11/17/2011 - Minutes r? //-
RECEIVED
Salt Lake City
Public Utilities Advisory Committee FED 2 2012
Minutes
November 17, 2011 CITY RECORDER
The Public Utilities Advisory Committee meeting was held at 7:00 a.m. November 17, 2011 at
1530 South West Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah. Committee members present were Jan Striefel,
Dick Gaddis, Dwight Butler, Dixie Huefner, Allen On and Larry Myers. Salt Lake City Public
Utilities employees present were Jeff Niermeyer, Tom Ward, Jim Lewis, Florence Reynolds,
Chuck Call, Brad Stewart, Stephanie Duer and Zee Smith. Also in attendance were Holly
Hilton, SLC Mayor's Office; Lehua Weaver, SLC Council Office; Rusty Vetter, SLC Attorney's
Office; Mike Wilson, MWDSLS; Tim Harpst & Mike Barry, SLC Transportation; Jeff Baer,
Liberty Wells Street Light Committee; Camille Winnie, Downtown Alliance; Karen Nichols,
HDR and Rick Giardina, Red Oak Consulting.
Approve Minutes of September 22, 2011 Meeting
Committee member Dick Gaddis moved and Committee member Jan Striefel, seconded the
motion to approve the minutes of the September 22, 2011 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 October 31,
2011. Mr. Lewis stated that all three funds are currently doing very well and are in good financial
position at this time, even with the wetter summer. He stated that the Department had budgeted
for a poor spring, but did not count on the wetter summer. Currently water deliveries are below
last year by six percent and water revenues are below last year by $2.2 million. He also presented
the water conservation chart for the current year, which shows water savings due to the wetter
summer. The chart shows that due to the wetter summer we should meet our conservation goal
for the calendar year.
The next slide presented was a comparison of revenue for all three funds versus budget. Mr.
• Lewis stated that two of the funds, Sewer and Storm Water, are higher than last year with water
below last year due to weather. The Water Utility is currently $2.2 million below last year with
Sewer $340,000 higher and Storm Water at $150,000 higher than last year.
aA
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 below last
year by $256,000, which relates to lower water purchases over the last year. The Sewer is above
last year by $537,000 and the Storm Water is just slightly above last year by $135,000. 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 compared to
budget. The Water Utility has expended $2.9 million in capital improvements with $5.9 million
encumbered at the end of October. The Sewer Utility has expended $3.4 million with $21.4
million encumbered. The Storm Water Utility has expended $1.7 million with $5 million
encumbered.
Update On Water efficient Landscaping Ordinance, Landscape manual & Plant List
Stephanie Duer
Salt Lake City's Sustainable Code Revision Project is an administrative initiative aimed at
incorporating sustainability provisions into zoning and subdivision ordinances.
There are three phases of this project:
1. Policy and Goal Inventory
2. Diagnostics of Regulations
3. Code Revisions
10 Key Areas of Sustainability
1. Recycling and Waste Reduction
2. Climate Change and Air Quality
3. Energy Conservation and Renewable Energy
4. Mobility and Transportation
5. Open Space, Parks, and Trails
6. Urban Forestry
7. Water Quality and Conservation
8. Food Production and Nutrition
9. Community Health and Safety
10. Housing Accessibility and Diversity
Chapter 21A.26.01 —Water-Efficient Landscape Regulations
A. Purpose
B. Applicability
C. Submittal Requirements
D. Review Procedures
E. Standards
F. Inspection, Maintenance, Enforcement
G. Definitions
Chapter 21A.26.01
Water-Efficient Landscape Regulations
A. Purpose Highlights
• Speak to future water supply challenges N
• Short recitation of previous regulatory efforts a
a
- Watershed protection
- Tiered rate structure
- Earlier Landscape code revisions
o Parkstrip
o Redefining "landscape"
- Water-wise plant list
Reference to 2009 Water Conservation Master Plan
- Development of Irrigation and Landscape Guide
Identify goals to be achieved through the regulations
- Establish procedures and Standards
- Reduce water waste and use in landscape
- Provide provisions for treasured landscapes and play spaces
Chapter 21A.26.01
Water-Efficient Landscape Regulations
B. Applicability Highlights
• New Development
- Residential; large subdivisions; triplex of greater; single-family w./landscape >1/2 acre
- Non-residential; commercial; institutional; developments utilizing public funds
• Existing development
- Commercial and multi-family projects with improvements that result in an increase in
assessed value of 25% or greater
• Exemptions
- New single family homes with<1/2 acre
- Treasured landscapes
- Plant collections as part of botanical gardens and arboretums open to the public
- Community gardens and landscapes dedicated to edible plants
- Cemeteries
