DDW-2025-001865

Drinking Water
Board Packet
February 27, 2025
Agenda
195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144830 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4830
Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • T.D.D. [phone] www.deq.utah.gov
Printed on 100% recycled paper
State of Utah

Drinking Water Board
Kristi Bell, Chair
Eric Franson, P.E., Vice-Chair
Dawn Ramsey
Justin Maughan
Corinna Harris
Shazelle Terry
Blake Tullis, Ph.D.
Phil Bondurant, Dr.PH, LEHS
Kimberly D. ShelleyNathan Lunstad
Executive Secretary
SPENCER J. COX
Governor
DEIDRE HENDERSON
Lieutenant Governor
Department of
Environmental Quality
Kimberly D. Shelley
Executive Director
DIVISION OF DRINKING WATER
Nathan Lunstad, Ph.D., P.E.
Director
DRINKING WATER BOARD MEETING
February 27, 2025 9:00 AM
Via Zoom Webinar & In Person:
Dixie Convention Center
1835 S Convention Center Dr,
St. George, UT 84790
AGENDA 1.Call to Order
2.Roll Call – Nathan Lunstad
3.Approval of Meeting MinutesA.December 26, 2025 (Supplemental)B.January 7, 2025
4.Disclosure for Conflict of Interest
5.Directors Report – Nathan LunstadA.New Employees; Stephanie AlpizarB.Enforcement Report (Board Packet Item Only)
C.Other
6.Rural Water Association Report – Dale Pierson (This item will be provided separately at a
later date.)
7.Financial Assistance Committee Report
A.Status Report – Wayne Boyce (This item will be provided separately at a later date.)B.Cashflow – Wayne Boyce (This item will be provided separately at a later date.)C.Project Priority List – Michael GrangeD.SRF Applicationsi.Federal
a.Magna Water District - Andrea Thurlow
8.Public Comment Period
Page 2

9. Open Board Discussion

10. Next Board Meeting

Date: June 10, 2025
Time: 1:00 PM
Place: Multi-Agency State Office Building
195 N 1950 W
Salt Lake City, UT 84116

11. Adjourn

Agenda Item
3(A)

195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144830 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4830 Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • T.D.D. [phone] www.deq.utah.gov Printed on 100% recycled paper
State of Utah

Drinking Water Board Kristi Bell, Chair Eric Franson, P.E., Vice-Chair Dawn Ramsey Justin Maughan Corinna Harris Shazelle Terry Blake Tullis, Ph.D. Kimberly D. Shelley Nathan Lunstad Executive Secretary
SPENCER J. COX Governor DEIDRE HENDERSON Lieutenant Governor
Department of
Environmental Quality

Kimberly D. Shelley Executive Director
DIVISION OF DRINKING WATER Nathan Lunstad, Ph.D., P.E. Director
DRINKING WATER BOARD
SUPPLEMENTAL MEETING
December 26, 2024, 9:30 AM Via Zoom Webinar MINUTES DRAFT
1. Call to Order Kristi Bell, Chair, called the Drinking Water Board (Board, DWB) meeting to order at 9:30 AM. 2. Roll Call – Nathan Lunstad

Nathan Lunstad called the roll. Present: Kristi Bell, Eric Franson, Corinna Harris, Justin Maughan, Kim Shelley, Shazelle Terry.
Absent: Jeff Coombs, Mayor Dawn Ramsey, Blake Tullis
No conflicts of interest were declared. 3. Disclosure for Conflict of Interest

4. DWSRF Project Discussion A. Introduction Michael Grange introduced the discussion, explaining that the Drinking Water Board received $50
million from the State's American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) appropriation, with $46.5 million for
rural system construction and $3.5 million for the Lead-Free Schools initiative. Due to federal requirements for obligating ARPA funds by December 31, 2024 and approximately $1.4 million in unobligated ARPA funds in the Lead-Free Schools initiative, the Governor’s Office agreed to return the unobligated money to the rural system construction fund. Some of the available funds
were allocated to construction projects previously authorized subsidy by the Board including
Junction Town ($120,000), Myton City ($163,000), Hildale City ($278,000), and Wales Town ($3,094) for various projects. After these reallocations, there remained approximately $827,500 to be reallocated to other projects. Staff recommended the Board consider the following two projects: Pine Valley Mountain Farms Water Co. and Antimony Town.
B. Federal Program
Page 2
i. Pine Valley Mountain Farms Water Co. – Kjori Shelley
Kjori Shelley presented on the Pine Valley Mountain Farms Water Co. project. The Board
previously authorized a $630,015 construction loan with 100% principal forgiveness for this project. However, due to increased costs and the identification of additional lines needing replacement, the project cost has increased to $1,587,544. Staff recommends a construction loan of $1,517,559 with $1,367,559 in subsidy, including $687,550 from reallocated ARPA funds and
$680,009 in principal forgiveness. The repayable loan amount would be $150,000 at 0% interest
for 30 years. Discussion: Corinna Harris inquired about the company's backup plan in case of line failures before construction completion. Eric Franson responded that the company would likely be able to
repair or install sections as needed, given their access to equipment and materials.
Eric Franson moved to follow staff recommendations in allocating funds. Corinna Harris seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously by the Board.
C. State Program
i. Antimony Town – Michael Grange Michael Grange presented on the Antimony Town project. The town is requesting financial assistance to complete a project to address arsenic contamination in a newly drilled well. The
estimated cost is $140,000.
Recommendation: Staff recommended the Board authorize a $140,000 ARPA grant to Antimony Town to complete the project.
Motion: Justin Maughan moved to authorize a $140,000 ARPA grant to Antimony Town.
Shazelle Terry seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously by the Board. 5. Public Comment Period
No public comments were received.
6. Open Board Discussion No open board discussion topics were raised.

