DWQ-2024-003274

In compliance with the American Disabilities Act, individuals with special needs (including auxiliary communicative aids and services) should contact Larene Wyss, Office of Human resources, at [phone], TDD (801)
536-4284, or by email at [e-mail] at least five working days prior to the scheduled meeting.
195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT
Mailing Address: PO Box 144870 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870
Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • TDD [phone]
www.deq.utah.gov
Printed on 100% recycled paper

State of Utah

Department of
Environmental Quality

Kimberly D. Shelley
Executive Director

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
John K. Mackey, P.E.
Director

Water Quality Board
James Webb, Chair
Michelle Kaufusi, Vice Chair
Carly Castle
Michela Harris
Joseph Havasi
Trevor Heaton
Robert Fehr
Jill Jones
Kimberly D. Shelley
John K. Mackey
Executive Secretary
SPENCER J. COX
Governor

DEIDRE HENDERSON
Lieutenant Governor
Utah Water Quality Board Meeting
Dixie Convention Center & Via Zoom
1835 S. Convention Center Dr.
St. George, Utah 84790
and
Via Zoom

April 23, 2024
Board Meeting Begins at 2:00 PM AGENDA Water Quality Board Meeting – Call to Order & Roll Call Jim Webb
Minutes:
Approval of Minutes for March 27, 2024 Water Quality Board Meeting Jim Webb

Executive Secretary Report John K. Mackey
Funding: 1. Financial Status Report Adriana Hernandez 2. Cedar City ARPA Reauthorization Harry Campbell & Andrew Pompeo 3. Ash Creek SSD Virgin Authorization Glen Lischeske 4. Corinne Design Advance Beth Wondimu & Ken Hoffman 5. Lewiston Reauthorization Beth Wondimu & Ken Hoffman Rule Making: 1. Rulemaking Actions: R317-16 GSL Mineral Extraction Facility Operator Certification Approval/Summary of Public Comments & Responses Ben Holcomb Compliance & Enforcement: 1. Presentation of Division of Water Quality’s Penalty Policy Samantha Heusser & Haley Sousa Other: 1. Wastewater Operator Certification Program 2023 Annual Report Chad Burrell Public Comment Period
Page 2
April 23,2024
Water Quality Board
Agenda
Meeting Adjournment Jim Webb Next Meeting
May 22, 2024 at 8:30 am
MASOB & Via Zoom
195 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City, Ut 84116

DWQ-2024-003039

195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT
Mailing Address: PO Box 144870 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870
Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • TDD [phone]
www.deq.utah.gov
Printed on 100% recycled paper
State of Utah

Department of
Environmental Quality

Kimberly D. Shelley
Executive Director

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
John K. Mackey, P.E.
Director

Water Quality Board
James Webb, Chair
Michelle Kaufusi, Vice Chair
Carly Castle
Michela Harris
Joseph Havasi
Trevor Heaton
Robert Fehr
Jill Jones
Kimberly D. Shelley
John K. Mackey
Executive Secretary
SPENCER J. COX
Governor

DEIDRE HENDERSON
Lieutenant Governor
MINUTES

UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD
MASOB, Board Room 1015
and
Via Zoom

March 27, 2024
8:30 am Meeting

UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Jim Webb Carly Castle
Mayor Kaufusi Michela Harris
Robert Fehr
Jill Jones
Joe Havasi
John Mackey
Excused
Kim Shelley
Trevor Heaton

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT & ONLINE
Emily Cantón Skyler Davis David Jamison
Ken Hoffman Samantha Heusser James Harris
Clanci Hawks Andrew Pompeo Benj Morris
Haley Sousa
George Meados
Ben Holcomb
Lonnie Shull
Judy Etherington
Dave Pierson
Samuel Taylor

Beth Wondimu
Linsey Shafer
Robert Beers
Alex Heppner
Jennifer Robinson
Jeff Studenka

Dan Griffin
Jennifer Berjikian
Eric Castrejon
Leanna Littler-Wolf
Paul Burnett
Adrianna Hernandez
Justine Marshall
Benj Morris
Tessa Scheuer
Amber Loveland
Harry Campbell
Porter Henze
Brendon Quirk
Mark Stanger

Page 2
March 27, 2024
Water Quality Board
Minutes

OTHERS PRESENT & ONLINE
Travis Tyler
Greg Carling
Erin Christensen
Justin Atkinson
Janae Walt
Vern Maloy
Braxton Porter
Darlene Pope
Bobbi Lillegard
Mike Chandler
Elaine York

Mr. Webb, Chair, called the Meeting to order at 8:30 AM.

ROLL CALL
Mr. Webb took roll call for the members of the Board.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF January 24, 2024 BOARD MEETING
Mr. Webb moved to approve the minutes of the January 24,2024 Board meeting.

Motion: Ms. Jones motioned to accept the minutes.

Mr. Fehr seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously to approve the January 24, 2024 meeting minutes.

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY REPORT
Mr. Mackey addressed the Board regarding the following:

• State/Division News:
o Mr. Mackey expressed how there is no rest coming out of the Legislative Session, as they
have come up with a number of interim items for us to work on as well as some new work
associated with the new laws and he addressed the board on three of them to keep everyone
up to date.
 House Bill H.B.4,35 – This is an update of the previous bill relating to Minerals
Development for the Great Salt Lake. Part of the component of this bill was
development of the water distribution plan. This work will be done mostly by the
State Engineer, Forestry Fire and State Lands. A part of what the water distribution
looks at is how are we getting flows to the GSL and how are we going to mange
the levels for example through the breach and the berm to protect lake water
quality. Water Quality was tasked with development of effluent limitation on
salinity for mineral producers discharging into the lake. This is something that we
haven’t had in the past. We were asked to complete this task by June 1, 2025 and
what that means for the WQ Board is to be able to meet that schedule.
Page 3
March 27, 2024
Water Quality Board
Minutes

 House Bill H.B.4, 33 Brine Mining Operations. This is mostly work that would be
done by the Division of Oil Gas & Mining. They were instructed to collaborate a
study with WQ. What this bill looks at is there is a number of places in the State
where groundwater usually deep water is highly safe. So this just isn’t GSL related
but there are other places like down in Creek River and other places around the
State. Restrictions that may need to be in place to protect safety and to make sure
that competitors are not infringing on each other’s mineral rights as they sink these
deep wells to be able to extract Brine. This has to do with a program that is called
the Underground Projection Program, which we implement a safe drinking water
and we administer is or disposal. So, this is just a study working to collaborate and
make sure that we are addressing all of the concerns and issues and technical
administrative needs that need to be addressed.
 House Bill H.B.2,80 – This is Water Amendments and this is a very broad bill. It
is essentially a study that’s looking at the mechanisms that the State has funding
water structure, the priorities that the State has for using the money to fund water
infrastructure and opportunities for optimizing the use of those funds. There are 5
agencies that administer those funds they are called the Water Development
Boarding. The bill is asking us to look at our funds and look at the need for
additional funds and help the Legislature prioritize five ways to fund major water.
o Mr. Mackey mentioned the State is nearing Spring Runoff Season, the State is seeing some
flooding up in the North Agricultural areas as well as a lot of water coming out of Utah
Lake and reports of flooding in the Narrows area. So, we are working to update our website.
We did have some information posted last year to help people who are concerned about
flooding and flood impact permits around their property.
o Mr. Mackey mentioned that Davis Sewer District reported that they have found other funds
and decided that they won’t need to use WQ Board funds for their project, so that’s made
a little bit more money available for other funding projects.
o Mr. Mackey noted that the April 24, 2024 Board Meeting will be taking place on Tuesday
April 23, 2024 at 2:00 PM in St. George during the WEAU Conference. He noted there are
many good things about the conference such as the Wastewater Treatment Facilities that
organize some very exciting competitions. Mr. Mackey finished his report by introducing
some new WQ employees.

FUNDING
Financial Status Report: Ms. Hernandez presented the financial status report to the Board as indicated in the packet.
Kane County Water Conservancy District, Duck Creek: Mr. Davies presented on behalf of Kane
County’s request for supplemental funding of $320,000 for construction of a third lagoon wastewater
treatment cell. In addition, KCWCD is requesting the scope of work for the funding authorized by the WQ
Board on May 24, 2023 to be modified from primary cell rehabilitation and cost overruns of the existing
project to add the construction of this third cell.

Motion: Ms. Jones motioned that the Board provide loan funds to the KCWCD Duck Creek project
for a grant in the amount of $281,000 and a loan in the amount of $549,000 with 0% interest
for 30 years with the staff recommendations.
Page 4
March 27, 2024
Water Quality Board
Minutes

Ms. Harris seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.

Ash Creek Special Services District: Mr. Lischeske presented on behalf of ACSSD request for funding
form the WQ Board in the amount of $6,876,00 for the construction of a regional sewer lift station and
pressure sewer force main to connect the Town of Virgin to the ACSSD collection system in La Verkin,
UT.

Motion: Mr. Webb addressed that the WQ Board is not going to take an action on this project at this
time. We are going to move forward and invite them back for an authorization/funding
request to take place during the April 23, 2024 WQ Board Meeting.

Groundwater Protection:

Request for Authorization to Conduct Public Hearing & Comment Period for the Aquifer
Classification Petition of the Shallow Aquifer of Davis County: Mr. Hall & Mr. Morris of WQ along
with Janae Wallace from the Utah Geological Survey and Greg Carling form BYU presented to the Board.

Motion: Mr. Havasi motioned to authorize WQ staff to conduct a Public Hearing on the Aquifer
Classification petition and to open a 90-day Public Comment Period.

Ms. Harris seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 5 yeas and 1 nay, as follows:

Mr. Webb- Yea
Mr. Fehr- Yea
Mr. Havasi- Yea
Mayor Kaufusi- Yea
Ms. Harris- Yea
Ms. Jones - Nay

PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments were presented.

MEETING ADJOURNMENT

Motion: Ms. Jones motioned to adjourn the meeting.
Mr. Fehr seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting.

Next Meeting – April 23, 2024
Meeting begins at 2:00 pm

Page 5
March 27, 2024
Water Quality Board
Minutes

In-Person
MASOB
Dixie Convention Center
1835 S. Convention Center Dr.
St. George, Utah 84790
Via Zoom
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/7074990271