- Ecological restoration projects
Chapter 21A.26.01
Water-Efficient Landscape Regulations
C. Submittal Requirements
• Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet
- Hydrozone information
- Tied to SLC Plant List
- Water budget calculations
o Tied to SLC Plant List and Irrigation and Landscape Guide
- Irrigation audit report
- Plans
o Planting
o Irrigation
o Grading
- Soils Report
- Certificate of Completion and Certificate of Completion according to packet
•
Chapter 21A.26.01
Water-Efficient Landscape Regulations Mcu
D. Review Procedures Highlights a
• Identifies SLCDPU as coordinating the development of an irrigation and landscape guide
- To address irrigation and landscape design, installation and maintenance to enhance
water efficiencies
- Increase relevance of plant list
- Identifies irrigation efficiency standard (80% of Eto)
• Rules around certificate of occupancy
- No certificate of completion issued until landscape is installed and irrigation system
meets efficiency standard
- Provisions for temporary co's for seasonal or weather delays
Chapter 21A.26.01
Water-Efficient Landscape Regulations
E. Standards Highlights
• Specifies the use of SLC Plant List
- Limits use of plants not tied to plant list or approved lists to 10% of landscape
- Identifies limited use of specified hydrozones
o Plants not in approved lists the highest zoned turf grass (as identified in SLC Plant
list), and water features alone or combined shall not exceed 20% of landscapeable
area
• Rules on plant substitutions
• Requires hydrozoning of landscape and irrigation
• Recognizes water budgets as articulated in 17.16.670 (irrigation accounts)
• Encouragement of utilization of rainwater and reuse, but no allowance
• Definition of small spaces and imitation on sprinkler type in small places
• Soil amendment and structured soil requirements
• Mulch requirement
• Reference to containment and code
• Preservation of existing trees; but no water or stormwater allowance
• Water features as oasis-zone landscape elements
• Irrigation systems standards; references SLC BMPs for the Conservation and Protection
of Water Resources
- Also contains technical language on efficiencies; smart controllers; rain sensors;
irrigation of small spaces; pressure regulators
Chapter 21A.26.01
Water—Efficient Landscape Regulations
Next Steps
• Reconcile staff and consultant drafts
• Present draft to Planning Commission for approval
• Begin public comment phase
• Make adjustments and edits as necessary
• Submit to Mayor's Office for review and approval
• Submit to City Council for review and approval
• Adoption of Code
Chapter 21A.26.01
Water-Efficient Landscape Regulations 171'
Parallel Documents in construction
• Water-wise Plant List (SLC Plant and Turf Guide)
- Establishment of hydrozones
- Assignment of plants to appropriate hydrozones
- Development of hydrozone calculations
Development of BMPs for conservation and Protection of Water Resources
- Identify best management practices in irrigation and landscape design to enhance water
efficiencies
- Development of Water Efficient Landscape Worksheets
o Hydrozone Table
o Water Allowance Calculations
o Certificates of Completion
Development of Plant guide as web-based data base
Chapter 21A.26.01
Water- Efficient Landscape Regulations
PUAC Action
• Option A: motion to support the draft as presented by consultant
• Option B: motion to support draft as amended by staff
• Option C: support draft with following provisions
• Option D: no action or recommendation on water efficient landscape regulations
• Option E: oppose water efficient landscape regulations
Project Calendar
January-September: Peer and Stakeholder Review
USU
Utility Divisions: Drinking Water, Stormwater, Backflow, Construction Review
Department of Parks and Open Space
Red Butte Garden
Utah Nursery and Landscape Assoc.
Industry Experts
September: Submitted to Mayor's Office
Ordinance with Consultant's Edits
Ordinance with SLCDPU's Edits
SLC BMPS for the Conservation and Protection of Water Resources
SLC Plant and Turf List
October: forwarded to City Council with Support
December-March: Public Outreach and revisions/corrections
Spring 2012: City Council Calendar
(These minutes reflect a more extensive presentation, from Stephanie Duer, the committee was
given the condensed version)
Street Lighting Update—Rick Giardina Red Oak Consulting
At the direction of the City Council the Department of Public Utilities (Utility) formed a
Committee in August 2011 comprised of residential, commercial and other community
stakeholders. The Committee's purpose was to evaluate and recommend a sustainable funding
solution for street light services in Salt Lake City. Red Oak Consulting (Red Oak) served as the
lead facilitator for the meeting. There were 4 meetings held. In the final Committee meeting held
on October 26, 2011, six policy options and questions were put forth to the Committee members
present during this meeting.