7. Next Board Meeting Date: January 7, 2025 Time: 1:00 PM
Place: Multi-Agency State Office Building 195 N 1950 W
SLC, UT 84116 8. Adjourn
Page 3
The meeting adjourned at 9:54 A.M.
Agenda Item
3(B)

195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144830 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4830 Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • T.D.D. [phone] www.deq.utah.gov Printed on 100% recycled paper
State of Utah

Drinking Water Board Kristi Bell, Chair Eric Franson, P.E., Vice-Chair Dawn Ramsey Justin Maughan Corinna Harris Shazelle Terry Blake Tullis, Ph.D. Phillip Bondurant Ph.D. Kimberly D. Shelley Nathan Lunstad Executive Secretary
SPENCER J. COX Governor DEIDRE HENDERSON Lieutenant Governor
Department of
Environmental Quality

Kimberly D. Shelley Executive Director
DIVISION OF DRINKING WATER Nathan Lunstad, Ph.D., P.E. Director
DRINKING WATER BOARD MEETING
January 7, 2025, 1:00 PM
Via Zoom Webinar & In Person: Multi-Agency State Office Building 195 North 1950 West Salt Lake City, UT 84116

Nathan Lunstad Cell # 385-239-5974 DRAFT AGENDA 1. Call to Order

Eric Franson, Co-Chair, called the Drinking Water Board (Board, DWB) meeting to order at 1:00 PM. 2. Roll Call – Nathan Lunstad

Board Members present at Roll Call: Eric Franson, Justin Maughan, Blake Tullis, Shazelle Terry, Corinna Harris, Phil Bondurant Division of Drinking Water (DDW, Division) Staff Present: Jessica Fitzgerald, Nathan Lunstad,
Allyson Spevak, Wayne Boyce, Andrea Thurlow, Cadence Hernandez, Michelle Deras, Michael
Newberry, Kcris Hunter, Russell Seeley, Brian Pattee, Dani Zebelean 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes A. November 12, 2024

● Shazelle Terry moved to approve the Drinking Water Board meeting minutes with a change on the ending time on the meeting on November 12, 2024. Corinna Harris seconded. Phil Bondurant abstained from voting. The motion was carried unanimously by the Board.
4. Disclosure for Conflict of Interest
None 5. Directors Report – Nathan Lunstad
A. New Employees; Kcris Hunter; Chris Bowles

Page 2
Introduction of Phil Bondurant, the new Board member representing a Local Health Department. Phil is the Executive Director for Summit County Local Health Department.

Chris Bowles is the Division's new Environmental Scientist Coordinator for the Division's Field Services Section. Chris worked for Riverton City as the DRC Operator, supervising the Water Quality Team and administering the Cross Connection Control Program.
Kcris Hunter is the new Environmental Program Coordinator for the Infrastructure Funding
Section. She provides administrative support to the State Revolving Fund Program and coordinate loan and grant initiatives in collaboration with the Division of Drinking water staff, program managers and applicants. Kcris spent the last 14 years working at RWAU as a Training Specialist and Certification Trainer.
B. Enforcement Report (Board Packet Item Only) The Enforcement Report can be found in the Drinking Water Board Packet.
C. Other Nathan Lunstad, DDW Director, thanked the Board for attending the supplemental meeting on December 27, 2024. The Board was able to reallocate $1.4 million in ARPA funding.
Nathan highlighted success in Lead Service Line Inventories, and Lead-Free Schools Program.
6. Five-Year Notice of Review and Statement of Continuation (Board Action Needed) – Nathan Lunstad
Division staff recommends that the Drinking Water Board authorize staff to file the required Five-
Year Notice of Review and Statement of Continuation for each of the referenced Division of Drinking Water Rules with the Division of Administrative Rules. Shazelle Terry moved to authorize staff to file the required Five-Year Notice of Review and
Statement of Continuation for each of the referenced Division of Drinking Water Rules with the
Division of Administrative Rules. Justin Maughan seconded. The motion was carried unanimously by the Board. 7. Rural Water Association Report – Dale Pierson

