PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1982
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1982, AT 5:00 P.M. IN ROOM 211 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD ALICE SHEARER GRANT MABEY IONE M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER PALMER DEPAULIS.
Council Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesbeck presided at and conducted this meeting.
POLICY SESSION
Report of the Executive Director.
The policy session adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1982, AT 6:00 P.M. IN ROOM 301 CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: RONALD J. WHITEHEAD ALICE SHEARER GRANT MABEY IONE M. DAVIS SYDNEY R. FONNESBECK EDWARD W. PARKER PALMER DEPAULIS.
Mayor Ted Wilson, Albert E. Haines, Chief Administrative Officer, and Walter Miller, Deputy City Attorney, were present at the meeting.
Council Chairperson Sydney R. Fonnesbeck presided at and conducted this meeting.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes:
Councilmember Mabey moved and Councilmember Whitehead seconded to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Salt Lake City Council for the meeting held Tuesday, November 9, 1982, which motion carried, all members voting aye.
(M 82-2)
SPECIAL RECOGNITION
Craig Peterson, Director, Development Services, addressed the Council and presented a video presentation of the launching of the USS Salt Lake City, a nuclear submarine. Ben Fonnesbeck, a representative from Salt Lake City who attended the launch, addressed the Mayor and Council and stated that it was a unique experience. He presented the Mayor with a model replica of the submarine and the City Council with a commemorative glass.
DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
#1. RE: Introduction of proposed airport use fee ordinance amendment: Sections 2-2-20, 2-2-27.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council consider amendments to Sections 2-2-20, 2-2-27 of the Salt Lake City Code as presented in the attached.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Not applicable
DISCUSSION: According to the terms and conditions of the Airport Use agreement between the City and American, Delta, Frontier, PSA, Republic, Texas International, United and Western (Participating Airlines) the Airport Authority must annually adjust airline terminal rentals and landing fees at Salt Lake City International Airport. The adjustments are based upon the estimated cost of providing for the operation and maintenance of the facilities in the airfield and terminal cost centers and the allocation of the applicable portion of the investment service.
Currently, space rental is set at $35.50 per square foot per year and landing fees are $.40 per thousand pounds of certificated gross landing weight. The Airport Affairs Committee met on September 29, 1982 and approved a change in the estimate for FY 1982-83 to $35 per square foot per year for terminal space rental and $.43 per thousand pounds for landing fees. Although costs have increased in the terminal cost center because of the connector, and almost equal savings has been realized by the reduction in janitorial costs and staff also anticipates an 8% increase in the amount of total rentable space.
The estimates also include a 10% increase in operating and maintenance costs in the Airfield costs center. This in conjunction with the reallocation of investment service due to the completion of the taxiway projects, accounts for the increased landing fees. The Airport Affairs Committee recommended that the above changes be made effective January 1, 1983. Calculation and the approval of these rates and charges was approved by the Airport Authority Board on October 6, 1982.
In order to provide rentals and fees for the non-participating airlines, commuters and charters, that are consistent with those established for the Participating Airlines, the current rates established by ordinance also require adjustment. Council Chairperson Fonnesbeck referred the adoption of the proposed amendments to Sections 2-2-20 and 2-2-27 of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake City, Utah, 1965, relating to Airport Use Fees to the consent agenda for Tuesday, December 7, 1982. Referred without objection.
(O 82-61)
FIRE DEPARTMENT
#1. RE: Interlocal Cooperation Agreement with Salt Lake County Fire Department.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the attached Interlocal Agreement to allow Salt Lake City Fire Department and Salt Lake County Fire Department to provide joint services.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION: There is a need for the City and County Fire Departments to provide reciprocal fire protection and rescue services within a certain portion of the parties’ respective jurisdictions and to authorize the parties’ fire chiefs to enter into the attached memoranda of understanding, which establishes the type of response services and designation of initial action areas. Council Chairperson Fonnesbeck referred the approval of a resolution authorizing the execution of an Interlocal Agreement to allow the Salt Lake City Fire Department and the Salt Lake County Fire Department to provide joint services to the consent agenda for Tuesday, December 7, 1982. Referred without objection.
(C 82-669)
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
#1. RE: Municipal Solicitations Committee.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Not applicable
RECOMMENDATION: There is presently a vacancy on the Municipal Solicitations Committee due to the resignation of William Beadle. It is recommended that Lisa K. Buffmire be appointed to this committee. Council Chairperson Fonnesbeck referred the approval of the appointment of Ms. Buffmire to the consent agenda for Tuesday, December 7, 1982. Referred without objection.
(I 82-1)
#2. RE: Salt Lake Housing Authority.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION: On January 24, 1982, Rosemarie Rendon was officially appointed to the Housing Authority Board of Directors to complete a term of office vacated by Amy Cortese. That term will expire on October 27, 1982. The Housing Authority has informed me that Rosemarie has done an outstanding job during her tenure of just less than ten months. It is recommended, therefore, that she be reappointed to a full five year term. Council Chairperson Fonnesbeck referred for approval the appointment of Ms. Rendon to the Salt Lake Housing Authority to the consent agenda for Tuesday, December 7, 1982. Referred without objection.
(I 82-18)
PUBLIC WORKS
#1. RE: Ordinance revision to increase rates for parking meter bagging, removals and use of restricted curb space.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt ordinance revisions to increase parking meter bagging and removal rates.
DISCUSSION: Current charges for removing and bagging meters for legitimate purposes are not sufficient to recoup revenue loss and manpower costs needed to process request. The City has not previously charged for relocating restricted parking areas in metered areas which similarly results in a loss of revenue and manpower costs to perform the service. The current charges were based on a 10 cent/hour meter rate. With the new 30 cent/hour meter rate, a greater revenue loss is realized when meters are bagged or removed. Also, the manpower costs to bag, unbag, remove and reinstall parking meters have increased in recent years.
The realized revenue for FY 81/82 from meter bagging and removals was $8,365. Under the rates proposed on the following chart, which are based on revenue loss and manpower costs, it is estimated revenue would increase to approximately $16,000 for FY 82/83 should these rates take effect December 1, 1982, and $22,000 annually thereafter. Ordinance revisions to increase rates for parking meter bagging, removals and use of restricted curb space.
1. Parking Meter Bagging.
Present: Proposed:
-$5/meter/day with 7 day maximum. - $10/meter for 1st day, - $5/meter/day thereafter to 15 day maximum.
2. Parking Meter Removal.
Present: Proposed:
-$1/day/meter with $30/meter minimum charge - $30/meter minimum for up to 5 days, -$ 5/meter/day thereafter to 15th day, then $3/meter/day thereafter
-No meter post replacement required -Meter post replacements provided and installed by requestor to city specifications
-No fee for relocation of restricted parking areas - Charge at above meter removal rate for meters removed to temporarily relocate a restricted parking area (Ex. passenger and freight loading zones; taxicab, bus, coach and common carrier stands) when existing restricted parking area is reserved for exclusive use by requestor
Councilmember Fonnesbeck referred the adoption of an ordinance amending Section 157 of Article 8 of the Traffic Code of Salt Lake City, Utah relating to Parking Meter Bagging to the consent agenda for Tuesday, December 7, 1982. Referred without objection.
(O 82-62)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Salt Lake City’s 201 Plan.
RE: Adoption of Salt Lake City’s 201 Plan for the construction of treatment facilities at an estimated cost of $102.2 million (1981 dollars) to meet sewage treatment needs through the year 1995 and consider 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, increasing the minimum from $2 to $4, the unit cost for sewer service from 54 cents to $1.08 per 100 cubic feet and the sewer connection fee from $300 per residential equivalent to $1,000, effective January 1, 1983. All other fees and charges to be adjusted proportionately.
A public hearing was held before the Salt Lake City Council at 6:00 p.m. to discuss this matter. LeRoy Hooton, Director of Public Utilities, addressed the Council and gave a brief overview of the 201 study. He stated that in 1979 there were two serious odor episodes at the existing wastewater plant. The local citizens asked the Council to take action to correct these problems and provide solutions for the long-range operation of the plant. He stated that an engineering study was conducted to identify potential odor sources and to develop preliminary data for a study.
Mr. Hooton further stated that it was decided that the City needed a 201 facilities plan to adequately determine the long-range sewerage needs of the City and to provide solutions to problems with the existing plant. He stated that it was also felt that it was prudent to have a 201 facility plan in order to become eligible for EPA construction grant funds. Mr. Hooton also stated that on September 3, 1980, the City was successful in acquiring an EPA 201 facilities plan grant; the consulting firm of CH2M Hill was hired to conduct the study, and a citizen’s advisory board was formed to participate in the process. He stated that the two year study resulted in a plan that was finalized with a public hearing held June 15, 1982. Mr. Hooton stated that after the public hearing the Public Utilities Advisory Board asked the Public Utility staff to prepare a cash flow plan to finance the project. He further stated that given the current economic conditions, the downturn in growth, and other factors affecting the plan, it was decided that the plan should be flexible and could be adapted to conditions as they change rather than being locked into a long range commitment. He stated that the financial plan has been submitted to the Council as is a part of the overall recommendation.
Mr. Hooton stated that the plan is a comprehensive 20 year master plan and that the $102 million will be spent on an as needed basis with the emphasis on increasing the life of the existing plant over the next 20 years by making some improvements in terms of energy recovery, sludge disposal, refurbishing the plant and equipment, and making some improvements to the grounds and buildings to make the plant more attractive and fit better into a residential community. He further stated that a long range master plan would be provided for new facilities to be located in the northwest quadrant. He stated that it is important to have a master plan because as that area develops the City needs to properly engineer and design the collection system so that the sewage runs in the right direction without unnecessary pumping and inefficiencies in the system.
He further stated that if the second plant concept is not adopted, all new growth, pipelines, and the collection system will have to be directed toward the existing plant. Mr. Hooton stated if the second plant concept is adopted the collection system would be designed to pump the northwest quadrant to the new facility. Mr. Hooton further stated that under the flexible plan the City does not intend to build a new facility until it is needed; if growth does not occur as quickly in the northwest quadrant, the decision to build a second plant will be deferred until it is necessary.
Mr. Hooton complimented the citizen’s advisory groups on their efforts during the past two years and stated that it was through their decisions and recommendation that taxes not be used to support this program. He also stated that it was apparent that EPA funds will not be available to help in the construction of these facilities, however, if EPA funds do become available, one of the criteria for funding from EPA is to have an approved 201 plan. He further stated that a similar situation occurred in 1976 when Federal funding was approved for the Military Reservoir.
The City met the necessary requirements with regard to project plans and studies and therefore the funding was approved. Mr. Hooton stated that there are six issues relative to the existing plant basically they are 1) to upgrade the existing plant to provide 20 years of dependable service, 2) a sludge management plan, 3) the recapturing of energy, 4) fine tune the hydraulic system to increase the capacity to 56 million gallons per day, 5) improvements to the grounds and building, and 6) upgrade the plant to meet secondary polish standards by 1985, however it is being proposed that pilot studies be conducted and these requirements be met in 1990. Mr. Hooton outlined the plan that was developed with the Citizen’s Advisory Board, with review and recommendation by the Public Utilities Advisory Board. He stated that the present wastewater plant discharges into the sewage canal and into the Farmington Bay area.
He stated the plant was originally planned to handle 45 mgd; hydraulically it can be modified to handle 56 mgd, and the organic treatment capacity of the facility can treat the increased amount. He stated that the biggest problem is upgrading the electrical and mechanical aspects of the plant and fine tuning the hydraulics and other improvements already mentioned. He further stated that part of the plan required pumping the sludge off-site and eliminate the drying beds; provide on-sight storage to contain sour sludge and pump the sludge onto the International Airport property and sub-surface inject it into the land.
Mr. Hooton stated that the population projections indicate that the downtown area will continue to grow upward as well as more activity east of the International Airport and therefore, if the projected flows are realized a pumping plant and transfer line will take the flow in excess of 56 mgd to the proposed wastewater plant located in the northwest quadrant. He stated that this plant would treat the excess flows from the east side of the City plus those flows generated in the northwest quadrant. He reiterated that the proposed facility would be constructed as needed.
He further stated that the discharge from this plant will be pumped into the wetlands, which will require a wetlands study and a discharge permit and allow on-sight sludge injection around the area of the plant as well as on the International Airport. Mr. Hooton outlined the proposed scheduling of the improvements reiterating that there is no commitment to spend $102 million but phase the improvements in on an as needed basis. The proposed recommendation is to begin immediately with the design of those improvements at the existing plant to bring it up to standard with construction to be completed in 1987. He further stated that the recommendation is to begin the site investigation for the proposed new facility which would include identifying the land, conducting soil and geotechnical work, preparing a wetland study and identifying easements and right-of-ways.
He further stated that part of the recommendation was to purchase the land so that the environment could be controlled until the land is needed for construction of the new wastewater facility. Mr. Hooton stated that the recommendation also proposes that the state postpone the secondary standard requirement until 1990. He further stated that the state has indicated that if the City can show a good effort to run pilot studies and develop data to support the method to achieve the standards they will consider the postponement. If interim capacity is needed the Public Utilities are working toward using capacity within the South Salt Lake plant; if population occurs as projected the construction of the second plant is scheduled to begin in 1987 with the anticipation that the plant will be operating in 1992. Mr. Hooton outlined the potential financial sources for the local Salt Lake County sewage agencies as well as some cities in neighboring states stating that Salt Lake City’s fee averages $4.32. He further stated that with the proposed $8.64 average Salt Lake City is still within the mid range of current sewer charges within Salt Lake County.
He further stated that connection fees range from $1200 in South Salt Lake County to Salt Lake City’s current fee of $300. Mr. Hooton stated that Salt Lake City does not use taxes to support their systems. He also stated that the only two agencies within Salt Lake County that do not have EPA funding to construct facilities are Magna and Salt Lake City. He further stated that there is tax support and EPA funds to all the major cities within the survey with the exception of Nevada City, Nevada. Mr. Hooton stated that given the current cost of service necessary to fund the sewer plants and the fact that Salt Lake City is solely funding this project through sewer and connection fees, Salt Lake City is well within the range of what other entities are paying.
Mr. Hooton further stated that of 12,000 residential homes, or nearly 34% of the City’s residents are paying a $2 minimum, 22,828 residential homes or 64% are paying $3.50 or less, and 67% of the residents are paying an average of $4.42 or less. However, he stated that several thousand large users are paying within a range of $5 and over $10. He stated that the Public Utilities Advisory Board has been very careful to recommend a rate schedule that will enable those who are on a limited income, and who use less, to pay less. He further stated that under the proposal the $2 fee would be increased to $4 and the mid-point would be increased to $8. He also stated that under the sewer charge system nearly 60% of the total cost of the project will be paid by the industrial and commercial users and 40% by the residential users.
George Jorgensen addressed the Council and stated that his comments are not a result of the 201 study but actual observations at the site of the existing plant. He stated that during the first two weeks of November he visited the plant each afternoon and that each day the plant was overflowing at the discharge point which is in violation of the plants permit requirements. He stated that the hydraulic capacity in the outflow line needs to be improved in order to meet standards. He also stated that another problem at the existing plant is the possibility of overflow in the channel between the primary clarifiers and the filters; side boards have been constructed to the side of the channel to prevent overflowing.
Mr. Jorgensen also stated that the average electrical costs of the plant are $35,000 per month, however if the methane gas could be captured and used to run generators the electrical costs could be reduced by approximately 50%. He stated that the City is presently under contract to improve the sludge handling capabilities on-sight but there is no disposal solution at this point. He further stated that the mechanical equipment is in need of improvement because it has been operating for almost 20 years in a very harsh environment. He further stated that some major repairs need to be made to the electrical conduit.
Mayor Ted Wilson handed the Council a letter indicating his strong support of the 201 plan and addressed the Council stating that he feels the committee has done the City a tremendous service by bringing input from all segments of the community. He stated that it is not easy to vote for an increase as dramatic as the one proposed by the recommendation, however he stated that the implications of not voting for the increase should be considered carefully. He stated that a new book that is currently being summarized in the Deseret News entitled Megatrends lists Salt Lake City as one of the most viable cities in the country in terms of future growth.
He further stated that by failing to act now and deal with the sewer problem the City may have to issue no-growth moratoriums. Mayor Wilson stated that he felt the action taken on this issue is one of the most important acts that has faced the Council. He further stated that the Council should think in terms of the need for jobs in the community and the fact that there is a high birth rate in Utah and that we are not respondent to the population growth of this city but to Salt Lake City as a state capital, financial, and retail center. He concluded by stating that he wanted to express his strongest endorsement of the recommendations of the committee; if not the entire recommendation, he would strongly endorse the main thrust of the plan.
He further stated that he felt the proposed charge for new connections could be lower than the $1000 until the home building industry gets back on its feet; then as the economy recovers, it could be increased to a level commensurate with the recommendation. Ralph Steenblik, Chairman of the Public Utilities Advisory Committee, addressed the Council and stated that in 1979 he addressed the Salt Lake City Commission as a resident of Rose Park with regard to the odor problem from the sewer plant.
He stated that at that time he was asked to serve on the newly formed Public Utilities Advisory Committee and make recommendations to Public Utilities. He stated that the sewer and water department is an enterprise fund that must generate enough funds to maintain the equipment, keep the lines clean, process the water and sewage, and have sufficient funds to build new facilities as they are needed. Mr. Steenblik stated that the committee has tried very hard to keep the City water and sewer plants operating and charge the residents as little as possible. He stated he felt there was no other choice, at the present time, than to raise the rates in order to handle growth and maintain existing facilities. He further stated the recommendations of the 201 plan were used by the PUAB to generate a resolution which reads: “The advisory committee passed a motion recommending the following: To the Mayor and the City Council. The City adopt the 201 Facility Plan as submitted which calls for the two plant concept with a transfer pipeline sludge disposal on airport property etc. That the rates for the sewer charges be changed effective January 1, 1983 for all sewer uses from $.54 to $1.08 per hundred cubic feet of sewage. In addition to raising the rates increase the connection fee per residential equivalent from $300 to $1000 effective July 1, 1983.
Using these increases, proceed with the design for expansion for the existing facility, engineering studies necessary for the polish standards sludge disposal system, and location of a new facility. When the land is selected for the new facility that the city either buy the land on terms or bond at that time if required to purchase the land in a lump sum. Seek from the state the deferral of the 1985 polish standards until 1990 so that the city can finance the necessary improvements and conduct a pilot study to determine the best treatment process to achieve the standards.
To defer for 12 months any decision on the matter of ultimate financing so that the city can evaluate the population projection, federal funding, and other financial options. That the City adopt a flexible financing approach to the implementation of the 201 facility plan in order to provide the most effective cost for this plan. Mr. Steenblik stated that the citizens were not being asked to pay for another plant; land has not been purchased for another plant, however the existing plant must be maintained. He stated that the developers who pay the proposed $1000 connection fee will be paying their share of the costs.
Mr. Steenblik stated that if the Council does not decide to raise the fees Salt Lake City will not be able to issue building permits because the present facility will not be able to handle the increased growth. Mary Tuddenham, Chairman of the 201 Water Quality Advisory Board, addressed the Council and read a list of names of members of the Water Quality Advisory Board who were chosen by the Community Councils throughout Salt Lake City to represent the seven council districts. They are: district 1, Norman Dean, district 2, Ernest Snider, district 3, Richard Chong, Vice Chairman of the committee, district 4, June Penman, district 5, Sarah Nickel, district 6, Grace Brandt, district 7, Mary Tuddenham.
He further stated that Paul Barber represented the Mayor's Office, Ralph Steenblik represented the Public Utilities Advisory Board, Blair Walkington represented Downtown Business, Dale Mclane, represented the Home Builders Association, Marvin Steadman, represented the northwest quadrant, Robert Wright, represented industry, Dan Filip, represented the State Bureau of Water. Mr. Tuddenham stated that the committee probed every aspect of the study and after many meetings the general plan as submitted to the Council was accepted, however there were four areas of concern the board wanted to bring to the attention of the Council. 1) the board recognized the need to bring the present facility to but not beyond original design capacity. The position of the Rose Park residents must be appreciated and their resistance to any expansion beyond the original design capacity could be expected to be so strong as to delay and possibly block action. Furthermore, any plan must handle the odor question in an effective manner. 2) The board recognized the need for a phased modular construction of a second treatment plant in the northwest quadrant.
The scale of the modules to be such as to provide an optimum balance between immediate need, initial cost, and ultimate cost of expansion. 3) the board favored immediate action to establish funding insofar as reasonable expansion into new areas of the City should be paid for by developers, however increased fees to all residents and businesses were recognized as the most important sources of funds. The concept of establishing a capital fund with early income from the fee increases was endorsed; additional tax levies were not favored unless absolutely necessary. 4) the board recognized the importance of continuation of the program to reduce leakage into the sewage system, minimizing leakage into newer sewer lines and water conservation as playing important roles in buying time until items 1 and 2 can be completed.
Mr. Tuddenham further stated that it is important to note that the board reviewed two possible alternatives to construction such as the reduction or elimination of influent into system from storm sewers and the possibility of calling for the citizens to restrict their usage. The Board felt these measures would not take care of the problem. He further stated that the public should not be led to believe that implementing these measures would eliminate the necessity for timely action for items 1, 2, 3.
Mr. Tuddenham stated that the board has reviewed the question of funding sources relative to Salt Lake City’s proposed fee schedule and those of other cities and examined the difference between a pay-as-you-go basis or bonding for the funds. He stated that Salt Lake City could save $179,000,000 in interest payments by not bonding for the project. Dr. Harry Gibbons, Director of the City County Board of Health, addressed the council and stated that approximately a year ago the health department conducted a meeting attended by representatives of special districts and elected officials.
He stated that at that time everyone was encouraged to recognize the fact that action had to be taken in order to adequately improve and maintain Salt Lake City sewage treatment. He stated that he felt agencies were always waiting for federal funds to solve these problems. He further stated that there is a major problem with sludge disposal; he feels the state rules and regulations are too restrictive and efforts are being made to get them relaxed, however, that will not solve the sludge problem. He stated that the climate in Salt Lake City requires a different handling than just waiting for it to dry and there needs to be a solution to that problem. Dr. Gibbons also stated that with the overloaded conditions at the existing plant if flooding were to occur there would be serious problems with sewage backing up in the basements of the residents near the plant. He stated that Salt Lake City has initiated some efforts to solve the problem by billing for the amount of water used in the winter. He stated that he appreciated efforts made by Public Utilities to educate the public in efforts to conserve. He concluded by stating that he strongly endorsed the plan and feels that if it is not implemented Salt Lake City would be faced with the possibility of stopping all building until the necessary plants were constructed.
Dan Filip, State Bureau of Water Pollution Control, addressed the Council and stated that the Bureau has carefully reviewed the program and offered constructive guidance regarding the facility planning effort. He stated that the staff believes the plan represents a responsible and responsive effort to solve the short and long term wastewater treatment needs of Salt Lake City. He further stated that he feels that good engineering judgment and the best available technology was used in the evaluation of alternatives.
Mr. Filip stated that if the facility plan is approved, the final response of the summary will be prepared indicating all the public participation efforts included in the facility plan and evaluate the effectiveness of the process. He stated that it will also indicate what measures taken throughout the facility planning process that were responsive to the public. He further stated that an environmental assessment report would be prepared and a findings of no significant impact, to be used for continuing design and construction projects, will be signed by the EPA regional administrator.
He stated that this document shows that the city is in technical compliance with all federal guidelines and would enable the City to be eligible for federal funding should some monies become available. Mr. Filip stated that although the administrative role of EPA in similar facility planning efforts has been largely delegated to the state, the EPA administration in Denver, Colorado has complimented the City on numerous occasions. He stated that EPA considers the 201 facility plan as an example, for the entire six state region, of an exemplary public participation program. He further stated that the citizen advisory committee was formed by Mayor Wilson and includes representation from four separate groups as outlined in EPA regulations.
These four groups are: 1) public interest groups, 2) public officials, 3) individuals with a special economic interest in the project, and 4) private individuals. Mr. Filip stated that he felt both committees did an admirable job in an effort to guide the study and to solicit and be responsive to the general public. Terry Holzworth, Salt Lake County Water Quality Management Program, addressed the Council and stated that they have found the plan to be in compliance with the Salt Lake County Water Quality Management Plan and that the 201 study was the basis to an amendment to their plan. He stated that the Council has been presented with some incremental decisions that can be made that will show hard results in the near future. The Water Quality Council supports the request for a time extension on the secondary treatment requirement. He further stated that they also support the options involved in the South Salt Lake Plant and joined with the City in a request to have the state evaluate the permit to allow that flexibility. Mr. Holzworth urged the Council to adopt the plan because the existing plant improvements have to be made to prevent overflow problems, the cost of the project will not be reduced and the City will inevitably have to purchase land for a new facility.
Don Lyman, addressed the Council and stated that he owns a self service coin operated car wash at 9th West and North Temple. He stated that if the proposed increase in the sewer tax is adopted it will double his monthly sewer bill to approximately $1000 which is about five times as much as his present property tax. He further stated that he felt some special consideration should be given to users similar to himself. Councilmember Davis asked Mr. Hooton if it were possible to connect car washes to the storm sewer system so that the discharge would not have to be treated, to which Mr. Hooton replied that detergents could not be discharged into the Jordan River.
Councilmember Whitehead asked if a filtering system could be attached to the car wash to filter the discharge before it entered the sewer system, to which Mr. Lyman stated that a system has not been developed that will work efficiently in a car wash because the water is not filtered sufficiently, it can damage the car wash equipment and it cannot be used for rinsing purposes. Councilmember Whitehead stated that the Council could not make exceptions for one special interest group. Mr. Lyman stated that he felt the ordinance should reflect an exception for users of his nature because the car wash operations within the City will be competing with the county.
Councilmember Fonnesbeck stated that the Council would consider any viable solution Mr. Lyman could offer. Councilmember Davis asked Mr. Hooton if any other information has been reviewed by the committee with regard to car wash operations specifically, to which Mr. Hooton stated the committee did not make a recommendation. Bonnie Dean, Vice Chairman of the SLAC Board and representative of the Greater Rose Park Community Council, addressed the Council and read the following policy statement prepared by the SLAC Board. “During the planning process for increased sewage facilities for Salt Lake City the Salt Lake Association of Community Councils has been involved and has tried to keep abreast as decisions have been made.
Several former members of our board have accepted assignments on the Public Utilities Advisory Board and the Citizen Advisory Board. We recognize the need for improvements to the existing treatment facilities and for expanded capacity if the city is to continue to grow. We recognize the responsibilities of the individual citizens, both as taxpayers and as users of these treatment facilities. We realize that there is an implied commitment as we continue to use the waste disposal system. At our SLAC Board meeting held on November 10, 1982, the need for a statement was discussed, there was a concern expressed for the impact upon the low income elderly citizens. The board approved a statement of support for the decision to build the needed sewage treatment facilities as presented to us by Mr. Steenblik and Richard Chong, and in previous meetings by members of city staff associated with this planning process.
We also support the need for rate increases and approve the pay-as-you-go plan for meeting these very heavy costs with the recommendation that there be a specific process included in these rate increases to alleviate undue hardship upon low income elderly persons. We recognize that rate increases are not easy decisions, but we are willing to assume our fair share of the costs involved.” She further stated that they highly recommended that this decision not be tabled at this time and urged the Council to approve the adoption of the plan so that the construction and financing can begin.
Bob Donkin addressed the Council and Mayor and asked the Mayor what recommendation he would make with regard to lowering the proposed connection fee from $1000, to which Mayor Wilson stated that he could not recommend a specific figure, however he would recommend that the Council look at the $1000 fee as having little practical immediate effect, because there are not many residences being guilt. He further stated that rather than impeding those developments in the near future a lower fee could be adopted now.
Mr. Donkin stated he felt the increases should be kept to a point where it would not be a burden on the citizens and still enable the city to make the corrections that need to be made. Peter Maier addressed the Council stating that in 1972 Congress authorized funding for the Clean Water Act, however there were no special guidelines on how to proceed with planning. In 1978 EPA established some guidelines which were amended in 1981. Mr. Maier stated that he was aware that the City was not applying for federal funding for this project, however his comments were based on the EPA regulations for planning for treatment plants. He stated that you either prove to the EPA how much wastewater you will have or they will require that state projections of population be used.
Mr. Naier stated that considering a total population of 337,535 and according to EPA rules in 1980, plant capacity should be 34 mgd and by the year 2000 plant capacity should be 48 mgd. He stated that with the two plant concept in the year 2000 the east side plant would require a capacity of 38 mgd and the west side plant would require nine mgd. He further stated that according to the 201 plan the projections are 56 mgd capacity for the east side plant and 32 mgd capacity for the west side; a wide contrast to what would be entitled until 1984, after 1984 you would be entitled to existing needs. He stated that the existing flow is 48.4 mgd of which the bod concentration is 126 milligrams per liter. He stated that is calculated to approximately 145 gallons per day flow per capita, which is considerably higher than the 100 gallons that is used nationwide. Mr. Maier stated that if the present flow of 40 mgd were calculated it would result in 120 gallons per day, which is over what you would normally expect. Mr. Maier stated that in reviewing the data the 126 milligrams per liter indicates a tremendous infiltration of ground water into the system because normal strength is 200 milligrams per liter. He further stated that during the recent rain storms 150 mgd entered the system and it is normal to have 20% ground water entering the sanitary sewer and 20% of sewer entering the storm drains. He strongly suggested that the Council take some time to get a third recommendation on this issue.
Mr. Maier stated that if the Council were concerned about the health of the citizens in the valley they should take steps to stop the chlorination of the treatment plant affluent immediately. He stated that the chlorination of the affluent is impractical, expensive and creates a hazard to the environment. He further stated that 25 states have already dropped the requirement to chlorinate. Councilmember DePaulis asked Mr. Maier if he felt the plant capacity should only be 34 mgd if the connection pipes were sealed to eliminate ground water from infiltrating the system, to which Mr. Naier stated that if the system were normal and would accept 20 gallons per capita per day as influent and infiltration would be normal.
Councilmember DePaulis asked if the system were normal should it have a capacity of 34 mgd, to which Mr. Maier stated that his calculations are based on the rules established for eligibility for grants. Councilmember DePaulis asked what the figure 34 mgd represented, to which Mr. Maier stated that it represented 100 gallons per capita per day sewage that is allowed for the preparation of a study by EPA. Councilmember DePaulis stated that he did not agree with some of Mr. Maier’s perspective and felt that current rules and regulations cannot be circumvented; however, he stated that perhaps those rules and regulations need to be changed in the future.
Mr. Maier stated that it is possible that we are replacing a good operating plant with a bad operating plant because of regulations. Mayor Wilson stated that the city is under federal laws that must be adhered to. Mr. Maier stated that he feels some more discussion needs to take place with regard to changing the regulations before action is taken on this issue. Nanette Benowitz, President of the League of Womens Voters, addressed the Council and stated that the league has just completed a study of the cost effects of sewage treatment plants in Salt Lake County.
She further stated that although the league has not drawn any specific conclusions to the study, the League of Women’s Voters has a long history of support for adequate wastewater treatment facilities to protect public health. She stated that the organization strongly supports citizen participation in water quality planning and are enthusiastic about the utilization of the 201 Citizen Advisory Committee in the development of the proposal. She stated that they have thoroughly examined the needs and options to propose a sound plan which provides flexibility for future needs. She stated that the support of the Public Utilities Advisory Board and the SLAC boards indicate that citizens are willing to pay for clean water and urged the Council to support the proposal. Pauline Christiansen addressed the Council and stated that she lives in the Rose Park area and urged the Council to adopt the proposal so that the residents of Rose Park do not have to worry about sewer backing up into their basements in the event the sewer plant will not have the capacity to adequately handle the sewage.
She further stated that she felt it would not work any hardships on the medium income groups, however she felt that low income and elderly people could not afford to pay the increase and asked the Council to look into the possibility of adjusting the fees so that everyone does not have to pay the same fee. Richard Chong addressed the Council and stated that the effect this increase will have on low income people or those who are out of work makes this a difficult decision. He stated that in this case most of the elderly and those on fixed incomes are at the minimum charge which represents an annual increase of $24 per year. He further stated that there are areas in which work should be done to lower the cost to the elderly.
Albert Fritz addressed the Council stating that he was in favor of the project, however he has been a low income earner and feels that the Council should give some consideration of the poor people. Mayor Wilson stated that the Public Utilities Advisory Board has discussed the matter in depth and decided that if would be impossible to make exceptions for just one special interest group, however he asked Mr. Hooton to monitor the input from the public after the first billing to determine the impact. Mr. Fritz stated that they were not asking for special favors and were willing to pay their share but there should be some way that people on fixed incomes will not be forced out of their homes because of high taxation and rates.
Councilmember Mabey stated that there has been nearly a 100% increase in people needing help some areas of his district; they are out of jobs, or don’t have money to pay their rent and acknowledged that there are many people who are in these situations. Councilmember Whitehead stated that he feels for those who conserve $4 per month is not too much for people to pay their share. He stated that this problem has been before the Council for two or three years and feels that the plan has had sufficient input from citizen groups and the general public and a decision should not be put off.
Councilmember Parker moved and Councilmember Mabey seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voting aye, except Councilmember Fonnesbeck who was absent from the vote.
Councilmember Shearer asked Mr. Hooton if the city has already bonded $5,000,000 to improve the plant in Rose Park, what was purchased and when will these improvements be completed, to which Mr. Hooton stated that the most serious problem that they had to deal with was the drying beds. The first improvements were to add settlers to thicken the sludge and eliminate the amount of water going into the digesters because the Public Utilities were having problems in meeting suspended solids standards. He further stated that the digesters needed to be taken down and repaired and also construction is scheduled to be completed in April 1984 on an outfall line. Mr. Hooton stated that substantial work has been accomplished on the electrical system, however they have set priorities on improvements that pose the greatest danger.
He stated that these improvements have not refurbished the entire plant and would not provide another 20 years of good service. Councilmember Parker stated that he wanted to express his appreciation to Mr. Hooton and his staff and individuals such as Mr. Maier for providing information. He stated that the Council Members are not experts in the field of hydraulic engineering and asked Mr. Hooton for his reaction to Mr. Maier’s comments, to which Mr. Hooton replied that many treatment plants were being penalized with existing testing procedure, but applying that to the city and the secondary standards that are required does not relate to the city’s problem.
He stated that changing the testing procedure will not change the electrical system and the proposal is not to abandon the existing plant to build another one but to make improvements to bring it to full capacity. He further stated that problems have existed for years with regard to leakage of connection lines and Redwood Road may cost $1,000,000 to seal the system well enough to keep half a million gallons of water from infiltrating. However, you get to a point where it will cost more to dig up yards to repair the pipes. He stated that there is a program to seal the system and that 60% of the system has been checked. Mr. Hooton further stated that this issue was thoroughly probed by the committee.
Councilmember Shearer asked if the treatment plant receives a gallon and a half of water for every gallon that is billed because of infiltration of the system by ground water, to which Mr. Hooton replied that once the usage is measured and travels the approximate 800 miles of sewer collection system there are leaking joints, bad pipes and infiltration that adds water to the sewage flow that amounts to 37%.
Councilmember DePaulis asked Mr. Hooton if the Council was being asked to spend too much and too early for something that may change, to which Mr. Hooton replied that what is being proposed is to provide 20 more years of service by upgrading the present system. He stated that the issues regarding standards have been requested to be postponed until 1990 and the Public Utilities Advisory Board recommended a detailed pre-design phase to find the correct treatment process for the new plant. He further stated that many of the issues being discussed are not relavent to the existing plant and problems. Councilmember Davis asked how much of the project could be accomplished if the increase were only 50% with a promise from the Council that the plan will be reviewed again next year, to which Councilmember Mabey replied that he asked Mr. Hooton to propose a high enough increase to handle the problem rather than keep coming back to the Council with a request for an increase. Councilmember Davis stated that she felt the economy would improve next year and better enable the citizens to handle the increases in fees. Mayor Wilson stated that if the economy improves next year the city will need an improved sewer system because more industry will come into the city and more homes will be built.
Councilmember Davis stated that she was concerned about adopting the rate increases and then possibly facing the decision of raising property taxes during the next budget year. Mayor Wilson stated that an increase in property tax is an assumption and that the proposed plan does not call for an increase in taxes for the express purpose of placing the burden on users, although it has a collateral effect on taxpayers.
Willard DeVault, Process Control Manager, addressed the Council and stated that until recently the plant was held together with bailing wire. Parts were stolen from the Fire and Streets Departments to keep the plant operating. He stated that he felt it was frustrating working with antiquated equipment that you can’t depend on from day to day. He further stated that he has seen the plant go downhill because monies were not appropriated to make improvements. He stated that since the plant has been under the direction of Mr. Hooton a lot has been accomplished; however there are still many improvements that need to be made.
He stated that he would not want Salt Lake City to have to halt all building because the existing plant cannot handle further growth. Mr. DeVault concluded by stating that the employees of the treatment plant need the help of the Council to keep the plant running under the conditions that it was intended to run. Councilmember Shearer asked what was the money used for that was raised from prior rate increases, to which Mr. Hooton replied that prior to 1979 the City Commission put the sewer utility as a utility fund. Councilmember Shearer stated that before the fund was created there was uniform $2.50 sewer charge.
Maurice Johnson, Wastewater Collection System Superintendent, stated that the general fund had a sewer fee that was collected through taxation. He stated that through the collection system, the treatment plant, the pump station and wages the total budget was $400,000. He stated that the budget was not sufficient to operate and maintain the plant and pay wages. When the treatment plant became a utility fund they were able to increase the rate.
Councilmember Shearer stated that the $2.50 rate was not based on useage, however, when the rate was imposed it was supposed to be the method of how the plant was to be maintained. Councilmember Shearer asked how the Council would know that the increases will be spent for the improvements that have been proposed, to which Mr. Hooton replied that the Public Utility budget is submitted to the Council annually. Councilmember Shearer stated that the Council does not have a capital improvement project budget before them to adopt along with the rate increase. She further stated that if any of the funds are to be spent this year the budget should be amended. Mayor Wilson stated that the appropriate amendments will be submitted to the Council.
Councilmember Davis moved and Councilmember Shearer seconded that this item be placed on the Council agenda for adoption on December 7, 1982, which motion carried, Council Members Mabey, DePaulis, Shearer, and Davis voting aye, Council Members Parker and Whitehead voting nay. Councilmember Fonnesbeck was absent when the vote was taken.
(C 82-56)
The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.