City Council

River Heights City COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, March 2,2021 Notice is hereby given that the River Heights City Council will hold its regular council meeting beginning at 6:30 p.m., anchored from the River Heights City Office Building at 520 S 500 E. The meeting will be held through Zoom. Those wishing to provide comment on any ofthe agenda items or other topics can do so by email to office@riverheights.org(by noon on the date of the meeting). Opening Remarks(Huntly)and Pledge of Allegiance (Wright) Adoption of Previous Minutes and Agenda Reports and Approval of Payments(Mayor, Council, Staff) Public Comment Discuss and Approve the Municipal Wastewater Planning Program Annual Report Discuss and Accept or Deny Zollinger Annexation Petition Logan River Preservation Presentation by Frank Howe General Plan Workshop with Planning Commission Adjourn To join the Zoom meeting: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84937054629 Dial: 1 346 248 7799, Meeting ID: 849 3705 4629 Posted this 25* day of February 2021 4 Attachments for this meeting and previous meeting minutes can be found on the State's Public Notice Website (pmn.utah.gov). In compliance with the American Disabilities Act. individuals needing special accommodations (including auxiliary communicative aids and services) during this meeting should notify Sheila Lind.(435)770-2061 at least 24 hours before the meeting. 520 South 500 East River Heights, Utah 84321 Phone & Fax (435) 752-2646  River Heights City 1 2 3 Council Meeting 4 March 2, 2021 5 6 7 Present: Mayor Todd Rasmussen 8 Council members: Doug Clausen, electronic 9 Sharlie Gallup 10 Nancy Huntiy 11 Chris Milbank, electronic 12 Biake Wright 13 14 Recorder Sheila Lind 15 Finance Director Cliff Grover, electronic 16 Treasurer Wendy Wilker, electronic 17 Planning Commissioners: Heather Lehnig, Noel Cooley, Lev! Roberts, Cindy Schaub 18 19 Excused: Public Works Director Clayten Nelson 20 21 Others Present: Dallas Torgersen, Ron Zolllnger, Mary Barrus 22 23 Electronically Present: Frank Howe, Daina Zolllnger, Adrlenne Torgersen, Janet 24 Matthews, Morgan and Anna Lisa Davidson, Michael 25 Jablonski, Boyd Humphreys, Jason ? and Crystal 26 Zimmerman 27 28 29 The following motions were made during the meeting: 30 31 Motion #1 32 Counciimember Huntiy moved to "adopt the minutes of the council meeting of February 16, 33 2021 and the evening's agenda." Counciimember Gallup seconded the motion, which passed with 34 Clausen, Gallup, Huntiy, Milbank, and Wright in favor. No one opposed. 35 36 Motion #2 37 Counciimember Wright moved to "pay the bills as listed." Counciimember Huntiy seconded the 38 motion, which passed with Clausen, Gallup, Huntiy, Milbank, and Wright in favor. No one opposed. 39 40 Motion #3 41 Counciimember Clausen moved to "approve the Municipal Wastewater Planning Program Annual 42 Report for 2020." Counciimember Gallup seconded the motion, which carried with Clausen, Gallup, 43 Huntiy, Milbank and Wright in favor. No one opposed. 44 45 46 Pi..L,. ML,iyl.U rilyr .1 ± 520 South 500 East River Heights, Utah 84321 Phone & Fax (435)752-2646 47 Proceedings of the Meeting: 48 ' 49 The River Heights City Council met at 6:30 p.m. In the Ervin R. Crosbie Council Chambers in the 50 River Heights City Building on Tuesday, March 2, 2021 for their regular council nieeting. 51 Opening Remarks and Pledge of Allegiance: Mayor Rasmussen dispensed with remarks and the 52 Pledge. ' 53 Adoption of Previous Minutes and Agenda: Minutes for the February 16, 2021 meeting were 54 reviewed. 55 Councilmember Huntly moved to "adopt the minutes of the council meeting of February 16, 56 2021 and the evening's agenda." Councilmember Gallup seconded the motion, which passed with 57 Clausen, Gallup, Huntly, Milbank, and Wright in favor. No one opposed. 58 Reports and Approval of Pavments(Mavor. Council. Staff); 59 FD Grover 60 • He discussed and answered questions regarding the Financial Summary. He explained that the 61 software glitch has been corrected so now the sewer fund numbers are correct and in line. 62 Treasurer Wllker 63 • She presented and answered questions regarding the list of bills to be paid. 64 • Councilmember Wright asked why the city paid for backhoe use, when the city owns a backhoe. 65 They will check with PWD Nelson later, since he wasn't at the meeting. 66 Councilmember Wright moved to "pay the bills as listed." Councilmember Huntly seconded the 67 motion, which passed with Clausen, Gallup, Huntly, Milbank, and Wright in favor. No one opposed. 68 Councilmember Milbank 69 • There are 11-12 contractors who have requested the park RFP. The due'date has been changed to 70 Monday, March 8. Engineer Rasmussen has given a cost estimate for the park, at $760,000, which 71 would be phased over a few years, with the application of grants along the way. He and 72 Councilmember Huntly are working together on the RAPZ grant application for this year. 73 Counclimembers Huntly, Gallup and Clausen, as well as Recorder Lind, didn't have anything to report. 74 Councilmember Wright 75 • He discussed the flood hazard verification emails he has been receiving., He explained that a few 76 years ago the city came up with a flood damage prevention ordinance, although. River Heights has 77 very little threat of flooding. The Logan River's bank is lower on the Logan side. There is a spot on 78 Spring Creek with a low bank on the River Heights side. He didn't believe the city should worry 79 about responding to solicitations from flood insurance companies. 