Dale Pierson presented the Rural Water Association Report and gave a brief overview of items the Rural Water Association of Utah is focused on. 8. Financial Assistance Committee Report
A. Status Report – Wayne Boyce B. Cashflow – Wayne Boyce
Page 3
Wayne Boyce, DDW Financial Manager, provided an overview of the Status Report included in the packet. This report covers various financial grants such as Federal SRF, ARPA, Authorized
Projects, Lead Service Line, Emerging Contaminants, and State SRF.
Wayne highlighted that all fund accounts have a healthy position and projected cash flow with current Federal SRF availability. ARPA transfers of funds will help cashflow for SRF. The Division received the FY24 Capitalization Grants for Base, Supplemental and SRF. There is a
State Match of $4.6 million for the Supplemental Grant. Those funds will be moving to out of
State Funds. Federal funds are currently at -$50 million, as we are double counting the Salt Lake City funding. State SRF availability was at about -$4.4 million, as of this meeting the Division will be at -$3.4
million.
Cash Projections so that this meeting, excluding LSLR & EC will be $30.48 million as GY22 Loan Funds are fully drawn or committed.
C. Project Priority List – Michael Grange
Michael Grange reported there were two (2) new projects being added to the Project Priority list: 1. Manderfield scored 24.2 on the project priority list. Their project is for a new tank,
distribution line, fire hydrants, meters and setters and to equip a well.
2. Irontown scored 20.1 points on the project priority list. Their project is for a new well and well house. The Financial Assistance Committee recommends the Drinking Water Board approve the updated
Project Priority List.
● Justin Maughan moved that the Board approve the updated Project Priority List. Dawn Ramsey seconded. The motion was carried unanimously by the Board.
D. SRF Applications i. Federal a. Iron Town - Cadence Hernandez
Representing Iron Town was Barbara Osborne and Cheryl Ponton.
Cadence Hernandez presented the Iron Town financial assistance request. Project details can be
found in the Drinking Water Board Packet.
The Financial Assistance Committee recommends that the Drinking Water Board authorize a loan of $ 883,000 at 0% interest for 40 years, with $265,000 in principal forgiveness to Irontown.
Barbara Osborne and Cheryl Ponton thanked the Board for their consideration and provided an
additional detail of the needs and current situation in Iron Town. Board Discussion:
Page 4
Justin Maughan inquired about the IPS points, and whether they have a plan to address them. Barbara confirmed that there is a plan in place, to rectify Cross Connection policy and Uranium
testing which a schedule has been put in place.
Justin Maughan inquired about the engineering cost estimates. Barbara had expected it to be less, but have been working with Ensign Engineering and confident in the current estimates.
● Shazelle moved that the Drinking Water Board authorize a loan of $ 883,000 at 0% interest for
40 years, with $265,000 in principal forgiveness to Irontown. Dawn Ramsey seconded. The motion was carried unanimously by the Board. 9. Public Comment Period

None. 10. Open Board Discussion A. Packet & Reports Content Review

Eric Franson initiated a discussion about the board packet's format and content, suggesting it be revisited. Justin Maughan stated that the loan application seems to contain the necessary information and
asked Michael Grange to confirm staff's thorough review of applications. He expressed that this
confirmation would alleviate his concerns. Michael Grange affirmed the staff's meticulous review process, citing an example of a past application that was revised after staff identified a discrepancy. He emphasized the thoroughness
of their reviews, including consulting with external sources. He then asked Justin Maughan if his
question was addressed. Justin Maughan questioned the appropriate level of scrutiny regarding project costs and whether the board should analyze the rationale behind a system's choice of a more expensive alternative.