___________________________________
James Webb, Chair
Utah Water Quality Board

DWQ-2024-003219
LOAN FUNDS FINANCIAL STATUS REPORT APRIL 2024
*WQB Agenda Items
State Fiscal Year State Fiscal Year State Fiscal Year State Fiscal Year State Fiscal Year
STATE REVOLVING FUND (SRF)2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Capitalizaon Grant Awards (FY22)$-  
Future Capitalizaon Grant $3,952,000
State Cap Grant Match (FY22)$-  $-  $-  $-  
Future State Cap Grant Match $790,400 $-  $-  $-  $-  
General Supplemental Grants (FY22)$9,378,000 $-  
Future General Supplemental Grant $10,983,000 $11,234,025 $12,169,025 $12,169,025
State General Supplemental Grants Match (FY22)$937,800
Future State Gen. Sup Grants Match $1,098,300 $2,246,805 $2,433,805 $2,433,805
Account Balance $22,556,908 $(24,312,270)$(3,160,174)$21,773,267 $46,991,069
Interest Earnings at 5.4438%$306,988 $-  $-  $-  $-  
Loan Repayments (5255)$921,625 $17,272,300 $17,225,194 $16,977,794 $20,691,107
Total Funds Available $50,925,021 $6,440,860 $28,667,850 $53,353,891 $67,682,176
Admin Expenses for all CAP Grant Awards $(1,037,080)$(894,361)$(931,761)$(400,000)$(400,000)
Cap Grant Principal Forgiveness (PF) (FY18-22)$(12,358,600)
Future Cap Grant (PF poron)$(1,185,600)$-  $-  $-  $-  
General Supplemental Grants (PF poron)$(4,595,220)
Future General Supplemental Grants (PF poron)$(5,381,670)$(5,504,672)$(5,962,822)$(5,962,822)
Moab City $(80,000)$-  $-  $-  $-  
Provo City 262 $(8,800,500)$-  $-  $-  $-  
Provo City 262b $(1,855,621)$-  $-  $-  $-  
Millville City Loan $(2,146,000)$-  $-  $-  $-  
Mountain Green $(2,234,000)$-  $-  $-  $-  
Payson City $(13,425,000)$-  $-  $-  $-  
Millville Refinance Loan $(1,261,000)
Long Valley $(1,250,000)
North Logan $(3,500,000)
Mt. Pleasant $(2,535,000)
Moncello $(1,214,000)
Wolf Creek $(3,202,000)$(3,202,000)
Brian Head $(1,900,000)
CAP Grant Base Program
CAP Grant General Supplemental
SRF - 2nd Round
CWSRF Program Obligaons
Project Obligaons
Loan Authorizaons
$-  
$-  $-  $-  
$-  
$-  
LOAN FUNDS FINANCIAL STATUS REPORT APRIL 2024
*WQB Agenda Items
Planned Projects
CWSRF Obligaons
CWSRF Remaining Loan Balance
Addt'l Subsidy - Principal Forgiveness
Project Obligaons
Addt'l Subsidy Authorizaons
Planned Projects
Principal Forgiveness Obligaons
Principal Forgiveness Remaining Balance
Funds Available
General Obligaons
Ash Creek SSD - Virgin* $(6,876,000)
Lewiston* $(400,000)
$(75,237,291)$(9,601,033)$(6,894,583)$(6,362,822)$(400,000)
$(24,312,270)$(3,160,174)$21,773,267 $46,991,069 $67,282,176
PF Balances (max for FY18-22)$12,358,600 $645,090 $6,149,762 $12,112,585 $18,075,407
Future Cap Grant (PF poron)$1,185,600 $-  $-  $-  $-  
General Supplemental Balances (PF poron)$4,595,220
Future General Supplemental Grants (PF poron)$5,381,670 $5,504,672 $5,962,822 $5,962,822
South Salt Lake City (A)$(2,584,000)$-  $-  $-  $-  
Millville City $(3,604,000)$-  $-  $-  $-  
Provo City $(7,000,000)$-  $-  $-  $-  
Payson City $(1,000,000)$-  $-  $-  $-  
Millville City Refinance $(3,750,000)$-  $-  $-  $-  
Hanksville $(1,838,000)
Lewiston*$(3,100,000)
$(22,876,000)$-  $-  $-  $-  
$645,090 $6,149,762 $12,112,585 $18,075,407 $18,075,407
State Fiscal Year State Fiscal Year State Fiscal Year State Fiscal Year State Fiscal Year
UTAH WASTEWATER LOAN FUND (UWLF)2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
UWLF $36,734,370 $23,586,945 $25,609,099 $27,314,701
Sales Tax Revenue $(0)$3,587,500 $3,587,500 $3,587,500 $3,587,500
State Match Appropriaon $1,450,425
Loan Repayments (5260) $752,000 $2,606,859 $2,477,307 $2,232,625 $2,259,259
Total Funds Available $38,936,795 $29,781,304 $31,673,906 $33,134,826 $34,622,380
$28,775,621
LOAN FUNDS FINANCIAL STATUS REPORT APRIL 2024
*WQB Agenda Items
$(80,235)$28,598,687 $61,200,553 $93,842,097 $118,054,563
$(80,235)$23,598,687 $51,200,553 $78,842,097 $98,054,563
State Match Transfers Base Cap Grant $(790,400)$-  $-  $-  $-  
State Match Transfers Gen. Supplemental Grant $(937,800)$-  $-  $-  $-  
State Match Transfers Gen. Supplemental Grant $(1,098,300)$(2,246,805)$(2,433,805)$(2,433,805)
DWQ Administrave Expenses $(481,350)$(1,925,400)$(1,925,400)$(1,925,400)$(1,925,400)
South Salt Lake City (B) $(4,891,000)$-  $-  $-  $-  
South Salt Lake City (C) $(982,000)$-  $-  $-  $-  
Hanksville $(150,000)
Grantsville $(750,000)
Spanish Fork $(4,500,000)
Long Valley $(220,000)
Kane County $(549,000)
Total Obligaons $(15,349,850)$(4,172,205)$(4,359,205)$(4,359,205)$(1,925,400)
$23,586,945 $25,609,099 $27,314,701 $28,775,621 $32,696,980
$-  $(5,000,000)$(10,000,000)$(15,000,000)$(20,000,000)
Loan Authorizaons
TOTAL LOAN FUND BALANCE
TOTAL AVAILABLE LOAN FUNDS
Project Obligaons
Planned Projects
UWLF Remaining Loan Balance
PROJECT RESERVE
HARDSHIP GRANT FUNDS FINANCIAL STATUS REPORT APRIL 2024
*WQB Agenda Items
Lewiston City - De-Obligaon $460,000
Spanish Fork - Hardship Grant $(500,000)$-  $-  $-  $-  
OSG Cost Share Balances (FY20-21)$(56,000)
State Fiscal Year State Fiscal Year State Fiscal Year State Fiscal Year State Fiscal Year
HARDSHIP GRANT FUNDS (HGF)2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Beginning Balance $-  $2,615,674 $2,565,885 $2,464,118 $2,309,644
Federal HGF Beginning Balance (5250) $2,680,618 $-  $-  $-  $-  
State HGF Beginning Balance (5265) $6,272,084 $-  $-  $-  $-  
Hardship Grant Assessments (5255) $117,831 $689,765 $657,624 $624,522 $590,676
Interest Payments - (5260) $64,230 $260,446 $240,609 $221,004 $206,353
Advance Repayments $-  $-  $-  $-  $-  
Total Funds Available $9,134,763 $3,565,885 $3,464,118 $3,309,644 $3,106,673
Beginning Balance $13,066,000
St. George Graveyard Wash Res $(13,066,000)
Total Funds Available $-  $-  $-  $-  $-  
Big Water-Planning Grant $(28,241)$-  $-  $-  $-  
Delta - Design Grant $(159,500)$-  $-  $-  $-  
Dutch John - Planning $(95,000)$-  $-  $-  $-  
Dutch John - HGF Loan $(60,000)$-  $-  $-  $-  
Eagle Mountain City - Construcon Grant $(510,000)$-  $-  $-  $-  
Elwood - Planning $(18,200)$-  $-  $-  $-  
Grantsville - Design Advance $(300,000)
Kanab City Planning Advance $(29,800)$-  $-  $-  $-  
Lewiston City - Design and Construcon $(460,000)$-  $-  $-  $-  
Long Valley - Design $(103,700)$-  $-  $-  $-  
Millville City - Construcon Grant $(1,000,000)$-  $-  $-  $-  
Stockton - Planning $(20,000)$-  $-  $-  $-  
Spring City - Design Advance $(174,250)
McKees ARDL interest-rate buy down $(55,261)$-  $-  $-  $-  
Munk Dairy ARDL interest-rate buy down $(16,017)$-  $-  $-  $-  
(FY12) Utah Department of Agriculture $(122,748)$-  $-  $-  $-  
(FY15) DEQ - Ammonia Criteria Study $(27,242)$-  $-  $-  $-  
(FY17) DEQ - Utah Lake Water Quality Study $(348,301)$-  $-  $-  $-  
(FY19) USU - Nutrient Concentraons Paleolimnology of Utah Lake $(4,715)$-  $-  $-  $-  
FY 2018 - Remaining Payments $(7,100)$-  $-  $-  $-  
FY 2019 - Remaining Payments $(45,522)$-  $-  $-  $-  
FY 2020 - Remaining Payments $(104,425)$-  $-  $-  $-  
Funds Available
St George Appropriaon
Authorizaons
Financial Assistance Project Obligaons
Non-Point Source/Hardship Grant Obligaons
HARDSHIP GRANT FUNDS FINANCIAL STATUS REPORT APRIL 2024
*WQB Agenda Items
Rockville Town - Hardship Grant $(27,172)
Richmond - Short Term Loan $(99,800)
Hyrum - Short Term Loan $(74,900)
Corinne - Planning Advance*$(102,900)
FY 2021 - Remaining Payments $(109,105)$-  $-  $-  $-  
FY 2022 - Remaining Payments $(423,540)$-  $-  $-  $-  
FY 2023 - Remaining Payments $(500,074)
FY 2024 - Remaining Payments $(919,576)
Future NPS Annual Allocaons $(1,000,000)$(1,000,000)$(1,000,000)$(1,000,000)
Kane County - Hardship Grant $(281,000)
Mt. Pleasant - Hardship Grant $(135,000)
Virgin Town - Short Term Loan $(60,000)
Total Obligaons $(6,519,089)$(1,000,000)$(1,000,000)$(1,000,000)$(1,000,000)
$2,615,674 $2,565,885 $2,464,118 $2,309,644 $2,106,673
Authorizaons

Planned Projects
HGF Unobligated Funds

195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT
Mailing Address: PO Box 144870 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870
Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • TDD [phone]
www.deq.utah.gov
Printed on 100% recycled paper
State of Utah

Department of
Environmental Quality

Kimberly D. Shelley
Executive Director

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
John K. Mackey, P.E.
Director
Water Quality Board
James Webb, Chair
Michelle Kaufusi, Vice Chair
Carly Castle
Robert Fehr
Michela Harris
Joseph Havasi
Trevor Heaton
Jill Jones
Kimberly D. Shelley
John K. Mackey
SPENCER J. COX
Governor

DEIDRE HENDERSON
Lieutenant Governor

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Water Quality Board

THROUGH: John K. Mackey, P.E.

FROM: Andrew Pompeo, P.E. and Harry Campbell, P.E.

DATE: April 24, 2024

SUBJECT: Cedar City Reauthorization for Change in Scope of Work

BACKGROUND

On December 14, 2022 the Water Quality Board authorized funding in the amount of $1,354,000
from the Southern Utah Reuse ARPA Grant Program funding to Cedar City for the construction of
a reuse trunk line and pump station under the following special conditions:

1. Cedar City must agree to participate annually in the Municipal Wastewater Planning
Program (MWPP).
2. Cedar City must develop, commit to adopt, and implement a capital asset management
plan that is consistent with EPA’s Fiscal Sustainability Plan guidance.

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

Cedar City is requesting a scope of work amendment to the Board’s December 14, 2022
authorization for the inclusion of construction of filtration and UV disinfection at their wastewater
treatment plant.

PROJECT NEED

Both municipal and agricultural users depend on the groundwater in the basin. Due to drought
conditions, the Cedar Valley is continuing to see declines in the water table. This impacts all water
users in the basin.

Page 2

The Cedar City Valley aquifer is currently being managed by the Utah Division of Water Rights
(DWR) under a Groundwater Management Plan. If the water table continues to decline in the
aquifer, then the DWR will begin to curtail the use of underground water rights according to the
priority date of the water right. Cedar City has adequate water rights currently to satisfy the demands
of its population. However, in the future, the cuts will have a significant negative impact on Cedar
City’s water rights portfolio.

Cedar City Regional Wastewater Facility (CCRWTF) is located at the low (north) end of the valley.
Cedar City is in the south end of the valley. The treated wastewater effluent and any new drinking
water developed from well fields in the north end of the valley will need to be pumped back to
Cedar City. It is anticipated that the pumping system will need to convey approximately 2,045 gpm.

Irrigation in and around Cedar City (agriculture, parks, and secondary water for lawn watering) uses
75% of the underground water that is pumped and used in the basin. Currently the yearly flow of
wastewater (3,300 acre-ft, although this will increase as Cedar City grows) is disposed of by land
application on 420 acres west of CCRWTF. It is estimated that 40% of irrigation water is lost to
evaporation. Considering the current demand for groundwater, diverting the wastewater for
irrigation purposes would change a disposal problem into a resource that would replace a significant
part of the 75% of the basin groundwater supply that is consumed for irrigation.

Changing to irrigating public parks and lawns requires the treated effluent meet Type I standards.
The regulations require that Type I effluents must be filtered. Since CCRWTP does not currently
provide filtration it must be constructed.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Amended Project:

Phase 1: Improve the water quality of the treated effluent from the CCRWTF from Type
II to Type I using membrane filtration. This will be accomplished by constructing a new
tertiary treatment and disinfection facility at the outlet of the WWTP. Estimated cost of
$5,000,000.

Phase 2: Convey the Type I effluent from the CCRWTF to Cedar City’s secondary
irrigation system or other agricultural user. It is anticipated that this will be accomplished
by means of a distribution storage basin, pump station, and pressurized pipeline. Estimated
cost of $10,000,000

Phase 3: Store the winter effluent in an open reservoir at the CCRWTF land application
site. This reservoir will be used to store treated effluent during the winter months and then
distribute the water to customers during the summer months.

Cedar City is requesting a scope of work amendment to include the construction of a filtration and
disinfection system to produce Type I treated effluent. This will allow Cedar City to convey Type I
treated effluent to their secondary irrigation system in the city. The originally authorized reuse trunk
line and pump station are still part of the planned project.
Page 3

This change in scope of work will allow Cedar City great flexibility in the utilization of ARPA
funds for the overall projects as the construction of the filtration membrane and disinfection system
can be completed faster than the construction of the reuse trunk line and pump station.

STAFF COMMENTS

Staff have reviewed the revised application and the addition of filtration and disinfection for the
production of treated effluent to meet Type I standards is eligible under the Southern Utah Reuse
Grant Program. If the amendment is made, staff will add the amendment to the existing ARPA
Grant Agreement. This is a minor modification and can be completed quickly and easily.

This project will help to slow the decline of the Cedar Valley aquifer and assist all users in the valley
to come into compliance with the goals of the Groundwater Management Plan which is to stop the
decline of the water table. Any projects that can be done to minimize the decline in the aquifer may
allow the Division of Water Rights to delay or halt cuts that might occur. This will allow Cedar City
to continue providing culinary and secondary water to its customers. In turn, this will allow the
residents in the area to continue to enjoy the quality of life that is available in Cedar City.

This Change in Scope of Work will aid in Cedar City’s ability to meet the December 2026 deadline
of construction completion, as the installation and construction of the filtration and disinfection
(Phase 1) can be completed much faster than the construction of the reuse trunk line and pump
station. Overall, staff is very supportive about Cedar City’s addition of Phase 1.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends the Board amend the December 14, 2022 authorization to allow Cedar City to
request reimbursement for the construction of a project including both filtration and disinfection for
the production of treated effluent meeting Type I standards.

Page 4

ATTACHMENT 1-Cedar City’s Updated Application

Timestamp 3/20/2024 23:52:05
Contact Name Jonathan Stathis
Contact Email [e-mail]
1. Please describe your reuse
project. Wastewater effluent reuse from the Cedar City Regional
Wastewater Treatment Facility.
2. How will your project mitigate
drought impacts on a rural
community?
This project will help to mitigate drought impacts in the Cedar City
community by providing for wastewater effluent to be reused. Both
municipal and agricultural users depend on the groundwater in the
basin. Due to the drought conditions, the Cedar Valley aquifer is
continuing to see declines in the water table. This impacts all water
users in the basin. Currently, the wastewater effluent is land applied
near the treatment plant. It is proposed the effluent be treated to
Type 1 quality so that it can be used for reuse in the City's
secondary irrigation system. This project will include treating the
effluent to Type 1 using a filtration process. Further work will need
to be done to convey the effluent into the City's secondary irrigation
system.
3. How will your project mitigate
drought impacts on local
agriculture?
This project will help to mitigate drought impacts on local agriculture
by reusing the effluent, thereby reducing pumping from the aquifer.
Agriculture uses approximately 75% of the underground water in
the basin. Agricultural users are seeing impacts on pumping levels
and power costs as the water table continues to decline. By reusing
the effluent, this will help to alleviate the effects of drought on local
agriculture.
4. How will the project replace a
current use of potable quality
water? Please provide data on
the historical potable quality
water use the reuse project will
replace.
As part of this current project, it is proposed that the amended
scope of work include the following item: (1) design, obtain State
approval, and construct a filtration process to treat the effluent
water to Type 1 quality.

As part of future projects, it is proposed to: (1) construct a pump
station and pipeline to convey the effluent from the wastewater
treatment plant to the City's secondary irrigation system; (2) install
a storage facility to store the treated Type 1 effluent during the
winter months. This project will ultimately allow approximately
3,300 acre-feet of effluent water to be reused annually in Cedar
City's secondary irrigation system. This will help to slow the decline
of the Cedar City Valley aquifer and assist all users in the valley to
come into compliance with the goals of the Groundwater
Management Plan which is to stop the decline of the water table.
5. Will the project help mitigate
a water quality issue or a public
health hazard? Please
describe. No.
6. a. What is the estimated cost
of the project?
Approximately $5,000,000 to construct the filtration process to treat
the effluent to Type 1 quality. This cost is based on the amended
scope of work.
Page 5

6. b. How much local funds will
be brought to the project? Local funds would be provided according to the required match.
6. c. Does the project currently
have any grant funds awarded
to it by another funding agency? No.
6. d. How will the remainder of
the project be funded if only
partial grant funds are obligated
or if bids come in over the
estimate?
Funding will be provided through available cash on hand, if there
is enough available. Otherwise, the funding would come from
bonding and be paid back with user rates.
6. e. Has your project been bid? No.
6. f. Has your project started
construction? No.
6. g. Has your project
completed construction? No.
7. How will the project enrich the
community?
The State of Utah Division of Water Rights has implemented a
Groundwater Management Plan for the Cedar Valley aquifer. This
plan will significantly reduce the ability of Cedar City to be able to
supply water in the future as the plan is implemented through
priority cuts to water rights. Any projects that can be done to
minimize the decline in the aquifer may allow the Division of Water
Rights to delay or halt cuts that might occur. This will allow Cedar
City to continue providing culinary and secondary water to its
customers. In turn, this will allow the residents in the area to
continue to enjoy the quality of life that is available in Cedar City.
8. a. What is the population the
project will serve? 38,692
8. b. What zip codes will this
project serve? 84720 and 84721
8. c. What is your average
monthly user fee for wastewater
service? $23.00 per month

ATTACHMENT 2- December 14, 2022 Packet Information
Page 6

Project 3.b. Cedar City IPR: Priority Level 3

Cedar City proposes to conduct an Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) project. The total cost of the
project is estimated to be $10,000,000. The balance of funding not provided through a Board award
for the project will be through available city money, or from bonding. Cedar City and the Cedar
Valley are suffering from low water table conditions. Specifically, the water table is very low on
the east side of the valley where the land is more arable. To mitigate this, Cedar City plans to pump
treated effluent from their treatment plant to recharge basins near the Cedar City Airport. Cedar
City plans one water line to carry water 8 miles from the treatment plant to the recharge basins.
Another water line will be installed to carry groundwater from underneath the current land
application site next to the wastewater treatment facility to the drinking water treatment facility to
supplement the drinking water supply. They hope to recharge the aquifer using treated effluent
from the treatment facility. Cedar City has not included any more upgrades to their facility in this
scenario. The project has not been bid yet and Cedar City has not hired an engineer. A timetable
for the project is shown below:

Division Staff Comments:

Staff has previously met with Cedar City in relation to this project. At this time a feasibility report
has not been reviewed by the Division for concept approval or a permit application submitted. The
Division is concerned the project may not be feasible as an indirect potable reuse project without
substantial additional nitrogen treatment or other contaminates of emerging concerns. In the Cedar
City Return Effluent Reuse Feasibility Study 2018 (Carrollo Engineers) the least expensive
alternative with IPR was approximately $78 million. At this time no IPR project has been
completed in the State of Utah and will face substantial regulatory review with permitting from
Divisions of Water Resources, Water Rights, Drinking Water, and Water Quality. Staff is
concerned these regulatory reviews might not be able to be completed within the ARPA timeframe.
However, the Division is actively looking for a community to be the State leader in an IPR project.

