Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/22/2016 - Meeting Materials PUAC August 25, 2016 SEWER STORMWATER STREET LIGHTING Base+ Enhanced August 30, 2016 SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC UTILITIES FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE AGENQA/ r2noin; x Financial Dash Board x Quick Review of August Financials x Items of Interest x Water usage -High as the temperature, yet x On the Horizon surprisingly few complaints. Still to seethe effects 1) Items for the PUAC upcoming of the August water usage. 1� RFP to go out soon for 7 studies -All 4 utility rates and impact fee studies for all but Lighting. 2) PUAC involvement/ direction for rate study and impact fees. s) Special citizen or customer representation panel to analyze rate methodologies presented. 4) Bond issuance of $70 million about the V quarter of this fiscal year. May include $2.5 million for Street Lighting Enhanced 5) Budget Process begins in earnest January 2017. PUAC Budget Subcommittee: Sewer rate hike of 30% increase is very possible for size of bond issue. Continued water increase of 4% likely, depending on water purchases and capital needs. 2) Prison Relocation—Funding and repayment issues with the State. Public Utilities will be responsible for the cost of the extra yet unneeded capacity... Total Price tag $60-$80 million but may cost us 15% more for the capacity difference (approx. $13 million). CCF= 748 gallons 1 BILLING UNIT Acre Foot of water = 325,900 gallons Financial Dash Board 435 CCF 1 Acre Foot CCF =100 cubic Feet August 31, 2016 ❑ Water Sales Charges August Water about $2 million higher. This really represents July water sales and only half month increase as rates were delayed. ❑ One of the hottest summers on record ❑ New July rates were not effective until July11 , 2016..Credited back to customers estimated at approximately $150,000. ❑ New 3 tier enhanced lighting charges 1 . Tier 1 $22,194 2. Tier 2 $16,900 3. Tier 3 $69,990 ❑ Water use was higher than both 2015 August and the 3 year average for August- over 1400 acre feet. ❑ August sales and operations expense- Will show on the next slide ❑ Bond Debt Service ratio.....required 1.25 times ■ Ratio of net revenues divided by the debt service costs ■ Current ratio for June was 4.62 which is a very strong ratio and keeps bond ratings high ■ Ratio for August would be unusually high because of the cyclical nature of water sales or 13.90 ratio. HIGHLIGHTS Water Sewer Storm Street Lighting Totals Net revenues $22,118,758 $4,069,863 $1,303,197 $346,297 $27,838,115 Net income Excluding Deprec. $13,935,800 $1,404,619 $656,842 $136,739 $16,134,000 Franchise Fee (City payment) (collected) 6%on all charges $ 384,098 Capital Assets/debt service $3,413,193 $1,722,703 $382,059 $136,739 $5,654,694 Cash and short-term investments $41,340,732 $23,537,046 $6,347,401 $2,743,580 $73,968,759 Cash Change from June 2015 $275,623 ($3,279,684) ($183,320) $386,043 ($2,801,338) Delinquent Receivables>90 days$102 million $43,960 0.37% Water Delivered 2016 10,074 Million Gallons(MG) 2015 8,681 Million Gallons(MG) plus 1,393 mg AUGUST 2016 PUBLIC UTILITIES OPERATIONS SUMMARY BUDGET 17% FUNDS SALARIES OPERATIONS TOTAL %SPENT Below/-Exceeding 48-Street Lighting 7.5% 9.8% 9.6% $ 216,278 51 -Water 18.2% 7.0% 10.9% $ 3,574,873 52 - Sewer 16.5% 17.3% 16.8% $ 32,196 53 -Storm 16.0% 8.0% 11.8% $ 285,474 Daily Water Use Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities Service Area E Use 2016 Average 2013 to 2015 Use 2000 210.00 200.00 Use since January 2016 higher 190.00 than last year by 6,169 acre feet. 180.00 2.13 billion gallons. Higher than 170.00 3 year average by 3,143 acre feet or 1.024 billion gallons 160.00 through Mid-September 150.00 140.00 I 130.00 120.00 110.00 100.00 I 90.00 80.00 70.00 60.00 AA 50.00 40.00 30.00 1 20.00 10.00 0.00 Jan Feb March April May June July August Sept Oct Nov Dec District Overview Presentation Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy Last update : September 16 , 2016 Summary of Presentation y Background on Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy Agency Relationships Existing Infrastructure Agreements Licensing Program Terminal Reservoir Replacement Project z Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy � Established in August 1935 � Member Cities . Salt Lake City - Founding Member . Sandy City - Joined in 1990 � Board Members Appointed by City Councils . 5 Members - Salt Lake City . 2 Members - Sandy City . Four Year Terms 3 Customers of MWDSLS Salt Lake City Sandy City Surplus customers (water districts , irrigators , others) 4 MWDSLS Water Supply Irormal Year Volume (Acre Feet) Provo River Project �' 611700 (Deer Creek Reservoir) Little Cottonwood Creek 411 20,000 (from SLC & Sandy) Central Utah Project it 20,000 (Jordanelle Reservoir) Central Utah Project I 5600 (available 2021) (Strawberry Reservoir) Ontario Drain Tunnel it 2700 ■ (Sandy City prefe�tial right) Total ■ db, 110,000 2t 5 Agency Relationships � Provo River Project . Provo River Water Users Association (Deer Creek Division) . MWDSLS (Aqueduct Division) . Shareholders of PRWUA: MWDSLS (61 .7%); Provo Reservoir Water Users Company (16%); 17 others � Central Utah Project . Central Utah Water Conservancy District 6 Existing Infrastructure � Provo River Project . Deer Creek Division : Tranbasin Diversions: Duchesne River, Weber River Deer Creek Dam Provo River Aqueduct . Aqueduct Division: Salt Lake Aqueduct � Central Utah Project . Jordanelle Reservoir . Jordan Aqueduct . Jordan Valley Water Treatment Plant . Utah Lake System (Strawberry Reservoir) Other . Little Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant (MWDSLS) . 15000 South Pipeline . Little Dell Reservoir Rw�Ef FINQ*biY1kl1 � H \\ A A' � ,SSA: r r "Y_Z.r"•'': I� n � INI3r �MN \1 s Iti✓iYM .T:. MAOTIB IE RN CE AREA .er rrrr � Fadities 0 DEER CREEK DAM ^`� _ • 1�-r. w - O WAODCt ofwmwc N '1 7�oLimmoTUIBIEL Baftom Q EONTOF THE MOUITAN �.,.r.,W,.,,,, ~•.�•�- AOUDUCrUNFREATM'ARlfiINUAE i•di..Wr Q J01DMN MARMOM MVUE t @@HOH Q JCRDAN HAAAOWB TUTlME A ETtlnND RANT ft—s—Aoww 1�ANRBEDAAREA TUIME RN&—A.+ t Q MIARAYFOMERKANTINUE t❑LfTLE COTTOMMDOD I BELL CANYON CAE EX MTAAE Q LffiE COTTOMYDOD TMT81 TREATW s f RANT _ Q 14 No■ESERVOM1 p TTjIMNAi RE29WOM Q7 AONTOF THE 10"TAN WATER TREATMENT PLANT SYSTEM FAC I L IT I E� ©OL MfEO MERTAON u.RA.t -50 JCROMI VALLEY WATER TREATIEANTA.MNT Metropolitan Water Ihstric[ �y RMMO TEMINALREKftON of Salt Lake&Sandy l �r, r . �� %` - �, � � �, - ,� '� _ ''� _ •ram 7 7NWL�s".w'�• ' -�. // t \. .■ 1 ��� t r�a�t ` 1 'it � y��r/f 1 _ Agreements y Resolution 1633—Sandy City annexation into District—February 1990 y Member Cities Interlocal Agreement . May 2001 . Pay for what you get 10 Licensing Program Salt Lake Aqueduct . Title transfer from federal govern ment—October 2006 Point of the Mountain Aqueduct . Completed April 2007 Ongoing program to manage right-of-way corridors 11 Terminal Reservoir Replacement Project 3300 South 1 -215 End (terminus ) of Salt Lake Aqueduct Original 40 million gallon storage facility completed in 1951 Outdated seismic design standards New facility will include 49 MG of storage Construction began in December 2011 Completion anticipated July 2017 ;> $42 million project 12 :A_ ..,, >�� a �d• ^�',''1 - _ ��"_"'n+�... f T• ijf"pw - ,�•� 'YEA l .�,� � 'err - w�a ! ¢�� •�-� -'Cs �' '�I s ��p i a - i4's SA IN if 17, fig; �`, ues totis, . Thank You - - S a - .r�` tom. �• - t 4 JIG jt loft 14 17 •�r 41 ri r e ! The Riparian Area Grass, brush , conifers _ Cottonwoods, maple-, ash, elm, poplars Willows, dogwood , alder, cranberry, gooseberry Sedges, grasses, rushes I r wale. table Riparian strew m Area r . s Covered by ta Riparian I s A r 1 q� fig•u as+i�y<o �6. c �y H • : M n O r _ Ir 1zcc:6� �'i \ F 0 �Co:ry'x_cG a r�mco». �v as•: • � ���?1`dlt. - �� pC y V1.�i�� 1��„IyE__I j� � Y �V ." `' •,., .�''-.it _ va •„ti, ",—. •� �L� 'P 1 •.. ,�..,�� - �� ;fir` Purpose : to Minimize Erosion and t Stabilize Stream Banks r r ti 1 % I r r , pip � 1 a 1 _ f r ,� - L •r� •,ti �r f r , 1 J i y L + '1 ~ r r y v IL IF ;� - f •� r 1 r i ' - 1• - f■� i 1J F06- F Y 1 1 - 7 61111 , r L r 1' J f 1 L r• . • :iii i _ �r NI r • • Ah • • • Ah iT .• � :., • .� ��� ,, '1f.•+ � .' ,'''$+sue,- ti � r� •4rn" +��r _ .. r. Purpose : o Moderate Stream Temperature 1p AL I AI -xv F ' AM Purpose : to Reducepotential for flood damage ..........■■■■■■ss ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ monsoons 0 men ��< .� „� - ■■■■■■■■■■■soon■■■ � ,� �r � '- � noon■■■/�■��■ `E r= Off— � .. 'tom + +�- :� � �-. - - ••-_ L �y;.:� ,f - { -_��'� - .ate_ _ _"►_'�_'�i ';lr •I /.- Riparian Rule Set- backs HWL _'� is Riparian Rule Set- backs 1 -foot Riparian Corridor HWL Area A "No Disturb" Riparian Rule Set- backs 1 -foot Riparian Corridor .,r AHWL 25' so, Limited Structures Riparian Rule Set- backs 1 -foot Riparian Corridor I- WL ykLJN I } .��. �c Area a r Area h = .,Area A : . 5' so' 100, Buffer Transition Area, Structures Allowed on Developed Parcels Discussion ? � •�I � .. .ti Mom_ a ' Jk AV ! , ' •+� ;.� •r'ti,� ` �`�t.��;�f� ; •yam r�]�s-i. i +' s a 1 SALT LAKE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES Salt Lake City Water Reclamation Facility: Nutrient Project Pre-design Disinfection and Solids Proc ssing Alternatives Selection ._ - y `r l .1 n ` 1 rrf. M J I Public UtilityAdvisory Committee Meeting September 22, 2016 CWATERWORKS ARICADIS E N G I N E E R S Project Vision and Objectives • Meet Regulatory Requirements • Protect the Safety of Operators and the Public • Maximize Resource Recovery and Efficiency • Minimize Environmental Impacts • Engage Stakeholders • Integrate into the City's Vision for Open Space and Public Interaction • Focused Attention on : • Operability • Constructability • Flexibility to meet future requirements Disinfection Alternatives Disinfection is the destruction or inactivation of pathogens to prevent infection in downstream populations - - r .� ram= - —_ /. � _�� !_n • Chlorine Gas Ultraviolet (UV) Irradiation I rin C o e Gas • The existing disinfection system utilizes chlorine ps and - - OF- chlorine contact basins rc- - • Chlorine kills pathogens by - breaking the chemical bonds in their molecular structure r -= • Continued use of chlorine requires replacement of the existingbuilding and contact g {r ., basins to meet the current q; seismic code and regulatory requirements Concerns for operator and public safety, and the limited capacity of the current system led to the investigation of other disinfection alternatives Ultraviolet Irradato i i n • Commonly used in wastewater treatment plants for disinfection 1P • UV damages the DNA in pathogens, making them incapable of - _ reproducing • The new UV disinfection system will include new UV equipment located in a new building • The system will require chemical` J a storage and feed facilities for liquid sodium hypochlorite (concentrated - bleach) for ancillary uses ComparisonofTechnologies Chlorine Gas rAdvantages Disadvantages Relatively simple system • Safety — chlorine gas is dangerous and has • Relatively inexpensive a relatively large impact zone for accidental • Provides a residual for ancillary uses releases • Not as heavily dependent on electrical • Potential for disinfection byproducts supply • Requires Process Safety Management (OSHA) and Risk Management (USEPA) plans • Potential for de-chlorination requirements in the future for discharge UV Irradiation Advantages Disadvantages • Relatively low safety concerns • Significant electrical requirement • Relatively simple operation • Dose is heavily dependent on secondary • Limited dependence on outside suppliers effluent clarity (transmissivity) • Produces no known disinfection byproducts • Requires addition of sodium hypochlorite (concentrated bleach) to maintain residual for ancillary uses • Maintenance can be operator intensive for short periods Summary of Selection Considerations Consideration.; Operational Requirements 7 Simple r Simple Maintenance Requirements Simple Moderate Corrosivity High NA Public Safety Concerns Moderate Low Operator Safety Concerns High Low By-Products Some carcinogens None known Residual Toxicity May Require Dechlorination None Disinfectant Residual Yes No Contact Time Relatively Long (requires Short (requires small basins) large basins) Comparative Cost Analysis Technology Capital Cost Annual O&M Annualized Cost Chlorine $11.2M $0.29M $0.70M UV $18.1M $0.32M $1.0M *Consultant/Tech Committee/Staff Recommendation: UV Disinfection SolidsEnd - ProductAlternatives The stabilization of solids is required prior to land application tit or disposal . F L� - ' This may be accomplished in a F.r W r ' V number of ways, including r = r� composting and thermal drying. rtd ti } Compost 4 S i Ya Thermal Drying Composting _ Natural, biological decomposition of organic material in the ,L presence of air to form a r stabilized, humus like material Y ag itated itated system with - g� ` forced aeration � - Assumed the City Parks y� "' •' '�� ,. department would provide amendment product (green waste) at no cost • Class A biosolids produced Thermal Drying • Heat used to evaporate _1 7 • _� water and produce dry solids (90-95% dry rod u ct p ) �. • Will Produces Class A ,1. �� •d biosolids product lop_ • Utilize heat from � I cogeneration to reduce . _ p P 'boa energy use v llPEll.l[!R • Reliable Process - NON�RUIUu1NG N(1 Nun TO WATER IN �T `r G.I.wuuN • Example : Milorganite JL n by Milwaukee Sewer y full . (sold at Lowes) .. Deco •, , http://www.milorganite.com 10 Comparison End- Issues Advantages Product Compost • Commercial product — requires • Public generally familiar with a market, retail considerations, end-product and additional staffing • Green-technology • High Potential for Odors • Suitable for Land application • Large footprint requirements • Requires sufficient amendment products • Impacted by seasonal weather variations Thermally • Requires energy for heating • Low Odors Dried • Public less familiar with the • Suitable for land application Biosolids end-product • Reliable technology (not typically subject to upsets or greatly impacted by seasonal changes) Cost Comparison ■Annualized Scenario Cost[$] ■GHG Reduction[MT eCO2] $6,000,000 20,000 CD Notuiral Gas ($ / m tu) CD 0 $5,000,000 o c M 0 � • 00 0 � 0 n 0 ` �} -4 LA0 ICU $4,000,000 N en en W i/� 7 o $3,000,000 10,000 M e+n fV 41 m C °J $2,000,000 to v E 'a E N N_ _ .W $1,000,000 C 7 O v $0 0 3 47 04 Copp 6P��O 6'Ile O = BAP ore �yPr 2Pr C7 �o Scenario % c� *Consultant/Tech Committee/Staff Recommendation: Thermal Dried Fertilizer Product (non-retail; available for ag, parks, open space use and possible wholesale)