Michael Grange confirmed that cost-effectiveness is a key consideration, explaining that staff analyzes project costs and explores alternatives with water systems. Nathan Lunstad added that the SRF team, along with permitting staff and engineers, conducts a
thorough project review, often identifying more cost-effective options.
Justin Maughan asked whether this cost-effectiveness analysis occurs before or after projects are presented to the board.
Nathan Lunstad clarified that the timing varies, with some aspects considered beforehand and
others afterward. He also mentioned the staff’s efforts to encourage water system consolidation.
Page 5
Eric Franson described the plan review process, noting it typically occurs post-approval but can involve pre-board consultation. He discussed the challenges of mandating formal alternative
evaluations.
Michael Grange explained that staff assesses projects based on overall need and regularly discusses cost and responsible use of taxpayer funds with water systems and their engineers. He cited an example of a privately owned system with 30 connections proposing a $7 million project.
He deemed the project not cost-effective and not a good use of taxpayer dollars, given limited
grant availability. He suggested the system explore becoming a district and incorporating surrounding areas. The system followed this advice, formed a district, and is now pursuing funding from the Community Impact Board. Grange confirmed that while not a formal written policy, the process for these discussions is in place and project managers are trained to address
these issues as needed.
Eric Franson confirmed that the application includes questions about engineering studies, master plan integration, and project justification.
Mayor Dawn Ramsey (who left the meeting at 2:00 PM) expressed comfort with the current
information level due to confidence in staff but requested continued prioritization of value engineering. Michael Grange added that staff emphasizes planning with the engineering and water
communities. The state authorizes nearly a million dollars annually for water system planning,
including master plans and engineering studies. They encourage systems to secure planning funds
before submitting project proposals to the board. Grange explained that these studies help towns determine actual needs, rather than relying on anecdotal information (e.g., "we need a new tank"). He believes that working closely with engineering firms during these studies gives systems a
better understanding of current and future needs. He noted that while planning studies typically
cost $50,000-$60,000, some range from $80,000-$100,000, and he considers planning money well spent. Corinna Harris inquired about the application process, specifically if it addresses pursuit of other
funding options. Eric Franson confirmed it does. Harris then shared an anecdote about a city that
secured a different grant and no longer needed a previously approved loan. Michael Grange clarified that the application includes a section for listing project costs and funding sources, including amounts requested from each agency. He explained that a challenge occurs when other agencies don't approve the requested amount or the desired loan/grant ratio, making it difficult for
staff to provide accurate information to the board. Staff works to coordinate with other funding
agencies (e.g., Community Impact Board, Water Resources) to anticipate potential authorizations. While they have established relationships with these agencies, this coordination presents ongoing challenges.
Eric Franson acknowledged that some entities "term shop" (seeking the most favorable funding
terms from multiple sources). He believes staff works to mitigate this through open communication with other funding agencies, ensuring everyone is aware of funding requests and decisions. This collaborative approach aims to prevent entities from strategically applying to
Page 6
multiple sources and accepting the most advantageous offer. He indicated they have tried to address this issue over time.
Nathan Lunstad encouraged Justin, given his loan application experience, and other board members (including Eric, Shazelle, and others) to offer feedback on improvements and streamlining.
Michael Grange echoed this, emphasizing the board's diverse expertise and expressing his belief
that it's one of the best in the state. He stressed that staff welcomes questions and values the board's perspective, encouraging continued questioning and challenging of staff and water systems. He stated this sends a positive message to the water and consulting communities about preparedness. He advised applicants to anticipate questions and be ready to answer them.
Eric Franson observed a decrease in board questions over time. While acknowledging confidence in staff, he recalled more frequent inquiries, especially about cost estimates and alternatives. He suggested a key takeaway: don't hesitate to ask questions and don't assume presentations are "done deals." He emphasized that more information and discussion are always possible. He noted that
recommended motions might imply finality, but stressed that while staff and the Financial
Assistance Committee have done their work, dialogue with the system about project details and costs could be more in-depth. Michael Grange emphasized the board's power to table a project if more information is needed.
He explained that bi-monthly meetings allow for a two-month delay to gather information (unless
it's a dire emergency, in which case a supplemental meeting would occur). He stressed informed decisions about taxpayer dollars and affirmed staff's awareness of this. While staff provides comprehensive information, he reiterated the board's ultimate authority.
Eric Franson added that the board's diverse backgrounds and expertise are valuable in
questioning and information gathering, whether related to health, engineering, or other areas. He then returned to the original question about altering the meeting packet. Eric Franson opened the discussion to thoughts on the meeting’s information packet. Justin
Maughan suggested including the engineer's estimate, as it provides cost details and a clearer
picture of the project scope. Franson clarified that Maughan was requesting a more detailed breakdown of construction costs than the general project estimate currently provided. Michael Grange confirmed this information is received with the application. Franson agreed with Maughan, acknowledging that estimates are not perfect but provide valuable insights. Maughan
explained the estimate helps him assess cost reasonableness (e.g., casing size) and identify areas
for further questioning. He emphasized that it provides project understanding beyond just the total cost. Franson noted that this detail would be more valuable to some board members than others, likely leading to more informed questions about construction costs. He then asked if adding the engineer's estimate to the packet would be difficult. Grange indicated it would not, and the board
agreed it would be helpful. Franson then asked if there were any other items for discussion.
The board approved the inclusion of the engineer's estimate in future board packets.
Page 7
Nathan Lunstad asked about improvements to the board packet and reports, noting the move toward PowerPoint summaries. Shazelle Terry suggested more detailed financial summaries and a
walkthrough of the packet contents, focusing on explaining the summary language. Justin
Maughan seconded this, suggesting training or a Financial Assistance Committee meeting as venues for this discussion. He expressed difficulty understanding the financial reports, specifically the "red numbers."
Eric Franson noted this reinforces the need for training to review these reports. He acknowledged
the difficulty in understanding negative balances, positive cash flows, and ongoing disbursements. He suggested the upcoming training (or another setting) would help newer board members understand the reports. He then encouraged board members to email staff with any further suggestions regarding financial or Rural Water reports, emphasizing the importance of continuous
improvement.
Corinna Harris requested access to a sample application to better understand the information involved. Eric Franson clarified her request. Michael Grange suggested scheduling new board member training, as it wasn’t done recently. He proposed using the training to review an
application, discuss its sections, and explain how staff uses the information for evaluations. He
felt this would address some existing questions. Franson concurred. He suggested annual refresher training for the board to review the process and staff evaluation methods, ensuring board confidence. Franson agreed, suggesting they proceed with the training.
The Board decided to schedule a new board member training session to review the application
process, staff evaluations, and financial reporting, including a discussion of how to interpret the financial reports (particularly the "red numbers"). This training will also cover how staff uses the information in the applications.
B. Financial Assistance Committee
Eric Franson asked for volunteers to join the Financial Assistance Committee and suggested outlining the committee's responsibilities. Michael Grange explained the committee's role, meeting schedule (approximately three weeks prior to board meetings), typical meeting length
(one to one and a half hours), and virtual format. He emphasized the manageable time
commitment. Shazelle Terry volunteered to join the Financial Assistance Committee.
11. Next Board Meeting
Date: February 27, 2025 Time: 9:00 AM Place: Dixie Convention Center
1835 S Convention Center Dr
St George, UT 84790 12. Adjourn
Page 8
● Justin Maughan moved to adjourn the meeting. Shazelle Terry seconded. The motion was carried unanimously by the Board.
The meeting adjourned at 2:29 P.M.
Agenda Item
5(B)
Board Report As of February 14, 2025
PWS ID PWS Name PWS Type Pop Served IPS Pts Rating Rating Date
Corrective Action Systems
Not Approved Systems
UTAH22114 BULL MOOSE WATERWORKS Transient Non-Community 136 380 Corrective Action 1/2/2024
UTAH29092 COLE CANYON WATER COMPANY Community 39 45 Corrective Action 10/17/2023
UTAH14051 DESERET - OASIS SSD Community 490 35 Corrective Action 1/3/2024
UTAH22022 ESCAPE RV RESORTS - KNOTTY PINE Transient Non-Community 354 105 Corrective Action 10/8/2024
UTAH29053 GREEN HILLS COUNTRY ESTATES Community 237 315 Corrective Action 1/2/2024
UTAH18147 HI-COUNTRY ESTATES #1 Community 373 0 Corrective Action 3/19/2024
UTAH14004 HINCKLEY TOWN WATER SYSTEM Community 630 175 Corrective Action 1/10/2024
UTAH14013 HOLDEN TOWN WATER SYSTEM Community 475 20 Corrective Action 2/1/2024
UTAH18055 MT HAVEN OWNERS ASSOCIATION Transient Non-Community 85 45 Corrective Action 4/12/2023
UTAH08034 PACIFICORP HUNTINGTON PLANT Non-Transient 175 5 Corrective Action 4/24/2023
UTAH22080 PINES RANCH Transient Non-Community 100 285 Corrective Action 4/11/2024
UTAH27089 BIG PLAINS WATER SSD - CEDAR POINT Community 232 650 Corrective Action 10/17/2023
UTAH07067 SOUTH DUCHESNE CULINARY WATER Community 286 125 Corrective Action 5/25/2022
UTAH17001 BRIDGERLAND WATER CO Community 240 100 Corrective Action 2/22/2023
UTAH03002 AMALGA TOWN WATER SYSTEM Community 495 150 Not Approved 1/19/2024
UTAH07029 DEFA'S DUDE RANCH Transient Non-Community 200 425 Not Approved 11/22/2024
UTAH09024 ASPEN COVE RESORT Transient Non-Community 68 525 Not Approved 7/12/2024
UTAH09098 ESCALANTE RESORT LLC Transient Non-Community 107 35 Not Approved 5/6/2024
UTAH11099 FOOTHILL WATER USERS ASSOCIATION Community 28 470 Not Approved 3/27/2023
UTAH25184 BATEMANS MOSIDA FARMS Community 90 1025 Not Approved 10/30/2023
UTAH12041 LAKESIDE Transient Non-Community 60 50 Not Approved 9/23/2024
UTAH15015 MOUNTAIN GREEN WATER ASSOCIATION Community 47 45 Not Approved 10/23/2023
UTAH25077 RIVERBEND GROVE INC Transient Non-Community 25 665 Not Approved 2/10/2021
0
50
100
150
200
250
January
2025
February
2025
March 2024 April 2024 May 2024 June 2024 July 2024 August
2024
September
2024
October
2024
November
2024
December
2024
Signifcants Resolved Significants Identified
Significants Identified and Signifcants Resolved
January 2025
February 2025
March 2024
April 2024
May 2024
June 2024
July 2024
August 2024
September 2024
October 2024
November 2024
December 2024
0 1 2 3
New Systems Actived
Agenda Item
7(C)
Project Priority List
Presented to the Drinking Water Board
February 27, 2025