UPDATE

In clarification to staff concerns from the Finance Committee meeting and response to the follow
up questions. Cedar City has clarified the bulk of this project is for the construction of a reuse
trunk line, culinary line, and pump station from the wastewater treatment plant to town. Based on
Page 7

this information $4,276,800 of culinary line is ineligible. Staff is more encouraged by the
construction of a reuse trunk line and pump station. Staff supports funding of up to $5,026,800 of
the project. Cedar City continues to want to pursue IPR, however if this is not a feasible option
they will use the trunk line to facilitate land application of treated effluent. Since this was a newly
identified component of the project staff were not able to recalculate the score for the project but
believes this could potentially add 5 points.

Recommendation:

If the Board would like to make a motion to fund this project staff recommends the following
motion: the Board authorize funding in the amount of $0-$5,026,800 as ARPA grant funding to
Cedar City for the construction of a reuse trunk line and pump station under the following special
conditions:

1. Cedar City must agree to participate annually in the Municipal Wastewater Planning Program
(MWPP).

2. Cedar City must develop, commit to adopt, and implement a capital asset management plan that
is consistent with EPA’s Fiscal Sustainability Plan guidance.

195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT
Mailing Address: PO Box 144870 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870
Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • TDD [phone]
www.deq.utah.gov
State of Utah

Department of
Environmental Quality

Kimberly D. Shelley
Executive Director

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
John K. Mackey, P.E.
Director

Water Quality Board
James Webb, Chair
Michelle Kaufusi, Vice Chair
Carly Castle
Robert Fehr
Michela Harris
Joseph Havasi
Trevor Heaton
Jill Jones
Kimberly D. Shelley
John K. Mackey
SPENCER J. COX
Governor

DEIDRE HENDERSON
Lieutenant Governor

WATER QUALITY BOARD
FEASIBILTY REPORT FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROJECT
AUTHORIZATION

APPLICANT: Ash Creek Special Services District
1350 Sandhollow Road
Hurricane, UT 84737
Telephone: [phone]

PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Mike Chandler, General Manager
Email: [e-mail]

TREASURER/RECORDER: Greg Kleinman, Treasurer
CONSULTING ENGINEER: Steve Jackson, P.E.
Jackson Engineering
Telephone: [phone]

BOND COUNCIL: Randall Larsen
Gilmore & Bell PC
Telephone: [phone]

FINANCIAL ADVISOR: Mark Anderson, Vice President
Zion’s Public Finance
Telephone: [phone]

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

Ash Creek Special Services District (ACSSD) is requesting funding from the Water Quality Board
(Board) in the amount $6,876,000 for the construction of a regional sewer lift station and pressure
sewer force main to connect the Town of Virgin to the ACSSD collection system in La Verkin, UT.

Page 2
Water Quality Board - April 23, 2024
Feasibility Report - Ash Creek SSD Town of Virgin

APPLICANT’S LOCATION

The project is primarily located between the Towns of Virgin and La Verkin, Northeast of St. George
in Washington County.

PROJECT BACKGROUND

The Town of Virgin does not currently have a sanitary sewer collection system. Existing residential
dwellings rely on private septic systems for sewage disposal, including several Large Underground
Wastewater Disposal Systems (LUWDS). Since the town is located close to the Virgin River, there is
concern about potential for degradation of surface water quality in the area due to the increased number
of onsite systems, including other developments planned in the area.

In 2022 a study was completed by Sunrise Engineering, commissioned by the State of Utah (2022
Update Virgin Town Wastewater Study), which outlined several options for wastewater treatment in
the region. These alternatives included a proposed sewer system connecting to the regional treatment
facility in La Verkin. In February 2024, Town of Virgin voted to annex into ACSSD.

The Town of Virgin is the 19th largest community in the State without a sanitary sewer system. The
community is under significant growth and development pressures. The Division of Water Quality
(Division) has encouraged construction of a sanitary sewer system trunkline to service the Town of
Virgin for several years. Most of the recent pursuits have required consideration of extensive grant
dollars and most recently the Division attempted to access American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds
to construct this trunkline.

In late 2023, Division staff were approached about a commercial development proposing to construct
a trunkline to connect a commercial facility to ACSSD. Division Staff determined it was a great
opportunity to construct a trunkline large enough to service both the commercial development and the
Town of Virgin. Since this would primarily serve commercial development grant funds will not be
discussed. This project is attempting to move quickly. For these reasons, Division staff agreed to bring
this project as soon as possible in front of the Board “off schedule.”

Page 3
Water Quality Board - April 23, 2024
Feasibility Report - Ash Creek SSD Town of Virgin

PROJECT NEED

This project will provide a regional sewer lift station for the Town of Virgin and will mitigate current
and future wastewater flows by conveying the flows to the ACSSD lagoons and/or new confluence
park treatment plants. The following facilities are anticipated to be connected: White Bison Resort
(168 RV Pads, and 47 Glamping Sites); Zions Sunset Convenience Store and Restaurant; Kerlin
Mobile Home Park; K&K Properties Residential project; and Smith Residential Project.

Once the future gravity sewer line is constructed through the Town of Virgin to the proposed Regional
Sewer Lift Station, the majority of the towns Commercial Projects will be taken off the their LUWDS
and conventional septic systems. These include: Zion River RV Park; Furber Resort; Zion Wildflower
Resort; Auto Camp Resort; and the Fairfield inn and Suites; eliminating an approximate 109,000 GPD
of sewage treatment by LUWDS and septic systems overall.

ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED

An alternatives analysis was included in the 2022 Town of Virgin Wastewater Study. The analysis
included alternative onsite treatment, construction of a new lagoon facility, and a sewer line connection
to ACSSD. ACSSD concluded that a pressurized force main would be the best option for providing
for current and future needs in the Town of Virgin.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project will be divided into two initial phases (Phase 1A and 1B). Phase 1A will include the
construction of a regional sewer lift station in the Town of Virgin and an 8-inch pressurized force main
providing a connection between the Lift Station and the regional sewer treatment facility in La Verkin.
This will also provide connections to a limited number of approved and existing projects, as outlined
in the “Project Needs” section. Phase 1B will include connections for several other existing
communities, and provide the backbone for future connections in the Town of Virgin.

POPULATION GROWTH

Based on 2020 and 2010 census data, the annual growth rate in the Town of Virgin is 1.18%, which
is lower than the state average. However, looking at only data from the past 5 years, as was
recommended by the 2022 Wastewater Study, the annual population growth rate is much higher
(3.32%).

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND DEMONSTRATION OF PUBLIC SUPPORT

In February 2024, the Town of Virgin approved annexation into ACSSD. One of the primary goals of
this project is to create a public/private partnership with the existing and anticipated communities that
are or would be connected to onsite systems without this project. ACSSD anticipates this project to
include $767,000 in private contributions.

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

Construction is expected to begin this year as soon as funding is approved. Construction is expected
to be completed by the end of 2024.
Page 4
Water Quality Board - April 23, 2024
Feasibility Report - Ash Creek SSD Town of Virgin

APPLICANT’S CURRENT USER CHARGE

The current user charges for ACSSD is $36.75 per month per residential connection and $18.90 per
month per RV pad connection. The proposed project indicates debt service being paid by 297
Equivalent Residential Connections (ERC). Based on the attached cost model a 0% interest loan with
a 30-year term would be approximately $57/month for debt service. Adding in operation and
maintenance of the collection system and a treatment fee from ACSSD, the monthly rate per ERC
would be approximately $145.

COST ESTIMATE

The total estimated cost of the project is $7,643,000, and the request for funding is $6,876,000. This
includes 15% Engineering Design & Construction Management Services (CMS) and a 50%
contingency with the cost estimate. Note that the 50% contingency has been increased from the
application, which originally had a 10% contingency. A breakdown of the cost by project is included
below.

Construction Phase 1A $3,100,000
Construction Phase 1B $1,867,000
50% Contingency (1A+1B) $2,484,000
Engineering Design & CMS $82,000
DWQ Loan Origination Fee $70,000
Legal/Bonding $40,000
Total Cost $7,643,000

Local Contributions -$767,000.00
Request for Funding $6,876,000

STAFF COMMENTS

Division Staff is very supportive of this project. The Town of Virgin is one of the larger unsewered
areas in the State of Utah, and a public/private partnership leading to the construction of a sewer
collection system and connection to a nearby treatment facility would solve many environmental
concerns about onsite systems in the area. The Town of Virgin, ACSSD, and private entities in the
region have all shown support for the project.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Division Staff recommend that the Board authorize funding in the amount of $6,876,000 as a loan at
an interest rate of 0.0% repayable over 30 years under the following special conditions:

1. ACSSD must agree comply with the provisions of Utah Admin. Code R317-101-3 including but
not limited:
a. Participation annually in the Municipal Wastewater Planning Program (MWPP);
b. Develop, commit to adopt, and implement a capital assessment management plan; and
c. Submission of the sewer use ordinance or resolution and user charge system to the division
for review and approval to insure adequate provisions for debt retirement, operation and
maintenance, or both.
Page 5
Water Quality Board - March 27, 2024
Feasibility Report - Ash Creek SSD Town of Virgin

Project Costs Anticipated Customer Base & User Charges
Legal/Bonding 40,000$ Estimated Total Customer (ERC's)297 Taken From 2022 Study
DWQ Loan Origination Fee 70,000$ MAGI for Virgin (2021): $47,100
Engineering - Design & CMS 82,000$ State Affordability Criteria (1.4%)$54.95
Phase 1A - Regional LS & Force Main 3,099,675$ Estimated Impact Fee (per ERU):$2,000
Phase 1B - Local LS & Connection 1,867,250$ Current ACSSD Monthly Fee (per ERU)$36.75
Debt Service $0
Annual O&M expense $100,000
Construction subtotal 4,966,925$
Contingency (50%)2,483,463$
Total Project Cost:7,642,388$
Project Funding Funding Conditions
Local Contribution 766,600$ Loan Repayment Term:30
Amount to be Funded 6,875,788$ Reserve Funding Period:6
WQB Grant -$
Total Project Cost:7,642,388$
ESTIMATED COST OF SEWER SERVICE
0 6,875,788 0.00%4.50%0 0 422,115 100,000 130,977 653,092 183.25 4.67%MEDIUM
6,875,788 0 0.00%4.50%229,193 57,298 0 100,000 130,977 517,468 145.19 3.70%MEDIUM
6,875,788 0 0.50%4.50%247,383 61,846 0 100,000 130,977 540,206 151.57 3.86%MEDIUM
6,875,788 0 1.00%4.50%266,424 66,606 0 100,000 130,977 564,007 158.25 4.03%MEDIUM
6,875,788 0 1.50%4.50%286,302 71,576 0 100,000 130,977 588,855 165.22 4.21%MEDIUM
6,875,788 0 2.00%4.50%307,003 76,751 0 100,000 130,977 614,731 172.48 4.39%MEDIUM
6,875,788 0 2.50%4.50%328,509 82,127 0 100,000 130,977 641,613 180.03 4.59%MEDIUM
6,875,788 0 3.00%4.50%350,798 87,699 0 100,000 130,977 669,474 187.84 4.79%MEDIUM
6,875,788 0 3.50%4.50%373,846 93,461 0 100,000 130,977 698,284 195.93 4.99%MEDIUM
*Staff Estimate
Local Value State Value Score Weighting
Factor
Weighting
Score Table **
4.2%3.6%2.30 4 9.20 S2301 FNI Below 1.4%1.4% to 1.75%1.75% to 2.1%2.1% to 2.45 Above 2.45
23.4%9.1%3.00 2.5 7.50 S1701 Below 1.5 Low Low Medium Medium High
32,025$ 35,445$ 1.39 2.5 3.48 B19080 1.5 to 2.5 Low Medium Medium High High
12.0%18.6%2.29 1 2.29 B01003 Above 2.5 Medium Medium High High High
Financial Need Indicator (Sum of weighted Scores/10)2.25
2020 5 year ACS Table ** https://data.census.gov/cedsci/
Monthly
Sewer Cost/
ERU
Sewer Cost
as % of
MAGI
Threshold LQI
Population Growth Rate
Unemployment Rate
Modified MAGI
Poverty Rate
Town of Virgin (ACSSD) - Water Quality Board
30 Year Loan Static Cost Model
Financial Burden MatrixFNI Calculation
WQB Loan
Interest Rate
Private Loan
Interest Rate* WQB Grant WQB Loan
Private
Loan
Amount
Financial
Burden
WQB Loan
Debt Service
WQB Loan
Reserve
Annual
Sewer
Treatment
fee
Total
Annual
Sewer Cost
Private
Loan Debt
Service

State of Utah

Department of
Environmental Quality

Kimberly D. Shelley
Executive Director

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
John K. Mackey, P.E.
Director
Water Quality Board
James Webb, Chair
Michelle Kaufusi, Vice Chair
Carly Castle
Robert Fehr
Michela Harris
Joseph Havasi
Trevor Heaton
Jill Jones
Kimberly D. Shelley
John K. Mackey
SPENCER J. COX
Governor

DEIDRE HENDERSON
Lieutenant Governor

WATER QUALITY BOARD
FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR HARDSHIP PLANNING ADVANCE
AUTHORIZATION

APPLICANT: Corinne City
2420 N 4000 W
Corinne, Utah 84307
Telephone: [phone]

PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Mayor Shane Baton

CONTACT PERSON JL Nicholas
Telephone: [phone]

TREASURER/ RECORDER: Kendra Norman

ENGINEER: Joshua Nelson – Engineer
Sunrise Engineering
Telephone: [phone]

CITY ATTORNEY: Craig Smith, Partner
Smith Hartvigsen
Telephone: [phone]

BOND COUNSEL: Adam Long
Smith Hartvigsen
Telephone: [phone]

APPLICANT’S REQUEST:

Corinne City (Corinne) is requesting a hardship planning advance in the amount of a $102,900 for
preparation of a Preliminary Engineer Report (PER) related to the improvement of its sanitary
sewer collection system (collection system) and wastewater lagoon treatment system (lagoon
system).

Corinne City – Feasibility Planning Advance Authorization Report
April 24, 2024
Page 2

APPLICANT’S LOCATION

Corinne City is located in Box Elder County, Utah.

BACKGROUND:

The collection system and lagoon system serve Corinne, which has a current population of 830
people. Corrine’s Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (UPDES) Permit, issued by the
Division of Water Quality (Division) was renewed in 2021. Corinne’s lagoon system has been
operating at 0.07 Million Gallons a Day (MGD) for many years. During storm events the lagoon
system has substantially increased flows, indicating issues with high amounts of inflow and
infiltration (I&I) into the collection system. In addition, Corinne is on the Northeastern edge of the
Great Salt Lake which has shallow groundwater. During 2023 and 2024 Corinne’s lagoon system
exceeded effluent limits for Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) five (5) times, pH nine (9) times,
and total suspended solids (TSS) once. The annual average flow for 2023 was 0.18 MGD.

Through funding from the Community Impact Board (CIB) Corinne conducted a study in 2022 of
the collection system and lagoon system which identified deficiencies in sewer pipes; an
insufficient headworks; and inadequate screening capability. The 2022 study only completed an
initial engineering assessment of the collection system and lagoon system; a complete preliminary
engineering report with a robust alternatives analysis was not completed as part of the 2022 study.

PROJECT NEED:

Corinne’s lagoon system has had violations of its UPDES permit. To prevent future violations of
their UPDES permit and protect water quality, Corinne needs to address the inflow and infiltration
issues in the collection system and then potentially complete a lagoon system upgrade.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The initial engineering assessment identified that Corrine needs to repair or replace approximately
22,000 linear feet of sewer line and associated manholes; and a lagoon system redesign. Corrine
has prioritized the recommended improvements:

1. Improvement of existing sewer lines.
2. Redesign of the lagoon cells.
3. Headworks upgrade and replace its screen in the lagoon system.

The proposed project includes the improvement of the collection system and lagoon system:
Corinne City – Feasibility Planning Advance Authorization Report
April 24, 2024
Page 3

Collection System

The Corinne collection system was installed in 1970 with pipe sizes ranging from 8” to 12” in size
and constructed primarily of reinforced concrete pipe. The original collection system has
experienced very limited changes and but has been expanded with growth. There are four (4) main
portions of the Corinne collection system.

The first section is known as Ag Park, includes the industrial/commercial buildings around Mule
Ranch Road and the Walmart distribution center. The Ag Park flows are pumped into a manhole
that is near Mule Ranch Road and Hwy 13. The second section is on the north side of Corinne
which encompasses the residential areas north of Hwy 13 from roughly 4100 W to 3800 W with
flows generally conveyed to the south to the mainline along Hwy 13. The third section is on the
south side of Corinne from 4100 W to 3800 W with flows primarily being conveyed east to the
mainline in 3800 W. The fourth Section is the Country Meadows Subdivision, which has its own
lift station to convey wastewater flows into a manhole on 4100 W.

Corrine proposes to replace the oldest areas, which are on the north and south sides. These areas
are the primary source of the inflow and infiltration (I&I) that is contributing 35%-55% of the
annual flows into the Corinne lagoon system. It is anticipated that if Corrine replaces the collection
system in these areas, their lagoon system will be able to meet their UPDES discharge limitations.

Lagoon System

The wastewater lagoon system was constructed in 1971 with seven cells. In 1981 it was expanded
to eight cells. The facility consists of a bar screen; 450 V-notch inlet weir; comminutor; sump and
pump station; eight facultative lagoons operating in a series; a Steven discharge flow recorder; and
a gas chlorine system.

The second portion of this project includes designing a small headworks facility; reconfiguring
the lagoon ponds; and replacing the force main to the lagoons. The headworks facility will be
used to clean solids out of the wastewater before it is pumped into the lagoons. The lagoon
reconfiguration is needed due to failing dikes and failing cross-connecting pipes in the lagoons.
The new force main will be replacing an aging transit force main line that is brittle and at-risk of
failure due to its age. Due to the proximity of the force main to the Bear River, this line and
associated lift station is critical infrastructure and it’s important that we have confidence in its
long-term operation.

Corrine anticipates installing a new primary cell or reconfiguring the existing lagoon treatment
cells to enlarge the primary cell so its large enough to provide proper biological treatment. Corrine
would like to install an automated screen and grit removal system before the existing lift station to
eliminate plastics, and non-biodegradable solids from entering the lagoon system. Corrine also
plans to construct a force main.

ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED

The initial engineering evaluation included two alternatives:

1. No action and continue to use the existing collection and lagoon systems.
Corinne City – Feasibility Planning Advance Authorization Report
April 24, 2024
Page 4

2. Replacement of old sewer pipes and upgrade of lagoon headworks & screen.

The recommended alternative is No. 2, which are replacement of failed sewer pipelines and
improvement of lagoon headwork and screen system. The PER will evaluate more alternatives
including a in-depth analysis of sections of sewer where cured in place lining in an option.

IMPLEMETAION SCHEDULE

Apply to WQB for Planning Advance: March 2024
Start Construction March 2025
Complete Construction September 2026

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND DEMONSTRATION OF PUBLIC SUPPORT:

Corrine held a public meeting in January 2024 to discuss the master plans, including system-
wide repair and replacement needs, as required by the Utah Wastewater State Revolving Fund
(SRF) program. Corrine will hold another public meeting in April 2024 for rate increases and
impact fee increases to support the project.

APPLICANT’S CURRENT USER CHARGE:

Operation & Maintenance – Annual $160,000
Existing Sewer Debt Service $0
Current ERC 316
Current Monthly Cost / ERU $25.00

Division staff has been informed that Corrine is holding a meeting to potentially raise the sewer
user rate to $75 per month on April 16, 2024.

COST ESTIMATE

Preliminary Engineering Report $102,900
Pre-Construction Engineering $833,100
Engineering CMS/Other $1,650,0000
Legal – Bonding, Right of Way & Easement $100,000
Construction $11,233,000
Contingency $1,694,000
Total Project Cost: $15,613,000

Preliminary Engineering Report

Task Cost
Funding $15,600
Preliminary Engineering Report $40,400
Wastewater Flow Metering $30,300
Sewer System Data Collection and Review $16,600
Corinne City – Feasibility Planning Advance Authorization Report
April 24, 2024
Page 5

Total $102,900

COST SHARING:

The following is the summary of cost sharing is proposed for this project:

Funding Source Cost Sharing Percent of Project
Local Contribution $0 0%
WQB or USDA-RD Funding $15,613,000 100%
Total: $15,613,000 100%

ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST FOR SEWER SERVICE:

According to the Board’s affordability criteria a sewer user rate should exceed 1.4% of MAGI to
be considered for grant funds. Corrine’s 2021 MAGI is $50,700 and which means rates should
exceed $59.15 per month/ERU for grant consideration. A static cost model was prepared and
included as Attachment 1. The cost model analyzes several possible funding options including
estimates for municipal bond market; a 0% 30-year loan at 0% from the Board; USDA-RD 80:20
loan-to-grant ratio (40 year @ 2.75%); USDA-RD 70:30 loan-to-grant ratio; and co-funding with
the Board bringing $1,428,571 principal forgiveness funds. These scenarios result in a monthly
sewer user fee of between $167-230 per month.

To bring an additional $1,000,000 in total grant funds to the project the Board would need to
authorize $1,428,571 due to USDA-RD’s grant funds reducing proportionally. This is due to
USDA-RD bringing grant as 30% of their funding, not the total project.

FINANCIAL NEED INDICATOR:

In accordance with Board guidance Division staff calculated a Financial Need Indicator (FNI) in
the cost model. Division staff utilized data from the United State Census Bureau (census) website
(https://data.census.gov/cedsci/) to collect Corrine’s indicator values and State of Utah average
indicator values. Table 1 applied the range scoring criteria to determine a score for each indicator
in relation to the State average value. The calculation of the scores and the financial burden matrix
resulted in an FNI of 1.22. Division staff compared this FNI to the modified % MAGI to calculate
the Financial Burden. Based on the Financial Burden Evaluation Policy for the Utah Wastewater
Project Assistance Program, the proposal project would result in the community having a Financial
Burden of High.

EFFORTS TO SECURE FINANCING FROM OTHER SOURCES:

The total cost of the project is $15,613,000. Corrine is requesting $102,900 from the Board to fund
a planning advance. Corrine is in the process of applying for construction assistance and is working
on securing project construction funding through the U.S. Department of Agriculture - Rural
Development (USDA- RD).

Corinne City – Feasibility Planning Advance Authorization Report
April 24, 2024
Page 6

STAFF COMMENTS:

Division staff supports Corrine’s request for funding because staff believes the project is essential
to help collection and lagoon treatment system improvements. This funding will demonstrate
support from the Board. The PER will identify a project that Corrine can afford to fund and that
can improve as much of their failing infrastructure as possible. The PER will involve reviewing
data Corrine already has such as depths and sizes of the sewer system along with sewer videos to
determine the most critical parts of the system that need to be replaced. The PER will meet the
application requirements for the USDA-RD and the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF).

Utah regulations require that “once the long-term project financing has been secured, the Project
Planning Advance must be expeditiously repaid to the Board.” Under the regulation the Board may
issue a Planning Advance, Planning Grant, or Short-Term Planning Unsecured Loan.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Division staff recommend that the Board authorize a planning advance of $102,900 to Corinne
under the following special conditions:

1. The Planning Advance must be expeditiously repaid to the Board once long-term project
financing has been secured.

2. The Division must approve the engineering agreement and plan of study before the grant
agreement will be executed

3. Corrine must agree to participate annually in the Municipal Wastewater Planning
Program (MWPP).

4. As part of the facility planning, Corrine must complete a Water Conservation and
Management Plan.

Corinne Planning Advance
File:SRF- Corinne City, Planning Advance
Corinne City – Feasibility Planning Advance Authorization Report
April 24, 2024
Page 7

Corinne City - Water Quality Board & 20 Year Loan Static Cost Model
(Attachment 1)
Current Customer Base & User Charges
Project Description Initial Total Customer (ERU's)316
MAGI for Corinne City (2021): $50,700
Land/Right-of-way $100,000 Affordable Monthly Rate at 1.4%$59.15
Engineering - Design $936,000 Impact Fee (per ERU):$15,200
Engineering - CMS $1,650,000 Current Monthly Fee (per ERU)$25.00
Construction $11,233,000 Existing Sewer Debt Service $0
Contingency $1,694,000 Annual O&M expensive after project complete $160,000
Total Project Cost:$15,613,000 State Affordability Threshold $78.57
Financial Need Indicator 1.22
Project Funding
Local Contribution WQB Funding Conditions Funding Conditions
WQB/USDA-RD Financing $15,613,000 Loan Repayment Term:30 Loan Repayment Term:40
Total Project Cost:$15,613,000 Reserve Funding Period:6 Reserve Funding Period:10
ESTIMATED COST OF SEWER SERVICE
Potential Funding WQB Grant USDA Grant Loan Loan Loan Reserve Annual Sewer Existing Total Annual Monthly Sewer Sewer Cost as a Financial
Soucre Amount Amount Amount Interest Rate Debt Service Funding O&M Cost Debt Service Sewer Cost Cost/ERU % of MAGI Burden
Private - - 15,613,000 3.33%711,394 0 160,000 $0 871,394 229.80 5.44%High
WQB - - 15,613,000 0.00%520,433 130,108 160,000 $0 810,542 213.75 5.06%High
USDA-RD (20% G)- 3,122,600 12,490,400 2.75%518,745 77,812 160,000 $0 756,557 199.51 4.72%High
USDA-RD (30% G)- 4,683,900 10,929,100 2.75%453,902 68,085 160,000 $0 681,987 179.85 4.26%High
Co-funding 1,428,571 4,255,329 9,929,100 2.75%412,371 61,856 160,000 $0 634,226 167.25 3.96%High
ESTIMATED COST OF SEWER SERVICE FOR REDUCED PROJECT
Reduced USDA Grant Loan Loan Loan Reserve Annual Sewer Existing Total Annual Monthly Sewer Sewer Cost as a Financial
Project Cost Amount Amount Interest Rate Debt Service Funding O&M Cost Debt Service Sewer Cost Cost/ERU % of MAGI Burden
WQB 2,000,000 - 2,000,000 2.75%98,769 24,692 160,000 $0 283,461 74.75 1.77%Medium
USDA-RD (30% G)3,700,000 1,110,000 2,590,000 2.75%107,567 16,135 160,000 $0 283,702 74.82 1.77%Medium
USDA-RD (30% G)5,000,000 1,500,000 3,500,000 2.75%145,360 21,804 160,000 $0 327,164 86.28 2.04%Medium
USDA-RD (30% G)6,600,000 1,980,000 4,620,000 2.75%191,876 28,781 160,000 $0 380,657 100.38 2.38%Medium
Financial Need Indicator
Indicators Local Value State Value Score Weighting FaWeighted Score Modified MAGI
unemployment rate 2.7%3.6%1.55 4.00 6.20 FNI Below 1.4%1.4% to 1.75%1.75% to 2.1%2.1% to 2.45%Above 2.45%
Poverty Rate 7.6%9.8%1.00 2.50 2.50 Below 1.5 Low Low Medium Medium High
Threshold LQI $37,125.00 $33,773.00 1.00 2.50 2.50 1.5 to 2.5 Low Medium Medium High High
Population Growth Rate 22.6%16.5%1.00 1.00 1.00 Above 2.5 Medium Medium High High High
Financial Need Indicator (Sum of weighted Scores/10) 1.22
2022 5 year ACS Table ** https://data.census.gov/cedsci/
$lLmd/Righhof-way
Engineering - Design
Engineering - CMS
Construction
$l
$ll
Corinne City - Water Quality Board & 20 Year Loan Static Cost Model
(Attachment 1)
Iacal Contribution
WOB/USDA-RD Finucins Sl5 6l:1 0b0
'Iotrl Pmiett Cost:st5.5l3-000
SEWERSERVICI
WQB Grmt WQB t an WQB Len WQB l4m WQB hm Amul Sewcr
Rcscwc O&M CosiIntercsl Ratc D€bt Scnim
Financial N€ed lndicalor
Score
Corinne 2024
Medlum
Med iu m Hrch
Links to utah tables
https://data.ensus.qov/cedsci/table?q=s2301 o/o20utah&tid=ACSST5Y20 1 9.S2301
https://data.census.qov/cedsci/table?q=s1701%20utah&tid=ACSSTsY2019.S1701
httos://data.census.0ov/cedsci/table?o=B 1 9080%20utah&tid=AcsDT5Y201 9.Bl 9080
https://data.census.oov/cedsci/table?o=801 003o/o20utah&tid=ACSDT5Y20l 9-801003
httos://data.ensus.oov/cedsci/table?o=801 003062outah&tid=AcsDT5Y201 0.801 003
Customer
Conditions
Table 1 Financial Burden Matrix
2.15
Medium
Medium
Medium
High
HEh
s2301
s1701
819080
801 003
801003
Selecr th s Table or 2020 f ava{abte tater
2019 ACS s-YearEstmates Subleci Tables
2019 ACS 5-Year Estimales Subject Tables
2019 ACS s-Year EslLmates Oelaied Tebles
2019 ACS 5 Year Estimates Oetaled Tabres
2010 ACS s-Yea. Estinates O€la1ed Tables
Initial Total Customer (ERU'S)
MAGI for Salina City (2021):
A.ffordable Monthly Rate at L4%
Impact Fee (per ERLD:
Cuftent Monlhly Fee (per ERU)
Existing Sewer Debt Setrice
Amud O&M e&ensive after p.oject complet,
Affordable monthly sewer fee
$s0,700
$59.15
$1s,200
$25.00
$0
$160,000
s78.s7
I{m Repayment Tem:20
6
936,000
1,000,000
2,000,000
4,500,000
4,350,000
7,100,000
9,000,000
9,600,000
9,760,000
10,000,000
14,677,000
14,613,000
13,613,000
I I,l 13,000
I 1,263,000
8,513,000
6,613,000
6,013,000
5,853,000
5,613,000
0.00%
0.00yo
0.00%
0.00yo
0.00%
0.00%
0.00yo
0.00%
0.00yo
0.000/"
I 95,163
143,463
t82,663
I 70,163
138,913
r40,788
t06,413
82,663
75,t63
13,t63
70,163
160,000
160,000
160,000
160,000
160,000
I60,000
160,000
160,000
160,000
I60,000
160,000
1,135,813
1,077,313
1,073,3t3
1,010,813
854,563
863,938
692,063
573,313
535,813
525,813
5l0,Et3
6.12yo
6'70yo
6.3tyo
5.33Vo
5.390k
4.32yo
3.58yo
3.34yo
3.28Vo
3,19"/"
2.4t%o
780,650
733,850
730,650
680,650
555,650
563,150
425,650
330,650
300,650
292,650
2t0,650
299.53
284. l0
283.05
266.56
227.83
I 82.5 I
151.l9
l4t.30
138.66
134.71
$0
$0
$o
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$o
$0
$0
High
High
High
High
Hieh
High
Hish
High
Hish
High
FNI to
to
1.5
2.5
2.5
Local Value lStale Valuo lScore Weiohtino FdWeiohter
1552.704t 3.6%t 4 001 820
7 Ao/"1 1noq a%l 2.50t 2.50
Ihreshold Lol $37.'125.00t 100833.773.00t 2 501 250
opulation GroMh I '1.0022.6%l 16.4%l 1.00t 1.00
N€ed lndicator
-Et)
sle A.stY.,'E3!n.h s*rt3d.s
419 G rY€' e.brk. swrtahs
419 acs rt@r BM:a shr r3B
bre Acs rYeil&rf ,16 s*rra*
ture-dd-ddM*@s341
&/&dudd&bl70l@9.3ttui
_!grz