80 Mayor Rasmussen 81 " He asked the council to turn in their top 2-3 projects they would like listed for next year's budget, 82 before the next meeting. He reminded the EMS contract will increase by $90,000 next year, which 83 will hinder future plans for projects. Councilmember Clausen asked who will be responsible for 84 listing the Old Church in their budget. The mayor informed that Councilmember Huntly will be 85 meeting with Tony Johnson next week to hear his latest ideas for the building, after which the 86 Council will move forward on making a decision. He hopes it will be decided before the budget is 87 set. 88 Public Comment: Morgan Davidson mentioned he sent an email to the Planning Commission in 89 which he reviewed some of the high points discussed at a city meeting a week ajgo with Riverdaie 90 residents, the mayor, Councilmember Wright and Commission Chair Levi Roberts. He discussed that the 91 Riverdaie Area has become like a park, in that its a destination for many people.' They don't feel mixed- River Heights City Council Meeting,3/2/21 92 use zoning Is a good feel for this area. Transportation is a problem. They would like the area to maintain 93 larger lot sizes. He believes the property sellers will still make money on larger lots. The current housing 94 market would support single family homes. 95 Discuss and Approve the Municipal Wastewater Planning Program Annual Report: in the absence 96 of PWD Nelson, Mayor Rasmussen explained the only two changes to the report compared to last year: 1) 97 There were no backups in 2020 and, 2)The sewer system is now mapped on the GiS system. Discussion 98 was held on the city not having a sewer reserve fund, if there were an emergency, they would pull from 99 other funds. 100 Councilmember Clausen moved to "approve the Municipal Wastewater Planning Program 101 Annual Report for 2020." Councilmember Gallup seconded the motion, which carried with Clausen, 102 Gallup, Huntly, Milbank and Wright in favor. No one opposed. 103 Discuss and Accept or Denv Zoiiinger Annexation Petition: Mayor Rasmussen discussed the 104 estimated utility costs from the city engineer, totaling $504,754. He didn't see any problems with the 105 Zoiiinger's development, however the cost of getting utilities there is more than the city can contribute 106 to. There is no financial benefit to the city to install and pay for utilities for 3 homes, if there were some 107 benefit to River Heights it would seem more feasible. He said there Is a possibility that in a year from 108 now, utilities will look very different in this area, after the Chugg property is developed. He 109 recommended denying the petition for now to wait and see what happens. 110 Dallas Torgersen agreed Its a lot of expense for a few houses. He asked If River Heights would 111 allow them to connect to River Heights water and stay in the county when they develop. He also asked if 112 the city might contribute to get the water line to a hydrant or upgrading the line to 8" to service the 113 hydrant. 114 Ron Zoiiinger said a constitutional change was passed last year, having something to do with cities" 115 being allowed to extend their water services to properties in the county. 116 Councilmember Clausen didn't feel they could negotiate the situation at tonight's meeting and 117 thought it should go back to the Planning Commission. He agreed the petition should be denied at this 118 time, due to other unknown factors. Including the 1000 East road and legal ramifications. Councilmember 119 Wright and Commissioner Roberts weren't sure what the Planning Commission would do at this point. 120 Dallas Torgersen said the county will allow them to get water from the city and live In the county. 121 However,they would require an approval letter from the city. Another possibility is that River Heights 122 recognizes the sewer connection is more than 600 feet from their property and would therefore allow 123 septic tanks. Councilmember Clausen said he has asked the Health Department If they would allow septic 124 tanks. They said It would be up to the city. 125 Councilmember Wright said he is open to allowing them to connect to River Heights water. The 126 city code requires connection to the sewer if within 300 feet. ' 127 Mayor Rasmussen felt they may be able to continue with the annexation, while some of the 128 details were being worked out. Councilmember Clausen reminded that once the petition is accepted by 129 the council, a specific timeline will start. He suggested tabling it until some of the Issues are resolved. 130 Dallas Torgersen wasn't opposed to tabling it, while they do some more checking. Councilmember Wright 131 also agreed to table. 