Loading...
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: