Enter Your Email to sign up for the city newsletter
The United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), in cooperation with the North Utah County Water Conservancy District as the project sponsor, announces an adjustment to the Final Watershed Plan and Environmental Assessment (Plan-EA) describing the proposed rehabilitation of Battle Creek Debris Basin in Utah County, Utah.
You are invited to attend a public open house which will describe the rehabilitation design change needed as a result of further engineering design following the completion of the Final Battle Creek Rehabilitatin Plan-EA, August 2014. Change from the 2014 EA: Auxiliary Spillway is moved to SW portion of the embankment. Battle Creek Debris Basin Rehabilitation Design Update - Open House
Date: Thursday, February 16, 2017
Time: 5:30 PM to 6:30 PM
Place: American Fork City Hall Conference Room (enter west side of building) 51 East Main Street, American Fork, UT
The rehabilitation design change can be reviewed from: February 1 to February 23, 2017.
Hard copies of the change are available for public review at: Pleasant Grove City Hall – 70 S. 100 E, Pleasant Grove, UT Pleasant Grove City Library – 30 E. Center St, Pleasant Grove , UT
Physical Mail: Battle Creek Rehabilitation Project
c/o USDA-NRCS - Norm Evenstad Wallace F Bennett Federal Building - Rm 4010 125 S. State Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84138
Phone: (801) 524-4569 PUBLIC NOTICE Electronic copy is available at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/ut/programs/planning/wr/?cid=stelprdb1186007 or search for: "NRCS Watershed Rehabilitation" and select the appropriate project. Comments may be submitted during the comment period of: February 1, 2017 and ending February 23, 2017 to: USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer
Enter Your Email to sign up for the city newsletter
I am grateful for the opportunity to represent my fellow citizens on the Public Safety Building (PSB) committee to report to you the progress we have made and to ask for your authorization to take an important next step in our work. I do not want to provide a detailed report of all of the previous work we have done as a committee as those reports have been made both in writing and in presentations to you in the past but I do want to provide enough background and context for you to understand the important request we have for you at this time.
As you may recall, in November, we recommended that the council hire an architectural firm [THINK Architecture] to see if there was a major price difference between seven options of where and how to obtain buildings that would meet the public safety needs of the city. The options basically revolved around two possible sites (the pipe plant and the downtown block) and two approaches to construction (build new or remodel). Based on the findings of THINK’s report, we quickly saw that several options were prohibitively more expensive than others which enabled us to start to eliminate some options. The result was that we narrowed our focus to three options:
It needs to be made clear to the city that the numbers THINK provided were NOT based on the exact buildings that we would build here in Pleasant Grove nor did they reflect a new analysis of programming needs. Their analysis was conducted using the firm’s database of prices for similar structures they have built applied to programming assessments (e.g., square feet) conducted previously (e.g., MOCA). Their report simply gave us average numbers that, in theory, allowed us to compare “apples to apples” across the various proposed sites. Although there was not complete consensus by the committee as to whether or not the way the costs were presented accurately reflected the actual costs associated with building on a particular site (e.g., land costs) or captured additional costs not associated with the actual buildings (e.g., displacement of employees during construction associated with some options), the process did enable the committee to unanimously narrow the options we were considering.
Now, allow me to outline what we have done since our last report. As you can tell, up to the time of our last report, a central focus of our analysis was on costs. Cost is obviously the central focus of any endeavor such as this. However, it certainly isn’t the only consideration in the process of making decisions on public safety facilities. Indeed, throughout the various bonding campaigns, citizens have made it clear that there are numerous factors that have led to their “stances” regarding proposed PSB solutions. As a committee, we have referred to these non-cost factors as “intangible” considerations. These intangibles that we discussed can be arranged into a few categories including:
These are just examples of the types of intangibles that were discussed. A full report of our discussion of intangibles is available online. It should be noted that, as a committee, we did not agree on which intangibles should take priority in our deliberations. In fact, some of the examples I provided were important to some members of the committee but much less so to others and vice versa. Again, these examples do not represent unanimity within the committee as to which factors should take precedence over others in ultimately recommending a site. We do, however, hope that the list represents to you and the citizens of the city that we are seriously attempting to address as many of the concerns expressed in the past in our current efforts to be as thorough as possible in trying to solve the problem before us. We may not yet agree on the order of importance of those intangibles but we want it clear that they are absolutely part of our considerations as a committee, and that the members of the committee have shown a great deal of mutual respect in listening to each other’s concerns and we hope the citizens of Pleasant Grove will do the same. Also, one thing that should be clear is that there is extensive agreement on the committee that these are important factors to consider but costs, rather than any of these, will continue to play the central role in our deliberations. Indeed, front and center in the goals of this committee is to attempt to meet the public safety needs of the city while limiting to as little as realistically possible the financial burden on the city’s citizens.
So, with that in mind, we come before you tonight with a request. As stated previously, the numbers that THINK Architecture used in the previous report were not based on the actual buildings we would build at each site. They were “average” numbers based on a previously determined amount of square feet. There was no new analysis conducted of programming or costs. The numbers were helpful in our process of eliminating certain options from consideration but they left us with a couple of options that were comparable in costs based on the general analysis that was conducted. Hence, we now need a deeper level of cost analysis to, we feel, fully be able to recommend to you final options that we as a committee can unanimously endorse. Based on (a) THINK’s report, (b) committee deliberations regarding both financial and intangible considerations, (c) concern about potential costs to the city, and (d) considerable mutual respect and compromise on the part of members of the committee, we would like to present two options to the council for which we request that you provide the means to have both of them fully vetted. Specifically, we would request that you would authorize in a timely manner (i.e., either engage the services, or accept the volunteered and donated expertise, of qualified and capable architects) a full study of architectural programming and cost analysis to be done for both options. In other words, we would like this next step to produce biddable construction documents that would identify the final costs of the two options. The two options (in no particular order) are:
It needs to be very clear that we are not approving or recommending either option to you at this time as it is premature to do so without studying with an architectural/engineering firm the details proposed for new public safety facilities. This is why we need to move to greater detail in our study. We feel that this in-depth programming and cost analysis needs to be done on both options because there are cost-factors for which we just do not have enough accurate, detailed information at this time, rendering it impossible to narrow down our recommendations. Citizens of the community and members of the committee have repeatedly expressed concern that a more thorough analysis of programming needs and careful assessment of costs might help us come up with a more “palatable” financial burden on the city. In fact, the charge to the committee in its charter was to provide recommendations to the council that include “[d]etailed analysis, programming, and cost estimates of each practical option.” We feel this is arguably the largest task left to be undertaken by our committee. We believe our task as a committee will be unfinished, and questions and doubts about the process will linger, if we are not able to make this thorough investigation of these remaining options for meeting our city’s public safety needs. In other words, as we see it, this report and request do not signify the end of our job as a committee but rather represents a critical point in our work in which we need this valuable information in a timely manner in order to complete our charter. Indeed, it is only in seeing our chartered task to completion with this in-depth programming and cost analysis that the foundation of our efforts can be built upon to garner sufficient respect from the public and safety professionals to see a real solution achieve success in our community. Therefore, again, we (a) submit to you these two options (in no particular order and without final committee approval of either), (b) request that you authorize the use of resources to conduct a full programming and cost analysis that would produce biddable construction documents for both options, and (c) authorize the PSB committee to complete the task that you gave us of fully vetting these options.
Click here for the the three year road plan.
Odd numbered houses and businesses: Mo-We-Fr
Even numbered houses and businesses: Tu-Th-Sa
Sundays: City and School District
In order to keep our system balanced, we is better to have some water usage on Sundays. We don’t allow residential or businesses to water, but allow some of the larger users (City and School District) to use the water.
Because of the size of some parks and the cemetery, the City will water a different part of the park and cemetery each day. While it may appear that the same piece of grass is being watered each day, it is actually watering the same piece of grass about once a week.
1. Watering on the wrong day
2. Wasting water
a. Overwatering- Keeping sprinklers on too long
b. Watering while it is raining
3. Watering on Sunday
First offense: Warning
Second offense: Disconnection from the secondary water system and $50 reconnect fee
Third offense: Disconnection from secondary water system and $200 reconnect fee
Reconnecting after shutoff: If property owner reconnects themselves to the secondary water system after being shut off by the City, a $500 penalty will be enacted in addition to any criminal action may be enforced.
Please use the following link to ascertain what the recommended watering time is. It varies on a weekly basis depending on the weather:
We’ve heard a few residents make this comment. While I can’t speak to what was said in the past, our reality is that (1) we have a limited resource when it comes to water so we don’t have the luxury of allowing everyone to use as much as they want and (2) an analysis of the secondary water rates was done in 2010 that showed if there wasn’t a rate increase the water fund would be bankrupt in a couple of years. Therefore corresponding rate increases were put in to make sure the water fund stayed solvent.
The City has water rights for enough water to operate the system each year. Depending on the amount of snow in the mountains determines how many of these water rights we are allowed to exercise. On a good snow year we are able to exercise 100% of our water rights if needed. In a drought year, we are allocated a portion of our water rights because their simply isn’t enough physical water to exercise all the water rights. For this reason a watering schedule is put into place to help conserve that water.
We are asking each citizen to limit their water usage on the days they are allowed to water. It defeats the purpose of conservation if our citizens have the attitude that they will overwater on the days they are allowed to water. Overwatering is a violation of our ordinance and subject to a citation. This really is a community effort to work together to conserve water.
This is the third straight year that we aren’t receiving our full water allotment. Therefore we are asking residents to conserve water wherever possible. The City has enough water to last throughout this whole year if we have cooperation on conservancy. If we continue to run our sprinklers longer than we need to or water during a rainstorm, then we run the risk of not having enough water to last the whole year.
The rain in May was heaven sent this year. It doesn’t signal the end of the drought because it wasn’t able to be stored as snow pack. The drought is really based on the amount of snow pack we get during the winter. The positive that the rain provided was that we used a small amount of our stored water during that month which helps with availability at the end of the year. But even with the rain we can’t be less diligent on water conservation.
Please contact our Public Works Department at (801) 785-2941 and we will investigate it. You can remain anonymous throughout the process.
Each new development is required to deed the amount of water their new development will use to the City.
At this point the secondary water system hasn’t been metered. When the system was installed, the technology for secondary water meters was lacking. The technology is much better now and putting in secondary water meters in now an option for consideration. The hold back at this point is the capital cost of installing the meters. It will cost $5.5M in order to install secondary water meters in the city. Right now, there isn’t a budget allocation for the installation of the meters.
Before secondary water meters were installed, residents had to use culinary water to irrigate their lawns. This culinary water was metered. When the water was metered the usage was 3 gallons per minute per acre in the city. Now that the secondary water isn’t metered our usage has gone up to 7.5 gallons per minute per acre. That number shows that if secondary water was metered, we’d see a more concerted effort for residents to conserve water.