132 The Zollingers asked to table the discussion for one month, while they get their questions 133 answered. The city needs to find out if its legal for them to provide water to a property located in the 134 county, and If it would it be okay for the city to annex and not provide sewer. Also, if the city might need 135 a hydrant somewhere, and if it would financially benefit the city to participate in the water line. 136 Councilmember Clausen agreed to get everyone on the city side to find answers to these questions. River Heights City Council Meeting, 3/2/21 137 Mayor Rasmussen asked Zollingers to consider, if the city could get water to their northwest 138 corner, would they consider running a 2" line, if this were approved by the city. ; 139 Loean River Preservation Presentation bv Frank Howe; Frank Howe introduced himself as a 140 ■ member of the Logan River Taskforce. Their goal Is to balance ecological and social benefits of the river. 141 He gave a presentation on repairing and maintaining riparian habitat. He discussed their conservation 142 action plan of 2016. Erosion and channelization are the two issues they are concerned about In the top 143 third of the river, which runs through River Heights. They recommend a 75 foot buffer between buildings 144 and the river bank. Currently, the River Heights code requires a minimum of 35 feet. 145 Councilmember Milbank asked what the biggest obstacle is forgetting trails and park expansion 146 along the river. Mr. Howe said property owners don't want trails going through their backyards. He 147 pointed out that they try to keep trails away from the bank of the river so as to riot disturb this area. 148 His presentation included a guide for property owners along the river. He discussed some of the 149 ideas they have for the Riverdale area including terracing the banks, removing bank hazards, restoring 150 floodplain function, and improving the channel capacity and plant native vegetation. He offered the task 151 force's services. 152 Mike Jablonski discussed the concrete barriers that are in some places and asked if there was a 153 way to remove them. Mr. Howe said it would depend on the situation. They don't need to remove every 154 piece, especially if its too costly. They are generally able to come up with matching funds to help the 155 river. Mayor Rasmussen informed him that the city is in the early stages of planning the Riverdale area. 156 He thanked Mr. Howe for the presentation. i 157 General Plan Workshop with Planning Commission: Mayor Rasmussen informed that he, 158 Councilmember Wright and Commissioner Roberts met with residents of the Riverdale area. They also 159 met in a separate meeting with property owners who are selling and interested developers. They had 160 good comments and received great feedback. They are trying to find a starting place for the Planning 161 Commission. i 162 Councilmember Wright gave a synopsis of their meetings with property owners. Both parties 163 recognize the needs and desires of the other party. The two highest priorities are land use and 164 transportation, which are both difficult. He guessed they would get to a decision on land use, but he's not 165 sure how they will solve transportation. Homeowners asked if the density could be less than 2-3 stories. 166 They were interested in preserving the riverbank areas, encouraging walking and open space. They asked, 167 at what point the sellers would say they had a reasonable return for the sale of their property. 168 Commissioner Roberts pointed out the investment for improvements will not create a very good return. 169 The Riverdale area is tricky with utilities and transportation. 170 Councilmember Wright discussed the developer meeting, where the mayor asked the sellers how 171 much they would need for their investment return. They didn't have an answer] He guessed the 172 developer would be willing to make some concessions. Mr. Demars said he would like to see a 173 development that would work for everyone. ; 174 Commissioner Roberts said the landowners want to make a profit but they didn't talk about 175 specific housing plans or developments. They seem to be leaving that up to the developers. He said the 176 residents have a much higher value for the area and are interested in lower density and impact. They 177 want to still have wildlife going through the area. It was agreed that retail and commercial were not 178 reasonable. They are looking at 3-4 story residential. They were using the city's'current mixed-use zone 179 as a jumping off point. Councilmember Wright told property owners the mixed-use zone will be revisited 180 and they may end up with a whole different zone. Commissioner Cooley suggested a definition for higher 181 density be added to the General Plan. River Heights City Council Meeting,3/2/21 182 Mayor Rasmussen would like the council and commission to have more discussion after the 183 commission meeting next week to keep the conversation going. He believes the Ellis family Is anxious to 184 sell their property. They are tired of paying taxes on it. 185 Mary Barrus said when she first purchased her home it wasn't for an investment, as was the case 186 with the larger properties. Her property is as important to her as theirs is to them. She doesn't want to 187 be forced out because of greed but sees development as inevitable. She would like to see the Riverdale 188 area as a crown jewel of River Heights, a place that draws people from other points in the area. 189 Councilmember Huntiy discussed the difficulty of high density in this area, in regards to a feasible 190 transportation solution. Mayor Rasmussen stated the access needs to change even if there is no more 191 development,to support the current area. 192 Commissioner Cooley said the CMPO 10-year plan is to bring 200 East across the river to connect 193 to 100 East. The mayor wasn't convinced this is best for River Heights. Commissioner Roberts discussed 194 the impact on the area and river. Does the benefit outweigh the loss? Councilmember Huntiy didn't feel 195 that large of a road would match this area. Councilmember Wright guessed 200 East isn't as high of a 196 priority to Logan as it was a few years ago. Ms. Huntiy pointed out, if 200 East doesn't go through, there 197 is no way to get access for multi-family dwellings. 198 Councilmember Gallup said she has been hearing from Riverdale residents and they want the 199 mixed-use zone off the books. 200 Commissioner Roberts advised, they need to consider the future of all River Heights residents. 201 Councilmember Wright stated he doesn't feel very welcome to this area, by the residents. If they 202 are going to consider making it nice for all of River Heights, it needs to be more accessible. 203 Commissioner Schaub didn't feel the mixed-use zone was appropriate in the Riverdale area 204 because of transportation. She suggested Ellis' and Demars' could develop 34 acre lots and they would still 205 make money. It was pointed out that getting the infrastructure in would be cost prohibitive. 206 Commissioner Roberts wasn't sure the 34 acre lots would accomplish some of their primary goals, such as 207 protecting the river. AH agreed the mixed-use zone no longer fits. 208 Discussion was held on the difficulty of sewer connection. Commissioner Cooley pointed out that 209 water storage may also become an issue. He's not sure the city could handle very many more homes, 210 based on the city engineer's comments on the General Plan. He will discuss it with him. 211 Discussion was held on whether the city requires developers to hand over their irrigation shares to 212 the city. It hasn't happened yet, but it's included In the upcoming General Plan changes. Commissioner 213 Cooley informed that they don't know how much culinary water is actually being used for irrigation, if 214 they create larger lots, which are unable to use irrigation shares, this would be a large draw on the city's 215 water system. 216 Commissioner Milbank said In 2009,the city felt they needed additional revenue, which is why ' 217 they created the mixed-use zone. He asked if the city still needs a revenue source. If not, then the mixed- 218 use zone should be reconsidered. Commissioner Roberts pointed out that brick and mortar retail is 219 decreasing and online sales are going up. He discussed the housing market, which is very expensive right 220 now. This puts a push towards townhomes, to bring affordability. He felt River Heights should adjust to 221 the housing market. If they don't. River Heights will become more exclusive and will cut out the ability for 222 many to be able to afford to live here. 223 Mayor Rasmussen pointed out that high density living brings more open space, with walking trails. 224 Larger lots limit parking and walking. Councilmember Huntiy pointed out that Riverdale is not a rational 225 place for high density. The mayor said if lots are limited to 12,000 square feet, the property may never 226 sell. Councilmember Milbank said high density in this area would not be out of character. Commissioner 227 Roberts agreed it is more location efficient since its closer to destinations. River Heights City Council Meeting,3/2/21 5 228 Councilmember Huntly suggested having some of the Logan River Task Force work with them in 229 solving the issue. Mayor Rasmussen felt they were all on board with preservation of the River. 230 Councilmember Clausen agreed there are very difficult dilemmas. 231 Commissioner Lehnig pointed out that even duplexes are frowned on in River Heights, which she 232 felt would be beneficial. 233 Mayor Rasmussen said he, Councilmember Wright and Commissioner Roberts would get together 234 and try to build a framework for further discussions. Mr. Roberts clarified the city would provide a 235 framework, as a guide, not a plan for development. 236 Commissioner Cooley pointed out the land east of the church also has some development issues, 237 such as access. Councilmember Wright agreed and informed that they plan to meet with the Westons 238 next, to discuss this area. The Riverdale area is the priority right now. They are hoping to lift the 239 moratorium in the next 5 months. 240 Commissioner Schaub felt the river is the number one place to start. 241 The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. 242 243 244 245 246 Sheila Lind, Recorder 247 248 249 Todd A. Rasmussen, Mayor River Heights City Council Meeting, 3/2/21  River Heights City Bills To Be Paid March 2, 2021 Payee Description Admin. P&Z Parks/Rec Pub. Safety Com. Aff. Roads Water Sewer Total 1 Badger Screen Printing Ambassador Gear $270.30 $270.30 2 Cache Humane Society Animal Boarding $150.00 $150.00 3 Peterson Plumbing Supply supplies for leak at 750 East Mountain View Drive $204.25 $204.25 4 Thatcher Company Chlorine Water Treatment $1,773.50 $1,773.50 5 The Clean Spot Cleaning Supplies for New School $1 83.67 $183.67 6 Thurcon. Inc. Back Hoe Leak 750 East Mountain View Drive $1,515.00 $1,515.00 7 U.S. Postmaster Stamps $1 30.00 $130.00 8 9 ID 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Page 1 SubTotals $313.67 $150.00 $270.30 $3,492.75 1,226.72 Page 1 Total Amount to I d 1,226.72 River Heights City Financial Summary - Updated January 31,2021 12/31/20 01/31/21 Net Change % of Total General Fund 277,064.85 273,003.69 (4,061.16) 12.65% Capital Projects Fund 102,430.55 96,205.48 (6,225.07) 4.46% Water Fund 880,065.78 889,052.83 8,987.05 41.20% Sewer Fund 885,880.46 899,492.41 13,611.95 41.69% Total Cash Balance 2,145,441.64 2,157,754.41 12,312.77 100.00% %0f %0f Unexpended Budget Time YTD Actual Annual Budget Budget Incurred Incurred Revenue 832,899.08 816,080.00 (16,819.08) 102.06% 58.90% Expenditures Administrative 273,201.04 182,690.00 (90,511.04) 149.54% 58.90% Office 9,453.44 22,600.00 13,146.56 41.83% 58.90% Community Affairs 11,247.04 21,600.00 10,352.96 52.07% 58.90% Planning & Zoning 468.14 3,625.00 3,156.86 12.91% 58.90% Public Safety 64,932.32 104,215.00 39,282.68 62.31% 58.90% Roads 49,202.46 128,200.00 78,997.54 38.38% 58.90% Parks & Recreation 32,698.75 73,150.00 40,451.25 44.70% 58.90% Sanitation 98,559.77 150,000.00 51,440.23 65.71% 58.90% Schooi Buiiding 9,312.18 - (9,312.18) 58.90% Transfer To CP Fund 140,000.00 130,000.00 (10,000.00) 107.69% Total Expenditures 689,075.14 816,080.00 127,004.86 84.44% 58.90% Net Revenue Over Expenditures 143,823.94 - (143,823.94) '^8 ; CapitaljProJects Fiind j; " .', „ Revenue 99.24 3,000.00 2,900.76 58.90% Reimbursement Income 171,779.39 177,532.00 5,752.61 Transfer From General Fund 140,000.00 130,000.00 (10,000.00) Expenditures Administrative - - 58.90% Parks & Recreation - 90,000.00 90,000.00 58.90% Roads 389,687.27 168,000.00 (221,687.27) 58.90% - - - 58.90% Total Expenditures 389,687.27 258,000.00 (131,687.27) 58.90% Net Revenue Over Expenditures (77,808.64) 52,532.00 130,340.64 / ,Water;Fund ' " ' Revenue 227,446.17 441,700.00 214,253.83 51.49% 58.90% Expenditures 148,376.08 475,340.00 326,963.92 31.21% 58.90% Net Revenue Over Expenditures 79,070.09 (33,640.00) (112,710.09) 1 SewerFund / , .. , v Revenue 219,856.21 377,900.00 158,043.79 58.18% 58.90% Expenditures 310,672.23 468,290.00 157,617.77 66.34% 58.90% Net Revenue Over Expenditures (90,816.02) (90,390.00) 426.02 f Combined-All Funds Net Revenue Over Expenditures - Combined 54,269.37 (71,498.00) (125,767.37)  Y OF RIVER HEIGHTS. UTAH Stewart Hill Park - Preliminary Cost Estimate Prepared By: Craig Rasmussen Forsgren Associate, Inc. 2-Mar-21 PREUMINARY ESliMATE^ ITEM UNIT TOTAL NO. ITEM PRICE PRICE UNIT QUANT. 1 Mobilization • • LS 1 $ ■; 5,000.00' $ 5,000.00 2 Clear and Grub Parking Area and Restroom LS 1 $ ^ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 3 Excavation for Parking Area CY 800 $; 6.00 $ 4,800.00 4 Granular Borrow (8" thick) SY 2500 $ " - 8.00' $ 20,000.00 • • • 5 , Roadbase (4" thick) SY 2500 ;$ - ■ :::;'6;50, ; $ 16,250.00 6 Flush edge curb at edge of pavement LF 465 $ ■ 16,00^ $ 7,440.00 7 Curb and Gutter at Parking Areas (30" wide) LF 500 $ .18.00. $ 9,000.00 8 Asphalt Pavement (3" thick) . - SY 2150 $' ,15,00 $ 32,250.00 9 Concrete service lane (12 ft wide x 5" thick with gravel base) LF 640 $ 84:00 s 53,760.00 Concrete sidewalk (6 ft \Ande x 4" thick with gravel base) LF 1250 $ , 3o:go' $ 37,500.00 Water Service to Restroom EA 1 $, '2iOoo.po; $ 2,000.00 - 12 Yard hydrant at picnic shelter EA 1 1^500.00 $ 1,500.00 13 Sewer Service to Restroom EA 1 ,$ " _10;PPO.pO $ 10,000.00 14 Electrical Service and lighting (restroom, pavilion, and site) EA 1 ^ 15,000,00 $ 15,000.00 15 Site lighting (parking lots and general area) LS 1 $ - 50,p00;00 $ 50,000.00 16 Picnic shelter (20x40) with tables and concrete pad EA 1 $ 90,000.00 '$ 90,000.00 17 Restroom building EA 1 $ , r .65,000,00 $ 65,000.00 18 Picnic table on 10x10 concrete pad EA 4 $ " 2;poo.oo $ 8,000.00 19 Benches on concrete pad EA 16 " i;600.00 $ 25,600.00 20 Trees EA 54 $. ;;;■ 425.00, $ 22,950.00 21 Shrubs EA 150 45.00 $ 6,750.00 22 Irrigation - turf SF 139000 0.55 $ 76,450.00 23 Irrigation - planter SF 8000 ' 1.00' $ 8,000.00 24 Irrigation Service Connection EA 1 $ '3i00o;oo; $ 3,000.00 25 Drill Seed SF 139000 $ 0.33 $ 45,870.00 26 Sod at restroom/pavilion SF 8000 $ 0.60 $ 4,800.00 27 0 ' ■ $ 28 0 $  TOTAL ;420.0J3j 623 Contingency Percent 10% 62,342. Survey, Design, and Construction Management Services Percent 12% 74,810.40 Total Estimated Cost 760,572.40 10F1  Municipal Wastewater Planning Program(MWPP) Annual Report for the year ending 2020 RIVER HEIGHTS CITY Thank you for filling out the reqested information. Please let DWQ know when it is approved by the Council. Please download a copy of your form by clicking "Download PDF" below. Below is o summary of your Download PDF responses SUBMIT BY APRIL 15. 2021 Are you the person responsible for completing this report for your organization? (i) Yes O NO , This is the current information recorded for your facility: Facility Name: RIVER HEIGHTS CITY Contact - First Name: Clayten Contact - Last Name: Nelson Contact - Title Public Works Director -  contact - fnone: 435-752-2b4b x 2 Contact - Email: cnelson@riverheights.org Is this information above complete and correct? ® Yes O No Your wastewater system is described as Collection 5L Financial: Classification; COLLECTION Grade: I (if applicable) Classification: - ' Grade: - Is this correct? WARNING: If you select 'no', you will no longer have access to this form upon clicking Save & Continue. DWQ will update the information and contact you again. I (S) Yes O NO Click on a link below to view examples of sections in the survey: (Your wastewater system is described as Collection & Financial) MWPP Collection System.pdf MWPP Discharging Lagoon.pdf MWPP Financial Evaluation.pdf MWPP Mechanical Plant.pdf MWPP Non-Discharging Lagoon.pdf Will multiple people be required to fill out this form? O Yes ® No Financial Evaluation Section Form completed by: Clayten Nelson Part 1: GENERAL QUESTIONS Yes No Are sewer revenues maintained in a.dedicated © o purpose enterprise/district account? Yes No Are you collecting 95% or more of your © o anticipated sewer revenue? Are Debt Service Reserve Fund® requirements © o being met? What was the annual average User Charge'® for 2020? 44.00 Do you have a water and/or sewer customer assistance program * (CAP)? O Yes /S\ [SJ Part II: OPERATING REVENUES AND RESERVES Yes No Are property taxes or other assessments o © applied to the sewer systems^®? Yes No Are sewer revenues^^ sufficient to cover operations & maintenance costs®, and repair & © o replacement costs^^(oM&r)at this time? Are projected sewer revenues sufficient to cover © o OM&R costs for the nextfive years? Does the sewer system have sufficient staff to © o provide proper OM&R? Has a repair and replacement sinking fund^® o © been established for the sewer system? Is the repair & replacement sinking fund o sufficient to meet anticipated needs? Part 111: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS REVENUES AND RESERVES i Yes No Are sewer revenues sufficient.to cover a|l costs © o of current capital improvements® projects? Has a Capital Improvements,Reseive Fund'* ' been established to provide for anticipated o © capital improvement projects?  Yes No Are projected Capital Improvements Reserve O ® Funds sufficient for the nextfive years? Are projected Capital Improvements Reserve Funds sufficient for the next ten years? O ® Are projected Capital Improvements Reserve Funds sufficient for the next twenty years? o ® Part IV: FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW Yes No Have you completed a Rate Study" within the q last five years? Do you charge Impact fees^? © O 2020 Innpact Fee (if not a fiat fee, use average of ail collected fees) = 1559 Yes No Have you completed an Impact Fee Study in accordance with UCA n-36a-3 within the last ® O five years? Do you maintain a Plan of ® o Operations^®? Have you updated your Capital Facility Plan^ q 0 within the last five years? In what year was the Capital Facility Plan last updated? |unkrnown Yes No Do you use an Asset Management^ system for O © your sewer systems? Yes No Do you know the total replacement cost of O © your sewer system capital assets? Yes No Do you fund sewer system capital improvements annually with sewer revenues O © at 2% or more of the totai replacement cost? What is the sewer/treatment system annual asset renewal* cost as a percentage of its total O © replacement cost? What is the sewer/treotment system annual asset renewal* cost as a percentage of its total replacement cost? i Part V; PROJECTED CAPITAL INVESTMENT COSTS f Cost of projected capital improvements [  m PUFpSiiSflmpFSViFRiRti PliSigiRtiFa^slid BiRlflCiiSestfiCS ^|gtiR8l8i5F sapssifi? lR8Fi8ii RtiRiiFlasl ;!alui Ripia8ifKiii8Fi 2021 120000 □ □ □ 2021 thru 2025 80000 □ □ □ , 2026 thru 2030 80000 '□ □ □ 2031 thru 2035 80000 □ □ □ 2036 thru 2040 80000 □ □ □ This is-the end of the Financial questions To the best of my knowledge; the Financial section is completed and accurate. Yes Collections System Section Form completed by: May Receive Continuing Education /units (CEUs) Clayten Nelson Part I: SYSTEM DESCRIPTION What is the largest diameter pipe in the collection system (diameter in inches)? 15 What is the overage depth of the collection system (in feet)? n What is the total length of sewer pipe in the system (length in miles)? 8.1 How many lift/pump stations are in the collection system? What is the largest capacity lift/pump station in the collection system (design capacity in gallons per minute)? NA Do seasonal daily peak flows exceed the average peak daily flow by 100 percent or more? i O Yes ® No ^ I What year was your collection system first constructed (approximately)? 1978 In what year was the largest diameter sewer pipe in the collection system constructed, replaced or renewed? (if more than one, cite the oldest) 1978 PART II- niC^r.HARnF.Q  # II X I ill 1/ %l How many days last year was there a sewage bypass, overflow or basement flooding in the system due to rain or snowmelt? How many days last year was there a sewage bypass, overflow or basement flooding due to equipment failure (except plugged laterals)? The Utah Sewer ManagementProgram defines two classes of sanitary sewer overflows(SSOs): Class 1- a Significant SSO means a SSO or backup that is not caused by a private lateral obstruction or problem that: (a)affects more than five private structures; (b)affects one or more public,commercial or industrial structure(s); (c)may result in a public health risk to the generalpublic; (d)has a spill volume that exceeds 5,000 gallons,excluding those in single private structures;or (e)discharges to Waters of the state. ' Class 2 - a Non-Significant SSO means a SSO or backup that is not caused by a private lateral obstruction or problem that does not meet the Class 1 SSO criteria. Below include the number of SSOs that occurred in year: 2020 Number Number of Class 1 SSOs in Calendar year Number of Class 2 SSOs In Calendar venr  Number Please Indicate what caused the SSO(s) in the previous question. ' Please specify whether the SSOs were caused by contra<:t or tributary community,etc. Part III: NEW DEVELOPMENT! Did an industry or other development enter the commuhity or expand production in the past two years,such that flow or wastewater loadings to the sewerage system increased by 10% or more? . | O Yes ® No Are new developments (industrial, commercial, or residential) anticipated in the next 2-3 years that will increase flow or BOD5 loadings to the sewerage system by 25% or more? O Yes (S) No Number of new commercial/industrial connections in the last year Number of new residential sewer connections added in the last year Equivalent residential connections^ served 651 Part IV: OPERATOR CERTIFICATION How many collection system operators do you employ? Approximate population served 2200 State of Utah Administrative Rules requires all public system operators considered to be in Direct Responsible Charge(drc)to be appropriately certified atleast at the Facility's Grade. List the designated Chief Operator/DRC for the Collection System below: Name Grade Email First and Last Name Please enter full email address Chief Operator/DRC Ciayten Nelson II || cneiscn^riyerheights.org List all other Collection System operators with DRC responsibilities in the field, by certification grade, separate names by commas: Name separate by comma SLS'^ Grade 1: I 1 Collection Grade I: AepgjcgtgjD.yjjpjncrDfl- Collection Grade II: Collection Grade 111: Collection Grade IV: List all other Coliection System operators by certificationi grade, separate names by commas: i Name separate by comma SLS^^ Grade I: Collection Grade I: . Cameron Reed Collection Grade II: Collection Grade III: Collection Grade IV: No Current Collection Certification: Is/are your collection DRC operator(s) currently certified at the appropriate grade for this facility? ; ® Yes O No Part V: FACILITY MAINTENANCE Yes No Have you implemented a preventative maintenance program for your collection O system? Have you updated the collection system operations and maintenance manual within O  the past 5 years? Yes - ■ No Do you have a written emergency response plan for sewer systems? ® , o. Do you have q written safety plan for sewer systems? ® o Is the entire collections system TV inspected at ® . o least every 5 years? Is at least 85% of the collections system mapped in GIS? ® o Part VI: SSMP EVALUATION Yes No Has your system compie,ted a Sewer System Management Plan (sSMP)? ® O Has the SSMP been adopted by the permittee's governing body at a public ® O meeting? Has the completed SSMP been public ® o noticed? During the annual assessment of the SSMP, were any adjustments heeded based ori the O ® performance of the plan? Dote of Public Notice 02/24/2016 During 2020, was any port of the SSMP audited as part of the five year audit? @ Yes KJ If yes, what port of the SSMP was audited and were changes made to the SSMP as a result of the audit? ; ■ operations and maintenance no changes made • * I • , Have you completed a System Evaluation and CapacityJAssurance Plan (SECAP);as defined by the Utah Sewer Managennent Program? . (i) Yes I O No Part yil: NARFRATIVE EVALUATION This section should be completed with the system operators/ ' Describe the physical condition of the sewerage system: (lift stations, etc^ included) ■ good/excellent What sewerage system capital improvements,^ does the utility need to , implement in the next 10 years? , • - new building for O&M equipment | What sewerage system probleitis, other than plugging, 1lave you had over • the last year? , . 1 none ^ • , / - • , ^ w ■ ■. . * 1 • Is your utility currently preparing or updating its capital facilities plan 2? ® Yes O No Does the municipality/district pay for the continuing education expenses of operators? (S) 100% Covered O Partially cover O Does not pay Is there a written policy regarding continuing education and training for wastewater operators? ® Yes O No Any additional comments? This Is the end of the Caliectlons System questions To the best of my knowledge,the Collections System section is completed and accurate. Yes I have reviewed this report and to the best of my knowiedge the information provided in this report is correct.  Has this been adopted by the council? If no, what date will it be presented to the council? i O Yes @ No What date will it be presented to the council? Date format ex. mm/dd/yyyy 03/02/2021 Please log in. Email cnelson@)riverheights.org PIN NOTE: This questionnaire has been compiled for your benefit to assist you in evaluating the technical and financial needs of your wastewater systems. If you received financial assistance from the Water Quality Board, annual submittal of this report is a condition of that assistance. Please answer questions as accurately as possible to give you the best evaluation of your facility. If you need assistance, please send an emaili to wqinfodata@utah.gov and we will contact you as soon as possible. You may also visit our Freouentlv Asked Questions page. Powered by Qualtrics Cj 2/24/2021 Zolllnger Annexation - Estimated Utility Cost - office@riverheights.org - River Heights City Mail Zoillnger Annexation - Estimated Utility Cost mbox J Craig Rasmussen Tue, Feb 23, 5:02 PM (18 hours ago) to Doug, Clayten, Sheila Doug and Clayten, It does appear that the sewer at 600 South and 900 East can service the property. However, It is a very deep installation to get it there. Approximately 23 feet deep at the 600 8 1000 E intersection. Just considering the issues the City has had with the sewer along 800 South Street with a depth of 15 feet. This sewer would be 7 or 8 feet deeper than that. Not recommended. Please find the attached rough estimate for utility work associated with the Zoillnger parcel. Installing sewer pipe at 23 feet deep will be expensive and will take out most of the road. My recommendation is that the City not participate in cost sharing for utility work. It sets a bad precedent if there are other annexations. The City participating In utility costs with an agreement that the City will be reimbursed if/when there is more development can be risky. If Scott Watterson were to purchase property and not choose to develop further, then the City would incur a significant cost that would never be recovered. Please contact me with questions on the attached estimated cost. Thanks, Craig R. Craig Rasmussen Division Manager 95 West 100 South, Ste. 115 Logan, UT 84321 435.227.0333/ 435.232.7265 Cell 435.227.0334 Fax cAiiuiaiii'IIkci httpsy/mail.google.com/maiI/u/0/?tab=tm&ogb[#lnbox/FMfcgxwLsdGLLdNSCxMLVMxXpZczNZsw 1/1  Preliminary Estimate of Cost Project: Water/Sewer Utilities for Zolllnger Annexation Forsgmni Client: River Heights City Date: February 23, 2021 BUDGET ESTIMATE ITEM UNIT TOTAL ITEM NO. UNIT QUANT. PRICE PRICE 1 Sewer A-900 East to Montes Property(S12ft) 0 $ $ 1 Mobilization LS 1 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 2 8" PVC Sewer Main (8 ft to 18 ft deep) LF 512 $ 120.00 $ 61,440.00 3 Sewer Manhole LS 1 $ 4,500.00 $ 4,500.00 4 Connect to Existing Manhole (Core Drili and Boot) EA 1 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 5 Roadway Repair - Roadbase and Pavement LF 512 $ 50.00 $ 25,600.00 12 Pressure Test and Camera New Line LS 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 6 Traffic Control LS 1 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 6 SubTotal $ $ 97,040.00 6 $ $ 7 Sewer B - Montes Property to 1000 East $ $ 8 Mobilization LS 1 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 9 8" PVC Sewer Main (18 ft to 23 ft deep) LF 200 $ 200.00 $ 40,000.00 10 Sewer Manhole EA 1 $ 15.000.00 $ 15,000.00 11 Roadway Repair - Roadbase and Pavement LF 200 $ 85.00 $ 17,000.00 12 Pressure Test and Camera New Line LS 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 12 Traffic Control LS 1 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00 6 SubTotal $ $ 77,700.00 13 $ $ 7 Sewer 0 - 600 South to Zolllnger Property $ $ 8 Mobilization LS 1 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 9 8" PVC Sewer Main (23 ft to 7 ft deep) LF 590 $ 150.00 $ 68,500.00 10 Sewer Manhole EA 2 $ 6,000.00 $ 12,000.00 11 Roadway Repair - Roadbase and Pavement LF 590 $ 75.00 $ 44,250.00 12 Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk LF 300 $ 45.00 $ 13,500.00 12 Pressure Test and Camera New Line LS 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 12 Traffic Control LS 1 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00 6 SubTotal $ $ 163,950.00 13 $ $ 13 Water - 600 South to Zolllnger $ $ 14 Connect to Existing Water Main LS 1 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 15 8" PVC C-900 Water Main LF 650 $ 60.00 $ 39,000.00 16 Fire Hydrant EA 2 $ 4,500.00 $ 9,000.00 17 Road Repair(Include w/Sewer as majority of road will be replaced) LF 0 $ $ 17 Testing and Disinfection LS 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 18 Traffic Control LS 1 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00 6 SubTotal $ $ 53,200.00 19 $ $ ' ' .V, " • .total $ 391,890.00 Contingency 15% $ 58,783.50 $ 450,673.50 Survey, Design, and Construction Management Services Percent 12% $ 54,080.82 Total Estimated Cost $ S04.754.32 As the Engineer has no control over the cost oflabor, materials, equipment, the Contractor's methods of determining prices,or over competitive bidding or market conditions, the Opinions ofProbable Construction Costs providedfor herein are made on the basis ofthe Engineer's experience and past bid tabuiations on other similarprojects. These opinions represent the Engineer's bestjudgment as a design professionalfamiliar with the construction Industry. However,the Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or the construction cost wiii not varyfrom Opinions ofProbable Construction Costs prepared by him/her. 10F1  Parcel Map 02-285-0009 'S »4 02-2a5-:00OT ^EIev = 4U.' i™inv = 4573.81 ^23 ft deep at inv ISEWER A| SEWER B Elev 4577.6 Elev = 4591 Inv W= 4569.56 1.-v. Inv = 4572.61 8 ft deep at inv 18 ft deep at inv iSewer A 4569.85 + 512(.5%)= 4572.41+ 0.2 ft at SMH = 4572.61 8" PVC Sewerl Isewer B @ 0.5% slopej 14572.61 + 200(0.5%)= 4573.61 + 0.2 ft at SMH = 4573.81 Typ. ISewer0 18" PVC Potable water 4573.81 + 590(0.5%)= 4576.76 + 0.2 at SMH = 4576.96 Say 4577.0 (2) Fire hydrants ISEWER C - <n- « * -r* if**» QiaSlXSBv - i,. 'i »• %» % %. ^ (Elev 4684 Inv = 4577.0 ■■ »» » 17 ft deep at Inv 1. STJP*' ■'S 02-1004-^0003 02- 301 ':,COMM 02L301' I SiSLosfr■m