Question #1: Does the Committee favor funding an expanded or enhanced street lighting service
level option ($4.0 million annually) or funding a status quo street lighting service level ($2.4
million annually)?
The expanded service level option ($4.0 million)provided for funding of annual operation and
maintenance (O&M) expenditures as well as additional annual capital replacement expenditures
for existing infrastructure and phased energy efficiency retrofits (over an eight year period).
The status quo service level provides funding for annual O&M expenditures without a dedicated
capital funding source; capital requirements would be funded annually by general fund based
sources. It should be noted that even at $2.4 million per year this would be an increase over the
funding amount provided over the recent 2-3 years.
Both service level options fully fund the City's street light maintenance contract as well as
billing costs (as allocated to the street lighting function), under the fee based funding option.
Outcome: 12 Committee members voted in favor of the status quo ($2.4 million service level);
no one opposed and one member abstained.
Discussion: The Committee had strong reservations about moving immediately to the $4.0
million funding level given current economic conditions in the City. However, the Committee
also fully supported the energy efficiency initiatives and pro-active capital replacement elements
that are a part of the $4.0 million level program. As such,the Committee recommended, as part
of this question, that the $4.0 million service level be implemented within the next five years in
order for the community to benefit from the cost savings associated with the planned eight-year
energy efficiency program and migrate to a pro-active capital replacement program.
Question #2: Does the Committee favor funding the desired service level through tax based
sources or fee based sources?
Tax and special assessment area based funding sources are the historical street lighting funding
sources. If selected the tax funding of the street light program would continue to compete with
other general fund needs and would be subject to annual appropriations that would, like in prior
years, be subject to material reductions.
Fee based funding sources would provided a sustained level of funding while freeing up previous
general fund street light appropriations for other purposes (upwards of$2 million per year) and
generating funds from tax-exempt properties that currently do not contribute to the funding of the
street light program.
Outcome: 8 Committee members voted in favor of a fee based funding source and 4 members
voted in favor of a tax based funding source; one member abstained.
a)
an
a
Discussion: The votes were generally split along the lines of residential (favored a fee based
approach) vs. business (favored a tax based approach). Those opposed expressed concern that the
impacts on individual businesses (generally, small locally-owned businesses) could be
significant and contribute to an already difficult economic situation. Concern was also expressed
that it was not a given that these costs (a fee) could merely be passed-on to consumers; there was
a feeling that some of these costs might have to be absorbed by the business owner.
At the recommended funding level ($2.4 million) the resulting monthly cost per residence was
illustrated at $1.94 and this was not viewed as being unduly burdensome. Those voting in favor
saw the impacts as being indicative of the benefit received and that this nexus was not achievable
under a tax based funding approach.
Question #3: Does the Committee favor the City's privately funded lighting program or an
assessed area based program to fund an enhanced service level program?
The privately funded lighting program provided one mechanism to fund future enhanced service
level requests and is a program that is well liked by citizens. As used to fund enhanced service
levels under a fee based program, the private light program could be used and the enhanced costs
would continue to be directly funded by private contributions.
Assessed area based funding provides a second mechanism to fund future enhanced service level
requests that may be incorporated into either tax (assessment) for fee (surcharge) based funding
approaches. Under a fee based funding program an approach similar to as assessed area approach
can be used to fund enhanced service levels; however, the initial capital requirements would be
subject to the availability of funds.
Outcome: 4 Committee members voted in favor of the privately funded lighting program and 8
members voted in favor of an"assessed area"type program to fund future enhanced service level
programs under a fee based funding approach.
Discussion: The detailed elements of this question will require development, i.e., how can an
assessment-type program be used to fund enhanced service level requests under a fee based
program? The current proposed fee based program would have four fee categories:
1. a base fee paid by all accounts
2. a surcharge (in addition to the base fee) for accounts in the current central business
district and industrial Special Assessment Areas (SAAs)
3. a surcharge for account in the current Rose Park SAA
4. a surcharge for account in all the other current SAA's
A mechanism to exempt or reduce the base fee for properties will be developed as recommended
by the Committee under policy question 6.
One approach would be to use the current SAA "formation process" as the mechanism for
neighborhoods to request enhanced service levels and then be placed in one of the three
"surcharge" fee categories and pay a surcharge for the enhanced service. As previously noted,
the "formation process" would require further development L�
a)
a
Question #4: Does the Committee favor allowing or not allowing the creation of future privately
funded lighting programs?
The privately funded lighting program has provided one mechanism for neighborhoods to obtain
additional street light coverage without forming an SAA; it is a program that is well liked by
citizens. Under this program, the City approves the lighting options and property owners are
responsible for the upfront costs. The on-going O&M expenses and capital replacements remain
the responsibility of the neighborhood group. Owners are not always aware of these
responsibilities after the initial creation and hence, one of the criticisms or concerns with this
program is the on-going upkeep of the privately-owned street lights; the City has no
responsibility or authority regarding these lights.
Outcome: 11 Committee members voted in favor of and 1 member voted against allowing future
privately funded lighting programs.
Discussion: The Committee felt that the program, in spite of the on-going O&M and
replacement concerns, served a needed demand and should be continued regardless of the tax vs.
fee funding question.
Question #5: Does the Committee favor or not favor funding an energy efficiency lighting
program to retro-fit available lights over eight years?
Under the enhanced service level option, energy efficiency retro-fits are funded over an eight-
year period. The program includes annual fixture replacement in addition to a dedicated energy
efficiency program within assessed and non-assessed areas. The benefit of the program is a
projected reduction n annual energy use and costs with more efficient fixtures. Not all lights and
fixtures can be converted. The retro-fit includes existing high pressure sodium, mercury vapor,
and metal halide fixtures (approximately 80% of the assessed and non-assessed systems).
Florescent and incandescent fixtures are not included because these fixtures do not lend
themselves to upgrades. LED and induction fixtures are high efficiency and would not need a
change. By not directly funding the program, the City would more gradually retro-fit lighting
fixtures as they fail and as alternative funding sources become available; the program would be
implemented over many more years than if the pro-active, eight-year program is adopted.
Outcome: 12 Committee members voted in favor of energy efficiency fixture replacements, but
under a delayed program subject to funding sources being identified.
Discussion: Because of the Committee's vote on question#1, there was no discussion on this
topic— start with the status quo but move to the expanded-enhanced service level, including
energy efficient fixtures within five years.
Question #6: Does the Committee favor the City exploring a policy to provide full or partial
exemptions for the large properties with no or limited street lights?
CO
a)
bA
a.
There are large non-residential properties with no or limited street lighting service. Should such
properties pay the full fee based on the front footage of the property or receive a full or partial
street lighting fee exemption?
Outcome: 11 Committee members voted in favor of the City exploring a policy to provide for
full or partial exemptions for large properties with limited or no street lighting service when such
exemption requests are initiated by the customer; 1 Committee member voted against exploring
such a policy.
Rick explained that the proposed rates have changed from the original committee
recommendations to cover additional salary costs and add to needed catch up maintenance costs
•
which were not included in the committee recommendation. This raised the base fee up from
$1.94 to $2.29.
The Committee members then discussed questions regarding this issue.
- Is there going to be a downstream ripple effect that we are not really addressing at
this time?
- Is pre-existing lighting getting a discount for private lighting?
- Does cost reflect the size and scope of businesses?
- Is SAA being phased out?
- Is this a special fund?
- This does not appear to be a valid comparison, on how it will impact the community?
- If it is an enterprise fund, does the city have to pay some of the cost?
- Are tax exempt properties going to be exempt?
- Does the tax savings go into a pool for future use?
- Is the fee dedicated?
The Board discussed whether the proposal was a fee or really a tax. Camille Winnie of the
Downtown Alliance stated that the downtown business district was very concerned on how this
new fee will affect each of their businesses. The Board discussed how much of this fee will be
passed on to the resident from exempt organizations and businesses and is it really cheaper to
implement a new fee rather than an increase in property tax to fund the system improvements.
Jeff Blair who represented City Council District number 5 on the Citizens Committee said that
he has informed his community of the proposals and his Community Council recommend the fee
approach to improve the street lighting in the City. Dixie mentioned, at the last Street Lighting
meeting, there were 9 members not there to vote, so the entire committee did not get to vote on
the process. She was concerned that the voting did not represent the entire group.
The Board agreed that this will be a political issue and should be decided by the City Council.
They recommended that the Committee results be passed on to the Mayor and City Council for
their review.
Meeting Adjourned at 8:46
a.