11/05/1987 - Minutes • • il
Ar'''
PUBLIC UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEETING
November 5, 1987 - 7:00 a.m.
Present were committee members Mary Tuddenham, Ralph Steenblik, Virginia Lee,
Paul Keyser, Richard Chong, Thomas Berggren and Vaughn Wonnacott. Excused were
committee members F.R. "Bunk" Robinson and Genevieve Atwood. In addition,
Public Utilities staff members LeRoy W. Hooton, Jr. , E. Tim Doxey, Joe Fenton,
George Jorgensen, Bill Farmer, Barbara Despain, Anna Wilson and Russ Hone were
present. Ray Montgomery of the City Attorney's Office, Emilie Charles and
Brian Wilkinson of the Mayor's Office and Brent Wilde of Planning & Zoning
were also present as well as Ralph Becker of Bear West, Gary DeeSeelhorst
of Solitude and Russell Weeks of the Salt Lake Tribune.
Vice-Chairman, Richard Chong, called the meeting to order at 7:05 a.m. in
the conference room of the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Office at 1530
South West Temple.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Berggren pointed out that during the discussion regarding the "Super
Tunnel " the committee expressed feelings of skepticism regarding the amount
of unappropriated water available. He noted that this was not properly
expressed and that such a statement be added to the "Super Tunnel " discussion.
Mr. Wonnacott moved that the minutes be approved subject to the above
mentioned statement being prepared by staff and incorporate into the
minutes. Mr. Keyser seconded the motion, with all voting "Aye".
WATER AND SEWER ADJUSTMENTS
Ms. Wilson explained that Mrs. Nemelka, who lives at 3322 South Monte
Verde Drive, called our office when she received her June 2, 1987, bill
in the amount of $154.59. At that time she requested an investigation
and a property side leak was indicated. Mrs. Nemelka stated that she
understood that the creeping meter was due to a broken sprinkler head
which had been stepped on by a deer but did not understand that this
would cause a problem. She had some repairs done and during the month of
July, Mrs. Nemelka was out of town. When she returned she found that her
July bill was $286.24 with a total for two billings (four months) of
$440.83. She called a plumber who found a leak in the sprinkling system
and repaired it. However, between the time the meter was read in July
and the leak was repaired, another bill in the amount of $109.49 accumulated
becuase of wasted water. Mrs. Nemelka paid $154.59 but still has an
outstanding amount owing of $395.73. Therefore, she is requesting some
help with the bill based on her misunderstanding when we checked the
reading in June, and because she was gone for a month and didn't discover
the leak until she returned. She is asking that she be given some type of
relief either an adjustment or payment arrangement.
• •
PUAC Meeting Minutes__
November 5, 1987
Page 2
Mr. Hooton explained that because she did take positive action to solve
the problem and because all necessary action on the department's part was
taken it would be possible to allow some type of relief to this customer.
Mrs. Wilson explained that she feels this matter should be handled as a
service break adjustment. In this case the previous years consumption is
deducted from this year and shared on a 50/50. She noted that the customer
will have to present documentation that she did have the repairs made
when she did.
Mr. Keyser moved that Mrs. Nemelka be required to pay the first months bill
but that the remaining months be treated as a service break and that if
she is unable to make the entire 50 percent payment that payment arrangements
be made. Ms. Lee seconded the motion, with all voting "Aye".
PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS
Mr. Doxey explained that in Big Cottonwood Canyon on the north side of
the road across from the Maxfield Lodge, a property owner, who resides in
Pheonix, Arizona, listed his 12-acres of property for sale about two
years ago. His appraisal was $112,000 and he has been marketing it with
instructions from his agent not to accept less than $85,000. However,
because of his present financial circumstances he has suggested that he
would sell the 12 acres of property to Salt Lake City for a cash price of
$36,000. Mr. Doxey noted that there is a spring on the property and that
the water rights are controlled by Salt Lake City Corporation. The owner
has a water sales agreement with Salt Lake City to take water from the
spring to be used by a charitable organization only. On the south side
of the road by the old lodge, as part of the water sales agreement, he
has other properties entitled to water. Mr. Doxey noted that it is the
recommendation of the Public Utiltiies Department that the actual value
of the property be verified and that a counter offer for this property be
given.
Mr. Keyser moved that the department proceed with the verification of the
property value and that a fair counter offer be given. Mr. Berggren
seconded the motion, with all voting "Aye".
