Little Cottonwood Canyon project using the City's water bond revenue as interim financing in accordance with the discussions between TPL and the City over the past several months. Specifically, these agreements are (1) for the sale of the Little Cottonwood Canyon property to the City, (2) for the repurchase of the property by TPL, and (3) for the City to have an option to permanently acquire the property i'n its own right along the way. It is our understanding that you must decide whether to take delivery of the bonds by the end of the week. Similarly, we need to have fully signed agreements in hand not later than Monday, Nov. 21, 1983, or we will have to proceed with an alternative means of financing the project. As you know, we have excercised our option and are committed to purchase the property in any event. I strongly believe that the combination of strong city involvement and private nonprofit initiative for which the enclosed agreements provide is both an exciting and innovative model for future land preservation efforts and the best prospect for the realization of your hope for the preservation of Little Cottonwood Canyon at the least cost to the City. We are indebted to your leadership and the support of the City Council and Mr. Hooten, and I pledge to you the very best efforts of The Trust for Public Land to move the land into protected public ownership as soon as possible. Very u y--y Ma t en President MJR/CE Enc. l T. MARTIN J. ROSEN PRESIDENT 5: SECOND TFr EET SAN FRANCISCO CALIF 94105.3489 (4 ! 5) 4 Q 5-4 0 1 4 PUBLIC UTILITIES MONTHLY BILLING PROPOSAL The Public Utilities Department is considering mailing bills out on a monthly billing cycle. Water meters would be read only every other month with customers receiving minimum bills every odd month. The advantages and disadvantages are as follows: ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES 1. Accelerated Cash Flow 1. Not cost effective after 1st year 2. Decrease size of bill to customer 2. Possible confusion to summer water 3. Help meet Bond requirements customers receiving very high then very low bills 3. Additional storage capacity required for documents Increase Cash Flow: Revenue collected on current Bi-Monthly Accounts 14,134,081 - 12 months x 75 percent (One time increased flow) 883,380 883,380 x 9 percent Interest savings 79,504 Estimated decrease in write-off of uncollectables, no-signs, and skips. 113,547 x 20 percent 22,709 Total Estimated Revenue 985,593 Increase Operating Costs: Estimated at current rates Data Processing 12,672 Postage 430,000 x .15 64,500 State of Utah - printing of bills 430,000 x .025 10,750 Additional Employee - sorting & mailing bills Billing Clerk 15,056 Cash receipt processing - CSB contract 430,000 x .10 43,000 Additional set up charges - Data processing (one time cost) 2,000 Total operating costs 147,978 Current years difference 837,615 Annual difference (43,765)