State of Utah
SPENCER J. COX
Governor

DEIDRE HENDERSON
Lieutenant Governor
Department of
Environmental Quality
Kimberly D. Shelley
Executive Director
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
John K. Mackey, P.E.
Director
Water Quality Board
James Webb,
Chair Michelle
Kaufusi, Vice Chair
Carly Castle Robert
Fehr Michela Harris
Joseph Havasi
Trevor Heaton
Jill Jones
Kimberly D. Shelley
John K. Mackey

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Utah Water Quality Board

THROUGH: John K. Mackey, P.E., Director

FROM: Ken Hoffman, P.E. and Beth Wondimu, P. E.

DATE: April 24, 2024

SUBJECT: Lewiston City – Sewage and Treatment System Improvement
Update on Board Authorized Funding – Special Condition for Funding

BACKGROUND

Lewiston City (Lewiston) has requested authorization for funding from the Water Quality Board (Board) several times
over the last few years. The Board authorized a design advance of $186,000 at the February 26, 2020 meeting. On March
15, 2020, the Board authorized a principal forgiveness grant of $500,000 for construction assistance, which includes the
design advance amount of $186,000. In August 2022, the Board authorized additional supplemental funding of $2,144,000
to pay for increased costs on their construction project. The U.S. Department of Agriculture - Rural Development (USDA-
RD) also authorized loan and grant funding in support of the project. USDA- RD authorized funding in the form of a
80:20 loan-to-grant proportion, which included a $2,052,000 40-year loan with an interest rate of 1.875% and a grant of
$483,000 for the project. Lewiston also intended to provide $144,000 in local contributions. The total funding across
sources was about $5.3 million.

Currently, Lewiston’s proposed project includes improving its sewer collection system to connect to the regional
wastewater treatment plant in Richmond City (Richmond). On October 25, 2023, Lewiston appeared in front of the Board
to present its sewer collection system upgrade to connect to the Richmond Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) treatment plant.
Lewiston has $1,500,000 in the sewer fund from selling land for commercial development.

On October 25, 2023, the Board authorized a revised funding package in the amount of $3,100,000 as principal
forgiveness and $400,000 loan at an interest rate of 0% repayable over 30 years to Lewiston under the following special
conditions:

1. Lewiston must pursue and retain remaining funding necessary to fully implement the project. Lewiston must
reappear in front of the Board no later than April 2024 if all necessary funds have not been secured by that
time;
2. Hold a public meeting detailing the project and the projected monthly user rates prior to the April Board
meeting;
3. Draft an interlocal agreement with Richmond including monthly treatment costs and impact fees to be
collected prior to the April Board meeting;
4. Lewiston must agree to participate annually in the Municipal Wastewater Planning Program (MWPP);
5. As part of the facility planning, Lewiston must complete a Water Conservation and Management Plan; and
6. Lewiston must develop, commit to adopt, and implement a capital asset management plan that is consistent
with EPA’s Fiscal Sustainability Plan guidance.

As the project is not yet fully funded Lewiston is reappearing in front of the Board as required by the special conditions
of the authorization.

PUBLIC MEETING SUMMARY

On January 10, 2024, Lewiston held an open house for all residents who are connected to the sewer system. Postcard
invitations were mailed to each residence on January 3, 2024. Mayor Jeff Hall was joined by the Lewiston Council, Holly
Jo Karren (Richmond City Administrator), and Bryce Wood (Richmond City Councilmember). Mayor Hall spoke about
the history and the current state of the Lewiston sewer system; the attempts and challenges Lewiston has faced in securing
funding; and the current shortfall of funding necessary to repair the sewer system. Mayor Hall outlined the new plan of
abandoning the Lewiston sewer ponds, and piping sewage to Richmond's MBR plant. Mayor Hall also explained that
sewer rates will go up regardless of the final solution. Mayor Hall presented the estimates he had received of approximately
$110 monthly base fee per sewer hookup.

Residents questioned if all options had been looked at and considered. Mayor Hall explained all the options that had been
researched, and why going to Richmond was Lewiston’s best option. Residents were concerned with the increase in fees
and Mayor Hall reiterated rates will go up considerably, no matter the solution. This proposed sewer pond abandonment
plan would result in a significant increase in rates, but Lewiston has taken steps to help minimize the financial stress put
on residents. Mayor Hall also explained that this was a long-term solution that offered a stable rate.

A concern was raised about the longevity of the proposed solution due to Richmond’s continued growth. Holly Jo Karren
responded to the concern that if the proposed plan was approved, Lewiston would be a permanent part of the Richmond
sewer system. Lewiston would not be "kicked off" to make more room for Richmond residents. She explained how
Richmond has managed growth so far; how there is still room for Lewiston; and how Richmond is currently researching
an expansion project for the MBR plant. Richmond is in full support of connecting Lewiston on to their sewer system
because it would benefit both cities.

After all the questions had been asked by residents, Mayor Hall summarized why the Lewiston feels that this is the best
solution, especially for the long term. There was general agreement among those present that going to Richmond was the
best option, even though nobody wants to see a rate increase. Residents were encouraged to reach out to the Mayor or any
City Councilmember if they have questions, comments, or concerns going forward.

PROJECT FUNDING STATUS

Funding Source Cost Sharing
Local Contribution $1,500,0000
WQB Funding $3,500,000
USDA-RD Existing Funding
(still not approved for Project Scope Change) $2,535,000
Unfunded $3,012,000
Total Project Cost: $10,547,000

The Introduction Report from the August 23, 2023, Board Meeting, is attached to this memo as Attachment 1. There
are no substantive changes to the cost model Board made its funding decision on. Lewiston intends to reapply to USDA-
RD for the previously authorized funds for the project scope change to improve collections and convey the Lewiston’s
wastewater to Richmond's MBR wastewater treatment system for treatment and disposal. In addition, Lewiston will need
to secure the unfunded portion of the project, which can be applied for through the USDA -RD project cost overrun process.
For USDA-RD to consider the scope change and cost overrun funding an updated Preliminary Engineering Report is
required in accordance with their rules.

STAFF DISCUSSION

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding grant agreement with the Board requires 49% of the funding be awarded as
principal forgiveness. This requirement is the source of the principal forgiveness authorized for this project and is under
requirements of timely use of funds. Due to the timely use of funds requirements Division staff is concerned about having
this authorized funding exceed a year from authorization. Thus, Division staff is focused on addressing any funding issues
related to this project by the October 2024 Board meeting.

Lewiston continues to make progress on this project. Division staff is currently focused on getting the project fully funded
through USDA-RD or through the 2024 Board application process. As USDA-RD has more potential to bring additional
grant funds to the project, Division staff has encouraged Lewiston to continue to pursue this route. In addition, Richmond
has been working hard to evaluate the costs to take on these new flows and appropriately evaluate the additional costs.
Division staff is supportive of the continued authorization of these funds with a focus of a fully funded project in November
2024.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Division staff recommends the Board amended the October 25, 2023 authorization with the following revised special
conditions:

1. Lewiston must submit an updated capital facilities plan/preliminary engineering report to USDA-RD and the
Division by June 30, 2024;
2. Lewiston must re-apply to USDA-RD for the new scope of work connect to the Richmond MBR treatment plant
and apply to USDA-RD for the remainder of the required funding by June 30, 2024;
3. Lewiston must apply to the Board for an additional funding by June 30, 2024;
4. Lewiston must complete an interlocal agreement with Richmond, including monthly treatment costs and impact
fees to be collected prior to the August Board Meeting;
5. Lewiston must agree to participate annually in the Municipal Wastewater Planning Program (MWPP);
6. As part of the facility planning, Lewiston must complete a Water Conservation and Management Plan; and
7. As part of its Plan of Operations, Lewiston must develop and implement an asset management program that is
consistent with the State Revolving Fund's Fiscal Sustainability Plan.

Attachment 1

WATER QUALITY BOARD
FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

INTRODUCTION
APPLICANT: Lewiston City
29 South Main
Lewiston, Utah 84320
Telephone: [phone]
CONTACT PERSON: Mayor Jeff Hall
TREASURER/RECORDER: Mary Simpson
CONSULTING ENGINEER: Gary Vance, P.E.
J-U-B Engineers.
801-547-0393
CITY ATTORNEY: Miles P. Jensen
Olson & Hoggan P.C.
435-752-1551
BOND COUNSEL:

FINANCIAL ADVISOR:
Eric Johnson
Blaisdell Church & Johnson
Cody Deeter
EFG Consulting, LLC

APPLICANT’S REQUEST:
Lewiston City is requesting funding from the Water Quality Board in the amount of
$6,512,000 to upgrade the sewer system and connect its collection system to the Richmond
MBR treatment plan
APPLICANT’S LOCATION

Lewiston City is located approximately 27 miles north of Lewiston on the Utah-Idaho Border.
The City is located in the northern portion of Cache County.

BACKGROUND

The City owns and operates a collection and lagoon wastewater systems. The system as currently
configured is not capable of meeting the capacity and the future needs of the city. The collection
system includes a lift station, around 3.3 miles of 8”, 1.3 miles of 10” of bell and spigot concrete
pipe constructed in 1974. The treatment system was constructed in 1974 and was designed as a
three-cell total containment facultative lagoon treatment system. Chlorine disinfection and sulfur
dioxide de-chlorination were added to the treatment facility in 1999. The lagoons discharge
intermittently to the Cub River.

PROJECT NEED

The City completed a Wastewater Collection System and Treatment Facilities Plan in January
2020. The Facilities Plan recommended updated collection, treatment and land application to deal
with future capacity and nutrient limits that could be imposed by the Cub River TMDL, phosphorus
load cap rule, and growth in the community.

ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED

The Facilities Plan evaluated the following alternatives:

• Alternative 1: No action
• Alternative 2: Upgrade Collection and Lagoon Systems
• Alternative 3: Upgrade Lagoons, Winter Storage, and Land Apply All Effluent
• Alternative 4: Full Regionalization with Richmond
Alternative 3

Alternative 3 consists of improvements and upgrades to replace aging infrastructure, eliminate
capacity limitations, improve lagoon wastewater treatment performance and enhance the overall
system maintainability, flexibility, reliability, and customer service prior to discharge into the Cub
River. The Alternative includes construction of a new lift station, 7,200 feet of sewer pipe capacity
upgrades, treatment plant headworks upgrade, increased lagoon aeration capacity, new
chlorination and de-chlorination facilities, and a new effluent reaeration facility. These
improvements are needed to upgrade lift station and improve wastewater lagoon treatment
performance and reliability.

Lewiston pursued Alternative 3 bidding the project twice. Lewiston appeared in front of the Board
twice first receiving a $500,000 hardship grant. After bids came in high Lewiston reappeared in
front of the Board resulting in undisbursed hardship grant funds de-obligated and $1,400,000 in
funding authorized including a $400,000 loan at 0% for a term of 30 year and $1,000,000 in
principal forgiveness. After the bids came in high again in winter 2023 Lewiston enquired if the
Board had additional grant funds but they had been all authorized during October 2022. Lewiston
did not indicate any interest if returning for addition loan funds which were available. Lewiston
did not apply to United States Department of Agriculture-Rural Development (USDA-RD) which
likely had additional funds available as a grant/loan blend.

Alternative 3 project is a total of $6,436,000. In addition to the $1,400,000 of Board funding
previously discuss, the Alternative had funds authorized from USDA-RD as a $2,052,000 1.875%
interest 40-year loan and $483,000 of grant funds for a total of $2,535,000. Lewiston City now has
$1,500,000 in the sewer fund from sale of land for commercial development. The following cost
sharing is proposed for this project including lagoon treatment system:

Funding Source Cost Sharing Percent of Project
Local Sewer Fund $1,500,000 23%
WQB Funding $1,400,000 22%
USDA-RD Funding $2,535,000 39%
Total: $6,436,000 100%
Funding Shortfall $1,001,000 16%

Staff has included a cost model for Alternative 3 as Attachment 1. Staff indicated to Lewiston that
as it is a new fiscal year there are additional principal forgiveness funds available which
Alternative 3 would be eligible for Board consideration. Lewiston stated they wished to pursue
Alternative 4 to connect to Richmond’s treatment plant. As Alternative is substantially different
from the previous project scope of work staff has removed Lewiston’s previous Board
authorization from the August 2023 Financial Report. Lewiston hopes to redirect the USDA-RD
funding to Alternative 4, however during a phone call with USDA-RD staff they indicated this
would be challenging.
Alternative 4

The proposed project would include the improvement of the collection system, connecting to the
regional Richmond MBR wastewater treatment facility. It will address current and future treatment
needs by pumping sewer flows to the Richmond City mechanical treatment plant, thereby
eliminating the current Lewiston treatment lagoons. The City feels that this regionalization of
treatment will be a long-term solution for the community. Effluent quality will be greatly improved
by regionalizing and treating the city's sewer in Richmond's MBR. This also opens up Type 1 reuse
opportunities.

The existing collection system lift station is over 50 years old and is undersized for current and
future flows. The main sewer trunk line is also aging and has inadequate capacity and experiences
surcharging within the system. The proposed project will address the existing lift station aging and
main trunk deficiencies. The recommended Alternative is No. 4, which is to improve the collection
system and connect to the Richmond MBR treatment works.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The propose project will improve collections and convey the city’s wastewater to Richmond
City's MBR wastewater treatment system for treatment and disposal. As part of this project, the
following improvements will be implemented:

Refurbish the Existing Lift Station. This lift station and the equipment is old and showing
signs of corrosion, the lift station will be refurbished with a new lining system, new pumps
and rails, controls, SCADA and backup power

New Pump Station. A new pump station will be installed near the bottom of the system
that will pump-the City sewer flows through a force main to an intermediate pump station.
The new pump station will be complete with SCADA and backup power.

Force Main. A new 2-mile force main pipe will be installed from the new pump station and
south along 800 E where it will transition into a gravity system.
Gravity System. A new 1/2-mile gravity sewer will be installed to convey the flows from
the force main along 800 E down the hill and under the Cub River to the Intermediate Pump
Station.
Intermediate Pump Station. A new intermediate pump station will be installed on the west
side of the Cub River that will pump the City sewer flows through a 2.21-mile force main
to the Richmond Treatment Plant headworks. The new pump station will be complete with
SCADA and backup power.
POPULATION GROWTH

The population of the City is projected growth at an annual rate used will be 1.20% by United
States Census Bureau. Current populations and associated ERUs are shown in the table below
along with the 20-year projections.

Year Population ERU2 Population on Sewer ERU on Sewer2
Current 2020 1,776 456 885 300 Design 2039 2,515 796 1,440 488
2ERU = Equivalent Residential Connection.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND DEMONSTRATION OF PUBLIC SUPPORT:

Public Meetings and several City Council meetings were held to discuss the initial project and
potential funding of Alternative 3. City council has discussed the Alternative 3 in several open
public meetings. The council was in favor of a project that will serve long term needs and the
elimination of the City’s lagoon treatment facility provided that the financial aspects can be
satisfied. This includes the support of the council to raise user rates to meet those financial needs.
It is not clear the City Council discussed the sort of rates estimated for Alternative 4.

The public hearings will be held as required when funding is authorized. The City will hold a final
public hearing once funding is secured.

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE:
Public Meeting July 2023
Apply to WQB for Funding: August 2023
Public Hearing: October 2023
WQB Funding Authorization: September 2023
Advertise EA (FONSI): October 2023
Engineering Report Approval: Novenary 2023
Commence Design: December 2023
Issue Construction Permit: October 2024
Advertise for Bids: January 2025
Bid Opening: February 2025
Loan Closing: April 2025
Commence Construction: June 2025
Complete Construction: June 2026

PROJECT PRIORITY LIST
The proposed project was ranked 7 out of 11 on the project priority list.
APPLICANT’S CURRENT USER CHARGE:

Currently, the City charges a sewer user fee of approximately $53.00 per residential and non-
residential connection per month. There are approximately 456 ERUs in the City with 300 ERUs
on the sewer. The City’s median adjusted gross income (MAGI) in 2021 was $47,000 and the
affordable monthly fee was $54.83. The cost of this project will result in a sewer services
exceeding 1.4% of the local MAGI if the Richmond MBR for treatment in be selected.

COSTS SHARING:

The following cost sharing is proposed for this project including treatment connecting Richmond
MBR treatment system:

Funding Source Cost Sharing Percent of
Project
Local Cost $1,500,000 14%
WQB Funding $6,512,000 62%
USDA-RD Funding $2,535,000 24%
Total: $10,547,000 100%

COST ESTIMATE:

Project Costs
Legal/Bonding/ Easement/Water Rights/ Environmental/ NEPA $297,000
DWQ Loan Origination Fee 60,000
Engineering - Design & CMS $710,000
Capacity Purchase to Richmond City’s Treatment $2,280,000
Construction $6,000,000
Contingency (21%) $1,200,000
Total: $10,547,000

EFFORTS TO SECURE FINANCING FROM OTHER SOURCES:

The City intends to reapply to USDA-RD to apply the previously authorized Alternative 3 funds
to Alternative 4. This request will be presented during the USDA-RD’s meeting that will be held
in September 2023.

ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST FOR SEWER SERVICE:

In order to develop a valid detailed cost model staff requires the cost to purchase capacity in the
Richmond treatment plant and the monthly rate for treatment at the Richmond treatment plant.
These costs would be defined in an interlocal agreement between Lewiston and Richmond which
does not exist yet. These costs will be taken from the Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) from
March 2020. Discussion were held with Richmond during the preparation of this report but costs
may be outdated. The PER estimates $2,280,000 in capacity cost and $47/month per ERU in
treatment costs.
According to the Richmond website the sewer fee is $77/month for up to 20,000 gallons of
wastewater discharged into the system. The PER estimates the City’s annual average wastewater
flow at approximately 100,000 gpd. Assuming Richmond applied the $77 per 20,000 gallons this
results in a cost of approximately $40/month per ERU. The website states the impact fee to
Richmond for a 4” connection in 2023 is $7,952.

Staff developed static cost model for Alternative 4 (Attachment 2) to evaluate funding by the
Board. The cost model analyzes several possible funding options. The resulting Total Annual
Sewer Cost is shown for each funding option. Staff estimates the City will grow by 126 ERUs over
19 years with an impact fee of $8,056 per ERU that is $80,0650/yr. in impact fees. Incorporating
these impact fees and $3,800,000 in principal forgiveness (the maximum staff believes is available
for the FY23 application period) from the Board the projected sewer rate is $109. In order to
reduce the monthly rate more the City would either have to find additional City funds, grant funds
from another source, get Richmond to dismiss the impact fees, or reduce the monthly treatment
fee.

FINANCIAL BURDEN EVALUATION:

The cost for sewer service shows the City will qualify for grant consideration as part of a funding
package under the State Affordability Criteria. In accordance with the Board’s Financial Burden
Evaluation Policy for the Utah Wastewater Project Assistance Program, staff utilized data from
the United State Census Bureau (census) website (https://data.census.gov/cedsci/) to calculate the
City’s Financial Need Indicator (FNI). The calculated FNI is 1.14 which is the bottom of the range
of the FNI. Staff compared this FNI to the percent modified MAGI in the Financial Burden Matrix
and displayed the Financial Burden in Attachment 1 or Attachment 2.

Based on the Financial Burden Evaluation Policy for the Utah Wastewater Project Assistance
Program, Alternative 3 would result in the community having a Financial Burden of Low.
However, based on the Financial Burden Evaluation Policy for the Utah Wastewater Project
Assistance Program, Alternative 4 would result in the community having a Financial Burden of
High.

STAFF COMMENTS
The recommended Alternative 4 would connect the City's sewer to the regional wastewater
treatment plant in Richmond City, linking the regional needs for water quality protection. Staff
supports the city’s project to improve a collection and treatment improvements that will protect
the water quality. Alternative 4 will enable the City to sustain its public health, current rate of
growth and aging infrastructure. Through regionalization of wastewater treatment services, the
City utilities often benefit from reduced capital and operational costs, and increased economies of
scale. Efficiencies of regionalization are achieved in administrative tasks (billing, planning, rate
setting or engineering services) and operational tasks (equipment maintenance, sampling,
laboratory testing, day-to-day operations).
Staff remains uncertain if the City is fully prepared to take on Alternative 4 at the projected
monthly sewer rates. Staff would feel more comfortable proceeding with a funding authorization
if the City held a public meeting detailing the project and the projected monthly user rates. In
addition, a draft interlocal agreement would greatly aid cost evaluations.
Staff does not have a strong preference between Alternative 3 and 4. Both are good projects which
will protect water quality and result in a long-term solution for Lewiston. Lewiston has appeared
in front of the Board other times in pursuit of a project. Staff would like to see a successful project
in Lewiston and is concerned about the bidding environment and the potential impacts of a Board
authorization on USDA-RD funds.
One idea is a potential Board authorization which might offer Lewiston some discretion in the
Alternative ultimately selected. One such approach the Board might consider is an authorization
at a grant/loan ratio with a not to exceed total funding amount. This is not a typical authorization
from the Board but would give the Executive Secretary to the Board the ability to set the final
grant and loan amounts after bids are received. Staff has added a “WQB Grant Percent” column in
the Attached Cost Models so the Board can consider the concept.
Another potential idea would be to reserve some funds on the Financial Report and ask Lewiston
to report back a meeting potentially later than October when project details are more developed.
While this idea might add clarity for staff and the Board it would pose challenges to Lewiston’s
leadership while trying to do outreach on a very financially challenging project. Staff would
encourage Board discussion on this topic with Lewiston and during the September Finance
Committee meeting.
No staff recommendations for funding are included in this report, as this is an introduction of the
project.

DWQ-2023-121503
File: SRF-Lewiston City, Administration, Section 1

ATTACHEMENT 1
Lewiston City - Water Quality Board
30 Year Loan Static Cost Model - Lewiston's Collection and Lagoon treatment system

Project Costs Current Customer Base & User Charges
Legal/Bonding - Environmental $ 40,000 Initial Total Customer (ERU's) 300
DWQ Loan Origination Fee $ - MAGI for Lewiston City (2021): $47,000
Engineering - Design & CMS $ 433,000 Affordable Monthly Rate at 1.4% $54.83
Collections $ 1,700,000 Impact Fee (per ERU): $8,065
Lift station $ 1,500,000 Current Monthly Fee (per ERU) $53.00
Headworks $ 1,300,000 Debt Service $0
Lagoon Treatment $ 1,000,000 Annual O&M expense $109,000
Construction subtotal $ 5,500,000
Contingency $ 463,000 Funding Conditions
Total Project Cost: $ 6,436,000 Loan Repayment Term: 30
Reserve Funding Period: 6
Project Funding
Local Sewer Fund $ 1,500,000 USDA-RD Funding Conditions
Requested Funding $ 2,401,000 USDA-RD Loan Repayment Term 40
USDA-RD Existing Grant $ 483,000 USDA-RD Interest Rate 1.875%
USDA-RD Existing Loan $ 2,052,000
Total Project Cost: $ 6,436,000

ESTIMATED COST OF SEWER SERVICE

Principal
Forgiveness

WQB Grant
Percent

WQB Loan

RD Loan

WQB Loan
Interest Rate
RD
Loan
Interest
Rate
WQB
Loan Debt
Service
WQB
Loan
Reserve
RD Loan
Debt
Service

Annual
Sewer
Total
Annual
Sewer
Cost
Monthly
Sewer
Cost/
ERU
Sewer Cost
as % of
MAGI

Financial
Burden
- 0% 2,401,000 2,052,000 0.00% 1.875% 80,033 20,008 91,722 109,000 220,114 61.14 1.56% Medium
1,000,000 42% 1,401,000 2,052,000 0.00% 1.875% 46,700 11,675 91,722 109,000 259,097 71.97 1.84% low
1,400,000 58% 1,001,000 2,052,000 0.00% 1.875% 33,367 8,342 91,722 109,000 242,430 67.34 1.72% low
1,850,000 77% 551,000 2,052,000 0.00% 1.875% 18,367 4,592 91,722 109,000 223,680 62.13 1.59% low
2,000,000 83% 401,000 2,052,000 0.00% 1.875% 13,367 3,342 91,722 109,000 217,430 60.40 1.54% low
2,350,000 98% 51,000 2,052,000 0.00% 1.875% 1,700 425 91,722 109,000 202,847 56.35 1.44% low
2,401,000 100% 0 2,052,000 0.00% 1.875% 0 0 91,722 109,000 200,722 55.76 1.42% low

FNI Calculation Financial Burden Matrix
Local Value State Value Score Weighting
Factor
Weighting
Score

Table **
Modified MAGI
Unemployment Rate 0.5% 3.6% 1.00 4 4.00
S2301 FNI Below
1.4%
1.4% to
1.75%
1.75% to
2.1% 2.1% to 2.45 Above 2.45
Poverty Rate 3.2% 8.8% 1.00 2.5 2.50 S1701 Below 1.5 Low Low Medium Medium High
Threshold LQI $42,063 $37,685 1.00 2.5 2.50 B19080 1.5 to 2.5 Low Medium Medium High High
Population Growth Rate 13.6% 19.0% 2.43 1 2.43 B01003 Above 2.5 Medium High High High High
Financial Need Indicator (Sum of weighted Scores/10) 1.14
2020 5 year ACS Table ** https://data.census.gov/cedsci/
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1 – Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
3 La
g
o
o
n
Up
g
r
a
d
e
s

ATTACHEMENT 2
Lewiston City - Water Quality Board
30 Year Loan Static Cost Model - Connect to Richmond MBR Treatment Plant

Project Costs Current Customer Base & User Charges
Legal - Right of Way $ 60,000 Initial Total Customer (ERU's) 300
Legal/Bonding - $ 59,000 MAGI for Lewiston City (2021): $47,000
DWQ Loan Origination Fee $ 60,000 Affordable Monthly Rate at 1.4% $54.83
Engineering - Design $ 355,000 Impact Fee (per ERU): $8,065
Engineering - CMS $ 325,000 Current Monthly Fee (per ERU) $53.00
Engineering - Planning $ 30,000 Existing Debt $0
Capacity Purchase to Richmond $ 2,280,000 Annual O&M Collection $109,000
Environmental $ 59,000 Richmond Impact fee 4" (2023) $7,952
Legal Services $ 119,000 Annual O&M for Richmond's Treatment $169,200
Construction - Pump Station $1,700,000 Monthly Treatment to Richmond $47
Construction - Collection Sewer $1,500,000
Construction - Mobilization/Demobilization $ 500,000 Funding Conditions
Construction - 8" PVC Force Main $1,500,000 Loan Repayment Term: 30
Construction - Decommission :Lagoon $ 800,000 Reserve Funding Period: 10
Construction subtotal $ 6,000,000
Contingency (21%) $ 1,200,000 USDA-RD Funding Conditions
Total Project Cost: $ 10,547,000 USDA-RD Loan Repayment Term 40
USDA-RD Interest Rate 1.875%
Project Funding
Requested Funding by WQB $ 6,512,000
Lewiston Sewer Fund $ 1,500,000
USDA-RD Existing Grant $ 483,000
USDA-RD Existing Loan $ 2,052,000
Total Project Cost: $ 10,547,000

ESTIMATED COST OF SEWER SERVICE

Principal
Forgiveness

WQB Grant
Percent

WQB Loan

Existing RD
Loan

WQB Loan
Interest Rate

RD Loan
Interest Rate

WQB Loan Debt
Service
WQB
Loan
Reserve
RD Loan
Debt
Service
Annual
O&M -
collection &
Treatment

Total Annual
Sewer Cost
Monthly
Sewer
Cost/
ERU

Sewer Cost as
% of MAGI

Financial Burden
1,200,000 18% 5,312,000 2,052,000 0.00% 1.875% 177,067 26,560 91,722 278,200 573,549 159.32 4.07% HIGH
1,500,000 23% 5,012,000 2,052,000 0.00% 1.875% 167,067 25,060 91,722 278,200 562,049 156.12 3.99% HIGH
2,000,000 31% 4,512,000 2,052,000 0.00% 1.875% 150,400 22,560 91,722 278,200 542,882 150.80 3.85% HIGH
2,177,500 33% 4,334,500 2,052,000 0.00% 1.875% 144,483 21,673 91,722 278,200 536,078 148.91 3.80% HIGH
3,000,000 46% 3,512,000 2,052,000 0.00% 1.875% 117,067 17,560 91,722 278,200 504,549 140.15 3.58% HIGH
3,800,000 58% 2,712,000 2,052,000 0.00% 1.875% 90,400 13,560 91,722 278,200 473,882 131.63 3.36% HIGH

FNI Calculation Lewiston City Financial Burden Matrix
Local Value State Value Score Weighting
Factor Weighting Score Table **
Modified MAGI
Unemployment Rate 0.5% 3.6% 1.00 4 4.00
S2301 FNI Below 1.4% 1.4% to 1.75% 1.75% to
2.1% 2.1% to 2.45 Above 2.45
Poverty Rate 3.2% 8.8% 1.00 2.5 2.50 S1701 Below 1.5 Low low Medium Medium High
Threshold LQI $42,063 $37,685 1.00 2.5 2.50 B19080 1.5 to 2.5 Medium Medium Medium High High
Population Growth Rate 13.6% 19.0% 2.43 1 2.43 B01003 Above 2.5 Medium Medium High High High
Financial Need Indicator (Sum of weighted Scores/10) 1.14
2020 5 year ACS Table ** https://data.census.gov/cedsci/

At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2 – Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
4 Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
to
Ri
c
h
m
o
n
d
MB
R
Tr
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
Pl
a
n
t

195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT
Mailing Address: PO Box 144870 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870
Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • TDD [phone]
www.deq.utah.gov
Printed on 100% recycled paper
State of Utah

Department of
Environmental Quality

Kimberly D. Shelley
Executive Director

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
John K. Mackey, P.E.
Director
Water Quality Board
James Webb, Chair
Michelle Kaufusi, Vice Chair
Carly Castle
Michela Harris
Joseph Havasi
Trevor Heaton
Robert Fehr
Jill Jones
Kimberly D. Shelley
John K. Mackey
Executive Secretary
SPENCER J. COX
Governor

DEIDRE HENDERSON
Lieutenant Governor
M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Water Quality Board

THROUGH: John K. Mackey, P.E., Director

FROM: Samantha Heusser, Compliance & Enforcement Section Manager

DATE: April 23, 2024

SUBJECT: Section 104 Powers and duties of Board;
Penalty Criteria for Civil Settlement Negotiations

Utah Code § 19-5-104 outlines powers and duties of the Water Quality Board (Board). As detailed
in Utah Code § 19-5-104(g), the Board reviews settlements negotiated by the Director of the
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) that require a civil penalty of $25,000 or more to ensure
compliance with the applicable rules and regulations. The Board may approve or disapprove the
settlement.

An overview of DWQ’s penalty policy will be presented by Samantha Heusser, DWQ’s Compliance
and Enforcement Section Manager and Haley Sousa, Assistant Attorney General.

DWQ’s penalty policy is in Utah Administrative Code R317-1-8. A copy the penalty is attached.

Page 2

R317-1-8. Penalty Criteria for Civil Settlement Negotiations.

8.1 Introduction. Section 19-5-115 of the Water Quality Act provides for penalties of up to $10,000
per day for violations of the act or any permit, rule, or order adopted under it and up to $25,000 per
day for willful violations. Because the law does not provide for assessment of administrative
penalties, the Attorney General initiates legal proceedings to recover penalties where appropriate.

8.2 Purpose and Applicability. These criteria outline the principles used by the State in civil
settlement negotiations with water pollution sources for violations of the UWPCA and/or any
permit, rule or order adopted under it. It is designed to be used as a logical basis to determine a
reasonable and appropriate penalty for all types of violations to promote a swifter resolution of
environmental problems and enforcement actions.

To guide settlement negotiations on the penalty issue, the following principles apply: (1) penalties
should be based on the nature and extent of the violation; (2) penalties should at a minimum, recover
the economic benefit of noncompliance; (3) penalties should be large enough to deter
noncompliance; and (4) penalties should be consistent in an effort to provide fair and equitable
treatment of the regulated community.

In determining whether a civil penalty should be sought, the State will consider the magnitude of
the violations; the degree of actual environmental harm or the potential for such harm created by
the violation(s); response and/or investigative costs incurred by the State or others; any economic
advantage the violator may have gained through noncompliance; recidivism of the violator; good
faith efforts of the violator; ability of the violator to pay; and the possible deterrent effect of a penalty
to prevent future violations.

8.3 Penalty Calculation Methodology. The statutory maximum penalty should first be calculated,
for comparison purposes, to determine the potential maximum penalty liability of the violator. The
penalty which the State seeks in settlement may not exceed this statutory maximum amount.

The civil penalty figure for settlement purposes should then be calculated based on the following
formula: CIVIL PENALTY = PENALTY + ADJUSTMENTS - ECONOMIC AND LEGAL
CONSIDERATIONS PENALTY: Violations are grouped into four main penalty categories based
upon the nature and severity of the violation. A penalty range is associated with each category. The
following factors will be considered to determine where the penalty amount will fall within each
range:
A. History of compliance or noncompliance. History of noncompliance includes
consideration of previous violations and degree of recidivism.
B. Degree of willfulness and/or negligence. Factors to be considered include how much
control the violator had over and the foreseeability of the events constituting the
violation, whether the violator made or could have made reasonable efforts to prevent
the violation, whether the violator knew of the legal requirements which were violated,
and degree of recalcitrance.
C. Good faith efforts to comply. Good faith considers the openness in dealing with the
violations, promptness in correction of problems, and the degree of cooperation with the
State.
Page 3

Category A - $7,000 to $10,000 per day. Violations with high impact on public health and the
environment to include:

1. Discharges which result in documented public health effects and/or significant
environmental damage.
2. Any type of violation not mentioned above severe enough to warrant a penalty assessment
under category A.

Category B - $2,000 to $7,000 per day. Major violations of the Utah Water Pollution Control Act,
associated regulations, permits or orders to include:

1. Discharges which likely caused or potentially would cause (undocumented) public health
effects or significant environmental damage.
2. Creation of a serious hazard to public health or the environment.
3. Illegal discharges containing significant quantities or concentrations of toxic or hazardous
materials.
4. Any type of violation not mentioned previously which warrants a penalty assessment
under Category B.

Category C - $500 to $2,000 per day. Violations of the Utah Water Pollution Control Act, associated
regulations, permits or orders to include:

1. Significant excursion of permit effluent limits.
2. Substantial non-compliance with the requirements of a compliance schedule.
3. Substantial non-compliance with monitoring and reporting requirements.
4. Illegal discharge containing significant quantities or concentrations of non-toxic or non-
hazardous materials.
5. Any type of violation not mentioned previously which warrants a penalty assessment
under Category C.

Category D - up to $500 per day. Minor violations of the Utah Water Pollution Control Act,
associated regulations, permits or orders to include:

1. Minor excursion of permit effluent limits.
2. Minor violations of compliance schedule requirements.
3. Minor violations of reporting requirements.
4. Illegal discharges not covered in Categories A, B and C.
5. Any type of violations not mentioned previously which warrants a penalty assessment
under category D.

ADJUSTMENTS: The civil penalty shall be calculated by adding the following adjustments to the
penalty amount determined above: 1) economic benefit gained as a result of non-compliance; 2)
investigative costs incurred by the State and/or other governmental levels; 3) documented monetary
costs associated with environmental damage.

Page 4

ECONOMIC AND LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: An adjustment downward may be made or a
delayed payment schedule may be used based on a documented inability of the violator to pay.
Also, an adjustment downward may be made in consideration of the potential for protracted
litigation, an attempt to ascertain the maximum penalty the court is likely to award, and/or the
strength of the case.

8.4 Mitigation Projects. In some exceptional cases, it may be appropriate to allow the reduction of
the penalty assessment in recognition of the violator's good faith undertaking of an environmentally
beneficial mitigation project. The following criteria should be used in determining the eligibility of
such projects:

A. The project must be in addition to all regulatory compliance obligations;
B. The project preferably should closely address the environmental effects of the violation;
C. The actual cost to the violator, after consideration of tax benefits, must reflect a deterrent
effect;
D. The project must primarily benefit the environment rather than benefit the violator;
E. The project must be judicially enforceable;
F. The project must not generate positive public perception for violations of the law.

8.5 Intent of Criteria/Information Requests. The criteria and procedures in this section
are intended solely for the guidance of the State. They are not intended, and cannot be relied upon
to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party in litigation with the State.

8.6 Expedited Settlement Offer (ESO). Only enforcement cases classified as Category C or
Category D violations may qualify for an ESO in lieu of the penalty process found in Subsection
R317-1-8.3 Penalty Calculation Methodology. Except in cases where recidivism has been
established by a pattern of non-compliance, an ESO may be used when violations are readily
identifiable, readily correctable, and do not cause significant harm to human health or the
environment.

A. A violator is not compelled to sign an ESO. If the violator does not sign the ESO, then
the penalty will be recalculated according to Subsection R317-1-8.3.
B. The violator has 30 days total from receipt of the ESO to sign and return the ESO to the
division. If the violator signs the ESO, then the violator must comply with its conditions
within 15 days after receipt of the final ESO signed by the director, or as otherwise
designated in the ESO. If the violator signs the ESO they agree to waive:

1. The right to contest the findings and specified penalty amount;
2. The opportunity for an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 19-1-301; and
3. The opportunity for judicial review.

C. Deficiency Form. A deficiency form is used to list the violations and corresponding
penalties. Multiple violations at a site are totaled providing a final penalty
commensurate with the extent of non-compliance. Penalties developed for the list of
program violations on the deficiency form should be estimated at about 60% of the
penalty as calculated in Subsection R317-1-8.3.

195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT
Mailing Address: PO Box 144870 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870
Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • TDD [phone]
www.deq.utah.gov
Printed on 100% recycled paper
State of Utah

Department of
Environmental Quality

Kimberly D. Shelley
Executive Director

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
John K. Mackey, P.E.
Director
Water Quality Board
James Webb, Chair
Michelle Kaufusi, Vice Chair
Carly Castle
Michela Harris
Joseph Havasi
Trevor Heaton
Robert Fehr
Jill Jones
Kimberly D. Shelley
John K. Mackey
Executive Secretary
SPENCER J. COX
Governor

DEIDRE HENDERSON
Lieutenant Governor
M E M O R A N D U M

TO: Utah Water Quality Board

FROM: Judy Etherington
Wastewater Certification Program Coordinator

DATE: April 23, 2024

SUBJECT: Presentation of the Utah Wastewater Operator Certification Program
2023 Annual Report to the Water Quality Board

The Utah Water Quality Board has requested a yearly report of the Wastewater Operator
Certification Program activities. The Utah Wastewater Operator Certification Program 2023
Annual Report is being presented by Mr. Chad Burrell, who currently serves as Chair of the
Wastewater Operator Certification Council. The information contained within the attached report
is for the 2023 calendar year.

Enclosure: Utah Wastewater Operator Certification Council 2023 Annual Report (DWQ-2024-002284)

DWQ-2024-002285
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Utah Wastewater Operator Certification
Program 2023 Annual Report
Sunrise from North Davis Sewer District
Photo courtesy of Brian Lamar
Prepared by
The Division of Water Quality
April 2024
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
UTAH WASTEWATER OPERATOR CERTIFICATION PROGRAM
2023 ANNUAL REPORT
Prepared by
Tessa Scheuer and Judy Etherington
Wastewater Operator Certification Program Coordinators
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Quality
195 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
Presented to the Water Quality Board on April 23, 2024
by the Utah Wastewater Operator Certification Council
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY i
CONTENTS
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1
THE UTAH WASTEWATER OPERATOR CERTIFICATION COUNCIL ................................................................... 1
Examinations ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2
EXAMINATION PROCEDURES .................................................................................................................................. 2
EXAM CONTENT .......................................................................................................................................................... 3
EXAMINATION REVIEW ............................................................................................................................................ 4
Training .............................................................................................................................................................................. 5
COOPERATION WITH TRAINING PROVIDERS ...................................................................................................... 5
Renewal and Compliance .................................................................................................................................................. 6
Certification Council Meetings ........................................................................................................................................ 8
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 1
Introduction
In March of 1991, following over 20 years of voluntary certification, wastewater works operator certification
became mandatory. Wastewater operator certification is administered by the Division of Water Quality under
rules adopted by the Utah Water Quality Board. The Board established the Utah Wastewater Operator
Certification Council to provide guidance and stakeholder involvement in the program. During 2014, the Board
adopted major revisions to Rule R317-10 that incorporated changes required by Senate Bill 21 (2012 General
Session) which changed the duties and responsibilities of the environmental boards, their executive secretaries,
and division directors. In response to those changes, the Board approved a revision of the rule that organizes the
Utah Wastewater Operator Certification Council with members appointed by the Board to work in an advisory
capacity to the director of the Division of Water Quality for the certification program.
THE UTAH WASTEWATER OPERATOR CERTIFICATION COUNCIL
On January 31, 2023, the terms of two council members expired. During the January 2023 Utah Water Quality
Board meeting, the Board approved appointment of Dr. Ben Willardson, and reappointment of Phil Harold to fill
the vacancies for the next 3-year term. The Council members serving during 2023 were:
Chad Burrell, Chair, represented certified wastewater treatment operators. He is the Operations and Safety
Manager for Snyderville Basin Water Reclamation District and is certified as both a Grade IV Wastewater
Treatment Operator and Grade IV Collection Operator. His term expires January 31, 2024.
Brian Lamar, Vice-chair, represented certified wastewater treatment operators. He currently works at North Davis
Sewer District and is certified as a Grade IV Wastewater Treatment Operator, Grade IV Collections Operator, and
Grade II Biosolids Land Application Operator. His term expires January 31, 2025.
Giles Demke, represented the management of municipal wastewater systems. He is the General Manager of the
Mt. Olympus Improvement District and is certified as a Grade IV Wastewater Treatment Operator. His term
expires January 31, 2025.
Phil Harold represented vocational training. He is the wastewater circuit rider for the Rural Water Association of
Utah and is certified as both restricted Grade II Collection Operator and restricted Small Lagoon System
Operator. His term expires January 31, 2026.
Rob Jaterka represented certified wastewater collection operators. He is the District Inspector for Magna Water
District and is certified as both a Grade IV Collection Operator and Grade I Wastewater Treatment Operator. His
term expires January 31, 2024.
Blaine Shipley, represented certified wastewater collection operators. He is employed as Plant Superintendent
for Price River Water Improvement District and is certified as both a Grade IV Collection Operator and Grade IV
Wastewater Treatment Operator. His term expires January 31, 2025.
Dr. Ben Willardson represented Utah universities. He teaches the water related courses at Utah Valley University.
His term expires January 31, 2026.
The council held three meetings during the year to evaluate requests for continuing education courses, consider
reciprocity requests, plan for administering exams, review exam scores and comment forms, and discuss ways to
improve the certification program. All meetings continued to include participants using teleconferencing
platforms, and most communications with the program coordinator were done virtually—striving for majority
consensus before any actions were taken.
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 2
Examinations
The Division of Water Quality continued to maintain membership as a certifying authority with Water
Professionals International (WPI), formerly the Association of Boards of Certification (ABC). Since 1972, Water
Professionals International has been the central water industry authority that ensures that women and men in the
industry are prepared to meet the standards that their communities can trust in through testing and certification
services headquartered in Urbandale, Iowa. The role of WPI is to provide examination services to the Utah
Wastewater Operator Certification program, which includes exam development, scoring, and compilation of exam
results. A contract for exam services between WPI (ABC) and the Division of Water Quality is in effect for state
fiscal years 2024-28. Exams were offered in conjunction with the Rural Water Association of Utah's Annual and
Fall Conferences. Regularly scheduled Spring and Fall exam sessions were held in multiple locations. All sessions
used the standard paper-based format (PBT).
The registration and attendance of the 2023 exam sessions are shown in Table 1. These totals include the
traditional mandatory exams, as well as the voluntary ones that are available and provided by WPI, but are not
required by Utah’s wastewater operator certification program.
Table 1 - 2023 Exam Registration and Attendance
Locations
Spring Exam Sessions Fall Exam Sessions
March April September November
St. George (in conjunction
with RWAU Annual
Conference
Bluffdale (SVSD) Layton (in conjunction with
RWAU Fall Conference Bluffdale (SVSD)
Ogden (CWSID) Ogden (CWSID)
Price (SEUHD) Provo (HCH)
Provo (UTHJB) Richfield (CUHD)
Salt Lake (DEQ) Salt Lake (DEQ)
St. George (ACSSD) St. George (ACSSD)
Vernal (TriCo HD)
Applications
Received 94 257 131 220
Total
Scored* 93 250 129 218
Some individuals did not show up to take the exams at that time, but may have rescheduled for a future session using the previously ordered booklet.
EXAMINATION PROCEDURES
Exam sessions were proctored by members of DWQ staff, DEQ District Engineers, Local Health Department staff,
current Council members, or other individuals delegated by Council members.
All examinations, regardless of grade, consist of 100 scored questions using a multiple-choice format. Answer
sheets for PBT format are shipped to WPI for scoring. WPI compiles the results for each session and returns them
to DWQ by electronic format for recording in the database and dissemination to the examinees. Each examinee is
provided an individual statistical report, and variations of summary reports showing the cumulative results of the
general areas detailed in the need-to-know criteria for all Utah examinees taking the same test during that session.
Current WPI exams use a cut score of 70 for passing an exam.
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 3
EXAM CONTENT
The exams administered in 2023 were compiled from WPI's data bank, including the Small Lagoon System exam,
which is a customized exam using questions from the same data bank, but developed with 50 Wastewater
Treatment I and 50 Collection I items to meet the need of smaller wastewater systems in Utah. The wastewater
treatment and collection exams are "WPI 2019 standardized" exams which meet ISO 17024 standard to ensure the
validity, reliability, and legal defensibility of the certification exams. Exam questions are reviewed by WPI's
technical committees on a regular basis to ensure applicability to current wastewater technologies and processes.
The Collection and Wastewater Treatment exams also have ten unscored, unidentified questions that are being
pre-tested to see whether they would be good questions to use in future exams. Utah’s participation in the pre-
testing of potential questions allows our operators’ knowledge, skills, and abilities to be included in the evaluation
of applicability for future exams. Cumulative Totals for the 2023 mandatory wastewater exam classifications are
shown in Table 2.
Table 2 - Cumulative 2023 Exam Scores (Mandatory)
Exam-
Grade
Total Examinees High Score Low Score #Pass (70%) Pass %
C-I 35 86 25 20 57
C-II 106 89 35 49 46
C-III 42 91 40 11 26
C-IV 119 92 39 34 29
SLS-I 15 80 48 10 67
T-I 99 89 26 29 29
T-II 105 89 34 25 24
T-III 35 84 49 6 17
T-IV 103 81 41 22 21
Totals 659 206 31
Three voluntary classifications of wastewater-related certifications were again offered in 2023. They include
Biosolids Land Applier Grades I - II, Wastewater Laboratory Analyst Grades I - IV, and Plant Maintenance
Technologist Grades I - III. Mandatory exams include Collections Grades I - IV, Wastewater Treatment Grade I -
IV, and Small Lagoons System Grade I.
This is the fourth year using the 2019 version standardized exams that are based on the same need-to-know
criteria as the previous 2017 version. As predicted by WPI, the overall passing rates may dip when the new forms
are introduced, but without any prerequisites for testing, there is really no basis for comparison. Table 3 shows
overall passing rates for mandatory exams for the past five years.
Table 3 - Passing Rate Comparison for Mandatory Exams for 2019 through 2023
Exam-Grade 2019 Pass % 2020 Pass % 2021 Pass % 2022 Pass % 2023 Pass %
C-I 62 59 48 66 57
C-II 46 35 43 36 46
C-III 24 21 5 30 26
C-IV 20 26 30 30 29
SLS-I 71 52 71 68 67
T-I 23 30 29 29 29
T-II 26 25 25 32 24
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 4
Exam-Grade 2019 Pass % 2020 Pass % 2021 Pass % 2022 Pass % 2023 Pass %
T-III 13 6 18 13 17
T-IV 19 13 12 12 21
Overall 29 27 27 30 31
EXAMINATION REVIEW
No further changes have been made to the certification rule since it was amended January 24, 2018, removing the
option of a post-exam review of actual questions and answers by the examinees. The rule still provides the
opportunity for the Council to review the questions, along with the WPI accepted answers, for any questions for
which a comment form was submitted during the testing sessions. This provides an opportunity for the Council to
respond directly to the examinee's comment and also evaluate whether a recommendation should be made to WPI
regarding the validity of the question in future exams. Responses from the Council to the comments received are
sent to the individuals following the review. In a few instances, the Council requested clarification or further
review of the question item by WPI. Each individual was previously provided a statistical breakdown of their
proficiency in the areas of testing as described in the published need-to-know criteria. The examinee, as well as
those assisting them in their exam preparations, are able to use those results to focus study efforts for future
testing opportunities.
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 5
Training
COOPERATION WITH TRAINING PROVIDERS
During 2023, more modifications were made to most of the certification-related training classes offered through
cooperative efforts with the Water Environment Association of Utah or the Rural Water Association of Utah so
that they could be delivered in-person, virtually, or in a dual format. Division of Water Quality staff and
Certification Council members participated as instructors and presenters at conferences, seminars, and training
sessions which provided training to wastewater personnel. The objective of these training opportunities was to
facilitate compliance with UPDES permits, review subject matter in preparation for operator examinations, and
earn required continuing education credits for renewals.
Some council members and staff also continue supporting the Utah Water and Wastewater Training Coalition
providing a centralized calendar of seminars and training to make it easier for water and wastewater professionals
to find local training and continuing education for their respective fields. The council continues to support
participation in an “on-line” calendar format. This calendar has facilitated the communication and coordination
between the members of the Coalition as well as the operators. Division of Water Quality staff and representatives
of the member organizations maintain their respective calendar information. Members of the Coalition are:
Division of Drinking Water, Division of Water Quality, American Water Works Association, Water Environment
Association of Utah, Rural Water Association of Utah, American Backflow Prevention Association, and Rural
Community Assistance Corporation.
Individual wastewater facility owners and managers continue to provide updated training for their personnel
either “in house” or using professional training and assistance providers, including U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency resources. Training is often conducted through virtual meeting platforms, as well as in person,
allowing interactive participation by all. Dedication and ingenuity were definitely observed while meeting
compliance, certification, and safety requirements. The majority of those not renewing particular certifications
were no longer in the industry due to retirement or change of employment, or had advanced to a higher
certification and no longer needed to maintain the lower certifications.
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 6
Renewal and Compliance
Wastewater Operator Certifications may be valid for up to three years. Certifications will expire on December 31st
of the expiration year unless they have been renewed. Continuing education during the three-year period prior to
the expiration date, in wastewater-related subject matter, is a prerequisite for renewal. The number of credits
required is dependent upon the grade of certification being renewed. Reinstatement of the certificate is also
allowed within the year following expiration, provided that the operator has earned the required training credits
prior to the certificate's expiration. All publicly-owned wastewater works are required to have adequately certified
individuals "in charge" of both the wastewater treatment and collection systems as specified in Rule R317-10
Certification of Wastewater Works Operators. The statistics in Table 4 represent the certification actions taken
during 2023 to comply with various aspects of the certification rule.
Table 4 - Certification Actions for 2023
Action Number
Number of “new operators” added to wastewater certification database during 2023 150
Certificates expired 2022, reinstated prior to December 31, 2023 deadline 46
Certificates expired 2022, reinstated with "Change in Status" prior to December 31, 2023 deadline 3
Change in Status” certificates issued for current certifications 12
Certificates expiring December 31, 2023 – notices mailed March 2023 595
Certificates expiring December 31, 2023 – notices mailed September 2023 439
Certificates expiring 2023 renewals received prior to December 31, 2023 354
Certificates expiring 2023, renewed along with “Change in Status” requests 13
Early renewals for certificates expiring after 2023 5
Early renewal with "Change in Status" for certificates expiring after 2023 4
Certificates issued by “reciprocity” (equivalent certification from another state) 5
Issued Letter-of-Intent to issue certificate by “reciprocity” 0
Number of “reciprocity” requests denied in 2023 0
Number of "active" individuals in database (participated in certification within last 3 years) 1819
Number of certified wastewater operators as of January 1, 2024(all categories) 1,342
Number of certified “treatment” operators 541
WW Treatment Grade I 131
WW Treatment Grade II 159
WW Treatment Grade III 47
WW Treatment Grade IV 252
Number of certified “collection” operators 947
Collection Grade I 112
Collection Grade II 306
Collection Grade III 83
Collection Grade IV 489
Number of certified “small lagoon system” operators 130
Total number of current wastewater operator certifications as of January 1, 2024 1,747
Number of operators holding two classes of certifications, but not more than two during 2023 270
Number of operators holding three classes of certifications 32
Total number of current voluntary certifications (Biosolids Land Applier, WW Laboratory, Plant Maintenance) 98
Total number of publicly owned wastewater collection systems 197
Municipal Collection Class I systems 96
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 7
Action Number
Municipal Collection Class II systems 50
Municipal Collection Class III systems 27
Municipal Collection Class IV systems 24
Total number of publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities 124
Municipal Treatment Class I facilities 73
Municipal Treatment Class II facilities 9
Municipal Treatment Class III facilities 22
Municipal Treatment Class IV facilities 20
Municipal Small Lagoon System I facilities (combination Treatment I & Collection I included in the above
numbers) 63
As an alternative to employing a certified operator as Direct Responsible Charge (DRC), the owner of a municipal
wastewater system may choose to contract with an individual or another entity with an appropriately certified
operator to meet the certification requirement. New contracts to meet the requirements for Direct Responsible
Charge (DRC) operators were submitted and approved during 2023 for Henefer Town and Emigration
Improvement District. Other contracts in place during 2023 were for Canyon Land Improvement District, Little
Mountain Service Area, Mexican Hat Special Service District, North Fork Special Service District, North Village
Special Service District, Oakley City, Powder Mountain Water and Sewer Improvement District, Strawberry
Lakeview Special Service District, Twin Creeks Special Service District, and Wolf Creek Water and Sewer
Improvement District.
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 8
Certification Council Meetings
There were three Council meetings held during 2023. The following items may be of special note:
The Council members discussed the consistently low exam scores, but also noted that WEAU and
individual facilities are being more aggressive in providing wastewater-specific training to operators.
Although the training isn't directly geared towards passing exams, it should help operators better
understand the many different facets of wastewater collection and treatment processes.
There were a record 659 exams administered during the year.
Applications were received from operators requesting reciprocal certificates. Their previous certificates
were issued from Florida, Colorado, and California. All requests were approved with certificates issued.
Accommodations were made by council members and staff to administer a couple exams orally in
conjunction with regular testing dates. All orally administered exams required at least one council
member to participate, along with one other member or staff to verify accuracy in reading exam items.
The Council heard a request for acceptance of “wastewater-related” experience being adequate to meet the
minimum requirements of an operator to change the status, restricted to unrestricted, when the
experience submitted was not directly related to the classification of the certificate. It was determined
that the rule does not currently require that the experience be “respectively” in collections or wastewater
treatment, as some other states require. When the rule is opened for review in the future, this may be
addressed if the council determines it to be important at that time.
The Council meetings were conducted both in person and virtually to accommodate council members’
schedules. It allowed for discussion of the necessary agenda items, but also reduced travel for the
participants. There was a quorum present at each meeting.
There was discussion about whether leadership training courses should receive full credit. Some courses
being submitted for wastewater credit are long enough that an operator could received all of the required
continuing education credit for the wastewater certification renewal from a leadership course and not
have any “wastewater-related” training. The current database doesn’t allow for categories of training to be
designated and tracked separately. At present, full credit is given for the leadership courses, with the
expectation that those attending those courses are probably already attending other relevant training.
During the contract renewal process with WPI, the Division of Water Quality pursued plans to implement
the computer-based testing (CBT) through PSI testing services. There seem to be advantages for reduced
workload for DWQ staff and more flexibility for operators. A proposed fee schedule for FY2025, including
the CBT exam process, was drafted and opened to public comment. It will be submitted to the legislature
for approval when it convenes in 2024. Several discussions and meetings of DWQ staff with WPI were
held to work out the exam process and prepare for implementation in 2024.
The Council reviewed several online courses geared towards helping operators obtain wastewater training.
Those included American Water College, Water Otter, University of Florida TREEO, and NEZAT. Topics
related to wastewater were approved.