APPROVE THE SALT LAKE CITY WATERSHED MASTER PLAN
Mr. Hooton explained that the canyon study has been underway for over a
year and that three public hearings have been held. Mr. Hooton then
briefed the Committee on the various laws and governmental agencies. He
noted that there are two federal acts that govern water quality, the
Clean Water Act of 1972 and the 1973 Safe Drinking Water Act and that
Congress has designated EPA to administer the acts. EPA has delegated to
the State of Utah the right to manage these programs through the Water
Pollution Control Committee and the Safe Drinking Water Committee. Also,
the City/County Board of Health has responsiblility for maintaining water
quality. Mr. Hooton pointed out that the United States Forest Service is
the largest property owner in the watershed and that the city has the
authority to establish and enforce, through extraterratory jurisdiction
ordinances to protect the watersheds. He futher noted that the County
• •
PUAC Meeting Minutes
-November -5, -198-7
Page 3
Sheriff's Department has a contract with Salt Lake City to provide enforce-
ment of watershed protection ordinances in the canyons. Mr. Hooton
explained that the city has the majority of the water rights within the
canyons. He noted that the County is growing rapidly and that there is a
push for recreational development within the canyons which makes it
essential for a watershed managment plan for the canyons be adopted; that
the watershed management plan deals mainly with water quality rather than
land use of the canyons; this area is where the Public Utilities Department
has control and the main concern is that of water quality and that is the
only basis that approval and disapproval of development is addressed. He
noted that it is mandatory that the County and the City work together to
develop management plans to preserve water quality.
The committee discussed the problem of proper mitigation in the canyon
area surrounding recreational facilities. Mr. Hooton stressed that
proper mitigation is necessary. He noted that a sewer line is an effective
means of mitigating the effects of human pollution. He noted that limiting
runoff from parking lots is another means of mitigating pollution. All
potential water pollution sources are reviewed when approving plans for
development within the canyons and the proper measures are taken to eliminate
pollution into the streams.
WATER CONTRACT MORATORIUM
Mr. Hooton explained that this item has been discussed several times and
that the latest draft of the plan reflects the following:
"During the next 18 months, the Public Utilities Advisory Committee shall
recommend (prepare) a sales policy for surplus canyon waters, and submit
recommendations for the canyons surplus sales policy to the council ."
The committee expressed no opposition to this concept and language as presented
regarding the Water Contract Moratorium.
GENERAL SALT LAKE CITY WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
The committee agreed that a process should be in place to assure coordination
of decisions affecting the watersheds and notification of the public on
canyon issues and decisions; however, they do not wish to call for a total
reorganization.
It was recommended by the committee that the following be added to the second
paragraph of the section regarding General Salt Lake City Watershed Management.
While this plan does not recommend a new process for interagency coordination
it is recommended that an organization of an interagency group for a
formalized coordinated review process for canyon decisions should be
further explored during the Salt lake County master planning effort. An
efficient procedureal mechanism should be sought for assuring coordination
of decsions affecting the watershed sand notification of the public on
canyon issues and decisions. In the interim, Salt Lake City should review
Salt Lake County land-use and any development decision making to assure
that the city is adequately involved in County development decisions.
Watershed protection should be paramount amoung other considerations in
Wasatch Canyons management.
• •
PUAC Meeting Minutes
November 5, 1987
Page 4
SALT LAKE CITY LAND AND WATER RIGHTS OWNERSHIP (WATERSHED PROTECTION FUND)
No objections and it was suggested that not only land acquistions
be included but that water rights also be listed in the plan.
WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES
No objections
INSTREAM FLOWS
No objections. Mr. Hooton explained that this has been discussed in
several of the public hearings. He noted that this is a very diffucult
to handle.
AMENDMENT OF CITY WATERSHED ORDINACES
No objections
LAND AND WATER OWNERSHIP RECORDATION
No objections
CITIZEN PARTICPATION IN WATERSHED ISSUES
No objections
SALT LAKE CITY- U.S. FOREST SERVICE COORDINATION
No objections
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS IN LITTLE COTTONWOOD CANYON
No objections
CANYON ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
No objections
PUBLIC INFORMATION CAMPAIGN ON SALT LAKE CITY WATERSHEDS
No objections
POLICY ENFORCEMENT IN THE WATERSHEDS
No objection
STREAM SET-BACK AND ENVIRONMENT ZONE
No objection
MONITORING PROGRAM
No objection
• • •
PUAC Meeting Minutes
- - November 5, 1987
Page 5
CANYON-BY-CANYON RECOMMENDATIONS
CITY CREEK CANYON
Mr. Hooton pointed out that this canyon is already covered in its own
master plan.