DRINKING WATER BOARD
BOARD PACKET FOR PROJECT PRIORITY LIST

There are two new projects being added to the project priority list:

Magna scored 20.7 on the project priority list.
This project is for replacing lead or galvanized steel water service lines requiring
replacement.

Helper City scored 12.1 points on the project priority list.
This project is for replacing lead or galvanized steel water service lines requiring
replacement.

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

The Drinking Water Board approve the updated Project Priority List.

January 29, 2025 Project Priority List
Authorized
Total Unmet Needs: Total Needs, incl. Recent funding $574,527,561 $39,243,650
da
t
e
BIL

$
ty
p
e %Green System Name County Pop. Project Title Project Total SRF Assistance
BIL funds authorized Funds Authorized Source Treat. Stor. Dist.
fire-eligible growth-eligible second home-eligible other-eligible Principal Forgiveness
N 20.7 Magna Water District Salt Lake 33,424 Lead Service Line Rebate Program $4,000,000 $4,000,000 15 $79.44 $47,000
N 16.7 Manderfield Beaver 50 Tank , waterlines $3,525,000 $3,525,000 10 20 20 $59.48 $45,000
N 14.0 Elberta Water Company Utah 211 Drilling New Well $825,070 $825,070 10 $80.82 $45,200
N 12.1 Helper City Carbon 2,139 Lead Service Line Rebate Program $1,010,000 $1,000,000 15 $44.41 $46,000
A 77.1 Brian Head Town Iron New Well drilling and equipping, replace main line, existing well maintenance/improvements, generator for exist $6,427,292 $5,141,834 $5,483,748 $77.69 $24,900
A 65.8 Brian Head Town Iron 165 Install new transmission line/fire hydrants along Snow Shoe Drive and Toboggan Lane (connect existing cabin $857,986 $507,870 $507,870 20 $82.92 $24,900
A 64.4 Johnson WID Uintah 1,880 upgrading 24,000 ft undersized waterlines $2,452,000 $2,352,000 $2,352,000 40 $58.80 $36,120 $2,352,000
A 63.6 Roosevelt City Duchesne 6,800 pipeline replacement, lining of DI pipe, new pipe to bypass tank, PRV $2,951,400 $2,841,400 $2,841,400 25 35 $87.92 $41,000
A 55.9 Ballard Water ID Uintah 1,367 800,000 gal tank, well; 3.5 miles of 12" trans line $7,287,000 $7,100,000 $7,100,000 20 15 30 $113.10 $44,100 $3,500,000
A 53.5 Virgin Town Washington New 500,000 gal water tank and waterline $2,248,000 $1,848,000 $1,848,000 $51.00 $42,700
A 48.9 Roosevelt City Duchesne 8,461 12000 ft of 12" transmission line, 2 PRV stations $2,418,600 $2,300,000 $2,300,000
A 47.2 Pine Valley Mountain Farms Washington 144 Tank reburshment, trans line replacement, solar pump, meters $418,485 $348,500 $630,015 25 30 $92.51 $53,300
A 43.9 Wilson Arch San Juan 27 New water lines, water meters, booster pump, and 30,000-gallon storage tank $1,138,000 $1,138,000 $1,138,000 20 $85.00 $38,300 $569,000
A 40.7 GrangerHunter ID - Emerging ContamSalt Lake 132,887 WTP to treat manganese on Wells 16& 18 $11,457,840 $2,500,000 $13,957,840
A 29.2 Sigurd Town Sevier Pipeline replacement $1,462,600 $1,460,000 30 $56.78 $41,600
A 29.0 Hanna Water and Sewer District Duchesne 742 200,000 gallon tank, booster pump station, dist line $3,483,838 $3,483,838 $3,483,838 20 $44.14 $30,100
A 28.1 Upper Whittemore Utah 128 chlorinator $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 10 25 $75.00 $46,200 $250,000
A 28.0 Payson City Utah 22,725 Connect Church to City water system $346,430 $346,430 $346,430 $27.33 $45,100
A 27.2 Angell Springs Washington treatment for well, valves on tank, waterlines to loop system $1,450,859 $1,445,859 25 20 30 $82.68 $51,900
A 26.7 North Emery SSD Emery 1,500 new 250,000-gallon tank, replace PRV vaults, replace 4000 ft waterline $2,550,000 $2,050,000 $2,050,000 $1,538,000
A 23.7 Foothill WAU Iron 30 250,000 tank, meters, hydrants;wellhouse, well & electrical improvements $603,030 $603,030
A 21.7 Wellsville City Cache $3,589,652 $3,200,000 $3,200,000 $39.15 $66,000
A 20.3 Salt Lake City DPU Salt Lake 364,982 Planning & Construction for LSL Inventory & Replacemen $39,525,000 $39,525,000 $39,525,000 $95.83 $46,500 $19,350,000
A 20.1 Irontown Iron 110 New well and wellhouse $883,000 $883,000 10 20 $48.08 $39,300
A 16.5 Paragonah Iron Waterlines, new well, 250,000 gallon tank $7,452,000 $7,300,000 $7,300,000 $31.22 $40,500
A 16.4 Wasatch Mobile home Wasatch 31 Connect to Daniel Town $250,000 $250,000 10 10 10 $60.00 $36,000
A 15.3 Fremont Waterworks Company Wayne 320 3100 ft. line: new master meters, 6 hydrants, radio meters $1,429,250 $1,425,000
A 13.8 Orderville Town Kane 645 Replace aging pipeline, new pipeline $490,000 $479,700 $479,700 $72.30 $40,000
A 10.4 Myton Town Duchesne 590 New waterline and connections, hydrants.$650,000 $650,000 $650,000
A 10.4 Panguitch Garfield 1,730 9000 lf 10-in mainline, valves, hydrants, connect to existing culinary syst in two locations $1,629,000 $1,609,000 $1,609,000 10 $36.46 $34,600
A 9.8 Holden Town Millard 450 New well, tank, dist lines, meters, chlorination upgrades $8,841,000 $8,691,000 $8,691,000 20 5 15 20 $29.51 $44,500
A 9.5 Wanship Summit 204 Construct new storage tank, replace spring pipeline, install chlorination system, upgrade rest of system $3,806,690 $3,806,690 $3,806,690 $74.19 $81,600
A 8.5 Hidden Lake Association Summit 364 New well, distribution line, 50,800 gal concrete tank $3,838,040 $3,838,040 $29.17 $68,800
A 7.9 Cottonwood Mutual Treatment for EC $162,300 $162,300 40 $96.67 $132,000
A 7.5 Enoch City Iron 6,500 New 2M Gallon steel tank $1,639,440 $645,000 $645,000
A 3.2 Summit County Service Area #3 Summit 600 Drill new well, new well house, make system-wide fire flow improvements and conduct well isolation study $3,569,003 $3,469,003 $105.11 $103,300
A 1.8 Mutton Hollow Davis 560 Pipeline replacements and upgrades $1,477,800 $1,300,000 $78,900
A 0.0 Henefer (Secondary Irrigation) Summit 1,025 Secondary irrigation $2,100,000 $2,100,000 $2,100,000
N = New Application E= Energy Efficiency
A = Authorized W= Water Efficiency
P = Potential Project- no application G= Green Infrastructure
Med
i
a
n

A
G
I

Av
g
.

M
o
n
t
h
l
y

W
a
t
e
r

B
i
l
l
Av
g
.

o
f

A
p
p
.

P
r
o
j
.

S
e
g
'
s
.
Utah Federal SRF Program
Pri
o
r
i
t
y

P
o
i
n
t
s
Project Segments
Pa
r
t
i
a
l

E
l
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
$978,129,103 $888,479,741

Agenda Item
7(D)(i)(a)
Magna Water District Presented to the Drinking Water Board February 27, 2025 DRINKING WATER BOARD BOARD PACKET FOR CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE APPLICANT’S REQUEST:
Magna Water District is requesting financing to replace lead or galvanized steel water service lines requiring replacement (GRR). There are currently 69 known GRRs with more expected to be found. 90% of these lines exist in disadvantaged areas. The work includes planning, design, public outreach and replacements to meet safety standards, including
replacing the total service line from the District’s water main to the customer’s structures. This project scored 20.7 points on the Project Priority List. The total project cost is $4,000,000. Magna Water District is requesting the full $4,000,000
from the Drinking Water Board. STAFF COMMENTS:
The local MAGI for the Magna Water District is $47,000, which is 84% of the State MAGI. The current average water bill is $79.44/ERC, which is 2.03% of the local MAGI. The estimated after project water bill at full loan would be $83.00/ERC or 2.12% of the local MAGI. Based on the after project water bill and the disadvantaged area most of the GRRs
are located in, Magna Water District qualifies to be considered for additional subsidy.

Option Loan / Grant
Principal
Forgiveness Loan Term
Interest
Rate
(HGA)
Water
Bill
% Local
MAGI
1 20% /80% $3,200,000 $800,000 20 yrs 2.00% $83.00 2.12%
2 10% / 90% $3,600,000 $400,000 20 yrs 2.00% $82.77 2.11%
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Drinking Water Board authorize a construction loan of $4,000,000 with
$3,200,000 in principal forgiveness to Magna Water District, for a repayable loan amount of $800,000 at 2.00% for 20 years.
APPLICANT’S LOCATION:
Magna Water District February 27, 2025 Page 2
Magna Water District is located in Salt Lake County approximately 15 miles west from Salt Lake City. MAP OF APPLICANT’S LOCATION:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Magna Water District needs to replace lead or galvanized steel water service lines requiring replacement (GRRs). There are currently 69 known GRRs with more expected to be found. 90% of these lines exist in disadvantaged areas. The work includes planning, design, public outreach and replacements to meet safety standards, including replacing the total service
line from the district’s water main to the customer’s structures. Replacement of both the utility-side and the private-side of the service line including the connector will occur if lead. This is regardless of the private-side existing material. Replacement of just the private-side of the service line will happen if the utility-side has
already been replaced with non-lead or non-galvanized material, including the connector. Magna Water will only replace the utility-side of the line without private-side replacement (regardless of the private-side material) if the resident refuses to authorize site access for
the replacement after 4 notifications with two different communication methods or there is
an emergency replacement required. In either case, notification, health information, flushing instructions, and a pitcher filter will be provided to the resident. Follow-up sampling will also be offered. In the case of an emergency replacement, efforts will be made as quickly as practical to gain access authorization and replace the private-side line.
Magna
Magna Water District February 27, 2025 Page 3
POPULATION GROWTH: Magna Water District provided their own estimates of population growth using WFRC Demographics Web Viewer to generate estimated population totals.

Year Population Connections
Current 33,424 9,157
2030 37,594 9,448
2040 43,459 9,892
COST ESTIMATE:

Legal/Bonding/Admin $300,000 Engineering - Design $600,000 Engineering - CMS $100,000 Construction - $3,000,000
Total $4,000,000 COST ALLOCATION: Funding Source Cost Sharing Percent of Project DWB Loan (2.00%, 20-yr) $800,000 20% DWB Grant $3,200,000 80%
Total $4,000,000 100%
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE: DWB Funding Authorization: February 2025 Complete Design April 2025
DDW Plan Approval: June 2025
Advertise for Bids: June 2025 Bid Opening: June 2025 Loan Closing: July 2025 Begin Construction: July 2025
Complete Construction: December 2035

Magna Water District February 27, 2025 Page 4
IPS SUMMARY:
Code Description Physical
Facilities
Quality
& Monitoring
Significant
Deficiency Violations
S091 SYSTEM LACKS UP TO 20% OF REQUIRED SOURCE CAPACITY 15
V004 STORAGE TANK LADDERS IN EXCESS OF 20
FEET LACK SAFETY FEATURE SUCH AS
CAGE, HARNESS OR PLATFORM
15
Total = 30 0 0
Magna Water District February 27, 2025 Page 5
CONTACT INFORMATION:
APPLICANT: Magna Water District 8885 West 3500 South Magna, UT 84044 801-250-2118 [e-mail]
PRESIDING OFFICIAL & CONTACT PERSON: Cline Dilley General Manager 8885 West 3500 South
Magna, UT 84044 801-250-2118 [e-mail]
TREASURER/RECORDER: Leslie Fitzgerald 801-250-2118 [e-mail]

CONSULTING ENGINEER: Marie Owens AE2S 3400 Ashton Blvd Suite 105 Lehi, UT 84043
801-331-8489
[e-mail] BOND ATTORNEY: To Be Determined
Kersey
Creek
Canal
111Magna-Copper
Park
Progress Athens
Riter
171
W 4100 S
S
7200
W
S
8400
W Magna
85
172
State Route 201
85
172
S
5600
W
Bills
Dr
MAGNA WATER DISTRICTMagna | Salt Lake County, UT¯Locator Map Not to Scale
Information depicted may include data unverified by AE2S. Any reliance upon such data is at the user’s own risk. AE2S does not warrant this map or its features are either spatially or temporally accurate.
ww
w
.
a
e
2
s
.
c
o
m

|

A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

a
n
d

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,

L
L
C
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Utah Central FIPS 4302 Feet Intl | Edited by: CForthun | W:\M\Magna Water District\13291-2022-002\GIS\Magna Water District LCRR Support - Mapping and Analysis Dan.aprx| Portrait8.5x11
MWD - GALVANIZED REQUIRING REPLACEMENT
Date: 12/30/2024
Legend
MWD Boundry
Schools Pre-K - 12th
Utah Child Care Centers
Galvanized Requiring Replacement
Disadvantaged Area
DRINKING WATER BOARD FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE EVALUATION
SYSTEM NAME: Magna Water District FUNDING SOURCE: Federal SRF
COUNTY: Salt Lake County
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

20 % Loan & 80 % P.F.
ESTIMATED POPULATION: 33,424 NO. OF CONNECTIONS: 9899 * SYSTEM RATING: APPROVED
CURRENT AVG WATER BILL: $79.44 * PROJECT TOTAL: $4,000,000
CURRENT % OF AGI: 2.03% FINANCIAL PTS: 57 LOAN AMOUNT: $800,000
ESTIMATED MEDIAN AGI: $47,000 PRINC. FORGIVE.: $3,200,000
STATE AGI: $56,000 TOTAL REQUEST: $4,000,000
SYSTEM % OF STATE AGI: 84%
@ ZERO % @ RBBI EQUIVALENT @ CALCULATED
RATE MKT RATE ANNUAL PAYMENT INTEREST RATE
0% 4.45%#REF! **2.00%
SYSTEM
ASSUMED LENGTH OF DEBT, YRS: 20 20 20 20
ASSUMED NET EFFECTIVE INT. RATE: 0.00% 4.45%#REF!2.00%
REQUIRED DEBT SERVICE: $40,000.00 $61,234.75 #REF!$48,925.37
*PARTIAL COVERAGE (15%): $0.00 $0.00 #REF!$0.00
*ADD. COVERAGE AND RESERVE (10%): $4,000.00 $6,123.47 #REF!$4,892.54
$4.44 $6.80 #REF!$5.44

O & M + FUNDED DEPRECIATION: $7,622,402.00 $7,622,402.00 $7,622,402.00 $7,622,402.00
OTHER DEBT + COVERAGE: $1,525,338.75 $1,525,338.75 $1,525,338.75 $1,525,338.75
REPLACEMENT RESERVE ACCOUNT: $444,133.65 $445,195.39 #REF!$444,579.92
ANNUAL EXPENSES PER CONNECTION:$968.97 $969.08 #REF!$969.02
$9,635,874.40 $9,660,294.36 #REF! $9,646,138.58
TAX REVENUE: $3,575,677.00 $3,575,677.00 $3,575,677.00
RESIDENCE
MONTHLY NEEDED WATER BILL:$82.92 $83.12 #REF!$83.00
% OF ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME:2.12% 2.12% #REF!2.12%

$0
Project to replace lead or galvanized service lines. 69 GRRs known, more likely.
$0.00
ANNUAL NEW DEBT PER CONNECTION:
TOTAL SYSTEM EXPENSES