RED BUTTE
No objections
EMIGRATION CANYON
Mr. Hooton explained that additional language has been prepared. Mr.
Brent Wilde of Planning and Zoning explained that the additional language
addresses the fact that Emigration Canyon serves as a watershed for Salt
Lake City, an exception to this policy could be considered in order to
improve water quality and protect this watershed. He noted that the
Planning Commission is in support of the sewer system in Emigration
without annexation if a policy can be devised. Mr. Tuddenham said
that is the goal of this committee to decide whether or not a sewer line
up Emigration Canyon is going to favorably affect water quality and that
it is up to the other city agencies to determine whether or not this can
be accomplished. Mr. Berggren asked that if Emigration Canyon is not
annexed into the city and the sewer line is installed would the city have
enough power to determine what goes into the sewer line and what kind of
development would be allowed in the canyon. Mr. Hooton explained that
the city would have to have such power. Mr Tuddenham explained that
the committee does feel that annexation of Emigration Canyon into Salt
Salt Lake City is the best approach for providing protection of the city's
watershed interests.
Mr. Wilde explained that he felt that the language needed to be more
explicit.
The committee asked that Item No. 2 in Emigration Canyon read as follows:
2) Salt Lake City should utilize its water rights in Emigration Canyon
consistant with existing policies. Any development of water that is
junior in priority to Salt Lake City's water rights in Emigration Canyon
should continue to be protested by Salt lake City to protects its water
rights interest.
PARLEY'S CANYON
Mr. Doxey explained that in the past few years the Public Utilities
Department has been working with the Parks Deparment on an expansion
program for the existing Mountain Dell Golf Course. He noted that the
details have not been worked out at this time. He noted that as this
process of expansion continues the staff will keep the committee advised
of their progress.
No objections
• •
PUAC Meeting Minutes
November-5, 1987- - - -
Page 6
MILLCREEK CANYON
No objections
BIG COTTONWOOD CANYON
It was recommended that the Recommendation read as follows:
Recommendation: Salt Lake City should support watershed protection
measures, and the development of a sewer line the full length of Big
Cottonwood Canyon. City support for the sewer line is subject to conditions
that all feasible commercial facilities, recreational facilities, and residences
be required to tie into the line from the mouth to the top of the canyon.
If it is not possible to obtain commitment for sewer line connections
prior to intial construction of a sewer line, the city should explore all
viable means to assist a sewer line being constructed the full length of
the canyon. . . .
No objections
LITTLE COTTONWOOD CANYON
No objections
Mr. Chong moved that subject to final review of the edited plan that the
plan be approved as presented and that process for a recommendation from the
Planning Commission and approval from the Mayor and City Council be
continued. Mr. Keyser seconded the motion, with all voting "Aye".
The meeting was adjourned at 9:36 a.m.
MF
• piet)
� �
i :,s. .
LEROY W. HOOTON. JR. SI, .tralortY�" yn
DIRECTOR , ARTM -t F'MJPLIC UTI iTIES
JOSEPH S. FENTON �S I M' -RY SUP (24.tk'VWNER`^io4 R1 g PALMER DEPAULIS
r•L
SUPERINTENDENT, WATER RECLAMATION � f WAT�f`` E LAM Nt10F !' MAYOR
WENDELL E. EVENSEN, P.E. • ;9` 3O�1 _' u;?^-�,.Sr�TEMI' ''v4 .
SUPERINTENDENT 'SA...`T9AI' t!f AH 84115 •• P•�
WATER SUPPLY es WATERWORKS
l f/tb
December 17, 1988
APPROVED
The Honorable Palmer A. DePaulis JAN 1 9 1988
Mayor of Salt Lake City CITY RECORDER
324 South State Street-Fifth Floor
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Dear Mayor DePaulis:
RE: Public Utilities Advisory Committee
Attached is a copy of the minutes of the Public Utilities Advisory
Committee meeting held November 5, 1987, they received approval at
the Public Utilities Advisory Committee meeting held December 17, 1987.
I request that these minutes be approved at the mayor' s executive
meeting and filed in the city recorder's office.
Sincerely,
LER Y . OOTON, J
Director
LWH:rnf
Attach: