ivins city culinary water master plan and impact …...culinary water needs of ivins city for the...

I V I N S C I T Y C U L I N A R Y W A T E R M A S T E R P L A N A N D

I M P A C T F E E F A C I L I T I E S P L A N

Adopted by City Council November 7, 2013

Prepared by: Ivins City Public Works Department

Public Works Director: David Glenn

City Engineer: Charles Gillette, P.E.

Mayor: Chris Hart

City Council: Ron Densley

George Elwell

Cheyne McDonald

Lesley Mendenhall

Steve Roberts

City Manager: Dale Coulam

2013 Ivins City Culinary Water Master Plan & IFFP Page i

I V I N S C I T Y C U L I N A R Y W A T E R M A S T E R P L A N A N D I M P A C T F E E F A C I L I T I E S

P L A N

CONTENTS

List of Figures: ......................................................................................................................................................................... iii

List of Tables: ........................................................................................................................................................................... iv

List of Appendices: ................................................................................................................................................................... v

Common Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................................................... vi

Impact Fee Facilities Plan Certification .......................................................................................................................... 1

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................ 2

Population and Land Use Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 2

Water Demand Analysis ................................................................................................................................................... 2

Water Source & Transmission ....................................................................................................................................... 3

Water Storage ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Distribution Piping System ............................................................................................................................................. 4

Facilities Plan ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4

Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 7

Background ............................................................................................................................................................................ 7

Scope of Work ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7

Service Standards ................................................................................................................................................................ 8

Service Area ........................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Annexation Considerations ........................................................................................................................................... 11

Irrigation Water Considerations ................................................................................................................................. 12

Chapter 2: Population and Land Use Analysis ........................................................................................................... 14

Historical Population ....................................................................................................................................................... 14

Existing Land Use .............................................................................................................................................................. 15

Future Land Use & Projected Buildout ..................................................................................................................... 17

Population Projections .................................................................................................................................................... 19

Chapter 3: Water Demand Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 22

Current Demands .............................................................................................................................................................. 22

Future Demands ................................................................................................................................................................ 26

2013 Ivins City Culinary Water Master Plan & IFFP Page ii

Chapter 4: Water Source & Transmission Analysis ................................................................................................. 28

Water Rights ........................................................................................................................................................................ 28

Water Supply Agreements ............................................................................................................................................. 29

Existing Sources & Transmission Piping ................................................................................................................. 31

Water Conservation ......................................................................................................................................................... 36

Water Quality Considerations ...................................................................................................................................... 36

Future Sources ................................................................................................................................................................... 37

Pumping Station & Transmission Analysis............................................................................................................. 39

Chapter 5: Water Storage Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 42

Fire Storage .......................................................................................................................................................................... 43

Existing Storage Analysis ............................................................................................................................................... 44

Future Storage .................................................................................................................................................................... 45

Concrete Storage Tanks Versus Steel Tanks .......................................................................................................... 47

Alternatives for Additional Storage Recommendation...................................................................................... 49

Chapter 6: Distribution Piping System Analysis ....................................................................................................... 50

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................ 50

Pressure Analysis .............................................................................................................................................................. 51

Distribution Pipe Sizing (Dynamic Pressure & Fire Flow Analysis) ............................................................ 54

Existing Distribution Piping ..................................................................................................................................... 54

Future Distribution Piping ........................................................................................................................................ 58

Chapter 7: Facilities Plan .................................................................................................................................................... 63

List of Facilities Needed .................................................................................................................................................. 63

Revenue Sources................................................................................................................................................................ 68

Financing .............................................................................................................................................................................. 69

2013 Ivins City Culinary Water Master Plan & IFFP Page iii

LIST OF FIGURES:

Figure 1. Water System Service Areas of Ivins City ................................................................................................. 10 Figure 2. Ivins Irrigation Service Area .......................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 3. Graph of Ivins City Historical Population ................................................................................................. 14 Figure 4. Existing Land Use Development ................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 5. Ivins City Land Use Plan (April 2011) ........................................................................................................ 18 Figure 6. Population Projections ..................................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 7. Ivins City Historical municipal water Use 2005 to 2013 ................................................................... 22 Figure 8. Residential Water Meter Usage Distribution (May 2010 to April 2011) .................................... 24 Figure 9. Projected Annual Demands 2010 to 2046 ............................................................................................... 27 Figure 10. Projected Peak Day Demands 2010 to 2046 ........................................................................................ 28 Figure 11. Water Sourcing Pipeline Network Schematic ...................................................................................... 32 Figure 12. Annual Deliveries to Ivins City Categorized by Location of Deliver Point 2005-2012 ....... 34 Figure 13. Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Steel versus Concrete (1 MG Tank) .................................................... 48 Figure 14. Ivins City Existing Pressure Zones ............................................................................................................ 52 Figure 15. Hydraulic Modeling Results for Peak Instant Demands (July 2010) .......................................... 55 Figure 16. Existing Fire Flow Capacities (July 2010 Peak Month with Fire Flow Analysis)................... 57 Figure 17. Future Distribution Pipeline Sizing .......................................................................................................... 59 Figure 18. Hydraulic Modeling Results for Future Buildout Peak Instantaneous Flows ......................... 60 Figure 19. Hydraulic Modeling Results for Future Buildout Peak Day Demand with Fire Flow

Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 61 Figure 20. Capital Facilities Map for Transmission System ................................................................................. 66 Figure 21. Capital Facilities Map for Distribution System .................................................................................... 67

2013 Ivins City Culinary Water Master Plan & IFFP Page iv

LIST OF TABLES:

Table 1. Ivins City Service Standards .............................................................................................................................. 8 Table 2. Historical Population of Utah, Washington County and Ivins City .................................................. 14 Table 3. US Census Population 2000 vs. 2010 ........................................................................................................... 15 Table 4. Summary of Existing Development .............................................................................................................. 16 Table 5. Existing Land Use in Ivins City as of April 2011 ...................................................................................... 16 Table 6. Landuse Data for Future Buildout Calculations....................................................................................... 19 Table 7. Ivins Population Projection Data ................................................................................................................... 21 Table 8. Current average annual water usage June 2010 to May 2011 .......................................................... 23 Table 9. Water Use Comparison ...................................................................................................................................... 23 Table 10. Tabular analysis of meter usage based on meter types (May 2010 to April 2011) ............... 25 Table 11. Summary of current Demands in Ivins City ............................................................................................ 26 Table 12. Estimated Future Demands at Buildout (Year 2046) ......................................................................... 27 Table 13. Existing Ivins City Water Rights .................................................................................................................. 29 Table 14. Ivins City Unapproved Water Right Applications ................................................................................ 29 Table 15. Summary of Ivins City Water Rights/Water Supply Agreements ................................................. 31 Table 16. Annual Deliveries to Ivins City Categorized by Location of Delivery Point 2005 – 2012.... 34 Table 17. Peak Day Deliveries to Ivins City Categorized by Location of Delivery Point 2005 – 201235 Table 18. List of Existing Source Connection Capacities ....................................................................................... 35 Table 19. Significant Water Quality Parameters for each Ivins City Water Source.................................... 36 Table 20. Current Sources of Water with Existing Capacity ................................................................................ 37 Table 21. List of Future Source Capacities .................................................................................................................. 39 Table 22. Existing Pumping Station/Transmission Pipelines ............................................................................. 40 Table 23. Future Pumping Station/Transmission Pipelines ............................................................................... 41 Table 24. Storage Tank Geometric Data ....................................................................................................................... 42 Table 25. Excerpt from IFC Table B105.1 Minimum Required Fire Flow for Buildings .......................... 43 Table 26. Summary of existing buildings fire flow requirements ..................................................................... 44 Table 27. Ivins City Existing Water Storage Analysis ............................................................................................. 45 Table 28. Ivins City Analysis of Existing Excess ERUs ............................................................................................ 45 Table 29. KWU Existing Water Storage Analysis ...................................................................................................... 45 Table 30. KWU Analysis of Existing Excess ERUs .................................................................................................... 45 Table 31. Future Tank Storage Evaluation .................................................................................................................. 46 Table 32. Concrete Tank vs Steel Tank Summary of Advantages ...................................................................... 47 Table 33. Summary of assumptions for Concrete versus Steel life cycle analysis ...................................... 48 Table 34. Summary of Piping System Lengths .......................................................................................................... 50 Table 35. Static Pressure Analysis of Pressure Zones per Existing Conditions ........................................... 53 Table 36. Static Pressure Analysis of Future Combined Zones .......................................................................... 54 Table 37. Excerpt from IFC Table B105.1 Minimum Required Fire Flow for Buildings .......................... 56 Table 38. Fire Flow ISO 2010 Field Data versus Modeled Fire Flow, Problem Areas ............................... 58 Table 39. List of Capital Facility Projects ..................................................................................................................... 64

2013 Ivins City Culinary Water Master Plan & IFFP Page v

LIST OF APPENDICES:

Appendix A: Water Planning Workmap

Appendix B: Landuse/Demand Calculation Tables

Appendix C: Water Conservation Plan

Appendix D: Model Output

Appendix E: Cost Estimation Details

Appendix F: Impact Fee Analysis

Appendix G: Vertical Schematic of Water System

2013 Ivins City Culinary Water Master Plan & IFFP Page vi

COMMON ABBREVIATIONS

AF or ac-ft: Acre-feet

AF/Y or ac-ft/yr: Acre-feet per year

AYD: Average Yearly Demand

BLM: United States Bureau of Land Management

cfs: cubic feet per second

EPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency

ERU: Equivalent Residential Unit

GIS: Geographical Information Systems

GOPB: State of Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget

gpcd: gallons per capita per day

gpm: gallons per minute

HOA: Home Owners Association

IFC: International Fire Code 2012

IFFP: Impact Fee Facilities Plan

ISO: Insurance Services Office

KWU: Kayenta Water Users Private Water System

MG: million gallons

MGD: Million Gallons per Day

MPO: Dixie Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

PDD: Peak Day Demand

PID: Peak Instantaneous Demand

ppb: parts per billion

ppm: parts per million

PRV: pressure reducing valve

psi: pounds per square inch

SITLA: State of Utah Institutional Trust Lands Administration

TDS: Total Dissolved Solids

WCWCD: Washington County Water Conservancy District

WTP: Water Treatment Plant

2013 Ivins City Culinary Water Master Plan & IFFP Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Ivins City 2013 Culinary Water Master Plan and Impact Fee Facilities Plan considers the

culinary water needs of Ivins City for the next 30 years. The needs of Ivins City are addressed in the

areas of water resources, storage, transmission of sources, and distribution piping facilities. This

plan meets the requirements of an impact fee facilities plan as defined in most current Utah Impact

Fee Act (Utah Code, Title 11, Chapter 36a).

POPULATION AND LAND USE ANALYSIS

Ivins City has rapidly grown over the past three decades from a sparsely populated rural city to a

significant suburban city being the fourth largest city in Washington County. This study evaluated

past growth and has projected future growth. Also, part of this analysis was review of the current

Land Use Plan and an identification of the future build out of the City. Based on this in-depth

analysis, the following information was determined:

� The future build-out population is approximately 19,100.

� It is expected that the City will reach this population in approximately 2046, although it

may occur sooner if growth follows closer to the GOPB estimate.

WATER DEMAND ANALYSIS

In the evaluation of past water demands, Ivins City has not seen any increase in use since 2008.

Some of this is from a reduction in water system loss from as high as 15% to current rates of 7 to

10%.

COPY OF TABLE 11. SUMMARY OF CURRENT DEMANDS IN IVINS CITY

Average Annual Demand

(acre-feet/year)

Peak Month Demand (gpm) Peak Day Demand

(gpm)

Total Ivins City (includes KWU)

1,700 2,070 2,275

KWU System 140 160 175

Ivins City Municipal Water System

1,560 1,910 2,100

This study includes an evaluation of water meter data and found that when considering irrigation

uses and correcting for landscaping of common areas in subdivisions, it could be safely assumed

that each household on average to use 0.65 acre-feet/year. Kayenta use per household is

approximately 66% of the typical household of the Municipal system. However, to ensure that the

plan has adequate supply, this study assumes 0.89 acre-feet/year is used by the average household.

This equates to the following future demands.


COPY OF TABLE 12. ESTIMATED FUTURE DEMANDS AT BUILDOUT (YEAR 2046)

Future Average Annual Demand

(acre-feet/year) Peak Day Demand

(gpm)

Future Municipal Irrigation System

3,100 4,700

KWU 1,100 1,400


3,900 4,900

Total: 8,100 11,000

WATER SOURCE & TRANSMISSION

The following table summarizes all of the water rights and water supply agreements that Ivins City

relies on for current and future water.

COPY OF TABLE 15. SUMMARY OF IVINS CITY WATER RIGHTS/WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENTS

Description Flow Capacity (gpm)

Annual Production (acre-feet/year)

Irrigation Water Shares

As needed 347

Snow Canyon Compact Water Rights

350 393

Gunlock Wells Agreement

As needed 614

Ence Wells Water Supply Agreement

600 900

Quail Creek Water Block Purchase

1,700 1,000

(with option to purchase additional 1,000)

Total: 2,252

Regional Water Supply Agreement

As needed for all future needs As needed for all future needs

The Regional Water Supply Agreement with the Washington County Water Conservancy District

guarantees a full supply of water Ivins City to build-out conditions. It is anticipated that along with

the current taps into the Snow Canyon, Gunlock and Regional water systems, that there is a

possibility of a surface water treatment plant to deliver water from the Gunlock system. This plan

anticipates that this water source would become available to Ivins somewhere near the Ivins

Reservoir and then be delivered via pump station and transmission line into the Ivins system.

WATER STORAGE

Water storage is essential to a municipal water system. The storage allows for equalization of flow

as the demand varies throughout the day. Also the storage provides water for emergencies such as


fires and power outages. Ivins City currently has 4.3 million gallons of storage spread across six

water storage facilities. Current analysis shows that the system is currently short in necessary

storage in the 3290/3312 zone and will soon be out of the required storage in the 3460 Taviawk

zone. This plan recommends increasing storage by 1 million gallons and also to accelerate the implementation of the secondary water system to prevent a deficiency of storage.

DISTRIBUTION PIPING SYSTEM

The distribution piping network consists of 61.5 miles of pipe. The system was analyzed looking at

multiple scenarios. The analysis shows that some minor improvements could solve some of the

system deficiencies. The plan identified a few small areas of the City where fire flows less than

1,750 gpm are available. This would limit building size (including garage) to 3,600 sq. ft. unless

indoor sprinklers are used. Some other deficiencies are outlined and improvements are

recommended in the facilities plan.

FACILITIES PLAN

As a result of the analyses conducted for the preparation of this plan. The following improvements

to the facilities are recommended as provided in the following table.


COPY OF TABLE 39. LIST OF CAPITAL FACILITY PROJECTS

Project ID Project Description Facility Type Time

Frame Project Cost Notes Impact Fee Fund

Priority #1: Current Needs

IA Upsize Taviawk Pumping Station to 480 gpm Capacity Transmission 0-5 years $60,000 Current Pumping Station is at maximum capacity. 100%

IB Upsize 6" Waterline to 12" on 400 W from 400 S to Hwy 91 Distribution 0-5 years $190,000 Provides Fire Flow for Future Development 100%

IB Install 12" Waterline in Hwy 91 from 400 W to Earl Rd Distribution 0-5 years $90,000 Provides Fire Flow for Future Development 100%

IC Install Check Valves on 1MG & 2MG Tanks Storage 0-5 years $15,000 Prevents Snow Canyon Taps from Overflowing Tanks 50%

ID Remove Check Valves at 50 N 200 E and Red Mountain Spa Distribution 0-5 years $10,000 Increase interflow between 3290 Zones 50%

IE Connect 14" to 12" @ 200 W/300N Distribution 0-5 years $20,000 Provides better pressures in higher elevation areas of 3290 zone

100%

IF Combine 3165 and 3220 Pressure Zones in a 3175 Zone Distribution When Developed

Paid by Developer

Adjust the pressures on the PRVs. Connection of system for future pending development.

n/a


Paid by Developer


n/a

Priority #2: Bolster 3290 Zone

IIA Add Water Storage to 3290 Zone Storage 0-5 years $2,300,000 Replace 1MG steel tank with 2MG concrete tank 100%

IIB Upsize Outflow Pipeline from 8" to 16" in Taviawk Dr (450 N to Tank) Distribution 5-15 years $540,000 Necessary to maintain pressures while accommodating growth 100%

IIB Upsize Outflow Pipeline from 8" to 12" in 400 W (450 N to 300 N) Distribution 5-15 years $70,000 Necessary to maintain pressures while accommodating growth 100%

IIB Upsize main line from 8" to 12" in 400 W (200 N to Center St) Distribution 5-15 years $150,000 Necessary to maintain pressures while accommodating growth 100%

IIC Separate Irrigation System Irrigation 5-10 years Paid by Irrigation Funds

Necessary as system will become undersized without removing the irrigation demand

n/a


TABLE 38, LIST OF CAPITAL FACILITY PROJECTS (CONT.)

Project ID Project Description Facility Type

Time Frame

Project Cost Notes Impact Fee Fund

Priority #3: Bolster Transmission of Source

IIIA Install Pumping Station at 200 W Transmission 15-25 years $170,000 As demands increase, necessary to ensure flow capacity 100%

IIIB Upgrade Pumping Station at 400 W Transmission 15-25 years $60,000 As demands increase, reliability of pumping is necessary 50%

IIIC Pumping Station Transmission Line from Ivins Reservoir Transmission 15-25 years $1,360,000 Future Pumping Station & Pipeline from Possible Treated Water Source 100%

IIID Upgrade Tuacahn Pumping Station Transmission 5-15 years $50,000 Install Backup Pump to improve redundancy 100%

Future Priorities Per Development & Major Tank Replacements

IVA 450 North (400 W to 550 W) 12" Pipe Distribution When Developed $15,000 Impact Fees Fund upsize from 8" 100%

IVB Guy Lane (Hwy 91 to Fitness Way) Replace 8" with 12" Distribution When Developed

Paid by Developer

For Fire flow (see page 61) for more details. n/a

IVC 400 S (400 W to 480 W) Replace 6" with 8" Distribution When Developed

Paid by Developer

6” pipe not viable to handle future flows. n/a

IVD Center St (600 W to 750 W) Replace 6" with 8" Distribution When Developed

Paid by Developer n/a

IVE Upsize Pumping Station at Tuacahn Transmission When Developed

Paid by Developer

As necessary for development paid for by development n/a

IVF Replace Tuacahn Tank with concrete tank at end of service life Storage Year 2035 +/- $940,000 Lower water temperatures, Reduce

maintenance costs 0%

IVG Replace Taviawk Tank with concrete tank at end of service life Storage Year 2039 +/- $940,000 Lower water temperatures, Reduce


IVH Replace 2MG Tank with concrete tank at end of service life Storage Year 2042 +/- $2,250,000 Lower water temperatures, Reduce


Note: All cost estimates are in 2012 dollars


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

This water master plan is an update to the 2006 Water Capital Facilities Plan prepared by Alpha

Engineering. Prior to the 2006 plan, there is a 2001 plan prepared by Alpha Engineering and a 1997

plan prepared by Bush and Gudgell Engineering which were also referred to in the preparation of

this plan.

This document is encompassing of a water master plan in that it covers all of the future planning for

the culinary water system. It is also intended to meet all of the requirements of an impact fee

facilities plan as defined in most current Utah Impact Fee Act (Utah Code, Title 11, Chapter 36a).

SCOPE OF WORK

This report is a result of updating the information in the 2006 plan. The following tasks were

completed in this effort:

� Land use data was re-evaluated and the future build-out population was determined.

� New land use mapping was created.

� Population projections were revised with the new data from the 2010 Census

� An analysis of water demands and water sources was conducted. This included an intensive

analysis of meter usage in the City for the period of 2010-2011.

� Water Rights were evaluated to determine the City’s existing holdings.

� Water quality data was collected and evaluated for the various water sources.

� Water storage facilities were evaluated for current and future demands and for fire flow

storage.

� Transmission facilities were evaluated. Pumping stations and pipelines were evaluated to

determine what upgrades might be needed in the future.

� The existing and future distribution pipe system was evaluated using a hydraulic pipeline

network computer model using the software Bentley Systems WaterGEMS. The following

scenarios were evaluated:

o Existing Conditions

o Existing Conditions with the development of all existing vacant lots

o Future Buildout Conditions assuming that a separate irrigation system has been

implemented.

� The model scenarios were evaluated under the following conditions.

o Peak Day Demand with Fire Flow Analysis (Static System Analysis)

o Peak Instantaneous Demand (Static System Analysis)

o Peak Day Demand 72-hr extended period analysis.

� Existing deficiencies were identified and a capital facilities plan was developed to provide

practical improvements to correct the existing deficiencies.

� Future improvements were identified that will need to be installed as part of the capital

facilities plan.

� Cost estimates and prioritization was provided for the capital facilities plan.


SERVICE STANDARDS

The following table provides a summary of the Ivins City service standards:

TABLE 1. IVINS CITY SERVICE STANDARDS

Category Service Standard

System Pressure � Normal Operation Range: 30 to 130 psi

� Peak Day Demand (PDD): minimum 40 psi o Indoor: 800 gallons per day per ERU o Outdoor: 4.90 gpm per irrigated acre

� Peak Instantaneous Demand (PID): minimum 30 psi o Indoor: Qgpm = 10.8 x ERU0.64 (minimum 1.5 x PDD) o Outdoor: 9.80 gpm per irrigated acre

� Peak Day Demand (PDD) with Fire Flow: minimum 20 psi o Fire Flow: minimum 1000 gpm or per requirements for largest individual

building per IFC

� Daily Pressure Fluctuations: < 20 psi when service pressure is < 80 psi

Supply Source � Water rights or water agreements to source: o Average yearly demand (AYD):

� Indoor: 146,000 gallons per ERU � Outdoor: 3.26 acre-feet per year per irrigated acre

o Peak Day Demand (PDD): � Indoor: 800 gallons per day per ERU � Outdoor: 4.90 gpm per irrigated acre

� Supply capacity will refill the tank fire storage in a 24 hour period.

� Supply capacity will completely refill storage tanks in 3 days with all sources in service.

Storage Capacity � Equalization Storage: o Indoor: Minimum 400 gallons per ERU o Outdoor: 4,964 gallons per irrigated acre

� Fire Suppression Storage: o Meet need of individual buildings per IFC Appendix B.

� Emergency Storage: None unless source supplies are unable to meet supply source standards as provided above.

Pump Station Design � Capacity for Open Systems: o Peak Day Demand with largest pump out of service, plus o The flow required to refill the tank fire storage in a 24 hour period.

� Capacity for Closed Systems (No gravity storage): The greater of Peak Day Demand with Fire Flow or Peak Instantaneous Demand.

Pipeline Sizes � Standard pipe sizes to be used are 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, and 30 inches. Larger pipe sizes shall be in 6-inch increments thereafter.

� Mainline pipelines servicing hydrants shall not be less than 8-inches.

Transmission Pipelines � Sized to meet peak day demand plus flow required to refill tank fire storage in a 24 hour period.

� Target velocity: less than 5 feet per second

� Max velocity: 8 feet per second

Distribution Pipelines � Sized to meet the greater of Peak Instantaneous Demand or Peak Day Demand with Fire Flow.

� Max velocity: 10 feet per second except with fire flow

This list of service standards does not represent any proposed increase in level of service.


SERVICE AREA

Ivins City is serviced by two water systems, one public system operated by Ivins City and one

private system operated by KWU. The KWU system represents the Kayenta area with the exclusion

of most of the Taviawk area which is serviced by Ivins City. Figure 1 shows a map of the two service

areas.

The KWU system has limited supply of water based on its agreement to use the Ence Wells owned

by the WCWCD. The agreement states as follows:

It is recognized that the water transferred, together with the water presently allocated to

the Ence well, would allow for a maximum of Six Hundred Twelve (612) culinary

connections and that [KWU] reserves without cost to Ence until connections are actually

made Sixty (60) connections for the use of Ence.

This results in the KWU system having 552 connections as a maximum. Further on in this study,

under the Land Use Analysis section, it is shown that the KWU system is very close to surpassing

this limit and that in the future as many as 1,500 equivalent residential connections should be

considered.

It may be necessary in the near future for the private KWU to be sold to Ivins City Municipal System

to enable additional water resources which would allow for additional growth in this area.

Regardless, this master plan document does not evaluate the future improvements needed for the

KWU system other than identifying future land use and associated population projections and

identifying the associated future water needs.

70 A


FIGURE 1. WATER SYSTEM SERVICE AREAS OF IVINS CITY


ANNEXATION CONSIDERATIONS

The annexation zones are shown in water system service area map provided in Figure 1. There are

four areas which are described as follows:

Area 1: North of Kayenta – This area is within the desert tortoise reserve and owned by the U.S.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The likelihood of an annexation in this area is too low to be

considered in the future planning of water systems, therefore this area does not impact this study.

Area 2: Santa Clara River Valley – This is a large area and currently encompasses much of the Santa

Clara River area including the Anazazi Valley and areas identified and protected by the BLM as the

Santa Clara River Reserve. The majority of the area is not viable for future annexation and

development as the BLM has assigned the area around the Santa Clara River as an avoidance area,

however, there are three subareas within that are developable as follows:

� Anazazi Valley – The Anazazi Valley has a significant amount of private property that might

be developable minus the areas with extremely steep slopes and the flood plain areas of the

Santa Clara River. It is expected that at most 320 acres would be developable. The current

land use plan does not address a land use for this area, however, for the purpose of this

study it is assumed to be low density residential at a density no more than one unit per acre.

The servicing of this area could be completed as one of the following options:

o Service directly from the 3 MG tank owned by City of St. George located on the

Shivwits Reservation. Through an agreement with the City of St. George, a

connection to the 20-inch Gunlock pipeline could provide sufficient pressure to the

upper elevations and a PRV would need to be provided to service some of the lower

elevations.

o Service by connection to the KWU system, but this would require some significant

length of pipelines and require that KWU system be part of the Ivins City municipal

system.

� There is 70 acres of SITLA/private property adjacent to the Villas at Bellagio project that

could be easily serviced by Ivins. This area was assumed to be developable at 3.3 units per

acre which would add 230 units. This is speculative as it would be subject to zoning and

density determinations made by the Planning Commission and City Council. The property

would receive secondary irrigation through the future system as discussed in the following

section.

� 80 Acre R&PP – There is 80 acres south of the Pendleton properties which is owned by BLM

but available for a recreation and public purpose (R&PP) right-of-way grant. The public

purpose could be varied from a public works yard to a park, equestrian or other

recreational facility. This 80 acres is considered to be 50% irrigated and 2 indoor ERUs in

the future for water planning purposes. The property would be considered part of the

future secondary irrigation system.

Area 3: Santa Clara Boundary – This area is established for the case that there are adjustments to

the boundary between Santa Clara and Ivins City. It is not possible to perfectly foresee any changes

to this boundary at this time; therefore this area does not impact this study.


Area 4: Base of Red Mountain – This area was once considered to be viable for future development

when it was administered by the State of Utah Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA).

This land was purchased by State Parks and is no longer considered for future development;

therefore this area does not impact this study.

IRRIGATION WATER CONSIDERATIONS

The current water system handles both indoor water use and outdoor water use except for those

properties that are receiving water from the irrigation company. All subdivisions constructed since

the 1990s, have been required to install secondary irrigation pipe for a future irrigation system.

The need for Ivins City to implement a secondary irrigation system is becoming apparent to the

entire region as arsenic reduction rules are reducing the usability of the Gunlock Wells and

irrigation grade water is becoming more abundant on the west side of the region.

It is still unclear how this system will be phased into the City, whether it be by a transferring of the

Ivins Irrigation Company system to the City or by development of an independent system. Ivins has

identified the service area of the irrigation system as shown in Figure 2 as follows. These areas are

considered to be serviced by the irrigation for some of the future build out analyses.


FIGURE 2. IVINS IRRIGATION SERVICE AREA


CHAPTER 2: POPULATION AND LAND USE ANALYSIS

This section reviews historical population, existing land use, future land use and estimate of

buildout population, and a population projection to determine the approximate year of buildout.

HISTORICAL POPULATION

Ivins City has rapidly grown over the past three decades from a sparsely populated rural city to a

significant suburban city being the fourth largest city in Washington County. Table 2 and Figure 3

below shows the historical growth of Ivins since 1950 based U.S. Census data.

TABLE 2. HISTORICAL POPULATION OF UTAH, WASHINGTON COUNTY AND IVINS CITY

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

State of Utah 688,862 890,627 1,059,273 1,461,037 1,722,850 2,246,553 2,763,885

% Growth 29.3% 18.9% 37.9% 17.9% 30.4% 23.0%

Washington County 9,836 10,271 13,669 26,065 48,560 90,354 138,115

% Growth 4.4% 33.1% 90.7% 86.3% 86.1% 52.9%

Ivins City 95 77 137 600 1,630 4,450 6,753

% Growth -18.9% 77.9% 338.0% 171.7% 173.0% 51.8%

FIGURE 3. GRAPH OF IVINS CITY HISTORICAL POPULATION

In previous decades, Ivins had been growing at a rate well above the County rate. In the last decade,

the growth rate shows to have slowed to be nearly the same as the County. In review of Ivins City

garbage account data, which is a good indicator of the number of homes in Ivins, it indicates that

construction growth was more than the population growth as Ivins City grew from 1,690 garbage

accounts to 2,841 accounts indicating a 68.1% growth rate. This is shown in the table below.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Cens

us P

opul

atio

n

Year


TABLE 3. US CENSUS POPULATION 2000 VS. 2010

Year 2000 Year 2010 % Growth

US Census Population 4450 6753 51.8%

US Census Households 1435 2427 69.1%

US Census Housing Units 1598 2880 80.2%

US Census Persons per Household 3.10 2.78

Vacant Housing Units including second homes 163 (10.2%) 453 (15.7%) 178%

Second Homes (Seasonal, Recreational, or Occasional Use) 91 (5.7%) 289 (10%) 217%

Even though population has only increased 52 percent over the 10 years between censuses, the

housing units have increased 80 percent. The large gap between population growth and housing

growth can be attributed to the following. First, the quantity of persons per household has

significantly decreased to 2.78 from 3.10. This may be indicative of the attractiveness of Ivins as a

retirement community as our population 65 and older has increased from 10.2 percent to 19.8

percent. There may also be a trend in local population demographics towards smaller sized

families. Lastly, the attractiveness of Ivins for second homes has increased.

As shown in the table above the number of second homes has more than doubled and vacant

housing (which includes second homes) now accounts for nearly 16 percent of Ivins residences

versus 10 percent in the previous census. These homes may use less water for indoor, but should

not use less water for outdoor use. For the purposes of this study it is assumed that each housing

unit uses the same amount of water.

EXISTING LAND USE

Land use analysis is basic to City planning. It is necessary to understand the existing land use and

compare to the future land use as determined by the adopted Land Use Plan which is Figure 1 of the

General Plan. The City area was analyzed to determine the number of existing residences, irrigated

acres, and extent of commercial land uses.

Table 4 below shows a summary of the existing land use analyzed by area in acres. Of the more than

6,000 acres of the Ivins City Boundary, 2,242 acres or 36% is developed. Another 14.5% is

considered to be permanent open space.


TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

KWU

(acres) Ivins

(acres) Total

(acres) %

Developed Residential 576 1503 2,079 33.7%

Developed Commercial/Civic/School/Church 16 147 163 2.6%

Undeveloped 1,142 1,886 3,028 49.1%

Open Space 83 809 892 14.5%

Total 1,817 4,345 6,162

As shown 49% of the city still yet remains to be developed and is currently either naturally

vegetated, cultivated, or fallow. A portion of this area may be undevelopable due to slopes, flood

plains and other natural geographical features. This does not include the 400 acres of potentially

developable land in the Anazazi Valley annexation zone.

The existing land use was further evaluated to determine a more exact number of residences, multi-

family units and an estimation of irrigated acreage. These results are given in Table 5 below.

TABLE 5. EXISTING LAND USE IN IVINS CITY AS OF APRIL 2011

All Ivins City Ivins Municipal Water System

KWU System (Kayenta)

Single Family Residences

2874* 2562 312

Multi Family Units 69 65 4

Estimated Irrigated Acres (Developed Areas)

336 acres 303 acres 33 acres

Irrigated Acres (Cultivated Areas with Irrigation Co.)


Hotel/Spa Units 140 140 0

Single Family Vacant Lots

857 709 148

Commercial ERUs 120 115 5

Total ERUs 3114 2793 321

With Build out of existing vacant lots

Total ERUs 3971 3502 469

Irrigated Acres (Developed areas)


*Based on garbage accounts with Ivins City.

The following Figure 4 shows the existing developed areas of Ivins.


FIGURE 4. EXISTING LAND USE DEVELOPMENT

FUTURE LAND USE & PROJECTED BUILDOUT

The following Figure 5 shows the current land use plan as of April 2011. The build out population is

based on a detailed analysis of the land use plan and existing plans that have been submitted to

Ivins City at various stages. This detailed analysis was completed using GIS technology and the

resulting workmap is provided in Appendix A. The analysis identified areas for infill development

as well as the development of the undeveloped areas. Table 6 as follows the land use plan figure

shows the results of this analysis.


FIGURE 5. IVINS CITY LAND USE PLAN (APRIL 2011)


TABLE 6. LANDUSE DATA FOR FUTURE BUILDOUT CALCULATIONS

Ivins City Ivins Municipal Water KWU (Kayenta)

Existing Buildout Existing Buildout Existing Buildout

Single Family Housing Units 2,874 7,332 2,562 5,909 312 1,423

Multi Family Housing Units 69 475 65 471 4 4

Total Housing Units 2,943 7,807 2,627 6,379 316 1,427

Vacant Lots for Single Family Housing 857 0 709 0 148 0

Anazazi Valley SF Residences 0 500 0 90 3 410

Landscaped Areas (acres) 437 1107 405 992 32 115

Areas (acres) 480 0 480 0 0 0

Transient Units 140 582 140 552 0 30

Commercial ERUs (indoor use) 120 1,171 115 1,096 5 76

Total ERUs 3,114 9,560 2,793 8,057 321 1,503

Based on this analysis, the buildout number of residences is 7,807 plus 500 residences added for

the annexation of Anazazi Valley for a total of 8,307 residences. Assuming that 15% of the

residences are second homes or unoccupied in accordance with current conditions as calculated in

the discussion of Historical Population, 7061 would be considered resident households and using a

household size of 2.7 (see population projections below) indicates a buildout population of 19,100.

This buildout population estimate will change with any changes to the land use plan. Lately the

trend has been towards allowing more and more dense development with each modification of the

land use plan, so there is a possibility that the estimated buildout population will increase as time

moves forward. In prior capital facilities plans, an effort was made to estimate this larger

population in anticipation of the land use plan being modified, however, this has been deemed

unnecessary as these plans are updated every four to six years and should simply be adapted as the

land use plan changes over time.

POPULATION PROJECTIONS

The population projections identify the timing of community growth and provide information to

determine how soon capital facilities need to be placed into service. This growth projection is based

on analysis of previous years of growth and an understanding of the local demographics. The State

of Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget (GOPB) is a source for population projections as

well as other studies that are looking at the regional growth.

Figure 6 as follows shows different population projections for Ivins City. The 2008 Baseline City

Population Projection produced by the GOPB is the most aggressive and may be too aggressive

based on the latest census data that was recently released. The Dixie Area Metropolitan Planning


Organization (MPO) is working with RSG Consultants in updating the transportation model and has

provided a preliminary population projection as shown on the figure. This population projection

seems to be more in line with the actual growth recorded by the census but still overestimates the

population of Ivins in Year 2010. However, the growth percentages seem to better fit current

observed growth; therefore these percentages were used in the population projection. The Ivins

Projected Population represents the one to be used in this study which uses the same growth

predictions and average household size predictions used in the MPO study with the correction to

the Year 2010 based on the census data.

FIGURE 6. POPULATION PROJECTIONS

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Popu

latio

n

Year

2008 GOPB Estimate2010 MPO StudyIvins Projected PopulationUS Census

Buildout Population: 19,100


TABLE 7. IVINS POPULATION PROJECTION DATA

Year Population Population % Growth

Total Housing

Units

Total Residences % Growth

Resident Households*

Household Size

1970 137

1980 600 338%

1990 1630 172%

2000 4450 173% 1690 1435 3.10

2010 6753 52% 2880 70% 2427 2.78

� Projected Data �

2020 9900 47% 4240 49% 3600 2.75

2030 12800 29% 5520 30% 4690 2.73

2040 16400 28% 7140 29% 6070 2.7

2050 21000 28% 9150 28% 7780 2.7 *Resident households are considered to be 85% of the total housing units accounting for 15% of homes considered to be second homes

or otherwise unoccupied as currently exists per the 2010 US Census.

The resulting population projection shows that buildout population of 19,100 will be reached in 33 years in 2046. With 857 vacant lots in Ivins City and this growth projection, it is estimated that

these lots would be filled with 30 percent growth from 2010 which would occur in 2016.


CHAPTER 3: WATER DEMAND ANALYSIS

This section evaluates current water demands annually and on a peak day through review of

metering data, and then provides an estimate of the future demands.

CURRENT DEMANDS

Figure 7 below shows the historical water use for Ivins City Municipal Water System 2005 to 2013.

All water is delivered to Ivins City Municipal Water System customers through one of four master

metered delivery points. These points are indicated by the “Purchased” data line. The “Sold” data

line represents the summation of the retail meter data. As is typical with most water systems, the

Ivins System exhibits a water loss of 7 to 10 percent. This water loss is shown more obviously in the

12 month moving averages. As shown the water losses have been decreased from approximately 15

percent. Much of this improvement and success is thought to be attributed to the City’s meter

replacement program as well as the leak detection program.

FIGURE 7. IVINS CITY HISTORICAL MUNICIPAL WATER USE 2005 TO 2013

It is notable that Ivins City municipal water usage has been somewhat level over the past years.

This seems to be indicative of a slowing economy where at least a portion of the water usage was

based on the economic activity despite the fact that the City continues to add more housing albeit at

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

1/1/2004 1/1/2005 1/1/2006 1/1/2007 1/1/2008 1/1/2009 1/1/2010 1/1/2011 1/1/2012 1/1/2013 1/1/2014

1,00

0 Ga

llons

Date

ProducedSold12 month avg purchased12 month avg sold


a slower rate. The trend of water usage is most recently starting to show a slow increase after two

or three years of no increase.

The following table shows a summation of all water use from June 2010 to May 2011 in Ivins City

including KWU (Kayenta) private water system and the Ivins Irrigation Company.

TABLE 8. CURRENT AVERAGE ANNUAL WATER USAGE JUNE 2010 TO MAY 2011

Gallons/Year

Acre-Feet/Year

MGD CFS GPM

Ivins City Purchased

508,881,000 1,562 1.39 2.2 968

Ivins City Sold 470,305,000 1,443 1.29 2.0 895

KWU Purchased from WCWCD

44,482,500 137 0.12 0.2 85

Total KWU + City Usage

553,363,500 1,699 1.51 2.4 1,053

Ivins Irrigation Company

485,596,000 1,490 1.33 2.1 924

Total Usage 1,038,959,500 3,189 2.84 4.5 1,977

As a standard metric for comparison purposes to other communities, the typical measure is gallons

per capital per day (gpcd). Ivins City usage including KWU is 224 gpcd when excluding the water

used by Ivins Irrigation Company. When considering this usage, the equivalent usage increases

significantly to 421 gpcd.

The following table below provides a water use comparison chart.

TABLE 9. WATER USE COMPARISON

Area Water Use (gpcd)

WCWCD 294

Utah 321

Mountain States 245

U.S. 179

Source: Utah Division of Water Resources, Utah’s

M&I Water Conservation Plan (2003)

As part of this study the water meter data was analyzed in a detailed manner. The following Figure

8 shows the distribution of water usage from the approximately 2,400 residential meters over the

period from May 2010 to April 2011.


FIGURE 8. RESIDENTIAL WATER METER USAGE DISTRIBUTION (MAY 2010 TO APRIL 2011)

The State requirements for estimating average annual water usage is 400 gallons per day for indoor

usage and another 400 gallons per day for outdoor usage (this assumes 0.14 irrigated acreage per

residential unit) for a total of 800 gallons per day (0.89 acre-feet per year). As shown in the figure

above, 92 percent of all residential meters are using less than the 0.89 acre-feet per year level. The

median usage was 0.37 acre-feet per year.

Table 10 as follows shows that when evaluating all residential usage including meters that are

servicing irrigation common areas such as would be maintained by a home owners association, the

average usage is 154,000 gallons per year (0.47 acre-feet per year). The use of water on efficient

landscapes and the high number of second homes, unoccupied (bank owned), and partially

occupied homes may be a large factor in the low water usage. However, this figure is not the full

picture of Ivins water use as described below in further analysis.

When considering the tabulation of all water uses including the non-residential meters on a per

ERU (Equivalent Residential Unit) basis, the average usage is as follows:

City Water System ERUs

Usage June 2010 to May 2011 (gallons)

Annual Usage per ERU (gallons/year/ERU)

Annual Usage per ERU (AF/year/ERU)

2731 472,175,000 173,000 0.53

10

100

1000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Annu

al M

eter

Usa

ge (M

ay 2

010

to A

pril

2011

10

00 g

allo

ns/y

ear

Percentile

92% use less than 0.89 AF/Y

Median is 0.37 AF/Y


TABLE 10. TABULAR ANALYSIS OF METER USAGE BASED ON METER TYPES (MAY 2010 TO APRIL 2011)

Type of Meter Count ERU

Sum of

Annual

Usage (1000

gallons)

Sum of

Maximum

Month (1000

gallons)

Average Annual

Usage per meter

(or unit) (1000

gallons)

%

Share

Commercial,

Industrial &

Institutional 101 115 69123 14597 684 14.6%

Ag 14 5028 774 359 1.1%

Church 4 7608 1490 1902 1.6%

Commercial 22 29871 5124 1358 6.3%

Hydrant 12 2497 1091 208 0.5%

Landscape Buffer 25 1186 411 47 0.3%

Municipal 9 843 151 94 0.2%

Park 13 18870 5044 1452 4.0%

School 2 3220 512 1610 0.7%

Residential 2,453 2,616 403052 71496 154 85.4%

Single Family

Residential 2,404 2,404 340196 60932 142 72.0%

Multi-unit Meters 13 208 35203 5486 169 7.5%

HOA (Common

Space) 36 0 27653 5078 768 5.9%

Grand Total 2554 2731 472175 86093 184.9

This data may yet still be skewed because many home owners have shares in the Ivins Irrigation

Company. In review of the Irrigation Company records, there are 61 shares that are owned in

quantities of less than 2. Another 41 shares are owned by Padre Lakes Home Owners Association

which uses the water to irrigate all landscaping within the subdivision. Each share is generally

worth one acre-foot of water but when supplies are available will represent 1.5 acre-feet. If you

include this usage into the calculations, one would calculate an increase of 18,000 gallons per year

per ERU which equates to 191,000 gallons per year per ERU or 0.59 acre-feet per year per ERU. If

you consider that 10 percent water loss through system leakage is possible in our system, then

usage in our system could be safely assumed to be 0.65 acre-feet per year per ERU.

An analysis of KWU usage was also conducted for the period of June 2010 to May 2011. The usage

was shown to be as follows:

KWU ERUs Usage June 2010 to May 2011 (gallons)

Annual Usage per ERU (gallons/year/ERU)

Annual Usage per ERU (AF/year/ERU)

321 44,482,500 139,000 0.43


This number already includes any leakage rates since it is based on master metering by WCWCD.

This analysis shows that the Kayenta average annual ERU usage is 66% of the Ivins City Municipal

system (using the 0.65 acre-feet/year estimate). This is indicative of the high number of second

homes and the style of development which limits landscaping areas.

As a summary of this analysis, Table 11 is provided as follows. The average annual demand and

peak month demand is based on the actual data provided by metering. The peak day demand has

been assumed to be 10 percent higher than the peak month demand.

TABLE 11. SUMMARY OF CURRENT DEMANDS IN IVINS CITY

Average Annual Demand

(acre-feet/year)

Peak Month Demand (gpm) Peak Day Demand

(gpm)

Total Ivins City (includes KWU)

1,700 2,070 2,275

KWU System 140 160 175


1,560 1,910 2,100

FUTURE DEMANDS

State requirements indicate that indoor usage should be estimated at 146,000 gallons per year per

ERU and outdoor usage should be based on irrigated acreage at 3.26 acre-feet per irrigated acre.

For the purposes of determining this future demand, Ivins has determined to follow the state

standards and assume that 0.14 acres of land is irrigated on average per lot. This equates to 0.89 acre-feet per year per ERU. This is considered to be a conservative estimate in consideration of

the 0.65 acre-feet per year per ERU that is shown to be currently used. It is important for this

analysis to use conservative figures to ensure that adequate capacity with redundancies are built

into the system.

The future ERUs as calculated in Table 6 in the Land Use Analysis section of this report indicate that

Ivins City will grow from the current 3,100 ERUs (includes KWU) to approximately 10,100 ERUs, or

in other words, more than a tripling in size. Table 12 below shows the estimated future demands at

buildout of the City. This provides the total capacities that are needed in the future to construct

necessary capital facilities to accommodate the future growth and is the basis for the hydraulic

calculations that were completed and described in the following sections of this report.


TABLE 12. ESTIMATED FUTURE DEMANDS AT BUILDOUT (YEAR 2046)

Future Average Annual Demand

(acre-feet/year) Peak Day Demand

(gpm)

Future Municipal Irrigation System

3,100 4,700

KWU 1,100 1,400


3,900 4,900

Total: 8,100 11,000

The following charts show the projected demands from 2010 to 2046. As shown, the municipal

irrigation system is planned to start reducing the load on the municipal culinary water system in

2014. By 2020 the irrigation system is projected to be fully built out.

FIGURE 9. PROJECTED ANNUAL DEMANDS 2010 TO 2046

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

Annu

al D

eman

d (a

cre-

feet

/yea

r)

Year


Municipal Irrigation System

Municipal Water System


FIGURE 10. PROJECTED PEAK DAY DEMANDS 2010 TO 2046

CHAPTER 4: WATER SOURCE & TRANSMISSION ANALYSIS

This analysis reviews water rights, existing water sources, water quality considerations, and future

considerations in terms of water sourcing to the water system.

WATER RIGHTS

Ivins water rights are based on shares in irrigation companies and actual appropriated water rights

that have been transferred into the Snow Canyon Wells which are jointly owned by the City of St.

George, City of Santa Clara, and Ivins City.

Table 13 as follows shows a summary of the water rights owned by Ivins City on the basis of shares

and appropriated water rights. As shown, Ivins has 738 acre-feet of water rights. The 393 acre-feet

of water in the Snow Canyon Wells is directly accessible to the City as well as the 103.7 ac-ft of

water in the irrigation company which is used to irrigate the cemetery, Ivins City Park, UNITY Park

and the Red Mountain Elementary Fields.

The water in St. George Clara Irrigation Company and Santa Clara Irrigation Company could be used

with connections to the water reuse line in Highway 91.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Peak

Day

Dem

and

(gpm

)

Year


Municipal Irrigation System

Municpal Water System


TABLE 13. EXISTING IVINS CITY WATER RIGHTS

Source Water Right No. Or number of shares

Water Right Use

Flow Total Depletion Limit

cfs ac-ft ac-ft

St. George Clara Irrigation Company

47.5 shares x 4.08 ac-ft/share (81-203)

NR 193.8 96.9** Irrigation

Ivins Irrigation Company 103.69 shares x 1 ac-ft/share


Santa Clara Irrigation Company

11 shares x 4.51 ac-ft/share


Snow Canyon Wells � 81-1427(a35599)

� 81-1322(a32324)

� 81-86 (a32501)

� 81-2207, 81-2328, 81-2411, 81-2457 (a35599)

Total:

NR 0.42 0.10

NR

________

138.72 138

72.4*

43.45 ________ 392.57

82.84 82.4

72.4*

26.01 _________

263.3

Municipal

Totals: 740 435.9

*Calculated from cubic-feet per second

** Calculated as 50% of total water right volume

NR: No Restriction

Ivins City has submitted applications for water rights which are yet to be approved by the State and

are listed as follows in Table 14.

TABLE 14. IVINS CITY UNAPPROVED WATER RIGHT APPLICATIONS

Source Water Right No. Diversion cfs

West Ivins Wells 81-1786 2.0

West Ivins Wells 81-1702 2.0

Beaver Dam Wash 81-3656 9.0

WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENTS

Ivins City has secured the remainder of the necessary water rights through agreements. The

Gunlock well agreement signed in 1969 with the City of St. George guarantees the delivery of

water from the Gunlock wells which consist of eleven wells located near Gunlock Reservoir. These

wells deliver water in a 20-inch pipeline to a 3 MG tank located on the Shivwits Paiute Indian

Reservation and then another 18-inch and 20-inch pipeline delivers this water through Ivins City to

the City of St. George. Ivins taps into this pipeline at 200 West and 400 West. The agreement with

the City of St. George is the guarantee of the following deliveries.

2008 175,219,200 gallons/year 538 AF/Y

2013 188,000,000 gallons/year 577 AF/Y

2018 200,000,000 gallons/year 614 AF/Y


The City of St. George has allowed Ivins City to take more water than allowed by the agreement

with as much as 809 AF/Y taken in a previous year.

The Snow Canyon Compact, originally signed in 1978, is a joint project with the City of St. George

and the City of Santa Clara to construct five wells in the West Canyon of Snow Canyon connecting to

two storage tanks, each 3 MG in size. The compact was reworked and resigned in 2006. By

agreement, Ivins City owns 12 percent of the storage capacity and production capacity which is

estimated at 324 gpm. As indicated in the previous section, Ivins City owns 393 acre-feet of the

annual well production water rights. The agreement allows for Ivins City to withdraw additional

water beyond its ownership and compensate the other members of the compact accordingly.

The Ence Well Water Supply Agreement signed in 2001 with the WCWCD enabled the delivery of

water from the Ence Wells located in the Anazazi Valley at a flow capacity estimated at 600 gpm,

provided that the District first meet its obligations to “Priority Users” which are defined as Terry

Marten in connection with KWU, the Ence Properties (future development), and successors of the

Shela Wilson property. This is estimated to provide approximately 900 acre-feet of water annually

to the Ivins portfolio.

In 2000 the City agreed to purchase a 1000 acre-foot block of annual water supply from the Quail Creek Project from WCWCD with a right to purchase another 1000 acre-foot block of water. This

water would be treated in the Quail Creek Water Treatment Plant (WTP) and then delivery of this

water was enabled through the Regional Pipeline Project. Since the Snow Canyon wells exceed

the arsenic standards which were lowered by the EPA in 2001, this water could be used to blend

water and meet the standard. The 2002 Regional Pipeline Agreement with the WCWCD, City of St.

George, and Santa Clara enabled the construction of a pipeline which has a capacity to supply 7,000

gpm to the Snow Canyon Area. Ivins City purchased 8 percent of the portion of the line that is 60-

inch in diameter and 24.5 percent of the capacity of the 24-inch/30-inch pipeline for a flow capacity

of approximately 1,700 gpm providing potentially the 2000 acre-feet of water annually.

As the region became more interconnected with the regional pipelines operated by the WCWCD, the

need for the Regional Water Supply Agreement (RWSA) was determined the best way to handle

everyone’s growing water supply needs in the Dixie area region. The RWSA is signed by the

majority of regional cities and towns which includes Ivins, St George, Santa Clara, Washington,

Hurricane, La Verkin, Toquerville, Virgin, Leeds, and Apple Valley. The agreement puts the

responsibility of all future sources of water to be supplied to each community on WCWCD including

the “construction and acquisition of improvements, additions, and extensions to the System.” This agreement guarantees a full supply of water to Ivins City to build-out conditions.


TABLE 15. SUMMARY OF IVINS CITY WATER RIGHTS/WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENTS

Description Flow Capacity (gpm)

Annual Production (acre-feet/year)

Irrigation Water Shares

As needed 347

Snow Canyon Compact Water Rights

350 393

Gunlock Wells Agreement

As needed 614

Ence Wells Water Supply Agreement

600 900

Quail Creek Water Block Purchase

1,700 1,000

(with option to purchase additional 1,000)

Total: 2,252

Regional Water Supply Agreement

As needed for all future needs As needed for all future needs

EXISTING SOURCES & TRANSMISSION PIPING

The City has four main connections that provides water into the system plus one additional

connection that is rarely used. Each of these connections have a master meter that is used to

determine how much water has been delivered into the system. The following Figure 11 shows a

schematic of the piping network that delivers water to Ivins City. The connections are shown on

this map along with the transmission piping that is required to deliver this water to the Ivins City

system. The piping shown as dark blue lines represents the transmission piping that is operated by

City of St. George or WCWCD. The light blue lines represents the transmission piping that is

operated by Ivins City.


FIGURE 11. WATER SOURCING PIPELINE NETWORK SCHEMATIC

Snow Canyon Drive Tap – This is a 6-inch tap feeding into a 6-inch master meter tapped from the

24-inch outlet from the Snow Canyon Tanks providing blended water from the Snow Canyon Wells

and the treated water from Quail Creek WTP. The tap feeds into a 10-inch waterline in the 3312

Snow Canyon Pressure Zone which then provides connectivity to the 3290 North Zone as the 10-

inch waterline passes along 200 North to the west. The Tuacahn Pumping Station is connected to

this 10-inch line and there is connectivity to the south part of the 3312 Zone via an 8-inch pipeline

on Painted Hills Drive. This connection has historically provided 200 to 490 acre-feet per year with

a peak day flow estimated to range from 308 to 500 gpm.

Snow Canyon Parkway Tap – This is a 10-inch tap feeding into an 8-inch master meter tapped

from the 24-inch outlet from the Snow Canyon Tanks providing blended water from the Snow

Canyon Wells and the treated water from Quail Creek WTP. The tap feeds into a 10-inch waterline

that runs west on Center Street to provide connectivity to the 3290 North and South Zone. The 10-

inch waterline also runs east and connects to the PRV that feeds into the 3175 Reserve PRV Zone. A

3290 ZoneSouth

3290 ZoneNorth

3312 SnowCanyon Zone

South

3312 SnowCanyon Zone

2 - 3 MG SNOW CANYON TANKSJOINTLY OWNED BY ST. GEORGE,SANTA CLARA, AND IVINSOPERATED BY ST. GEORGE

SNOW CANYON WELLSJOINTLY OWNED BY ST. GEORGE,SANTA CLARA, AND IVINSOPERATED BY ST. GEORGE

QUAIL CREEK WATERTREATMENT PLANT

OPERATED BY WCWCD

TO ST. GEORGE

WELL WATER MIXED WITHTREATED SURFACE WATERLEAVES TANK FOR DISTR.TO ST. GEORGE, SANTACLARA, AND IVINS

TO SANTA CLARA

GUNLOCK WELLSOWNED AND OPERATEDBY ST. GEORGE,

3 MG GUNLOCK TANKOWNED AND OPERATEDBY ST. GEORGE,

IVINS CITY TAPSFROM SNOW CANYONWELLS/WCWCD WATERSUPPLIES 3312 ZONE

BOOSTER LIFT STATIONTO TUACAHN TANK

IVINS CITYTUACAHN TANK

0.46 MG

BOOSTER LIFT STATIONTO TAVIAWK TANK

IVINS CITYTAVIAWK TANK0.50 MGSUPPLIES ZONE 7

IVINS CITY3290 2MG TANK

IVINS CITY3290 1MG TANK

IVINS CITY TAPSFROM GUNLOCK WELLS

KAYENTA WATERUSERS

ASSOCIATION(PRIVATE SYSTEM)

ENCE WELLSOPERATED BY WCWCD

PRIMARY SOURCE FOR KAYENTAEMERGENCY SOURCE FOR IVINS

3175 ReservePRV Zone

3390Taviawk

PRV Zone

3350Tuacahn

Zone20" Gunlock Pipeline

20" Gunlock Pipeline

24" Regional Pipeline Supply

24" Regional Pipeline Delivery to St George

18" Gunlock Pipeline Delievery to St George

8" Ence Well Pipeline

TO ST GEORGE

3460 TaviawkZone



connection near the upstream side of the PRV provides water into the Red Mountain Spa looping

back into pipelines that are connected to the Snow Canyon Drive Tap. This metering point was

moved three to four years ago after it was discovered that the tap was connected to the pumping

side of the regional pipeline rather than the tank outlet. The original location was closer to the

Reserve PRV, but is now closed and locked. This connection was causing significant pressure spikes

in the system. This connection has historically provided 560 to 910 acre-feet per year with a peak

day flow estimated to range from 600 to 1250 gpm.

200 West Tap – This is a 10-inch tap feeding into an 8-inch master meter tapped from the 20-inch

Gunlock pipeline owned and operated by the City of St. George providing water from five wells near

Gunlock Reservoir. The tap feeds into a 10-inch dedicated transmission pipeline delivering water

directly into the 2 MG tank located adjacent to the 1 MG tank at the Cliff Rose tank site in the

Taviawk subdivision. St. George has had problems with the Gunlock Wells arsenic levels, with

currently only Well 2 and Well 11 having low enough arsenic levels to meet EPA standards. This

project has typically been capable of providing 4,000 gpm, but now only provides 1,450 gpm. As a

result, the City of St. George has installed an isolation valve that has enabled this tap to be supplied

with treated water from the Quail Creek WTP. This connection has historically provided 280 to 520

acre-feet per year with a peak day flow estimated to range from 400 to 930 gpm.

400 West Tap – This is a 10-inch tap feeding into a 6-inch master meter tapped from the 20-inch

Gunlock pipeline owned and operated by the City of St. George providing water from five wells near

Gunlock Reservoir. The tap feeds into a 10-inch dedicated transmission pipeline delivering water

directly into the 1 MG tank located adjacent to the 2 MG tank at the Cliff Rose tank site in the

Taviawk subdivision. A 1300 gpm pump is available to boost pressures and increase flow to the

tank. This pump is typically used when there is a high demand on the Gunlock 20-inch pipeline

from St. George. Since construction of the Regional Pipeline, the pump has not been necessary. The

Taviawk Pumping Station connects to this 10-inch transmission line and boosts water to the higher

Taviawk Tank. Near the tap there is a PRV station that would allow for water to bypass the tanks

and pass directly into the distribution system. The PRV is set so that this would only occur during

major peaking in the system. This tap continues to be serviced with the Gunlock wells despite the

reduced production capacities as previously described. This connection has historically provided

150 to 290 acre-feet per year with a peak day flow estimated to range from 270 and 540 gpm.

At the 400 West Tap the 8-inch Ence Well pipeline connects into the same 10-inch pipeline that

delivers water to the 1 MG tank. This connection is rarely used due to some taste and odor

complaints that began occurring when the source was originally connected. The master meter for

this pipeline is located at Highway 91 near the Anazazi Valley access road.

Table 16 and 17 show a summary of the Annual Use from each tap along with the estimated peak

flows as follows. Figure 12 shows the charting of this annual use.


TABLE 16. ANNUAL DELIVERIES TO IVINS CITY CATEGORIZED BY LOCATION OF DELIVERY POINT 2005 –

2012

Annual Use

(Acre-feet/year)

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Snow Canyon

Drive Tap 281 292 410 197 489 424 267 99

Snow Canyon

Parkway Tap 623 631 831 912 671 557 679 798

200 West Tap

282 519 417 405 308 355 417 421

400 West Tap

254 290 206 153 186 236 259 301

Ence Wells

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 1,440 1,732 1,865 1,665 1,654 1,571 1,609 1,619

FIGURE 12. ANNUAL DELIVERIES TO IVINS CITY CATEGORIZED BY LOCATION OF DELIVER POINT 2005-

2012

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

S.C. Pkwy

S.C. Dr

200 W

400 W


TABLE 17. PEAK DAY DELIVERIES TO IVINS CITY CATEGORIZED BY LOCATION OF DELIVERY POINT 2005 –

2012

Peak Day Use (gpm)*

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Snow Canyon Drive Tap

366 308 405 408 500 406 401 179

Snow Canyon Parkway Tap

793 708 800 1247 957 600 733 757

200 West Tap

472 933 561 767 404 676 687 688

400 West Tap

270 536 323 405 263 435 370 469

Ence Wells

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 1,719 2,086 1,936 1,977 2,102 1,936 1,858 1,881

*Peak month demand x 1.1

As currently configured, it appears that it may be difficult for the Snow Canyon taps to produce

much more than 1,750 gpm unless the City of St. George could reduce its usage in the system. The

200 West and 400 West taps are probably unable to supply much more than 2,400 gpm as currently

configured.

Source requirements are as follows:

1. Supply capacity meets peak day demand with largest source out of service.

2. Supply capacity will refill fire storage portion of tank storage in 24 hours.

3. Supply capacity will completely refill storage tanks in three days with all sources in service.

The capacities for each tap, as considered for this analysis, if considered as its own source, are

provided in the following table.

TABLE 18. LIST OF EXISTING SOURCE CONNECTION CAPACITIES

Snow Canyon Drive: 500 gpm

Snow Canyon Parkway: 1,250gpm

200 West Tap: 1,100 gpm

400 West Tap: 1,300 gpm

Ence Well: 600 gpm

Total Source: 4,750 gpm

Minus Largest Source: -1,300 gpm

Total Reliable Source: 3,450 gpm


The existing total reliable source of water to Ivins has a capacity of 3,450 gpm. The future buildout

source supply requirement (with a secondary irrigation system as planned) is 4,900 gpm peak day

demand plus 400 gpm for fire storage replacement flow and 1100 gpm for total storage

replacement flow.

This capacity should be adequate until year 2017 without any conversion to a secondary irrigation

system. If all irrigation demands could be converted to a secondary system, this connection

configuration would be adequate until year 2030, assuming that the current water sources are

unchanged.

WATER CONSERVATION

Ivins City prepares a Water Conservation plan every five years as required by Utah Law. The last

plan was prepared and adopted in September 2013. The plan is provided in Appendix C. The City

has already implemented several water conservation measures and has plans to implement more.

The Washington County Water Conservancy District also has a water conservation plan which was

dated May 21, 1996 and recently revised on December 31, 2010. The plan is available at the

district’s website: http://wcwcd.state.ut.us. The District has set the goal to reduce water demands

by 25 percent by the year 2050. This would mean a reduction in the water use from 0.89 AF/Y per

ERU to 0.67 AF/Y per ERU.

WATER QUALITY CONSIDERATIONS

The following Table 19 shows some of the significant water quality parameters of each of the water

sources. Total dissolved solids (TDS) is typically a good measure of overall water quality for

aesthetic effects such as taste, odor or color. The EPA requires that TDS be less than 1,000 ppm as a

primary maximum contaminant level (MCL) standard and recommends that the levels be kept

below 500 ppm as a secondary non-enforceable standard. The Gunlock Wells are shown to have the

lowest TDS concentrations, however, based on actual sampling, the Snow Canyon Wells tend to be

the best for good taste.

TABLE 19. SIGNIFICANT WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS FOR EACH IVINS CITY WATER SOURCE

TDS (ppm) Arsenic (ppb)

Hardness (ppm as CaCO3)

Nitrates (ppm as

N)

Sulfates (ppm)

Regional Water (Quail Creek WTP)a,b

585 1.0 350 0.1 250

Snow Canyon Wellsa 480 11.0 85 to 300 0.3 200

Gunlock Wellsa 299 9.0 280 0.3 23

Ence Wellsb 600 to 900 6.8 to 9.0 * 0.2 170 aSource: St. George City 2007 Water Quality Report bSource: 2010 WCWCD Consumer Confidence Reports

*No data

The water from the Quail Creek WTP meets EPA primary standards but has fairly high TDS and

sulfate concentrations. There have been some taste and odor problems from the WTP in the


summer months when algae production in Quail Creek Reservoir can be difficult to control. The

water district has, for the past two years, aggressively controlled the algae problem with copper

sulfide lake treatments as well as changing the powdered activated carbon brand to a higher quality

brand which seems to have corrected the problems. The District does indicate that eventually

ozone treatment of the water may be necessary in the future to best remove the taste and odors. If

this treatment process is added, the cost of water could increase by $0.10 to $0.15 per 1000 gallons.

The MCL for arsenic are 10 ppb. As shown above, the Snow Canyon Wells exceed this standard, but

after blending with treated water from the WTP, the levels are within EPA minimum requirements.

Some Gunlock Wells have been pulled from production by the City of St. George due to arsenic

levels that exceed the MCL. Until arsenic treatment can be utilized or a feasible option of blending

water can be provided, these wells will remain out of production for culinary purposes.

The Ence Wells have been discontinued for water deliveries into the Ivins City Municipal system for

now due to taste and odor complaints. However, the wells are the sole source of the KWU private

water system that serves Kayenta. It may be necessary in the future to use this water in the

municipal system, although the WCWCD has discussed replacing this water with a different higher

quality source and using this water instead for irrigation uses.

FUTURE SOURCES

As indicated in the demand analysis section in Table 12, the future peak day demand for the Ivins

City Municipal Water system is 4,900 gpm. The sourcing standards are as follows:

With the WCWCD Regional Water Supply Agreement, the District will be responsible to provide a

water source supply for all future demands of Ivins City. Table 20 provides a list of all of the current

sources of water currently available and could potentially be expanded to its full capacity to help

Ivins City satisfy its future needs. As indicated in the evaluation of existing sources, the Ivins City

system needs to consider the expansion of the culinary system to be able to supply an additional

1,500 gpm.

TABLE 20. CURRENT SOURCES OF WATER WITH EXISTING CAPACITY

Annual Delivery Capacity (acre-feet/year)

Peak Delivery Capacity (gpm)

Currently Delivers to:

Quail Lake WTP – 24” Regional Pipeline

5,600 7,000 Ivins, St. George, Santa

Clara

Snow Canyon Wells

2,400 3,000 Ivins, St. George, Santa

Clara

Gunlock Wells

3,200 4,000 Ivins, Shivwitz and St.

George

Ence Wells

1,000 800 KWU and Ivins

Gunlock Reservoir 30” Pipeline (non-potable) 8,000 11,500

Ivins Irrigation Co., Ivins Reservoir, and Other Irrigation Companies

Reuse 24” Pipeline (non-potable) 5,600 7,000

Shivwitz, Ivins Reservoir, Other Irrigation

Companies in other cities


As shown in the above list, a significant amount of water flows near or through Ivins City as water is

delivered east and west through the region. It is outside of the scope of this analysis to determine if

the existing water source facilities could possibly meet Ivins City’s future needs along with the

other communities in the local region. This makes it a challenge for Ivins to plan for future capital

facilities to accommodate the future source which are uncertain.

The following list is provided as an indication of what future sources may be developed whether it

be completely new development or improvement of an existing water source:

� Wastewater Scalping Plant for Reuse Water (irrigation) – Ivins City’s current indoor use

is estimated at 740 acre-feet per year (not including KWU). Indoor water use is typically 5%

depletion (per Utah Division of Water Resources) indicating that 700 acre-feet of sewer

water could be scalped for a production of an estimated 350 acre-feet. At future build-out,

this production could be 3 to 4 times as high for a production of 1,000 to 1,400 acre-feet.

This would require a 0.8 to 1.2 MGD plant.

� Beaver Dam Wash Water Development – The WCWCD 2006 Capital Facilities Plan has

indicated that a reservoir in the Beaver Dam Wash and a pipeline into the Santa Clara River

system could supply up to an additional 4,000 gpm or 6,500 acre-feet annually.

� Gunlock Reservoir Surface Water Treatment Plant – The WCWCD could consider

converting the non-potable water system into a potable system with a surface water

treatment plant. Such a project would not increase the water supply to the region but it may

be necessary to improve potable water supply systems, however, it is currently not in the

WCWCD capital facilities plan but may be considered in the future.

� Gunlock Wells Improvements – The arsenic levels in the Gunlock wells has provided the

City of St. George with a dilemma. The City could consider a blending project, an arsenic

treatment plant, or a conversion into irrigation water. For this reason it would be useful for

Ivins City to fully develop its secondary water system plans so that the irrigation option

could be more feasible.

� Upsizing Pipeline Capacity from Quail Lake WTP – With the Lake Powell Pipeline on the

horizon, there may be more water becoming available from the east and it may make sense

for additional regional water to be piped into Ivins City. This may be from an upsizing of the

existing 24-inch pipeline or from a new pipeline. � New Well Development – Ivins City has some applications for water rights that are

unapproved, yet since water rights in the Virgin River drainage is considered to be fully

appropriated by the State, it is unlikely that these applications will be approved.

� New Reservoir Development – The City of St. George has considered development of dams

in both the Graveyard Wash and the Kayenta Wash within Ivins City. Either project could

provide additional water sources to Ivins City. However, these projects seem to be less

likely with the plans for development of the Lake Powell pipeline and Warner Valley

Reservoir.

In discussions with the City of St. George and WCWCD, it seems that future sources are most likely

to come through either the existing regional pipeline or through some treatment plant with a water

supply from the Gunlock Reservoir or the Gunlock wells.

If a treatment plant were to be implemented, it is likely to deliver water to a point near the Ivins

Reservoir. This capital facilities plan should include a new pumping station and pipeline from this

area feeding into the 3290 Zone tanks. Ivins City should also plan to enhance its ability to obtain


water from the regional pipeline with a pumping station system. Table 21 provides a summary of

these recommendations.

TABLE 21. LIST OF FUTURE SOURCE CAPACITIES

Source Name Existing Capacity

(gpm)

Future Buildout Capacity

(gpm)

Notes

Snow Canyon Drive Tap 500 500 No Change

Snow Canyon Parkway Tap 1,250 1,250 No Change

200 West Tap 1,100 1,350

Add Pumping Station on 200 West to ensure reliability and increase delivery

400 West Tap 1,300 1,300 No Change except add back up pump to existing pumping station

Ence Wells 600 0 Due to taste and odor issues these wells are planned to become irrigation sources.

Ivins Reservoir Pumping Station

1,600 Pumping station near Ivins Reservoir pumping to the Cliff Rose 1MG/ 2MG tank site.

Total Source 4,750 6,000

Demands 2,100 4,900

Tank Storage Replacement Flow

900 1,100

Total Requirement 3,000 6,000

PUMPING STATION & TRANSMISSION ANALYSIS

In reviewing the pumping stations and transmission, this analysis reviews capacities of the existing

system in comparison with existing and future requirements in accordance with the service

standards provided in the beginning of this plan (Table 1, Page 8).

The following table provides an analysis of the existing pumping stations and transmission

pipelines:


TABLE 22. EXISTING PUMPING STATION/TRANSMISSION PIPELINES

Pumping Station/ Tans-mission Pipe Name

# Pu-mps

Flow Capa-city

Total Head

Capa-city with one

pump out of

service

Exist-ing

PDD (calcu-lated)

Exist-ing

PDD (meas-ured)

Fill Fire Storage

in 24 hours

Fill Tank from

empty in 72 hours

Exist-ing

Req-uired Capa-city

Trans-mis-sion Pipe Dia-

meter Velo-city

gpm ft gpm gpm gpm gpm gpm gpm in fps

Taviawk 2 240 175 125 208 116 146 113 262 8 1.5

Tuacahn 1 270 60 0 69 21 167 96 188 10 1.1

400 W 1 1300 20 1100

3260 1740 406 694 2696*

10 5.3

200 W 0 1100 0 1100 10 4.5

Snow Canyon Dr

0 500 0 500 10 2.0

Snow Canyon Pkwy

0 1250 0 1250 10 5.1

*Includes required flow to Taviawk pumping station

In review of the piping, the two 10-inch lines that provide water to the 3290 tanks appear to be

sufficient for the existing capacities. The piping from the Taviawk and Tuacahn tanks are more than

sufficient for pumping purposes; however, the existing sizing is necessary for distribution since

these transmission lines serve a dual purpose.

The current system meets the standard of providing peak day demand plus the flow required to fill

fire storage in 24 hours or fill an empty tank in 72 hours with the exception of the Taviawk

Pumping Station that appears to be substandard and needs to be upsized. The pumping station needs to be upsized immediately as City operators have already started to experience problems in maintaining Taviawk tank levels. Upsizing the pumping station will require three-

phase power which will add significant cost. The next table provides the analysis of the future

transmission system.


TABLE 23. FUTURE PUMPING STATION/TRANSMISSION PIPELINES

Pumping Station/ Tans-mission Pipe Name

# Pu-mps

Flow Capa-city

Total Head

Capa-city with one

pump out of

service

Future PDD

(calcu-lated)

Fill Fire Storage

in 24 hours

Fill Tank from

empty in 72 hours

Future Req-uired Capa-city

Trans-mis-sion Pipe Dia-

meter Velo-city

gpm ft gpm gpm gpm gpm gpm in fps

Taviawk 2 850 185 480 328 146 113 474 8 3.1

Tuacahn 2 600 70 315 155 167 96 312 10 1.3

400 W 2 1300 20 1300

4323 406 926 5723*

10 5.3

200 W 2 1350 20 1350 10 5.5

Snow Canyon Dr

0 500 0 500 10 2.0

Snow Canyon Pkwy

0 1250 0 1250 10 5.1

Ivins Reser-voir

3 2300 175 1600 12 4.5

*Includes required flow to Taviawk pumping station

Changes from existing system shown in bold.

In addition to the Ivins Reservoir Pumping Station with the 12-inch pipeline, there are additional

recommendations to bolster the transmission system, mostly bolstering existing pumping stations

and adding another pumping station to the 200 W transmission line.

The recommended improvements can be summarized as follows:

� Increase capacity for Taviawk Pumping Station to 480 gpm.

� Upgrade Tuacahn Pumping Station with a double pump system with alternating lead

pumping.

� Upgrade pumping station to 400 West transmission line to ensure 1,300 gpm capacity.

� Upgrade 200 West tap by adding a pumping station to include a double pump system with

alternating lead.

� Install pumping station at Ivins Reservoir to provide 1,600 gpm from area to the Cliff Rose

1MG and 2MG tanks. (In the future there will be a single 4MG tank per tank analysis in

following section.)


CHAPTER 5: WATER STORAGE ANALYSIS

Water storage is essential to a municipal water system. The storage allows for equalization of flow

as the demand varies throughout the day. Also the storage provides water for emergencies such as

fires and power outages. The introduction section of this master plan provides the service

standards for the water storage which is given as follows:

� Equalization Storage:

o Indoor: Minimum 400 gallons per ERU

o Outdoor: 4,964 gallons per irrigated acre

� Fire Suppression Storage: Meet need of individual buildings per International Fire Code (IFC)

Appendix B.

� Emergency Storage: None unless source supplies are unable to meet supply source standards

as provided above.

The following table provides the geometric data for each storage tank:

TABLE 24. STORAGE TANK GEOMETRIC DATA

Tank Name

Capacity (gallons)

Elevation (ft) Height (ft)

Inside Diameter

(ft)

Zone Supply

via Gravity

Zone Supply via PRV Type Base Overflow

Snow Canyon 1*

237,500 3292.0 3312.0 20.0 160.0 3312 Snow

Canyon

3275 Reserve

Concrete Buried

Cylinder

Snow Canyon 2*

237,500 3292.0 3312.0 20.0 160.0 3312 Snow

Canyon

3275 Reserve

Concrete Buried

Cylinder

Tuacahn 407,000 3315.0 3352.5 37.5 43.0 3350

Tuacahn None

Painted Steel

Cylinder

Cliff Rose 1MG

1,034,000 3270.0 3290.8 20.8 92.0 3290 Zones

3275 South PRV

Painted Steel

Cylinder

Cliff Rose 2MG

1,946,000 3269.5 3292.5 23.0 120.0 3290 Zones

3275 South PRV

Painted Steel

Cylinder

Taviawk 486,000 3440.0 3460.0 23.0 60.0 3460

Taviawk

3390 Taviawk

PRV

Painted Steel

Cylinder *Snow Canyon Tanks are owned by the Snow Canyon Compact which is shared by Ivins, St. George and Santa Clara. Ivins is entitled to

7.9% of the 3MG of storage in each tank.

The age of each tank operated by Ivins City is given as follows:

� Cliff Rose 1 MG – Constructed 1994 – Age 19 years

� Tuacahn 0.4MG – Constructed 1995 – Age 18 years

� Taviawk 0.5 MG – Constructed 1999 – Age 14 years

� Cliff Rose 2 MG – Constructed 2002 – Age 11 years


All of these tanks are refurbished and repurposed tanks from the oil and gas industry. We are

unaware of the true age of these facilities.

FIRE STORAGE

Fire storage requirements are governed by the City adopted IFC 2012. In Appendix B, Section B105,

fire flow requirements for residential one- and two- family dwellings no larger than 3,600 sq. ft. (all

floors including basements and garage) is 1,000 gpm. For residential buildings larger than 3,600 sq.

ft. fire flows must be in accordance with Table B105.1 which lists fire flows based on building size

and construction type. For the typical non-fire resistant residential construction, homes larger than

3,600 sq.ft. must have the following fire flows shown in Table 25 (excerpted from the full Table

B105.1).

TABLE 25. EXCERPT FROM IFC TABLE B105.1 MINIMUM REQUIRED FIRE FLOW FOR BUILDINGS

Fire Flow Calculation Area for Type V-B

Construction (sq. ft.)

Required Fire-Flow

(gpm)

Fire Flow Duration

(hrs)

Fire Storage Required (gallons)

3,601 – 4,800 1,750 2 210,000

4,800 – 6,200 2,000 2 240,000

6,201- 7,700 2,250 2 270,000

7,701 – 9,400 2,500 2 300,000

9,401 – 11,300 2,750 2 330,000

Most of the older medium and high density single family units are small enough for the 1,000 gpm

requirement; however, all of the tank service areas encompass areas with structures that would

require more than the minimum. The following table provides a summary of the analysis that was

conducted across the service areas.


TABLE 26. SUMMARY OF EXISTING BUILDINGS FIRE FLOW REQUIREMENTS

Area/Building

Maximum Fire Area (Sq. Ft.)

Building Type

Required Fire Flow

(gpm) Duration (hours)

Required Fire

Storage (gallons)

Tank

Taviawk Subdivision

6,000 V-B 2,000 2 240,000 Taviawk

Tuacahn Center for the Arts

39,163 (sprinkled)

II-A or III-A

2000 2 240,000 Tuacahn

Citadel Subdivision 8,500 V-B 2500 2 300,000 Snow Canyon

The Reserve Subdivision

11,000 V-B 2750 2 330,000 Snow Canyon

Snow Canyon Medical Clinic

22,600 (sprinkled)

V-A 2000 2 240,000 Snow Canyon

Church at Center Street/600 East

19,150 (sprinkled)

V-A 2000 2 240,000 Snow Canyon

Church at Center/Main

23,000 V-A 2750 2 330,000 Cliff Rose 1 & 2 MG

200 East Commercial Area

7,950 V-B 2500 2 330,000 Cliff Rose 1 & 2 MG

Stake Center at 250 E 1060 S

28,000 (sprinkled)

V-A 2250 2 270,000 Cliff Rose 1 & 2 MG

Heritage Church at 200 E 1060 S

17,500 V-A 2250 2 270,000 Cliff Rose 1 & 2 MG

Red Mountain Spa 50,000 V-A 2500 2 300,000 Snow Canyon

Red Mountain Elementary

50,000 V-A 3000 3 540,000 Cliff Rose 1 & 2 MG

Vista School 57,000 (sprinkled)

V-B 3250 3 585,000 Snow Canyon

Fitness Ridge Spa 31,000 (sprinkled)

V-A 2500 2 300,000 Cliff Rose 1 & 2 MG

Posovi Subdivision 6,800 V-B 2250 2 270,000 KWU Upper

The building with the highest fire storage requirement is Vista School with a fire storage

requirement of 585,000 gallons. This impacts the storage in the 3290/3312 Pressure Zones which

are served by the 1 & 2 MG tanks. The Taviawk and Tuacahn fire storage requirement is 240,000

gallons.

EXISTING STORAGE ANALYSIS

The following tables show the existing storage for the Ivins City municipal system and the KWU

system.


TABLE 27. IVINS CITY EXISTING WATER STORAGE ANALYSIS

Tank Service Area Tanks Available Storage (gallons)

Fire Storage (gallons)

Equalization Excess Storage (gallons)

Indoor (gallons)

Outdoor (gallons)

3290/3312 Zones 3175 PRV Zones

Cliff Rose 1MG Cliff Rose 2MG Snow Canyon

1,034,000 1,946,000

475,000 3,455,000

585,000 1,020,000 1,846,000 -25,000

3460 Taviawk Taviawk 486,000 240,000 64,000 113,000 69,000 3350 Tuacahn Tuacahn 413,000 240,000 13,000 52,000 108,000

TABLE 28. IVINS CITY ANALYSIS OF EXISTING EXCESS ERUS

Tank Service Area Tanks ERUs Serviced

Excess ERUs

Vacant Lots

Remaining ERUs


Cliff Rose 1MG Cliff Rose 2MG SnowCanyon

2,550 -23 599 -622

3460 Taviawk Taviawk 159.5 89 110 -47 3350 Tuacahn Tuacahn 32 120 0 120

TABLE 29. KWU EXISTING WATER STORAGE ANALYSIS

Tank Service Area Tanks Available Storage (gallons)


Equalization Excess Storage (gallons)

Kayenta Upper Indian Hills Posovi

250,000 500,000 750,000

270,000 57,000 71,000 352,000

Kayenta Mid/Lower Poson 1,200,000 240,000 71,000 90,000 799,000

TABLE 30. KWU ANALYSIS OF EXISTING EXCESS ERUS

Tank Service Area Tanks ERUs Serviced

Excess ERUs

Vacant Lots

Remaining ERUs

Kayenta Upper North Posovi

143

426 71 355

Kayenta Mid/Lower Poson 178 668 77 591

The KWU system has ample storage capacity to meet current demands including the buildout of

existing vacant lots. The municipal system storage, however, is deficient in the 3290/3312 Zones,

especially with a buildout of existing vacant lots. It is recommended that additional storage be constructed immediately with a recommendation to add another 1 million gallons of storage to the system.

FUTURE STORAGE


TABLE 31. FUTURE TANK STORAGE EVALUATION

Tank Service Area

Tanks Available Storage (gallons)


Equalization

Excess Storage (gallons)

Excess Storage with Irr. System (gallons)

Indoor (gallons)

Outdoor (gallons)


Cliff Rose 4MG Snow Canyon

4,000,000 475,000

4,475,000 585,000 2,770,000 4,530,000* -2,294,000 1,100,000

3460 Taviawk 3390 Taviawk PRV

Taviawk 486,000 240,000 163,000 102,000 158,000*

-113,000 -16,000

3350 Tuacahn Tuacahn 413,000 240,000 39,000 102,000 32,000 32,000 3310 Comanche Cliffs

0 240,000 18,000 31,000 -289,000 -289,000

Kayenta Upper Indian Hills Posovi

250,000 500,000 750,000

240,000 192,000 239,000 79,000 79,000

Kayenta Mid/Lower

Poson 1,200,000 240,000 409,000 334,000 17,000 17,000

* Outdoor Storage to be not required with full implementation of a future separated irrigation

system.

Conversion of the system separating out the irrigation would theoretically eliminate need for more

storage in the 3312/3290/3165(PRV) pressure zones. However, since the system is currently

deficient on storage and since complete conversion of the entire city may require 10 to 20 years of

transition, it is recommended that an additional 1 MG of storage be provided to this service area to address immediate needs for additional storage. The additional storage will improve

the reliability of the system in time of shortage or power outage and help stretch water supplies

over a longer period of time.

Taviawk Tank shows a 113,000 gallon deficiency in storage for future buildout. However, 56

percent of the outdoor demand is in the 3390 Taviawk PRV pressure zone which would be

theoretically eliminated with full implementation of the separate irrigation system. Until the

irrigation system is in place, each subdivision or other site developments must be carefully

considered. As per the section on pumping station analysis, the future Taviawk pumping station

will have an additional 146 gpm capacity for the refilling of the storage in a 72 hour period. This

may also be considered as emergency fire flow for the deficient amount of fire flow of 16,000

gallons, as the extra 146 gpm over a two hour period would provide 17,500 gallons into the

Taviawk system.

The Comanche Cliffs zone may possibly be included in the 3290 Zone depending on options taken

by the developer as described in one of the following sections of this report for Distribution Pipe

Sizing. If included with the 3290 Zone, the storage would be satisfactory to meet the need. If the

developer decides to utilize a tap from the St. George pipeline in Highway 91, storage would be

provided by the City of St. George at the 3 MG Shivwits Tank.


CONCRETE STORAGE TANKS VERSUS STEEL TANKS

Any municipality, when considering new water storage, must consider the advantages of concrete

versus steel. Currently all of Ivins City tanks are steel tanks that have been refurbished from the oil

and gas industry and repurposed for culinary water use. This type of product has enabled Ivins to

provide a large amount of water storage at low initial cost. According to the steel tank

manufacturers, this should not be a cause for concern, because steel tanks that are regularly

inspected and the protective coatings are repaired or replaced as needed possibly could last

indefinitely. On the other hand, steel tanks are expensive to maintain requiring scuba divers and/or

robotic equipment for the periodic inspections and recoatings can be a major expense. It may also

be necessary to install and operate a cathodic protection system to ensure that the tank does not

corrode and deteriorate.

Concrete tanks, in contrast, are more expensive to construct than steel tanks but are generally

maintenance free for many decades. Lately, water agencies in this area have been building more

concrete tanks than steel. The largest disadvantage with concrete tanks is controlling cracking and

the resulting leakage. Steel tanks can also be problematic with leakage on the floor since the bottom

of the floor is not accessible for recoatings when there are problems. There are several technologies

that reduce this risk and increase service life in concrete tanks. These technologies include

additives to the concrete mix to reduce permeability and encourage self healing of cracks as well as

pre- or post-tensioning of the reinforcement. A significant advantage of concrete tanks over steel

tanks is the better control of water temperature. The thick concrete walls and the ability to bury

concrete tanks provide the ability to insulate the system water from temperature rise. Higher

temperature water is usually less appreciated by customers. Another advantage of concrete tanks

over steel is the flexibility in design to engineer the structure to withstand a rock fall, which is a

significant concern for all of our current tank sites.

TABLE 32. CONCRETE TANK VS STEEL TANK SUMMARY OF ADVANTAGES

Concrete Tank Advantages Steel Tank Advantages

� Low maintenance cost and less accompanying disruption to water system.

� Water temperature rise control during summer months

� Ability to engineer structure to better withstand rockfall

� Less chance of leakage problems in floor

� Low construction cost

� Less chance of leakage problem in walls

If life cycle cost is the most important factor in the decision between the two styles of tanks, then

the crux of the matter is the life of the structure. According to an IRS bulletin1 published in 1942

(although reiterated in several publications since), the useful life of a concrete tank is 50 years and

a steel tank is 40 years. These estimates are based on averages and may not be applicable to specific

projects. Also, it is not clear whether these figures account for structure maintenance practices. As

1 Income Tax Depreciation and Obsolescence, Estimated Useful Lives and Depreciation Rates, U.S. Bur. Internal Revenue Bull. F, 1942. See also “Depreciation Guidelines and Rules,” Pub. 456, rev. ed., Internal Revenue Service, August 1964. See also Water Resources Engineering, Linsey et. al, 1992, p.445


stated above, the steel tank industry specialists promote an indefinite life. Concrete industry

specialists indicate that the life of concrete structures will range between 50 to 100 years and

recommends using an average of 75 years for life estimates, however, with proper specifications

and careful construction the life could arguably be ensured to 100 years.

A simple analysis of life cycle costs for steel and concrete tanks was performed to aid in this

discussion. The following assumptions were made for each structure.

TABLE 33. SUMMARY OF ASSUMPTIONS FOR CONCRETE VERSUS STEEL LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS

Concrete 1 MG tank Steel 1 MG tank

$750,000 design and construction cost (tank only) Maintenance: Periodic Inspections and Cleanings (not considered since expense common to both types of construction) Life Cycle Senstivity Analysis: 50 years 75 years 100 years

$500,000 Design and Construction Cost (tank only) Maintenance: $120,000 full interior recoating every 20 years $20,000 exterior recoating every 30 years $10,000 misc. corrosion repairs every 5 years starting in year 25 Life Cycle Senstivity Analysis: 40 years 60 years 80 years 100 years

3.5% Interest Rate (Current Market Borrowing Rate) 750 ERU (equivalent residential units) served by a 1 MG Tank

FIGURE 13. LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS OF STEEL VERSUS CONCRETE (1 MG TANK)

As shown above, the steel tank appears to have a lower life cycle cost in comparison to the concrete

tank, especially if steel tanks have a useful service life of 100 years or more. If steel tanks have a

useful service life of 40 years as compared to an average service life of concrete of 75 years, then

steel is still more cost effective although the margin if very slim $36.10/yr/ERU versus

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Equi

vale

nt U

nifo

rm A

nnua

l Cos

t pe

r ERU

($/y

ear/

ERU

)

Useful Service Life (years)

Concrete Tank

Steel Tank


$37.90/yr/ERU which is a 5% increase. This analysis does not take into account the improved

service qualities of the concrete, such as lower water temperatures and less disruption of system

due to maintenance. Even if both structures are considered to have the same useful service life of

100 years, the cost difference is small, $4.90 per year per ERU or 16%. Despite the increased cost of

concrete, due to consideration of the additional benefits of buried concrete storage, we are

recommending that steel tanks be converted to concrete over time.

It seems imprudent to assume that Ivins’ refurbished steel water tanks will last indefinitely. It is

recommended that an effort should be made to make the tanks last as long as possible if not

indefinitely, but as these tanks become more expensive to maintain, to look seriously at converting

the tanks to concrete structures. For planning purposes we recommend expecting a 40 year useful

service life from the date construction.

ALTERNATIVES FOR ADDITIONAL STORAGE RECOMMENDATION

The next question that is of issue in this plan is the recommendation for 1 million gallons of

additional storage should be constructed in the 3290 Zone. There are three alternatives to achieve

this storage in reference to the concrete versus steel tank dilemma. These are given as follows:

1. Demolish the existing 3290 Zone Cliff Rose 1 and 2 million gallon steel tanks and replace

with a single buried concrete 4 million gallon tank.

2. Demolish the existing 3290 Zone Cliff Rose 1 million gallon tank (18 years old) and replace

with a buried concrete 2 million gallon tank.

3. Keep both existing structures and install a new 1 million gallon tank.

The estimated costs and advantages of the three alternatives are given as follows:

Alternative 1 Demolish 1 and 2 MG and install 4 MG concrete tank

Alternative 2 Demolish 1 MG and replace with buried 2 MG tank

Alternative 3 Keep both existing structures and install a new 1 MG gallon tank

Cost Estimate: $3,960,000 Cost Estimate: $2,290,000 Cost Estimate: $2,040,000

� Improvement in water temperatures during summer months.

� Low maintenance concrete.

� Buried tanks more aesthetic to environment

� Can be engineered for rock fall

� Partial improvement in water temperatures during summer months.

� Partial low maintenance concrete.

� With one tank concrete, better rock fall protection.

� Lowest construction cost alternative.

� Higher maintenance costs.

� Need to purchase more land.

� More complicated operation of system.

Based on this analysis, alternative 3 appears the least appealing. Even though it is the lowest cost

alternative, the solution would impact private property, increase maintenance costs and

unnecessarily increase complexity of the system, yet is not excessively less expensive than

alternative 2. Alternative 1 is not necessarily eliminated, however, as there is a benefit to

accelerating the conversion of the water storage to concrete tanks. It is recommended that the user

rate and impact fee analysis consider both alternatives.


CHAPTER 6: DISTRIBUTION PIPING SYSTEM ANALYSIS

This section discusses the existing facilities and analyzes the ability of the existing piping system to

handle the current demands and identifies the required facilities to handle future demands. From

this analysis deficiencies will be identified for which capital improvements will be recommended.

INTRODUCTION

The Ivins City existing distribution piping system is extensive comprising of 61.5 miles as shown in

the table summarizing the pipe lengths by size as follows:

TABLE 34. SUMMARY OF PIPING SYSTEM LENGTHS

Pipe Diameter (inches)

Distribution Pipe Length (miles)

Transmission Pipe Length (miles)

Total Pipe Length (miles)

2 0.8 0.0 0.8

4 1.2 0.0 1.2

6 18.9 0.0 18.9

8 30.6 0.0 30.6

10 6.7 1.4 8.1

12 2.1 2.3 4.4

14 1.1 0.0 1.1

Totals: 61.5 3.8 65.3

The system analysis is mostly reliant on a computer based hydraulic model which analyzes a

distribution of demands over a network of pipelines and determines the resultant flows in each

individual pipe and resultant pressures at each node of the network. The model will also evaluate

the available fire flow at each node based on the service standards defined in the introduction

section of this report (see Table 1, page 8).

The following models were evaluated as part of this master plan:

� Scenario E1-PMD: Existing Peak Month Demand for July 2010 – The demands were

based on true meter data with an added 7% (for leakage losses).

� Scenario E2-PID: Existing Peak Instant Demand for July 2010 – The demands were

based on the July 2010 Peak Month as calculated in the previously listed scenario multiplied

by a factor of 1.5.

� Scenario E3-PDD: Existing Peak Day Demand (PDD) with Fire Flow analysis – The

demands were based on State Requirements which have been incorporated into the City

service standards.

� Scenario E4-PDD+: Existing plus Vacant Lots and Bellagio/Comanche Cliffs PDD with Fire Flow Analysis – This model was to ensure that enough capacity was available for all

vacant lots in the City plus the anticipated development of the Villas at Bellagio and

Comanche Cliffs subdivisions located on the south side of Highway 91. These two

subdivisions are considered as imminent to be developed, perhaps within the next 5 years.


� Scenario E5-PID: Existing Peak Instantaneous Demand (PID) – These are based on Peak

Day Demand (based on City service standards) multiplied by 1.5.

� Scenario F1-PDD: Future Buildout PDD with Fire Flow Analysis – This scenario

assumed that irrigation demands within the irrigation service area would be provided by a

separate irrigation system. The demands were based on the City service standards.

� Scenario F2-PID: Future Buildout PID – This scenario also assumed that irrigation

demands in the irrigation service area are separated out. The demands were based on PDD

multiplied by 1.5.

Ivins City used Bentley® WaterGEMS® V8i as the hydraulic modeling software with a capability of

modeling a network of up to 1,000 pipes. The model was updated from the model created by Alpha

Engineering in 2006 as part of the Ivins City Culinary Water Capital Facilities Plan. The model is a

network of 999 pipes, 794 junctions, 5 tanks, 2 pumps, and 7 PRVs.

Hydraulic modeling of the water system is a recent requirement by the State of Utah per Utah

Administrative Code Rule R309-511. The modeling performed for this master plan meets the

requirements of this rule and this master plan document meets the reporting requirements and will

be submitted to the Division of Drinking Water for review.

The model includes all distribution and transmission pipelines of all sizes except for dead end

pipelines less than 6 inches, not connected to a hydrant and not in a pressure problem area. The

model does not include service lateral piping. All the evaluated scenarios were steady state models

and assumed that the tanks were at a 25 percent full level.

PRESSURE ANALYSIS

The pressure zones are shown on the map in Figure 14 as follows. This figure shows the KWU

system pressure zones in light pastels and the Ivins municipal system in darker pastels.

Undevelopable zones are identified with a cross hatch. The KWU system pressure zones are shown

here but not analyzed sufficiently to identify any recommended capital improvements.


FIGURE 14. IVINS CITY EXISTING PRESSURE ZONES

The municipal system has been divided into nine pressure zones as follows:

Connecting to the Taviawk Tank are:

� 3460 Taviawk Zone

� 3390 Taviawk PRV Zone

Interconnecting to the Cliff Rose 1MG/2MG and the Snow Canyon Tanks are:

� 3290 North Zone

� 3290 South Zone


� 3312 Snow Canyon Zone

� 3165 PRV Zone

� 3220 Reserve PRV Zone

Connecting to the Tuacahn Tank is:

� 3350 Tuacahn Zone

The final zone is undeveloped but potentially unserviceable by the current tanks in Ivins City:

� 3310 Comanche Cliffs Zone

The static pressures of each of the pressure zones can be summarized by the following table.

TABLE 35. STATIC PRESSURE ANALYSIS OF PRESSURE ZONES PER EXISTING CONDITIONS

Zone

Tank/PRV HGL (feet)

Zone Elevation (feet)

Static Pressure Range (psi)

High Low 25% Full High Low High Low

3460 Taviawk 3460 3440 3445 3415 3160 130 13

3390 Taviawk PRV 3390 3390 3390 3220 3150 104 74

3350 Tuacahn 3352.5 3315 3324 3230 3150 88 41

3312 Snow Canyon 3312 3270 3281 3170 2990 140 48

3290 North/South 3292.5 3270 3276 3180 3000 127 42

3220 Reserve PRV 3220 3220 3220 3030 2940 121 82

3165 South PRV 3165 3165 3165 3010 2940 97 67

High Static Pressure = Pressure at Low Elevation with High Tank HGL

Low Static Pressure = Pressure at High Elevation with 25% Full Tank HGL

In review of the table above, the pressure problem in the 3460 Taviawk zone is apparent. In the

upper area of the zone there is a residence that uses a booster pump/pressure vessel to obtain the

necessary pressure. The fire hydrant is located within the requisite distance and actually meets the

fire flow requirements of 20 psi since the hydrant sits at a lower elevation than the residence. It is

not feasible for the City to correct this problem in any cost efficient manner therefore there is no recommendation to repair this system deficiency.

The 3312 Snow Canyon Zone shows static pressures at 140 psi which is 10 psi above the maximum

per the Ivins Service Standard. These pressures occur mostly near the Puerto Drive PRV on the

upstream side of the valve. The high pressures may cause additional leakage and potential

problems to users where the house PRV is not properly working. It is not feasible for the City to

correct this problem in any cost efficient manner therefore there is no recommendation to repair this system deficiency.

In review of the current pressure zones, it appears that there is a benefit to combine the 3165 South

PRV zone with the 3220 Reserve PRV zone in the future. The two zones appear to be serviceable

under a single HGL of 3175. The benefits of combining the zones is the redundancy that could be

provided to the Reserve zone since it is serviced by a single PRV. There have been instances where

the City has had to shut down the whole zone to work on the PRV or a leak on the feed pipeline.

Table 35 shows the resulting static pressures for the combination.


TABLE 36. STATIC PRESSURE ANALYSIS OF FUTURE COMBINED ZONES

Zone

Tank/PRV HGL (feet)

Zone Elevation (feet)

Static Pressure Range (psi)

High Low 25% Full High Low High Low

3220 Reserve PRV 3175 3175 3175 3030 2940 102 63

3165 South PRV 3175 3175 3175 3010 2940 102 71

For the existing 3165 South PRV Zone, this would cause a 5 psi rise in pressure. For the 3220 Zone

this would be a 19 psi drop in pressure. However, pressure should be sufficient still to provide the

service standards of the City. Based on this analysis, it is recommended that the two zones be combined with a single HGL of 3175.

DISTRIBUTION PIPE SIZING (DYNAMIC PRESSURE & FIRE FLOW ANALYSIS)

Distribution piping is the facilities that deliver water from the tanks to the customer and is

characterized by redundancy through a looping pipe network, such that during repairs, minimal

interruptions occur to the customers. The sizing of distribution pipe is generally sized based on the

criteria of first, maintaining 30 psi in the system under a peak instantaneous condition, and second,

maintaining 20 psi in the system under a peak day demand condition while providing needed fire

flow at any one point throughout the city.

EXISTING DISTRIBUTION PIPING

Figure 15 as follows shows the output from the computer hydraulic model of Peak Instantaneous

flows as estimated for the summer of 2010. The figure shows color codes for nodal pressures and

color codes for pipeline velocities.

The lowest pressures other than those already defined in the static pressure analysis are at 200

East 400 North where the pressure is 37.8 psi. This meets the City service standards of 30 psi

minimum at peak instant flows however, when evaluating the Existing PDD Model including vacant

lots, Bellagio, and Comanche cliffs (Scenario E4-PDD+) this pressure drops further to 34.5 psi and

being that this is a peak day demand scenario with a service standard of 40 psi, this pressure area

becomes an existing deficiency. The reason for the low pressures is the high velocities and resulting

headlosses exiting the feed lines from the Cliff Rose 1 MG and 2 MG reservoirs which currently feed

water into the 3290 zones through an 8 inch pipe (from the 1 MG tank) and a 14-inch pipe (from

the 2 MG tank).


FIGURE 15. HYDRAULIC MODELING RESULTS FOR PEAK INSTANT DEMANDS (JULY 2010)

This condition makes it more apparent that the 14-inch feed to the 2 MG tank should be tied into the 3290 Zone at 200 West/300 North where a 12-inch distribution pipeline could feed

more efficiently through the north end of the pressure zone. This improvement is recommended as

part of this master plan. Also, if the currently inactive PRV at 400 West should be activated with a set HGL at 3270 feet this would prevent the pressure at 200 East/400 North from dropping

below the 40 psi in the Scenario E4-PDD+.

The model has also looked at the existing fire flow conditions for the City. Fire flow requirements

are governed by the City adopted IFC 2012. In Appendix B, Section B105, fire flow requirements for

residential one- and two- family dwellings no larger than 3,600 sq. ft. (including all floors and

garage) is 1000 gpm. For residential building larger than 3,600 sq. ft. fire flows must be in

accordance with Table B105.1 which lists fire flows based on building size and construction type.

Low Pressure 200 E 400 N 37.8 psi


For the typical non-fire resistant residential construction, homes larger than 3,600 sq.ft. must have

the following fire flows shown in Table 36 (excerpted from the full Table B105.1).

TABLE 37. EXCERPT FROM IFC TABLE B105.1 MINIMUM REQUIRED FIRE FLOW FOR BUILDINGS

Fire Flow Calculation Area for Type V-B

Construction (sq. ft.)

Required Fire-Flow

(gpm)

3,601 – 4,800 1,750

4,800 – 6,200 2,000

6,201- 7,700 2,250

7,701 – 9,400 2,500

9,401 – 11,300 2,750

Essentially, any area with less than 1,750 gpm needs to be reviewed to see if buildings exist or may

exist in the future with fire flow calculation areas greater than 3,600 sq. ft. It may also be necessary

to review areas where there are buildings known to be larger than 4,800 sq. ft. that might need

2,000 gpm or more. Figure 16 shows the calculated fire flow from the existing conditions model.

The yellow, orange, and red color coded nodal fire flows indicate areas that might be substandard

per current standards.

The map identifies several areas where fire flow is less than 1,750 gpm but greater than 1,000 gpm,

yet are still considered to meet the standard since the structures in the area are less than 3,600 sq.

ft. There are other areas identified where the fire flow should be higher based on the structure sizes

that are served.

In 2010, the Insurance Services Office (ISO) conducted a comprehensive analysis of the City’s fire

suppression system. This analysis was used in helping to calibrate the model to match existing

conditions; however, there were some discrepancies between the model and the field data that

could not be resolved through modification of calibration parameters. Table 37 is provided showing

fire flow problem areas identified by the ISO but also showing the discrepancies in some of these

areas between the modeling data and the field data.

There are also discrepancies shown in this table in interpretation of “Needed Fire Flow”. It is not

entirely clear whether the ISO was following the IFC Table in Appendix B or some other standard. In

the Reserve, ISO shows no problem, while per the IFC table there appears to be a deficiency. For the

purposes of making recommendations, this study shall consider the IFC table as the standard.

The areas where the field data matched fairly close with the model were in areas such as the

Tuacahn Arts Center and The Reserve and other areas that are not shown in this table. Other areas

appear to have physical issues with the system where it appears that there may be a closed valve, or

other type of problem disconnecting the network to cause the reduced flows. The comments in the

table indicate rationale on which problem should be addressed by the Capital Facilities Plan.


FIGURE 16. EXISTING FIRE FLOW CAPACITIES (JULY 2010 PEAK MONTH WITH FIRE FLOW ANALYSIS)


TABLE 38. FIRE FLOW ISO 2010 FIELD DATA VERSUS MODELED FIRE FLOW, PROBLEM AREAS

ID Type Location Zone ISO Needed

Flow

(gpm)

ISO Tested Avail. Flow

(gpm)

IFC Needed

Flow

(gpm)

Model Flow Avail.

(gpm)

Comments

1 Comm Tuacahn Arts Center

3350 Tuacahn

2000 1500 2000 1697 Difficult to boost fire flow without incurring significant capital expense. Tuacahn should pay to upgrade at its own discretion to improve its insurance rates.

2 Comm Park Ave. Way (LDS Church)

3312 Snow

Canyon

4500 3000 2000 4424 Discrepancy in needed flows from ISO vs. IFC. May need to investigate discrepancy in model vs. test.

3 Comm 263 E 200 S (Red Mountain

Elem.)

3290 Zone

3000 1600 3000 2984 Ivins City to investigate possibility of closed valves in the system.

4 Res 100 S 100 W 3290 Zone

2250 1900 2250 5000+ Ivins City has recently upsized 4-inch pipelines to 8-inch. Model reflects the upsizing.

5 Res 570 S 150 E (Mesa View

Townhomes)

3165 South PRV

2250 1800 2250 3634 Ivins City to investigate closed valves in the system.

6 Comm. 260 E 1060 S 3165 South PRV

3500 1300 2250 3324 Discrepancy in needed flows from ISO vs. IFC, but also need to investigate possible closed valves in the system.

7 Res 1500 Split Rock (The Reserve)

3140 Reserve

PRV

1000 1900 2750 1911 Discrepancy in needed flows. Fire flow increase would be high cost for the benefit of a few houses, may not be necessary.

Insurance Services Office (ISO), Inc. Public Protection Classification Report dated May 20, 2011

FUTURE DISTRIBUTION PIPING

The future distribution piping has also been modeled for the future build-out condition. Based on

trial and error modeling, a recommended distribution piping network is shown in the following

Figure 17, followed by another two figures: Figure 18 shows the output from the computer

hydraulic model of Peak Instantaneous flows as estimated for buildout conditions with this piping

network and Figure 19 shows the output for Peak Day Demand with fire flow. In the Peak

Instantaneous figure, nodes are shown with color codes for pressure and pipes are shown with

color codes for velocity. For the Peak Day Demand figure, nodes are shown with color codes by fire

flow available and pipes are shown with color codes for velocity.


FIGURE 17. FUTURE DISTRIBUTION PIPELINE SIZING

In regards to this figure, the following items are noted:

� Most of the west side network should provide sufficient capacity with the standard

minimum size 8-inch diameter pipe.

� More capacity is needed out of the supply pipelines from the Cliff Rose Tanks. This network

shows the 8-inch existing pipe in Taviawk Dr. upsized to a 16-inch to 450 N and continues

as a 12-inch to Center Street.

� The 300 N/200 W 12-inch distribution line is interconnected with the 14-inch feed line.


� A 12-inch line is needed in 400 West to service the south side of the pressure zone.

� To deliver fire flows to the upper reaches of the future Comanche Cliffs, a 12-inch line is

needed. (See further discussion at the end of this section of the report)

FIGURE 18. HYDRAULIC MODELING RESULTS FOR FUTURE BUILDOUT PEAK INSTANTANEOUS FLOWS

As shown in the peak instantaneous model, there were two critical points that drove the trial and

error process for future pipe sizing: junctions J383 and J2083. Junction J383 is located at 200 E and

400 S and represents the highest point in the 3290 Zone. J383 represents a condition where the

Comanche Cliffs Zone is served by the 3290 Zone.


FIGURE 19. HYDRAULIC MODELING RESULTS FOR FUTURE BUILDOUT PEAK DAY DEMAND WITH FIRE

FLOW ANALYSIS

As shown above, some of the fire flow problems still exist as provided in rationale in the previous

section and it does not seem prudent for the City to expend capital funds to improve fire protection

on one or two residential structures. The City should require sprinkler devices on any new residential structure that would be constructed in an area with less than 1,750 gpm when the structure will have a fire flow calculation area larger than 3,600 sq. ft.

The model identifies the upper elevations of the Comanche Cliffs area could be served by the 3290

Zone but it would require some pipe upsizing beyond Highway 91. This cost should not be borne by impact fee funds but should be borne by the developer of Comanche Cliffs with no impact fee credits. There may be other options that the developer could explore. These options are given

as follows:


1. Install a City master meter with a PRV at 600W/Highway 91 off of the 20-inch Gunlock

Pipeline to bolster pressure when demands are large enough to cause a pressure drop

in the southern end of 3290 Zone, or

2. Install a 12” pipeline from 400W/Highway 91 to the upper fire hydrant and limit house

size of these lots to a fire flow area of 4,800 sq. ft. which includes garage and all floors

(system will produce 1,750 gpm), or

3. Create isolated pressure zone for upper lots with separate master meter off of the 20-

inch Gunlock pipeline to service upper lots.

Developer must hire an engineer to verify that the selected option will meet the water service

requirements.


CHAPTER 7: FACILITIES PLAN

The previous sections have discussed the many issues regarding service standards, demands, water

storage analysis, water source, transmission, pumping stations, and distribution system piping. In

this section, as a result of these master planning efforts, a vision of the future of the City’s water

system is proposed as a master facilities plan.

The master facilities plan includes three elements:

� List of necessary capital improvements for the required facilities

� Cost of the capital improvements

� Assignment of the capital improvement to either the correction of an existing deficiency,

increase in service level, or future growth.

� Evaluation of revenue sources and financing

All improvements assigned to future growth will be included in the Impact Fee Facilities Plan that is

prepared to be in accordance with the Utah Impact Fee Act, Utah Code Title 11, Chapter 36a. An

impact fee analysis shall then be completed as per the same Act (not a part of the scope of this

report but included as appendix F) which will determine the amount to be charged and method of

assessment of charge for all future developments.

LIST OF FACILITIES NEEDED

Table 38, as follows provides the list of capital facilities needed per the analysis completed for this

master plan. The table breaks down the list into four categories, the first three being based on

priorities and the last one being governed by rate of development.

Following the tables are the capital facilities maps, Figures 20 and 21, which identify the location

for each of the recommended improvements. There is one map for the transmission system and one

map for the distribution system. Storage improvements are shown on both maps. Each project is

identified by a Project ID that corresponds with the ID provided in the table.


TABLE 39. LIST OF CAPITAL FACILITY PROJECTS

Project ID Project Description Facility Type Time

Frame Project Cost Notes Impact Fee Fund

Priority #1: Current Needs

IA Upsize Taviawk Pumping Station to 480 gpm Capacity Transmission 0-5 years $60,000 Current Pumping Station is at maximum capacity. 100%

IB Upsize 6" Waterline to 12" on 400 W from 400 S to Hwy 91 Distribution 0-5 years $190,000 Provides Fire Flow for Future Development 100%

IB Install 12" Waterline in Hwy 91 from 400 W to Earl Rd Distribution 0-5 years $90,000 Provides Fire Flow for Future Development 100%

IC Install Check Valves on 1MG & 2MG Tanks Storage 0-5 years $15,000 Prevents Snow Canyon Taps from Overflowing Tanks 50%

ID Remove Check Valves at 50 N 200 E and Red Mountain Spa Distribution 0-5 years $10,000 Increase interflow between 3290 Zones 50%

IE Connect 14" to 12" @ 200 W/300N Distribution 0-5 years $20,000 Provides better pressures in higher elevation areas of 3290 zone

100%


Paid by Developer


n/a


Paid by Developer


n/a

Priority #2: Bolster 3290 Zone

IIA Add Water Storage to 3290 Zone Storage 0-5 years $2,300,000 Replace 1MG steel tank with 2MG concrete tank 100%

IIB Upsize Outflow Pipeline from 8" to 16" in Taviawk Dr (450 N to Tank) Distribution 5-15 years $540,000 Necessary to maintain pressures while accommodating growth 100%

IIB Upsize Outflow Pipeline from 8" to 12" in 400 W (450 N to 300 N) Distribution 5-15 years $70,000 Necessary to maintain pressures while accommodating growth 100%

IIB Upsize main line from 8" to 12" in 400 W (200 N to Center St) Distribution 5-15 years $150,000 Necessary to maintain pressures while accommodating growth 100%

IIC Separate Irrigation System Irrigation 0-5 years Paid by Irrigation Funds

Necessary as system will become undersized without removing the irrigation demand

n/a


TABLE 38, LIST OF CAPITAL FACILITY PROJECTS (CONT.)

Project ID Project Description Facility Type

Time Frame

Project Cost Notes Impact Fee Fund

Priority #3: Bolster Transmission of Source

IIIA Install Pumping Station at 200 W Transmission 15-25 years $170,000 As demands increase, necessary to ensure flow capacity 100%

IIIB Upgrade Pumping Station at 400 W Transmission 15-25 years $60,000 As demands increase, reliability of pumping is necessary 50%

IIIC Pumping Station Transmission Line from Ivins Reservoir Transmission 15-25 years $1,360,000 Future Pumping Station & Pipeline from Possible Treated Water Source 100%

IIID Upgrade Tuacahn Pumping Station Transmission 5-15 years $50,000 Install Backup Pump to improve redundancy 100%

Future Priorities Per Development & Major Tank Replacements

IVA 450 North (400 W to 550 W) 12" Pipe Distribution When Developed $15,000 Impact Fees Fund upsize from 8" 100%

IVB Guy Lane (Hwy 91 to Fitness Way) Replace 8" with 12" Distribution When Developed

Paid by Developer

For Fire flow (see page 61) for more details. n/a

IVC 400 S (400 W to 480 W) Replace 6" with 8" Distribution When Developed

Paid by Developer

6” pipe not viable to handle future flows. n/a

IVD Center St (600 W to 750 W) Replace 6" with 8" Distribution When Developed

Paid by Developer n/a

IVE Upsize Pumping Station at Tuacahn Transmission When Developed

Paid by Developer

As necessary for development paid for by development n/a

IVF Replace Tuacahn Tank with concrete tank at end of service life Storage Year 2035 +/- $940,000 Lower water temperatures, Reduce


IVG Replace Taviawk Tank with concrete tank at end of service life Storage Year 2039 +/- $940,000 Lower water temperatures, Reduce


IVH Replace 2MG Tank with concrete tank at end of service life Storage Year 2042 +/- $2,250,000 Lower water temperatures, Reduce


Note: All cost estimates are in 2012 dollars


FIGURE 20. CAPITAL FACILITIES MAP FOR TRANSMISSION SYSTEM

1 MG Tank

Tuacahn Tank

Taviawk Tank

2 MG Tank

Ence Well Meter

400 W Gunlock Tap 200 W Gunlock Tap

Snow Canyon Dr Tap

Snow Canyon Parkway Tap

IIIC - Pumping Station & TransmssionLine from Ivins Reservoir

IIID - Upgrade TuacahnPumping Station

IA - Upsize TaviawkPumping Station

IIA - Increase Storage by 1 MGUpgrade to Concrete Tank

IIIA - Instal l Pumping Stationon 200 W Feed Line

IIIB - Upsize Pumping Stationon 400 W Feed Line

IVE - Upgrade to Concrete Tankat End of Service Life

IVF - Upgrade to Concrete Tankat end of Tank Service Life

Mai

n

200

W

Center

200 N

400

E

Tavi

awk

Dr

Old Highway 91

Tuacahn Dr

Kaye

nta

Pkw

y

200 S

350 N

400

W

600

W

Puer

to D

r

450 N

400 S

Snow Can

yon D

r

200

E

Snow Canyon Pkwy

Kwavasa Dr

520 S

Park Avenue Wy

Evening Star Dr

Paiute Dr

200 S

400 S

400

W

450 N

200

E

200 N

Center

400

W

Kaye

nta

Pkw

y

400 S

450 N

Center

200 N

200

E20

0 E

0 1,000 2,000 3,000500Feet

LegendCity Boundary

Pumping Station

Future Pumping Station

Future Water T ank

Water T ank12" Future T ransmission Pipe8" T ransmission Pipe10" T ransmission PipeRegional T ransmission Pipe


FIGURE 21. CAPITAL FACILITIES MAP FOR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

IA

IBIB

IC

ID ID

IE

IIA

IIB

IIB

IIB

IIIAIIIB

IVA

IVEIVF

3290 South

3175 PRV

3290 North3312 Snow Canyon

3175 Reserve PRV

3460 Taviawk

3350 Tuacahn

Taviawk 3390 PRV

3310 Commanche Cliffs

TuacahnTaviawk

Snow Canyon 2Snow Canyon 1

TaviPRV

400 W PRV

200 W PRV 200 E PRV400 E PRV

PuertoPRV

ReservePRV

LegendCity BoundaryPRVWater Tank

Future PipelinesDiameter (inch)

81216

Existing PipelinesDiameter(inch)

4 or less68101214

Note: This figure shows only distribution piping.Pipe used soley for transmission purposes is notshown.


REVENUE SOURCES

There are seven potential revenue sources that should be considered in the impact fee analysis.

� User Rates – User rates are the bulk of revenue received for the operation and maintenance

of the water utility. This revenue is used to pay utility employee salaries and benefits,

purchase costs of water, power costs, supplies, equipment, and maintenance repairs. It may

also be used to cover capital projects that are not growth related but rather level of service

related including any debt service costs relating to these capital expenses.

� Impact Fees – Impact fees are charged in association of the City permitting development

that impacts the water system. These fees are authorized in accordance with Utah Code

Title 11, Chapter 36a, the Utah Impact Fee Act. The use of these fees must be in accordance

with this state law. One of the most important limitations to these funds is that the fee must

be expended within six years or otherwise be refunded to the developer (first in, first out).

� Connection Fees – These fees are charged at the time of connection. The purpose of this fee

is to cover the expense to the City for purchase of the water meter and installation including

any administration costs. These fees are not intended to cover any additional expenses

unrelated to the physical connection.

� Reserves – Ivins tries to maintain reserves no less than 50 percent of the annual

operational expenses. If these reserves ever rise above this level, this could be considered a

source of revenue for the construction of capital facilities. Impact fees are saved in a

separate fund and are not mixed with the utility reserves account.

� Interest Income – With reserves, some interest will be received by the City, this income

could be a source to fund either operation and maintenance costs or capital costs. Interest

income should only be considered a source of revenue when reserves are well above the

minimum level. This is a minor revenue source.

� Dedication of System Improvements – Developers will dedicate system improvements

when these improvements are necessary for the development. Improvements listed in the

facilities plan that are expected to be dedicated are identified as “Paid by Developer”. A

developer would need to install these facilities if it were necessary to make a connection to

the system and provide necessary looping redundancy. If a developer needs to install any of

the facilities plan improvements that are indicated to be paid for by impact fees, as a

requirement of development, a credit towards impact fees shall be granted or developer

shall be reimbursed by impact fees.

� Sale of Assets – When the utility owns assets that are no longer necessary for the operation

of the system, these assets may be sold as a form of revenue. Ivins City has no current plans

to sell any assets and therefore this revenue source is negligible.

� Grants – There are federal and state grants available for certain qualified projects. All

opportunities to obtain such grants will be pursued by Ivins City.


FINANCING

There are essentially three financing methods available for financing the proposed capital facilities.

These categories are listed as follows:

� Internal financing for Pay-As-You-Go

� Conventional Long Term Debt Instruments

� Grant Funds and/or Low Interest Governmental Loan Programs

Ivins City will use pay-as-you-go financing as a first preference with long term debt financing as an

option as necessary. Grant funds and/or low interest governmental loan programs will always be

considered in the pursuit of financing. The following most common sources are listed although

there may be other sources that should be considered.

U.S. Department of Agriculture – Rural Development

� Only for municipalities that serve a population of 10,000 or less.

� Loans and grants available.

� $15,000 planning grants available.

� Where median household income is less than $37,369 grants up to 75% of eligible project

costs available.

� Where median household income is between $37,369 and $46,711 may receive grant less

than 75%.

Utah Community Impact Board

� Project grants and no interest loans are only available to communities impacted by mineral

development.

� Planning/Engineering grants available to all.

� Low interest loans available to all communities.

Utah Division of Water Resources

� Low interest and no interest loan money available for projects that conserve, protect, or

more efficiently use present water supplies, develop new water or provide flood control.

� Matching funds typically 10 to 30 percent required. In-kind match is allowed.

Utah Division of Drinking Water

� Federal State Revolving Fund Program

� State Revolving Fund Program

� Small grants and low interest loans available

Utah Community Development Block Grants

� All grant money. No grants larger than $150,000 per year. Two years max.

� Must pay Davis Bacon wages for construction projects

� Site specific projects must conduct survey of affected residents. Must be low to moderate

income.

A P P E N D I X A : W A T E R P L A N N I N G W O R K M A P

!(

!(

!(

!(

7

7

7

7

'

!

7

!

7

!

!

!

7

7

!

!

!

!

!

77

!

7

7

!

7!

!

7

!

7

7

!

7

!

!

7

7

7

!

!

!

7

!

77

7

7

!

!

7

!

7

!

!

!

!

7 !

!

7

7

!

!

7

7!

7

77

!

!

!

7

!

!

7

7

7

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

7

!

7

!

!

7

!

!

!

!

!

7

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

7

!

7

!

!

!

!

7

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

7

! 7

!

!

!

7

!

!

!

!

7!

7!

!

7

!

!

7

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

7

!

7

!

7

!

!

7

!

!

7

!

'

7

7

7

77

77777 7 7

7777 7

7

777

77

77

777

7

777

77

77777

7 7 7777

7

7 77

7

77

777

7 777

77

77

77

7777

7 77 7

7

777 7 7

7

7 7 777

77

7 777

'

'

7

7

777

7

62

29

20

45

B3B2B1

A1

C1 C3C2 Grid Number: A1

Page Number: 1 of 7

Ivins CityWater Planning Workmap

Key Map ' Cultivated

! Multifamily Residence

#* Nonresidential

!( Open Space

") Park

! Single Family Residence

4 School

7 Undeveloped (Potential Residence)

' Undeveloped

7 Platted Vacant Lot

Note:Future ERUsLabeled onUndeveloped,Cultivated, &NonresidentialPlanning Pts

Based on 2011 Data

K

!(

!(

'

")

'

'

#*

!

!(

7

!

7

!

!

!

!

7

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

7

7

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

7

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

7 !

7

!

!

!

!

!

!

7

!

!

!

!

!

!

7

!

!7

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

7

7

7

7

77

7

7

7

77

!

'

'

7

!

7

!!

!

!

!

7!

7

7!

7 7

!

7

7 7

7!

!

7!

!

!

!

!

77

7

7

7

7 7

!

7

7

7

!

!

7

!

!

!

!

77!

!

!

!

!(

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

! !

7

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

7

!!

'

7

! !

!

! '

7! ! !

7

!

7

77

7 !

77!

7777

7

7

7

7 !

77

7

7

7

!

7

7!

'

7

77

'

7

77

7 77

7

!

!

7

!

7

7!

!

!!

'

!

7

7

7

!

7

7 7

77

7

7

7

7

7

7

7!

7

7

!

7!

!7!

7

7!

7!

7!

77

!

! !

!

!

7 7!

!

7

77

!

!

7

7

!

7

! !!

7 7

7

'

'

")

")

'

777

7

7!

7

7

7!

!

7

!

7

!

7

7

777

!

7

7

!

7

7

7

!

'

'

!'

!

!7

!!

!7

!

!

7

7

7!

7

!

7

7

777

7

!

!

7 7

!

!

7

! 7

!

!

7

7

7

7 77

7

7 7

7

!

7

!

!7

7!

7!

7

7

!

!7!

7!

!77

'

'

'

'

!

!

!

7

!

7

7

7

'

7

7 7

7

7 !

7

7

7

77!

77

!

7

7

!

!

!

!

7

!

7

7

7

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

7

!!

!

7

!

!

!

7

7

!

7

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

7

7

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

7

7

7

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

7

!

!

!

!

!

7

!

7

!

!

!

7

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

7!

7

!

!

!!

!! 7

7

!

!

!

!

7

!

!

!

!

!

!

7

7

!!

!

7

!

!

!

!

!

7

!

7

7

!!

!

!

!

!

7

!

7

!

!

!

7

77

!

!

!

!

7

!

!

!!

77

!

!

!

!

!

77

7

!

!

!

!

7

'

7

7

7

7

'

'

7

!

7777777

777 ! !

!!!

777777 77

77777777777

7777

7 7

7

7777

77

77

777

7777777

77

777

7

7

77

777

77 7 7

77

7777 7

7777

77 7 7

7 777

777 7

7

777

77

777

7777777777

7777777777

7 777

7 7

77777777

777

7 7777

7

777

7 7 7

7

7 77

77

777777

777

7

7

77777 7

77

7

7

777

77 777

77

7 777

77 77

7 77

77

7777 7

7

777777777777

777

77777

777

777777

!!!'

'

'

'

'

#*#*

''

'

8

7

24

10

56

40

18

25

18

43

20

73

44

13

20

23

15

18

1515

20

20

26

16

19

62

94

10

0.5

282

171

100

288

B3B2B1

A1

C1 C3C2 Grid Number: B1

Page Number: 2 of 7




#* Nonresidential

!( Open Space

") Park


4 School


' Undeveloped



Based on 2011 Data

K

!(

'

'

#*

#*

!

7

!

!

77

!

7

! 77

7

7

7

7

7 7

77

!

!

7!

!

!!

!

")

!

!

! !

!

!

! !! !!! !!

!! !

!!

!

! !!

!

!!

!

!

7

!

!

!

!

!

!!!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

4#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

!! !!7

!!

#*")

! !

! !

!!

!

!

!!

!!!!

!!!

!!

#*

4

!

!

!

! !!

!!

!

!!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!!

! !

7!

!!

!

!!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

7!

7

7

7 77

7

77

7

7

7

7

77

77

7

77

77

7

7

77

777

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

77

7

7

7

7

!

7

7

7

77

7

7 7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7!

7

77

7

7

7

!

7

7

77

77

!

7

77

7

77

7

77

7

77

'

!

!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

7

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

7

!

!

!

!

!

7

!

!

!

!

!

!

7 !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

7

!

77

!

!

!

!

!!

!

7

7

#*

!

7

!

!

!

!

#*

7

#*

!

!

7

!

!

!!

7

! ! 7!

7

!

!

!

!

!!

! !!

7 !

!!! !

!!

!! !

! !

!

!

!!

7!

!

!!

!

!! 7

!!

!

!!

!! ! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

7!

! !7

!

!7

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!7

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

7

!

!

!

!

7

!

!

7!7

!

!!

7!

#*!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !

! !

!

!77 7!7

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

! !

7

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

! !

!

! !

!

!! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!! !

!

! 7!!

! !!

!

!!

!!

7!

!

7

!

7

77

7 !

777 7777

7

77

!

77

7

7

77

7!

7

77

'

777

7

!

!

7

!

7

7!

77! 7

!

!

7

7

77

77

7

7

7

7 !

!

77

'

!

!7

!!

!

77

!

!

7

7

7!

7

77

7

!

7 7

!

7

! 7

!

7

7

7!

7

77

7

7

7

!

7

7

!7

7

!

#*#*

7

77

7

7

!

7

7

7

7

7

7

77

77

7

7

77

7

7777

7

7 7

7

7

7

7

7

77

7777

7 77

7!

!

77

7

7

")

7

7

7

")

7

!

777

77 !

! !!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

7

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

7

7

!

7

!

!!

!

!

!

7 !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

7

!

!

!

7

!

!

!

!

!

!

77

!

!!

7!

! !

!

!!

7

!

!

7

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

7!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!!

!! !

!!

!

!

!

!

77

77

! !!

!7

!

!

!

7!

7!

!

7

!

!!

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!( !(

7777

! !!!

!

77777777777777777777 7777

777777777777777777 7777777

77777777777777

7777 77777777

777777777

77777 7 777

7

77777777777777 7777777777777

7777

7 77777777777

#*#*

")

!

777

7

77

77

77

77

777

777

77

77777

77

777

777

7 77

777777777

777777

777777

77777777

!!

!!

' 7777

777777

7777

77

777 77 7

' '

77

77 9

31

1

7

1

1

1

0

4

4

6

904215

13

31

23

46

10

40

50

48

10

1.6

0.5 1.1 0.515.5

B3B2B1

A1


Page Number: 3 of 7




#* Nonresidential

!( Open Space

") Park


4 School


' Undeveloped



Based on 2011 Data

K

!(

!(

!(

!(

7 7

!!

77

77 7

77

!7

7

!

77

!

77

7

7

!77

7 7!7

77

7

7!

7 77

777

77

7

!

777 7

7

77

!

7 7!

7

7

7 !

7

7

7

7!

!

!

!

77 7

!7!

7

!

!

!!

77

7!

!

7!

!7

!

!

! !!

!

!

! !

!!

!!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

")")

!

!

")

77

!

! !! !!!

!

7!

!!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

!

!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!!

! !

!

7

7! !!

!

7

7

!!

!7

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!! 7

7!

!

!

7

777

7

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

#*#*

20

32

32

7.89.3

5.615.5

B3B2B1

A1


Page Number: 4 of 7




#* Nonresidential

!( Open Space

") Park


4 School


' Undeveloped



Based on 2011 Data

K

!!

7

'

'

#*

#*#* #*

!

!

")

#*

4

!!

!!

7

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

7

!!

'

7777

7

7!77

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!! !!

!

!

! !

!

!!

!!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!!

!

!!!

!

!!

!

! !

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

'

!!

' 7'

#*'

'

!

7

'

7'

7

'

!'

'

'

'

!

777

7

7

7

#*

77777777777

777

777777777

777777

! !!!

!!!! !

!!

!!!

77777777

77777

7

7777777777 7

777777

77

7

7777

77777

77

77

77

77

77

7

77777777

7 777777

777

77

7777

77

77

7777

77777

77

7777 7

7

7

777

77

777 7

7 7

7777777

7777 77

77 7

7777777

7777

77777

7777 7 7

7777

77777777

777777777 777777

7777

77777

777777777

7777

7777

7777777777

777

777777

7777

77

#*

!

'

''

8

3

8

2

9

2 0

2

0

2

1010

20

10

25

53

15

63

15

17

26

2032

11

48

204

B3B2B1

A1

C1 C3C2 Grid Number: C1

Page Number: 5 of 7




#* Nonresidential

!( Open Space

") Park


4 School


' Undeveloped



Based on 2011 Data

K

7

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

7

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

7

'

'

!!

! 7!

!

!!

'

!

!!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!!

! !!! !!

!! !!

!

!

!!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

! !!

! !!

!

")

!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !! !

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

! !

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!! !

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!!

!!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!!

!

!

!!!

!

!'

! !

!

!

!!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!! !!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

7777

7

!

7!

!

!

!

7

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

'

!! !! !!!

!

#*

#*

#*

'

!#*

#*

#*

'

!

! !

!!

!

! ! !

! !

!

!

!

7

!

!

!!! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

! !

!!

! !

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

7

!!

7

7!

!

!

7

!

!

!!

7 77! !

!!

7!!

!

!

7

!!

!7

!

!7 !

! !

!

#*#*

#*

#*#*

!!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!!

#*

!!!!!!

!!

7!

!!

") '

!

!

!!

!!!

!

#*

#*

#*

#*

")

#*

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!!

7

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!7

!

!

!! 7!

#*!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

77

!7

!!

!!

7

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!!

7

!

'

!

7!

7

!

!

! 7!

!

7

!

!

! 7 7

!

!

7

!

!

'! !

!

!7

!

7

!

7

7

!

!

!

!

!

!

77 7

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

77

!

!

7

!

!

!

!

7

'

!

!

7

#*

!

!

7!

7

!

77

!

7

!

!

7

!

7!

!

!

!

!

7

!

7

!

'

! !!

'

'

!

'

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

777

'

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

! !!

! !

!

!!

!

!!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

7! !!!

! !!

!

7!

!! !

!!

!

! !

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!7

'

''

7 !! !7!

!

!

!!

!

'

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

'!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

! !

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

! !

!

!! !

!

!!!

!!!! !!! !! !! !! ! !!!! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!!

!!

!!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!!! !

!!

!

!

!

! !!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!#*

'

'

'

7

!7!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!!

! !

!

!

!

7 7

7

77 7

7

77

77

! !

7!

!

!

! 7!

! 7!

!

7

7

!

7

!

!

7 7 77 777777777

777

7777

! !!!

!!!! !

!!

!!!

777

77777777777777

77777

777777777

77777777

7777

7

'

#*

!

77777 777

77

777777777

77 7777777

777777

77

777777777

77

77

777777

7777

7777

4

!

!! !

")

77

7

7

!

'8

1

4

4

0

02

38

97

16

23

17

32

48

42 40

30

80

20 40

40

20

24

41

20

16

10

23

48

32

32

10

42

60

90

20

40

40

2.5

1.6

1.6

0.5

0.5

1.8

1.4

4.5

0.25

B3B2B1

A1


Page Number: 6 of 7




#* Nonresidential

!( Open Space

") Park


4 School


' Undeveloped



Based on 2011 Data

K

!!

7

!

7

!7

!

7 !

7

7

!

7

!

7 7

7

77

7

7 7

7

7

7

77

7

77

7 7

7

7 7

7 7

77

7

7

!

7

7

7

7

7

!

!

77

7 7

!

7

77

!

77

7

7

7

!

7

7

7

77

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

!

7

!

7

7

77

7 77

7

7

!

!

7

7

!

7

!

7

7 7

77

7

7

7

7

!

7

7

77

7

7

7

!

7

7

7

7

7

777 77

7

!

!

!

!

7

7

!

7

7

77

77

7

#*

#*

'

!!

!!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!!

!

!

7

!

!

!

7

7

7

7

7

7'

69

366

363

182

B3B2B1

A1


Page Number: 7 of 7




#* Nonresidential

!( Open Space

") Park


4 School


' Undeveloped



Based on 2011 Data

K

A P P E N D I X B : L A N D U S E / D E M A N D C A L C U L A T I O N

T A B L E S

Column1Single�Family�Residences

Multi�Family�Residences

Irrigated�Acres

Cultivated�Land

Transient�Units

Vacant�Lots�for�Single�Family�Residences

Commercial�ERU TOTAL�ERU

Avg�Yearly�Indoor�(AF/Y)

Avg�Yearly�Outdoor�(AF/Y)

Instant�Q�Indoor(gpm)

Instant�Q�Outdoor(gpm)

PDDIndoor(gpm)

PDDOutdoor(gpm)

Ivins�City�(incl�KWU) 2874 69 437.4 480 140 857 119.9 3113.8 1395 1426 2595 4287 1730 2,143��Ivins�Municipal�Water�System 2562 65 405 480 140 709 115 2792.9 1251 1320 2327 3969 1552 1,985��by�Zone 0 ��Taviawk�Tank 157 0 22.7 256 0 110 2.5 173.5 78 74 293 222 96 111��3460�Taviawk 45 0 4.5 0 0 72 0 57.0 26 15 144 44 32 22��3390�Taviawk�PRV 112 0 18.2 256 0 38 2.5 116.5 52 59 227 178 65 89��1&2�MG�Tanks 1921 65 298.3 224 40 369 36.1 2059.0 923 972 1716 2923 1144 1,462��3290�North 299 0 43.6 39 0 200 2.05 302.3 135 142 418 427 168 214��3290�South 506 29 85.5 119.5 0 97 15.3 583.9 262 279 637 838 324 419��3165�South�PRV 1116 36 169.2 65.5 40 72 18.75 1172.8 525 552 995 1658 652 829��Snow�Canyon�Tanks 484 0 73.6 0 100 230 44.4 528.4 237 240 597 721 294 361��3312�Snow�Canyon 450 0 68.8 0 100 106 44.4 494.4 222 224 572 674 275 337��3140�Reserve�PRV 34 0 4.8 0 0 124 0 34.0 15 16 103 47 19 24��Tuacahn�Tank 0 0 10.4 0 0 0 32 32.0 14 34 99 102 18 51��3350�Tuacahn 0 0 10.4 0 0 0 32 32.0 14 34 99 102 18 51��3310�Commacnche�Cliffs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 ��

0 ��KWU 312 4 32.4 0 0 148 4.9 320.9 144 106 434 318 178 159��by�Pressure�Zone 0 ��KWU�Upper 143 0 14.3 0 0 71 0 143.0 64 47 259 140 79 70��KWU�Mid 144 4 15.2 0 0 71 3.9 151.9 68 50 269 149 84 74��KWU�Lower 25 0 2.9 0 0 6 1 26.0 12 9 87 28 14 14��

Column1Single�Family�Residences


Irrigated�Acres

Cultivated�Land

Transient�Units

Vacant�Lots�for�Single�Family�Residences


Avg�Yearly�Indoor�(AF/Y)

Avg�Yearly�Outdoor�(AF/Y)

Instant�Q�Indoor(gpm)

Instant�Q�Outdoor(gpm)

PDDIndoor(gpm)

PDDOutdoor(gpm)

Ivins�City�(incl�KWU) 7562 475 162.9 0 582 0 1171.25 9789.6 4386 531 8158 1,596�� 5439 798��Ivins�Municipal�Water�System 6139 471 47.5 0 552 0 1095.75 8286.6 3713 155 6906 466�� 4,604�� 233��Ivins�Irrigation�System 944.4 0 3079 0 9,255�� 0 4,628��by�Pressure�ZoneTaviawk�Tank 404 0 52.4 0 0 0 4 408 183 171 506 514�� 227�� 257��3460�Taviawk 200 0 20.6 0 0 0 0 200 90 67 321 202�� 111�� 101��3390�Taviawk�PRV 204 0 31.8 0 0 0 4 208 93 104 329 312�� 116�� 156��1&2�MG�Tanks 4215 65 689.8 0 72 0 377.75 5506.6 2467 2249 4589 6,760�� 3,059�� 3,380��3290�North 1104 0 141.2 0 0 0 104.1 1392.35 624 460 1160 1,384�� 774�� 692��3290�South 1326 29 271.2 0 0 0 116.1 2033.7 911 884 1695 2,658�� 1,130�� 1,329��3290�South��Annex 230 0 32.2 0 0 0 0 230 103 105 351 316�� 128 158��

��3175�South�PRV 1555 36 245.2 0 72 0 157.55 1850.55 829 799 1542 2,403�� 1,028�� 1,201��Snow�Canyon�Tanks 1475 406 222.8 0 400 0 616 2229 999 726 1858 2,183�� 1,238�� 1,092��3312�Snow�Canyon 882 0 130 0 280 0 150 1033 463 424 917 1,274�� 574�� 637��3175�Reserve�PRV 593 406 92.8 0 120 0 466 1196 536 303 1007 909�� 664�� 455��Tuacahn�Tank 0 0 20.6 0 80 0 98 98 44 67 203 202�� 54�� 101��3350�Tuacahn 0 0 20.6 0 80 0 98 98 44 67 203 202�� 54�� 101��3310�Commacnche�Cliffs 45 0 6.3 0 0 0 0 45 20 21 123 62�� 25�� 31��

KWU 1423 4 115.4 0 30 0 75.5 1503 673 376 1253 1,131�� 835�� 565��by�Pressure�ZoneKWU�Upper 481 0 48.1 0 0 0 0 481 216 157 562 471�� 267�� 236��KWU�Mid 755 4 55.6 0 30 0 56.5 816 366 181 789 545�� 453�� 272��KWU�Lower 187 0 11.7 0 0 0 19 206 92 38 327 115�� 114�� 57��*�to�be�serviced�by�future�irrigation�system

EXISTING

FUTURE

LanduseSingle�Family�Residences


Irrigated�Acres

Cultivated�Land

Transient�Units

Vacant�Lots�for�Single�Family�

ResidencesCommercial�

ERUTOTAL�ERU

LDR 653 10 71.39 94.1 0 495 6.1 682.6MDR 1213 0 122.95 74 0 350 1.6 1225.1HDR 988 55 106.19 34 0 8 2.5 1046.5Commercial 17 4 24.75 9 40 1 57.35 78.35RMU 0 0 4.2 0 100 0 46 46MunicipalChurch 0 0 5.47 0 0 0 1.6 1.6School 0 0 0 5.5 0 0 5.2 5.2Park 2 0 10 9.7 0 2 0.25 28.1

LanduseSingle�Family�Residences


Irrigated�Acres

Cultivated�Land

Transient�Units


LDR 3016 10 374.449 0 0 10.8 3372.3MDR 1978 0 245.95 0 0 16.6 2427.6HDR 2027 55 133.98 0 0 10.4 2152.4Commercial 168 4 48.65 0 182 390.65 557.65RMU 132 406 26.26 0 400 686.2 955.2Municipal 0Church 0 0 1 0 0 1.6 1.6School 3 0 15.5 0 0 43 46Park 22 0 20.5 0 0 5 53.85

EXISTING

FUTURE

A P P E N D I X C : W A T E R C O N S E R V A T I O N P L A N

Water Conservation Plan

August 2013

Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................... 1

Description of Ivins City ............................................................... 1

Population Projections ................................................................. 2

Water Supply .................................................................................. 3

Present Water Use and Future Water Needs .............................. 4

Current Conservation Programs ................................................. 5

Water Conservation Goals ............................................................ 6

Water Conservation Measures ..................................................... 7

Water Education Program ............................................................ 8

Implementing and Updating the Water Conservation Plan ..... 9

Ivins City Water Conservation Plan Page 1 of 9

Introduction Due to the continued rapid growth in Southern Utah, many citizens and leaders are becoming concerned for the future cost and availability of the water supply. The state legislature has also voiced concern and addressed this issue in the Water Conservation Plan Act. This Act is codified as Section 73-10-32 of the Utah State Code. This water conservation plan is written to address the concerns of leaders and citizens of both Ivins City and the state of Utah. Description of Ivins City Ivins City is located in Southwest Utah in Washington County. Ivins City’s corporate boundaries encompass approximately 10.2 square miles with the current 2013 population estimated at 8,000 people. The community’s vision for the future, as defined in the General Plan, is to incorporate a generally open, rural, low profile form of development with an uncrowded feel and ample open space. Of the 6,162 acres within Ivins City’s boundary, 3,028 acres are still undeveloped while 2,242 acres are developed and 892 acres are deemed open space. A portion of the undeveloped area may be undevelopable due to slopes, flood plains, and other natural geographical features. Additionally, of the 6,162 acres within the corporate boundaries of Ivins City, 1,817 acres are within the Kayenta Water Users service area and are not served by the Ivins City water system.


Population Projections Population projections can be derived from several sources including the Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget (GOPB), the Dixie Metropolitan Planning Organization (DMPO), and the census. The Culinary Water Capital Facilities Plan, completed during 2013, estimates a buildout population of 19,100 in year 2046 using the most recent census data. Figure 1 illustrates the actual and projected population trend.

Population Projections Through Buildout

Figure 1 The population projections shown includes the Kayenta development. As mentioned earlier, this area is served by the Kayenta Water Users Association and not by the Ivins City water system.


Water Supply Ivins City receives most of its water from the Gunlock Water Users Agreement, the Snow Canyon Compact, and from the Washington County Water Conservancy District (WCWCD) through the Washington County Water Pooling Agreement. In this agreement, the WCWCD has agreed to take responsibility for providing culinary water to meet the demands of future growth. The primary issue with future water sources for the City is how the District will deliver the needed water, with the most obvious course for delivery through the Regional Pipeline. The District has set a goal to reduce water demands by 25% by 2050. This would mean a reduction in water use from 0.89 AF/Y per ERU to 0.67 AF/Y per ERU. Table 2 illustrates the available water supply to Ivins City.

Source Water Right No. Flow Capacity (gpm) Acre-Feet/Year

Snow Canyon Wells

81-1427 81-1322

81-86 81-2207 81-2328 81-2411 81-2457

350 393

Gunlock Wells Agreement - As needed 614

Ence Wells Water Supply Agreement - 600 900

Quail Creek Water Block Purchase - 1,700 1,000

Regional Water Supply Agreement - As needed for all

future needs As needed for all

future needs Table 2 The Ivins Irrigation Company provides secondary water from the Gunlock reservoir to current share holders within the City. Although irrigation water is not available to all City residents at this time, the City has required all new developments to install dry irrigation systems in preparation for a City wide system. Ivins City, the Ivins Irrigation Company, and the WCWCD are currently working together to implement a City wide irrigation system. Table 3 displays the City owned shares in local irrigation companies.

Source Shares Acre-Feet

Ivins Irrigation Company 103.69 103.69

St. George Clara Irrigation Company 47.5 193.8

Santa Clara Irrigation Company 11 49.6 Table 3


Present Water Use and Future Water Needs As of December 31, 2012, Ivins City provided water to 2,704 residential, 37 commercial, 56 institutional, and 8 stock watering connections. In addition, Ivins City provided fire hydrant meters to contractors for the purpose of construction activities. Table 1 summarizes the quantities delivered in 2012 for each connection type. Connection Type Million Gallons Acre Feet Residential 419,539 1,287.52 Commercial 48,703 149.46 Institutional 24,176 74.19 Stock Water 1,064 3.27 Fire Hydrant 4,767 14.63 Totals 498,249 1,529.07 Table 1 The Washington County Water Conservancy District did a study regarding per capita water use for the five communities in their service area. After eliminating commercial water use and secondary homes, their study revealed that Ivins City’s per capita water use is approximately 110 gpcd. This amount represents the lowest per capita usage of all five communities that were studied.1 As a comparison, the average per capita water use for the State is 260 gpcd. Figure 2 illustrates the monthly water usage for years 2008 through 2012.

Figure 2

1Washington County Water Conservancy District 2007 Operational Overview


Figure 3 below shows the projected demands from 2010 to 2046. As shown, the municipal irrigation is planned to start reducing the load on the municipal culinary water system in 2014. By 2020, the irrigation system is projected to be fully built out.

Figure 3

Current Conservation Programs Ivins City currently implements the following water conservation programs:

1. Secondary Water System. All new developments are required to install irrigation systems within their respective developments. These systems will eventually be integrated into a citywide system. Use of secondary water will conserve culinary water, but isn’t to be perceived as an opportunity for unrestrained use of water.

2. Public Awareness Program. A City newsletter is mailed to every household in Ivins City monthly. Information regarding water conservation is periodically included. Residents are also encouraged to participate in the Washington County Water Conservancy District’s Free Water Check Program.

3. Water System Maintenance. Ivins City installed a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system to monitor tank levels to avoid potential overflows. In addition, a leak detector has been purchased to aid in finding water leaks.

4. Water Rates. An inclining block water rate has been adopted to encourage conservation through increased rates for water used in excess of a reasonable amount. Table 4 shows the current and proposed water rate schedule.


Table 4

Water Conservation Goals In an effort to promote conservation and reduce water waste, the following goals have been identified.

� Goal #1: Educate citizens on water requirements for landscaping and efficient water-use habits and practices. Many residents don’t know how much water is required to maintain healthy landscaped areas and how to consistently use water efficiently indoors. Conservation information would help water consumers take advantage of the water saving incentives incorporated in the water rate schedule. As mentioned earlier, citizens are encouraged to participate in the Washington County Water Conservancy District’s Free Water Check Program. The goal is to reduce the gpcd 25% by year 2050 as outlined in the District’s Water Conservation Plan.

Culinary Water Rates Current Proposed

Base Fee per Meter Size FYE 2013 FYE 2014 FYE 2015 FYE 2016 FYE 2017 0.75” $23.90 $24.62 $25.36 $26.12 $26.90 1.00” $38.25 $39.40 $40.58 $41.80 $43.05 1.50” $47.81 $49.24 $50.72 $52.24 $53.81 2.00” $95.61 $98.48 $101.43 $104.47 $107.60 3.00” $286.84 $295.45 $304.31 $313.44 $322.84 4.00” $478.07 $492.41 $507.18 $522.40 $538.07

Residential Consumption

Fee Cost per 1k

gal Cost per 1k

gal Cost per 1k

gal Cost per 1k

gal Cost per 1k

gal 0 - 7,000 gals $1.01 $1.04 $1.07 $1.10 $1.13

7,001 – 15,000 gals $1.41 $1.45 $1.49 $1.53 $1.58 15,001 – 30,000 gals $1.97 $2.03 $2.09 $2.15 $2.21

> 30,001 gals $2.81 $2.89 $2.98 $3.07 3.16

Commercial Consumption Fee

Cost per 1k gal

Cost per 1k gal

Cost per 1k gal

Cost per 1k gal

Cost per 1k gal

0 – 20,000 gals $1.12 $1.15 $1.18 $1.22 $1.26 20,001 – 100,000 gals $1.24 $1.28 $1.32 $1.36 $1.40

> 100,001 gals $1.41 $1.45 $1.49 $1.53 $1.58


� Goal #2: Identify and replace water meters that are old or inaccurate. Replacing meters that are old or inaccurate will better account for actual water consumed and reduce water loss. The annual budget includes monies for new meters, not only for new growth, but for replacement meters as well. Goal is to replace meters such that no meter in the system is older than twenty years.

� Goal #3: Locate and repair underground leaks. This goal requires intense

research. The soils we live in can readily absorb small leaks and a simple quick survey of the surface will not disclose these leaks. A leak detector was purchased as part of our leak detection program. Goal is to continue searching for and repairing any leaks.

Water Conservation Measures The following list of water conservation measures, as defined in the Ivins City General Plan, is as follows:

1. Install water-efficient fixtures in all new construction. 2. Encourage replacing non-efficient fixtures with water-efficient fixtures in

existing structures. 3. Encourage new development to adopt water conservation policies and water-

efficient landscaping. 4. Respond rapidly, taking corrective action and instituting recurrence control, on

all water system leaks. 5. Periodically publish the status of City water consumption with comments and

recommendations for conservation. Also provide examples of water conservation landscaping that are effective.

6. Continue to use water rate structures that reward low water usage. 7. Continue the enforcement of Ivins City Code sections that define misuse and

appropriate punishment for water waste. 8. Promote the use of new conservation technologies. 9. Promote a secondary water system for irrigation purposes.

Ivins City adopted an ordinance establishing a water conservation program and policy. This program implements water restrictions that run concurrent with the 4-stage plan implemented by the City of St. George. The Water Conservation Program and Policy ordinance is attached as Appendix A.


Water Education Program The following information on efficient outdoor and indoor water use could be made available to citizens through the City offices and occasionally be included in the City newsletter. Another good source of water conservation tips can be found on the Washington County Water Conservancy District’s website at http://wcwcd.state.ut.us/Conservation.htm Outside Water Use:

� Water landscape only as much as required by the type of landscape, and the specific weather patterns of our area.

� Avoid watering during the heat of the day when losses due to wind and evaporation are greatest. You may actually end up doing more harm than good to your landscape, as well as wasting a significant amount of water.

� Use a broom to sweep sidewalks and driveways instead of using the hose to clean them off.

� Wash your car from a bucket of soapy (biodegradable) water and rinse while parked on or near the grass or landscape so that all the water running off goes to beneficial use instead of running down the gutter to waste.

� Check for and repair leaks in all pipes, hoses, faucets, couplings, valves, etc. Verify there are no leaks by turning everything off and checking your water meter to see if it is still running. Many underground leaks may not be visible.

� Use mulch around trees and shrubs, as well as in your yard to retain as much moisture as possible. Areas with drip systems will use much less water, particularly during hot, dry and windy conditions.

� Keep your lawn well-trimmed and all other landscaped areas free of weeds to reduce overall water needs of your yard.

Indoor Water Use: About two-thirds of the total water used in a household is used in the bathroom. Concentrate on reducing your bathroom use. Following are suggestions for this specific area:

� Do not use your toilet as a wastebasket. Put all tissues, wrappers, diapers, cigarette butts, etc. in the trashcan.

� Check the toilet for leaks. Is the water level too high? Put a few drops of food coloring in the tank. If the bowl water becomes colored without flushing, there is a leak. A leaking toilet may be wasting more than 100 gallons of water a day.

� If you do not have a low volume flush toilet, put a plastic bottle full of sand and water to reduce the amount of water used per flush. However, be careful not to over conserve to the point of having to flush twice to make the toilet work. Also, be sure the containers used do not interfere with the flushing mechanism.

� Take short showers with the water turned up only as much as necessary. Turn the shower off while soaping up or shampooing. Install low flow showerheads and/or other flow restriction devices.

� Do not let the water run while shaving or brushing your teeth. Fill the sink or a glass instead.


Other indoor tips: � When doing laundry, make sure you always wash a full load or adjust the water

level appropriately if your machine has that capability. Most machines use 40 gallons or more for each load, whether it is two socks or a week’s worth of clothes.

� Use your automatic dishwater only for full loads. Each load you run uses about 25 gallons of water. If you wash dishes by hand, don’t leave the water running for rinsing.

� Repair any leak within the household. Even a minor slow drip can waste up to 15 to 20 gallons of water a day.

� Know where your main shutoff valve is and make sure that it works. Shutting the water off yourself when a pipe breaks or a leak occurs will not only save water, but also eliminate or minimize damage to your personal property.

� Keep a jar of water in the refrigerator for a cold drink instead of running water from the tap until it gets cold. You are putting several glasses of water down the drain for one cold drink.

� Plug the sink when rinsing vegetables, dishes, or anything else; use only a sink full of water instead of continually running water down the drain.

Implementing and Updating the Water Conservation Plan This plan has been reviewed and approved by the Ivins City Technical Review Committee and adopted by the City Council on XXXXXXX, 2013. This water conservation plan will be updated and resubmitted to the Utah Division of Water Resources in year 2018 as required by legislative House Bill 153. A copy of the resolution adopted by the City Council is attached as Appendix B. Questions regarding water conservation can be answered by calling the public works department at 435-634-0689.

A P P E N D I X D : M O D E L O U T P U T

Scenario: PDD w ExLots-Bellagio-Commanche

To St. George


24"

Sno

w C

anyo

n P

ipel

ine

Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666

10/24/2011

Bentley WaterGEMS V8i (SELECTseries 1)[08.11.01.32]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterIvins Future Water Model 2011.wtg

Scenario: PDD w ExLots-Bellagio-Commanche

24"

Sno

w C

anyo

n P

ipel

ine


10/24/2011


Scenario: PeakInstant

To St. George


24"

Sno

w C

anyo

n P

ipel

ine


10/24/2011


Scenario: PDD w Fire

To St. George


24"

Sno

w C

anyo

n P

ipel

ine


10/24/2011


Scenario: PDD w Fire

24"

Sno

w C

anyo

n P

ipel

ine


10/24/2011


Scenario: Peak Instant (July2010)

To St. George

24"

Sno

w C

anyo

n P

ipel

ine


10/26/2011

Bentley WaterGEMS V8i (SELECTseries 1)[08.11.01.32]

Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterIvins Future Water Model 2011.wtg

Scenario: PeakMonth(July2010)

To St. George


24"

Sno

w C

anyo

n P

ipel

ine


10/24/2011


Scenario: PDD Future Buildout w/o IRR

To St. George


24"

Sno

w C

anyo

n P

ipel

ine


10/24/2011


Scenario: PDD Future Buildout w/o IRR

24"

Sno

w C

anyo

n P

ipel

ine


10/24/2011


Scenario: Future Peak Instant (No Irrigation)

To St. George


24"

Sno

w C

anyo

n P

ipel

ine


10/24/2011


A P P E N D I X E : C O S T E S T I M A T I O N D E T A I L S

IA Taviawk�Pumping�StationItem Description Quantity Unit Unit�Cost Total

1 Three�Phase�Power 1 LS 25,000 25,0002 New�Vault 1 LS 25,000 25,0003 240�gpm�pumps 3 EA 3,000 9,0004 Piping 1 LS 7,000 7,0005 Electrical�Work 1 LS 10,000 10,0006 Telemetry 1 LS 5,000 5,000

Subtotal 8100015%�Engineering 12150

10%�Contingency 8100Total 101250

IB Upsize�6"�Waterline�to�12"�on�400�W�from�400�S�to�Hwy�91Item Description Quantity Unit Unit�Cost Total

1 12"�C900�PVC 1500 lf 30 450002 Services 5 ea 400 20003 Fittings 2 ea 2000 40004 Valves 2 ea 2500 50005 Asphalt 36000 sf 2.5 900006 Connections 2 ea 2000 4000


10%�Contingency 15000Rounded�Total 190,000

IB Install�12"�Waterline�in�Hwy�91�from�400�W�to�Earl�RdItem Description Quantity Unit Unit�Cost Total

1 12"�C900�PVC 840 lf 30 252002 Asphalt�Patch 8400 sf 4 336003 Valves 2 ea 2400 48004 Services 0 ea 400 05 Fittings 2 ea 2000 40006 Connections 2 ea 2000 4000


10%�Contingency 7160Rounded�Total 90,000

IIB Upsize�Outflow�Pipeline�from�8"�to�16"�in�Taviawk�Dr�(450�N�to�Tank)Item Description Quantity Unit Unit�Cost Total

1 Mobilization�5% 1 LS 20000 200002 Install�16"�Transmission�w�Asphalt�Replacement 3630 LF 105 381150

Subtotal 401,15015%�Engineering 60,173

20%�Contingency 80,230Rounded�Total 540,000

IIB Upsize�Outflow�Pipeline�from�8"�to�12"�in�400�W�(450�N�to�300�N)Item Description Quantity Unit Unit�Cost Total




IIB Upsize�main�line�from�8"�to�12"�in�400�W�(200�N�to�Center�St)Item Description Quantity Unit Unit�Cost Total




IVA 450�North�(400�W�to�550�W)�12"�PipeItem Description Quantity Unit Unit�Cost Total

1 Cost�to�Upsize�8"�to�12" 986 LF 13 12818

IIIA Install�Pumping�Station�at�200�WItem Description Quantity Unit Unit�Cost Total

1 Mobilization 1 LS 5000 50002 3�Phase�Power�Supply 1 LS 10000 100003 Piping�and�Valving 1 LS 20000 200004 Concrete�Vault/Hatch/Vent/Sump 1 LS 25000 250004 20�hp�Pump 2 EA 20000 400005 Pump�Control�Equipment 1 LS 15000 150006 Telemetry 1 LS 5000 50007 Lighting 1 LS 5000 5000



IIIB Upsize�Pumping�Station�at�400�WItem Description Quantity Unit Unit�Cost Total

1 15�hp�Pump 1 EA 20000 200002 Pump�Control 1 LS 10000 100003 Piping 1 LS 5000 50004 Telemetry 1 LS 5000 50005 Electrical 1 LS 5000 5000



IIIC Pumping�Station�Transmission�Line�from�Ivins�ReservoirItem Description Quantity Unit Unit�Cost Total

1 Mobilization 1 LS 50000 500002 3�Phase�Power�Supply 1 LS 20000 200003 Piping�and�Valving 1 LS 50000 500004 Pump�Housing 1 LS 75000 750004 75�hp�Pump 3 EA 30000 900005 Pump�Control�Equipment 1 LS 25000 250006 Telemetry 1 LS 5000 50007 Lighting 1 LS 10000 100008 12"�Pump�Line 13630 LF 50 681500

Subtotal 1,006,50015%�Engineering 150,975

20%�Contingency 201,300Rounded�Total 1,360,000

Demolish�1MG�and�2MG�Tanks�Install�one�4MG�TankItem Description Quantity Unit Unit�Cost Total

1 10%�Mobilization 1 ls 300,000 300,0002 Demolish�2MG�Tank 1 ls 150,000 150,0003 Sell�Scrap�Metal�2MG 482,066 lbs �0.125 �60,2584 Demolish�1MG�Tank 1 ls 75,000 75,0005 Sell�Scrap�Metal�1MG 247,873 lbs �0.125 �30,9846 4MG�Concrete�Tank�(Circular) 1 ls 2,000,000 2,000,0006 Earthwork 1 ls 300,000 300,0007 Piping�Configuration 1 ls 150,000 150,0008 Telemetry 1 ls 50,000 50,000



Demolish�1MG�and�install�one�2MG�TankItem Description Quantity Unit Unit�Cost Total

1 10%�Mobilization 1 ls 150,000 150,0004 Demolish�1MG�Tank 1 ls 75,000 75,0005 Sell�Scrap�Metal�1MG 247,873 lbs �0.125 �30,9846 2�MG�Concrete�Tank�(Circular) 1 ls 1,200,000 1,200,0006 Earthwork 1 ls 150,000 150,0007 Piping�Configuration 1 ls 100,000 100,0008 Telemetry 1 ls 50,000 50,000



Install�one�1MG�Tank�(Keep�Existing)Item Description Quantity Unit Unit�Cost Total

1 10%�Mobilization 1 ls 110,000 110,0006 1�MG�Concrete�Tank�(Circular) 1 ls 750,000 750,0006 Earthwork 1 ls 100,000 100,0007 Piping�Configuration 1 ls 100,000 100,0008 Telemetry 1 ls 50,000 50,0009 Property�Purchase 1 ls 400,000 400,000



A P P E N D I X F : I M P A C T F E E A N A L Y S I S

IVINS CITY

CULINARY WATER

IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS

September 2013

CULINARY WATER IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS

FOR

IVINS CITY

WASHINGTON COUNTY UTAH

September 2013

Submitted by:

Alan W. Rae

Director of Finance Ivins City

Ivins City Culinary Water Impact Fee Analysis Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1

PROJECT COSTS AND FINANCING ................................................................................................................................................................. 1

CULINARY WATER DEMAND UNIT................................................................................................................................................................ 1

WATER SOURCE IMPACT FEE –WASHINGTON COUNTY WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT ......................................................................... 2

FIGURE 1: PROPOSED CULINARY WATER IMPACT FEE PER ERU .................................................................................................................. 2

RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEES .................................................................................................................................... 2

FIGURE 2: RECOMMENDED CULINARY WATER IMPACT FEES FOR CONNECTIONS WITH SECONDARY WATER ........................................... 3

FIGURE 3: RECOMMENDED CULINARY WATER IMPACT FEES FOR CONNECTIONS WITHOUT SECONDARY WATER ................................... 3

NON-STANDARD WATER USE ADJUSTMENTS ............................................................................................................................................. 3

FIGURE 4: IMPACT FEES FOR NON-STANDARD WATER USE CHARACTARISTICS ......................................................................................... 4

CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW OF IMPACT FEES .................................................................................................................................................................. 5

IMPACT FEES AS A SOURCE OF REVENUE .................................................................................................................................................... 5

REQUIRED ELEMENTS FOR THE ADOPTION OF IMPACT FEES ...................................................................................................................... 6

(1) CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN AND PROJECT REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................................. 6

(2) WRITTEN IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................................................... 6

(3) PROPORTIONATE SHARE ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................................... 6

(4) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................................................... 6

(5) IMPACT FEE ENACTMENT .................................................................................................................................................................. 6

IMPACT FEE NOTICING AND ADOPTION REQUIREMENTS – 11-36a-503 & 11-36a-504 .............................................................................. 7

ACCOUNTING FOR, EXPENDITURE OF, AND REFUND OF IMPACT FEES....................................................................................................... 7

(1) ACCOUNTING FOR IMPACT FEES – 11-36a-601 ................................................................................................................................. 7

(2) EXPENDITURE OF IMPACT FEES – 11-36a-602 .................................................................................................................................. 8

(3) REFUNDS OF IMPACT FEES – 11-36a-603 .......................................................................................................................................... 8

IMPACT FEE CHALLENGE – 11-36a-701 ....................................................................................................................................................... 8

CHAPTER 2 FUTURE IMPACT FROM GROWTH UPON CULINARY WATER SYSTEM .................................................................................... 9

PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH ............................................................................................................................................................. 9

FIGURE 2.1: PROJECTED GROWTH IN POPULATION ............................................................................................................................... 10

GROWTH IN CULINARY WATER DEMAND UNITS ....................................................................................................................................... 10

FIGURE 2.2: PROJECTED GROWTH IN ERUs ............................................................................................................................................ 10

CHAPTER 3 CAPITAL PROJECT COSTS AND PROPOSED DEBT ......................................................................................................................... 11

FUTURE CAPITAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COSTS ............................................................................................................................ 11

FUTURE SYSTEM PROJECT COSTS ............................................................................................................................................................ 11

FIGURE 3.1: CAPITAL PROJECT COSTS TO BE FUNDED THROUGH IMPACT FEES ..................................................................................... 12

FUTURE CAPITAL FINANCING COSTS ......................................................................................................................................................... 12

DEBT FINANCING .................................................................................................................................................................................... 12

FIGURE 3.2: PROPOSED FINANCINGS .................................................................................................................................................... 13

IMPACT FEE ANLYSIS UPDATE ................................................................................................................................................................. 13

FIGURE 3.3: IMPACT FEE ANNUAL UPDATES ......................................................................................................................................... 13

WATER SOURCE IMPACT FEE – WASHINGTON COUNTY WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT .................................................................... 13

FIGURE 3.4: CALCULATION OF PROPOSED CULINARY WATER IMPACT FEE ........................................................................................... 14

RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEES............................................................................................................................... 14

FIGURE 3.5: RECOMMENDED CULINARY WATER IMPACT FEES FOR CONNECTIONS WITH SECONDARY WATER .................................. 14

FIGURE 3.6: RECOMMENDED CULINARY WATER IMPACT FEES FOR CONNECTIONS WITHOUT SECONDARY WATER ........................... 15

NON-STANDARD WATER USE ADJUSTMENTS ......................................................................................................................................... 15

FIGURE 3.7: IMPACT FEES FOR NON-STANDARD WATER USE CHARACTARISTICS ................................................................................. 15

Ivins City Culinary Water Impact Fee Analysis Table of Contents

CHAPTER 4 PROPORTIONATE SHARE ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................................. 16

MANNER OF FINANCING EXISTING PUBLIC FACILITIES – 201(5)(B)(ii-iii).................................................................................................... 16

CONSIDERATION OF ALL REVENUE SOURCES – 201(5)(B)(iv) ..................................................................................................................... 16

PROPOSED CREDITS OWED TO DEVELOPMENT – 201(5)(B)(v) ................................................................................................................. 18

SUMMARY OF TIME PRICE DIFFERENTIAL – 201(5)(B)(vii)......................................................................................................................... 18

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY OF IMPACT FEE SUB-FUND CASH FLOWS ................................................................................................................... 19

IMPACT FEE REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CASH FLOWS .............................................................................................................................. 19

FIGURE 5.1: PROJECTED ANNUAL ENDING CULINARY WATER IMPACT FEE SUB-FUND BALANCES ........................................................ 20

FIGURE 5.2: PROJECTED ANNUAL ENDING CULINARY WATER IMPACT FEE BALANCES .......................................................................... 21

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 22

FIGURE 6.1: CULINARY WATER IMPACT FEE WITH RECOMMENDED FINANCING .................................................................................. 22

FIGURE 6.2: RECOMMENDED CULINARY WATER IMPACT FEES FOR CONNECTIONS WITH SECONDARY WATER ................................... 22

FIGURE 6.3: RECOMMENDED CULINARY WATER IMPACT FEES FOR CONNECTIONS WITHOUT SECONDARY WATER ............................ 23

FIGURE 6.4: IMPACT FEES FOR NON-STANDARD WATER USE CHARACTARISTICS .................................................................................. 23

ENCLOSURE A: IMPACT FEE CASH FLOWS .............................................................................................................................................................. 25

Ivins City Culinary Water Impact Fee Analysis September 2013

1

Executive Summary

Ivins City, Washington County, Utah (the “City”) recently completed the Culinary Water Impact Fee

Facilities Plan (“IFFP”) which was prepared by the City Engineer. The IFFP requires the City to project

future culinary water demands and consider the most appropriate method to finance growth-related

culinary water infrastructure. In order to ensure sufficient and proper funding, the City has completed

an analysis of the total cost of infrastructure needs and the portion of those needs that are growth

related. The goal is to determine what portion of infrastructure must be financed through growth

related impact fees and which portion must be financed by all users.

The recommended impact fee structure presented in the analysis has been prepared to satisfy Utah

State Code Title 11, Chapter 36a, Sections 1-7 and represents the maximum impact fee that the City

may assess. The City will be required to use other revenue sources to fund projects identified in the

IFFP that constitute repair and replacement, cure any existing deficiencies, or maintain the existing

level of service for current users.

The proposed impact fees will be assessed throughout the current City boundaries referred to as the

City-Wide Service Area (Service Area) as defined in Appendix A; Culinary Water Impact Fee Service

Area. The Service Area does not include areas that are proposed to be annexed in the future.

Project Costs and Financing

The proposed impact fees are comprised of the costs of future culinary water capital projects,

professional expenses pertaining to regular updates of the CFP and impact fee analysis, and the

principal and interest payments of one future bond issue which will finance the costs of certain

scheduled growth driven projects.

Bond financing is a typical approach to funding capital projects that are needed before enough cash to

pay for the project is accumulated. The remaining costs will be funded on a pay-as-you-go basis using

either impact fee revenues or inter-fund loans that will be repaid through impact fees once collections

are sufficient. Future impact fee cash flows are projected based upon the annual schedule of capital

and professional expenses and upon projected volume of future culinary water demand, measured in

Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs), that the City’s future residents will require from the culinary

water system.

Culinary Water Demand Unit -- The unit of measure used for culinary water improvements is an ERU.

State standards designate 400 gallons per ERU for indoor use and 4,964 gallons per irrigated acre. The


2

Ivins City IFFP assumes 0.14 irrigated acres per ERU. Using this assumption, outdoor use would be 794

gallons per ERU. As shown in Figure 1, the total costs that are included in the culinary water impact

fees are spread over the future culinary water usage, expressed in ERUs, which will be required from

the City’s culinary water system as a result of development.

Water Source Impact Fee – Washington County Water Conservancy District

The impact fees calculated in this analysis are for the City’s water distribution and storage system and

do not include the costs of water source. Water source will be provided to users upon payment of a

separate impact fee directly to Washington County Water Conservancy District (WCWCD). The water

source impact fee to be paid to WCWCD is calculated by WCWCD staff and is entirely separate from

any fee or charge assessed by Ivins City. The City has no responsibility for the fees assessed by

WCWCD.

Figure 1: Proposed Culinary Water Impact Fee Per ERU

Culinary Water Projects Total Costs

% Related to

Growth

Growth Related

Costs

Growth Related

ERU Cost per ERU

Total Capital Projects Fee

Future Culinary Water Projects 5,100,000.00 99.17% 5,057,500.00 5264 960.77

Series 2028 Debt Service 4,746,000.00 100.00% 4,746,000.00 5264 901.60

Series 2028 Bond Proceeds (2,400,000.00) 100.00% (2,400,000.00) 5264 (455.93)

Total Capital Projects Fee 7,446,000.00 7,403,500.00 1,406

Miscellaneous Fee

Impact Fee Analysis Update 378,116.55 100.00% 378,116.55 5264 71.83

Stabilization Fee/(Credit) (2,063,799.00) 100.00% (2,063,799.00) 5264 (392.06)

Miscellaneous Fee (1,685,682.45) (1,685,682.45) (320.23)

Totals 5,760,317.55$ 5,717,817.55$ 1,086.21$

Total Impact Fee per ERU 1,086.21$

Residential and Non-Residential Impact Fees

All residential and non-residential zoning categories with the exception of multi-unit housing will be

assessed impact fees according to meter size using the standards shown in Figure 2. Based on

American Water Works Association (AWWA) flow guidelines, the estimated demand that can be taken

through a particular size meter is converted to a number of equivalent ERUs. The impact fee is

assessed based on the demand and cost per ERU which is then applied to the equivalent ERUs per

meter size to calculate the end impact fee per ERU.

Multi-unit residential will be assessed on a per unit basis to ensure that sufficient fees are collected to

account for the typical indoor demands for each dwelling unit. As an example, an apartment complex

of 30 units will be assessed a fee per unit for all indoor demand. Outdoor irrigation will be covered

through a separate irrigation meter which will be assessed an impact fee according to its size.


3

Figure 2: Recommended Culinary Water Impact Fees For Connections With Secondary Water

Meter

Size Class Equivalent Units

Culinary Cost

Per ERU

Impact Fee With

Secondary Water

3/4" Displacement 0.46 1,086.21$ 499.66$

1 Displacement 0.74 1,086.21 803.80

1 1/2 Displacement 0.92 1,086.21 999.31

2 Displacement 1.84 1,086.21 1,998.63

Multi-Unit Residential (Per Unit) 0.46 1,086.21 499.66

* Meters of 3" or larger will be independently assessed and calculated according to the

non-standard use formula included in the impact fee resolution.

Figure 3: Recommended Culinary Water Impact Fees For Connections Without Secondary Water

Meter


Culinary Cost

Per ERU

Impact Fee Without

Secondary Water

3/4" Displacement 1.00 1,086.21$ 1,086.21$

1 Displacement 1.60 1,086.21 1,737.94

1 1/2 Displacement 2.00 1,086.21 2,172.42

2 Displacement 4.00 1,086.21 4,344.84




Non-Standard Water Use Adjustments

The City reserves the right under the Impact Fees Act (Utah Code 11-36a-402 to assess an adjusted fee

to respond to unusual circumstances to ensure that the impact fees are equitably assessed. The City

may also decrease the impact fee if the developer can provide documentation that the proposed

impact will be less than normal (Utah Code 11-36a-402.

The following table shows the impact fees for non-standard users based upon a cost per ERU. These

costs may be used to calculate impact fees for users which create a greater or lesser than normal

impact upon the City’s culinary water system.


4

Figure 4: Impact Fees For Non-Standard Water Use Characteristics

Impact Fee per

ERU

Gallons per

ERU

Fee Per 1,000

Gallons

All Land Uses 1,086.21$ 315,969 3.44$

* Impact fee calculation is based on ERU which is equated to .96 Af of annual use. The

projected water demand of a user should be divided by .96 Af or gallons to determine the

number of ERUs for a non-standard user.


1 631 P. 2d 899, 903-4 (Utah 1981.)

5

Chapter 1

Overview of Impact Fees

Impact fees are a controversial and contentious issue that has until 1997, been largely unregulated for

municipalities and special service districts. The current legislation regarding the implementation of

impact fees is set forth in the Impact Fees Act found in Utah State Code Title 11, Chapter 36a, Section

1-7. Most states have some form of impact fee or development fee to fund growth. The legislation

allows Ivins City and other local governments to impose equitable and fair impact fees upon new

development. The goal is to determine the costs associated with new development versus repair and

replacement such that the existing customers are not burdened with the additional costs of growth

related development.

The Impact Fees Act has been shaped and molded over time by various court cases that have

established precedents that have been incorporated into the latest changes in the Impact Fees Act.

Of all the court cases, Banberry Development Corp vs South Jordan City1 has likely been the most

influential. This case establishes the requirement of the proportionate share tests and identification

of a rational nexus between fees and project costs and capacities.

Impact fees serve three main purposes: (1) proportionally allocate the costs of future projects to the

new development that they will be constructed to serve, (2) allow new customers to purchase equity

in the existing system capacity, and (3) perpetuate the historic level of service paid to growth-related

facilities.

Impact Fees As A Source Of Revenue

An impact fee is distinctly different from a tax, special assessment, building permit fee, hook-up fee,

and other reasonable permit or application fee such as a conditional use or subdivision application

fee.

Cities generally cannot pay for all necessary improvements using only revenues generated by property

taxes, user fees or other sources of revenue. The situation raises the question of whether current

residents should be required to pay for new capital facilities serving new growth. Although the

growth of industry and residences within the City is a positive occurrence as a whole, since it

ultimately leads to increased user fee and property tax revenues, the incoming entities, not existing

residents must be responsible for improvements that add capacity.


2 11-36a-301

3 11-36a-303

4 11-36a-304

5 11-36a-303

6 11-36a-401

6

Required Elements For the Adoption of Impact Fees

Local governments must pay strict attention to the requirements of the Impact Fees Act regarding the

enactment and assessment of impact fees. The following five documents must be prepared before

the City can legally commence public notice and adopt the proposed impact fees.

(1) Impact Fee Facilities Plan and Project Requirements

The City must prepare an IFFP which may be part of the general plan or may be a separate document.

The IFFP identifies the demands that will be placed upon the current and existing facilities by new

development and the means that will be used to meet that need.2 Ivins City meets this requirement

with the Culinary Water Capital Facilities Plan prepared by Chuck Gillette the City engineer.

(2) Written Impact Fee Analysis

The written impact fee analysis, required by the Impact Fees Act, identifies the anticipated impact on

system improvements required by anticipated development including the estimated proportionate

share of the costs of existing facilities that will be recouped and the cost of impacts on system

improvements that are reasonably related to new development. The written impact fee analysis must

identify “whether or not the proportionate share of costs of public facilities is reasonably related to

new development activities.”3

(3) Proportionate Share Analysis

The Impact Fee Act requires that the written analysis include a Proportionate Share Analysis which is

intended to equitably divide the capacity and costs of each project identified in the CFP between

future and existing users relative to the benefit each group will receive from the project. The

Proportionate Share Analysis is included in Chapter 4 of this analysis to satisfy the requirement.4

(4) Summary

The Impact Fee Act requires that a Summary of the impact fee analysis be prepared that clearly and

concisely provides a brief overview of the proposed impact fee structure and methodology and cost

basis used to calculate the maximum allowable impact fees.5 This requirement has been met and is

included in the beginning of this analysis.

(5) Impact Fee Enactment

The impact fee enactment, referred to as the Ordinance in this analysis, must be adopted by the City

Council to enact the proposed fees. The Ordinance may not impose a fee higher than the maximum

legal fee defined in the written analysis.6


7

Impact Fee Noticing and Adoption Requirements – 11-36a Part 5

Adoption of the impact fee must be accomplished by City Ordinance. This ordinance must include the

following elements enumerated in Utah State Code Title 11, Chapter 36a, Parts 1-7:

A provision establishing one or more service areas;

A schedule of impact fees for each type of system improvement that shows the formula by

which the impact fee was derived;

Provisions that will allow local government to adapt and modify impact fees to account for

changes and unusual circumstances to ensure that the impact fee is administered fairly; and

Provisions that will allow local government to adjust and modify impact fees if ensuing studies

or research determines that the amount should be different.

Notice of the public hearing must be published at least 10 days prior to the hearing in the local paper.

A copy of the proposed Impact Fee Ordinance along with the Impact Fee Facilities Plan, Impact Fee

Analysis, and a Summary must be made available to the public during the 10-day noticing period for

public review and inspection.

Copies of the four documents listed above must be posted in designated public places which include

the City offices and each public library within the City’s jurisdiction. Following the 10 day noticing

period, a public hearing may be held, at which point the City Council may adopt, amend and adopt, or

reject the Impact Fee Ordinance and proposed fees. Following the adoption Utah Code Section 10-3-

711-712 requires a summary of the Ordinance be published in the local newspaper and on the City

website for the Ordinance to become effective.

Accounting For, Expenditure Of, And Refund Of Impact Fees

Accounting for Impact Fees – 11-36a-601

The Impact Fee Act requires any entity imposing impact fees to establish an interest bearing ledger

account for each type of public facility for which an impact fee is collected. All impact fee receipts

must be deposited into the appropriate account. Any interest earned in each account must remain in

that account. At the end of each fiscal year, the City must prepare a report for each fund or account

showing the source and amount of all monies collected, earned and received by each account and all

expenditures made from each account.


8

Expenditure of Impact Fees – 11-36a-602

The City may only expend impact fees for system improvements identified in the IFFP7. All funds

collected must be spent or encumbered within six years of collection or the City must provide an

extraordinary or compelling reason why the fees must be held longer or an ultimate date by which the

impact fees collected will be expended. The improvements that are financed through impact fees

must be owned and operated by the City or another local public entity with which the City has

contracted or will contract for services and improvements that will be operated on the City’s behalf.

Refunds of Impact Fees – 11-36a-603

The City is required to refund any impact fees plus interest earned since their collection if 1) a

developer who has paid impact fees does not proceed with development activity and has filed a

written request for refund, 2) the fees have not been spent or encumbered within the six year period,

or 3) the new development which has paid impact fees has not created an impact upon the system.

Challenging Impact Fees -11-36a Part 7

The Impact Fee Act allows any person, entity, or property owner within the Service Area, to challenge

the accuracy of the calculated fee or procedure by which the fee was adopted10. Any person or entity

challenging the impact fee may file a written request for information including the written analysis,

IFFP, Ordinance and other information related to the fee calculation from the City. The information

must be provided within two weeks.

An individual has the right to challenge the noticing and procedures of enacting any impact fee

adopted on or after July 1, 2000. The City must repeat the process of noticing and adoption to

remedy any adoption procedure found to be faulty. If the fees are found to be inaccurate, the City

must revise the fee structure to remedy any miscalculation and repeat the adoption process. If the

fees are found to be incorrect and have already been collected, the City must refund the difference

between what was collected and what should have been collected plus interest earned since their

collection. The parties may settle any impact fee dispute through arbitration.


9

Chapter 2

FUTURE IMPACT FROM GROWTH UPON

CULINARY WATER SYSTEM Required By – (11-36-201 (5)(A)(I-II))

Ivins City is a scenic bedroom community situated adjacent to the mouth of Snow Canyon and is

located approximately 8 miles from St George City center. The population of Washington County has

grown quickly with the population nearly doubling in each of the decades from 1970 until 2000. The

last decade has seen a growth rate of about 50%. As the City continues to grow infrastructure must

be built to accommodate the future growth.

The City’s rapid growth is placing a very high demand on the City’s culinary water infrastructure which

must be upgraded to accommodate the new water demands. Ivins City has constructed a culinary

water system that includes distribution, storage, water supply and water source. Although the City

does have its own water sources they are fully utilized by existing users, new users will have to receive

water from WCWCD rather than the City. The impact fees calculated in this analysis are related to the

costs of constructing water distribution lines and storage facilities but do not include the costs of

water development. A separate water source impact fee must be paid directly to WCWCD. The

impact fees assessed by WCWCD are completely independent of the fees assessed by the City and the

City has no responsibility for the fees assessed by WCWCD.

Projected Population Growth

The IFFP looks at the Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget (GOPB) and the Dixie Area

Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) projection of population growth. The GOPB estimates are

the most aggressive and may be too aggressive. The MPO projections are more conservative and

seem to more closely resemble the growth determined by the census. Using the MPO projections,

build-out will occur in 2046 with a total population of 19,100.

The 2010 census determined the City population to be 6,753. Since population growth is impossible

to determine on a year by year basis over a long period of time we have used a straight line growth

pattern with projected build-out to be in 2046 at 19,100. This will assume that no year has greater or

lesser growth than another year.


10

Figure 2.1: Projected Growth in Population

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2046

Population Projected Population Buidout Population 19,100

Growth in Culinary Water Demand Units

The combined services provided by all recommended projects presented in the IFFP are assumed to

be sufficient to serve the City at full build-out. The City currently uses approximately 2,793 ERUs and,

based upon the City’s undeveloped land-use planning, the total ERUs that the City will be required to

account for at build-out will increase by 5,264. Therefore the City can expect to have about 8,053

ERU’s at build-out. The estimated growth in ERUs is shown in the following table.

Figure 2.2: Projected Growth in ERUs

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

2011 2046

Projected Ivins Municipal ERUs Projected KWU ERUs Total Ivins City ERUs


11

Chapter 3

CAPITAL PROJECTS COSTS AND PROPOSED DEBT

The Impact Fees Act allows for the inclusion of four cost components in the calculation of the impact

fees. These cost components are (1) the construction costs of growth-related improvements, (2)

appropriate professional services inflated from current dollars to construction year costs, (3) the

current depreciated replacement cost of projects with unused capacity that may still serve growth,

and (4) the future costs of issuance and interest related to future financing with bonds or inter-fund

loans to finance growth-related capital projects that cannot be cash funded. Impact fees can only

fund system projects which are defined as projects that contribute to the entire system’s capacity

rather than just to a very small localized area.

Project improvements are improvements that serve only a specific area of development rather than

the entire community. The costs of improvements and of projects that are required to fix existing

deficiencies are considered to be associated with the current or existing level of service and cannot be

funded through impact fees.

Future Capital and Professional Services Costs

Future System Project Costs

The costs of future capital projects are defined in the corresponding IFFP and are summarized in

Figure 3.1. The City currently estimates that approximately $5.1 million of future culinary water

projects in 2013 costs will be required to sufficiently serve the City through build-out. The City’s

water system is currently adequate and only needs minor improvements to fix deficiencies.

Of the $5.1 million in future improvements $5.057 million may be recovered through impact fees as

these projects add reserve capacity for future growth.


12

Figure 3.1: Capital Project Costs To Be Funded Through Impact Fees

Project

Construction

Year Cost

% Attributable

to Growth

Growth

Related Cost

Upsize Taviawk Pumping Station to 480 gpm Capacity 2013 60,000 100% 60,000

Upsize 6 " Waterline to 12" on 400 W from 400 S to Hwy 91 2013 190,000 100% 190,000

Install 12" Waterline on Hwy 91 from 400 W to Earl Road 2013 90,000 100% 90,000

Install Check Valves on 1MG & 2MG Tanks 2013 15,000 50% 7,500

Remove Check Valves at 50 N 200 E and Red Mountain Spa 2013 10,000 50% 5,000

Connect 14" to 12" @ 200W/300N 2013 20,000 100% 20,000

Add Water Storage to 3290 Zone 2018 2,300,000 100% 2,300,000

Upsize Outflow Pipeline from 8" to 16" to Taviawk Dr (450 N to tank) 2023 540,000 100% 540,000

Upsize Outflow Pipeline from 8" to 12" in 400 W (450 N to 300 N) 2023 70,000 100% 70,000

Upsize main line from 8" to 12" in 400 W (200 N to Center St) 2023 150,000 100% 150,000

Install pumping station at 200 W 2028 170,000 100% 170,000

Upgrade pumping station at 400 W 2028 60,000 50% 30,000

Pumping Station Transmission Line from Ivins Reservoir 2028 1,360,000 100% 1,360,000

Upgrade Tuacahn Pumping Station 2028 50,000 100% 50,000

450 N (400 W to 550 W) 12" Pipe 2034 15,000 100% 15,000

5,100,000$ 5,057,500$

Future Capital Financing Costs

Debt Financing

In the event the City has not amassed sufficient impact fees to pay for the construction of time

sensitive or urgent capital projects needed to accommodate new growth, the City must look to

revenue sources other than impact fees for funding. The Impact Fees Act allows for the costs related

to the financing of future capital projects, including costs of issuance and interest costs, to be legally

included in the impact fee. This allows the City to finance and quickly construct infrastructure for new

development and reimburse itself later from impact fee revenues for the costs of principal and

interest.

Future financings are intended to help the City maintain level and consistent annual growth-related

expenses and ensure that the impact fee sub-fund balances do not reach a deficit. This analysis

proposes the issuance of one future bond, the proposed Series 2028 Bonds, to fund a portion of the

culinary water improvements shown in figure 3.1. Figure 3.2 summarizes this bond issue. The City

may also consider using inter-fund loans to fund it capital improvements.


13

Figure 3.2: Proposed Financings

Bond Issue Par Value Proceeds Debt Service

Series 2028 Bond 2,700,000$ 2,400,000$ 4,746,000$

Totals: 2,700,000$ 2,400,000$ 4,746,000$

Impact Fee Analysis Updates

As development occurs and capital project planning is periodically revised, the future lists of capital

projects and their costs may be different than the information utilized in this analysis. For this reason,

it is assumed that the City will perform updates to the analysis every three years. The cost of

preparing this analysis and the future costs of updating this analysis have been included in the impact

fee calculations. As shown in Figure 3.3, the costs of updating this analysis are based upon a current

year cost of $25,000 per update plus a 3% annual inflationary increase.

Figure 3.3: Impact Fee Annual Updates

Year

Update

Expense Year

Update

Expense

2013 (25,000.00) 2030

2014 2031

2015 2032

2016 2033 (45,152.78)

2017 (28,137.72) 2034

2018 2035

2019 2036

2020 2037 (50,819.85)

2021 (31,669.25) 2038

2022 2039

2023 2040

2024 2041 (57,198.19)

2025 (35,644.02) 2042

2026 2043

2027 2044

2028 2045 (64,377.07)

2029 (40,117.66) 2046

(378,116.55)

Water Source Impact Fee – Washington County Water Conservancy District

The impact fees calculated in this analysis are for the City’s water distribution and storage system and

do not include the costs of water source. Water source will be provided to users upon payment of a

separate impact fee directly to Washington County Water Conservancy District (WCWCD). The water

source impact fee to be paid to WCWCD is calculated by WCWCD staff and is entirely separate from


14

any fee or charge assessed by Ivins City. The City has no responsibility for the fees assessed by

WCWCD.

Figure 3.4: Calculation of Proposed Culinary Water Impact Fee


% Related to

Growth

Growth Related

Costs

Growth Related

ERU Cost per ERU






Miscellaneous Fee




Totals 5,760,317.55$ 5,717,817.55$ 1,086.21$


Residential and Non-Residential Impact Fees

All residential and non-residential zoning categories, with the exception of multi-unit housing, will be

assessed impact fees according to meter size using the standard shown in Figure 3.5. Based upon

American Water Works Association (AWWA) flow guidelines, the estimated demand that can be taken

through a particular size of meter is converted to a number of equivalent ERUs. The impact fee is

assessed based on the demand and cost per ERU which is then applied to the equivalent ERUs per

meter size to calculate the end impact fee per ERU.

Multi-unit residential will be assessed on a per unit basis to ensure that sufficient fees are collected to

account for the typical indoor demands for each dwelling unit. Outdoor irrigation will be covered

through a separate irrigation meter which will be assessed an impact fee according to size.

Figure 3.5: Recommended Culinary Water Impact Fees For Connections with Secondary Water

Meter


Culinary Cost

Per ERU

Impact Fee With

Secondary Water

3/4" Displacement 0.46 1,086.21$ 499.66$

1 Displacement 0.74 1,086.21 803.80

1 1/2 Displacement 0.92 1,086.21 999.31

2 Displacement 1.84 1,086.21 1,998.63





15

Figure 3.6: Recommended Culinary Water Impact Fees For Connections without Secondary Water

Meter


Culinary Cost

Per ERU

Impact Fee Without

Secondary Water

3/4" Displacement 1.00 1,086.21$ 1,086.21$

1 Displacement 1.60 1,086.21 1,737.94

1 1/2 Displacement 2.00 1,086.21 2,172.42

2 Displacement 4.00 1,086.21 4,344.84




Non-Standard Water Use Adjustments

The City reserves the right under Impact Fees Act to assess an adjusted fee to respond to unusual

circumstances to ensure that the impact fees are equitably assessed. The City may also decrease the

impact fee if the developer can provide documentation that the proposed impact will be less than

normal.

The following table shows the impact fees for non-standard users based upon the cost per ERU.

These costs may be used to calculate impact fees for users which create a greater or lesser than

normal impact upon the City’s culinary water system.

Figure 3.7: Impact Fees For Non-Standard Water Use Characteristics

Impact Fee per

ERU

Gallons per

ERU

Fee Per 1,000

Gallons

All Land Uses 1,086.21$ 315,969 3.44$




Current City policy states that impact fees are waived for all City-owned facilities. Therefore, the City

will not be able to assess an impact fee for all future culinary water that the City requires. The Impact

Fees Act also includes provisions that will allow the City to include an impact fee exemption on other

developments with a broad public purpose (Utah Code Section 11-36a-403(1)). The infrastructure

costs related to these land uses will be borne by user fees or other revenue sources.


11 631 P. 2d 899, 903-4 (Utah, 1981.)

12 683 P. 2d 561, 565 (Utah 1999.)

16

Chapter 4

PROPORTIONATE SHARE ANALYSIS

The Proportionate Share Analysis requirement was initially established by the case of Banberry

Development Corp. v. South Jordan City11 (“Banberry”) to ensure that the City did not collect impact

fees that placed an inequitable burden on new development relative to the impact the development

would place upon the system. Banberry set the precedent that a municipality must “reasonably”

provide evidence that supports the imposition of impact fees.

The Utah Supreme Court has reinforced this philosophy through subsequent cases including The

Home Builders Association of the State of Utah v. City of North Logan.12 It was determined that a city

must have “sufficient flexibility to deal realistically with issues that do not admit any kind of precise

mathematical equality”. Indeed, the Court stated that such equality is “neither feasible nor

constitutionally vital”.

It has been shown that a city must prepare the written and Proportionate Share Analysis as accurately

as possible and within the confines of the law. If such requirement is met, the burden of proof that

the impact fees are inequitable lies with the challenger and not with the City to prove that the fees

are equitable.

Manner Of Financing Existing Public Facilities

Ivins City has funded existing culinary water infrastructure through a combination of different revenue

sources including property taxes, General Fund revenues and Utility user fees. Federal Grants have

not been received by the City to fund culinary water improvements, so it is clear the level of service

that currently exists has been funded by the existing residents through user fees and taxes.

Consideration Of All Revenue Sources

The Impact Fee Act requires the Proportionate Share Analysis to demonstrate that impact fees paid by

new development are the most equitable method of funding growth-related infrastructure. This may

be demonstrated in the IFFP by showing that project costs included in the impact fees are growth-

related and serve no users other than future users who have not yet come into the City.


17

The City’s objective is to fairly and equitably recover the costs of new growth-related infrastructure

from new development. This implies that new growth will be expected to pay its fair share of the

costs that will be incurred for improvements that serve new growth. In accordance with this

philosophy, the following explains the pros and cons of the funding mechanisms that are available to

the City to pay for new infrastructure.

Property Tax Revenues or General Fund Revenues

Ad valorem taxes such as property taxes are a stable source of revenues. However, ad

valorem taxes allocate new system costs to existing users and new development based on

property valuation rather than on true impact. Additionally, the cost of new infrastructure

would be borne by existing users who have already contributed to the existing infrastructure

through their property taxes and fees. This would place an unfair burden on existing users

who have already paid for existing infrastructure and then would continue to subsidize growth.

User Fees

Like property tax and General Fund revenues, user fees require existing users to subsidize new

growth since existing users have already contributed to infrastructure.

Special Assessment Areas (SAA)

SAA bonds are an acceptable mechanism to recover the costs of growth-related infrastructure

from new users by means of placing an assessment upon the user’s land. SAA bonds are a

stable funding mechanism but have several limitations. The assessments are typically based

on lot size, frontage or some other function of the property dimensions rather than the actual

impact. SAA bonds require a large amount of work to structure and administer, thus adding to

the City’s costs to new development. The City cannot impose an SAA without the property

owner’s approval making it a tenuous funding source.

Impact Fees

Impact fees have become an ideal mechanism for funding growth related infrastructure.

Analysis is required to accurately assess the true impact of a particular user upon the City

infrastructure and the ability to prevent existing users from having to subsidize new growth.

It is the opinion of this analysis that given the historic methods of funding existing infrastructure and

the intent of the City to equitably allocate the costs of growth-related infrastructure in accordance

with the true impact that a user will place on the culinary water system, impact fees should be used to

fund all growth-related infrastructure planned by the City.


18

Proposed Credits Owed to Development

The Impact Fees Act requires that credits be paid back to development for future fees that may be

paid to fund system improvements found in the CFP. Credits may also be paid back to developers

who have constructed or directly funded items that are included in the CFP or donated to the City in-

lieu of impact fees. This situation does not apply to developer exactions or improvements required to

offset density or as a condition for development. Any item that a developer funds must be included in

the CFP if a credit is to be issued.

The credits are applicable only in situations where the City has specifically included a dedicated fee in

culinary water or other utility rates to pay for the new growth-related improvements or specific

property tax levy to fund a particular General Obligation bond that has been issued to fund growth-

related improvements. If a capital improvement fee is included in the user fee component but does

not specifically detail that these funds are used for revenue bonds, credits do not apply since those

revenues will be sent to a capital improvement fun which can pay for repairs and replacement of

existing infrastructure.

If a specific property tax line item is not dedicated to bond issues and the debt service on the bonds is

paid through excess general fund revenues, a credit will not apply as property taxes since credits are

not the only source of revenue to the General Fund.

In the situation that a developer chooses to construct facilities found in the CFP in-lieu of impact fees,

an appropriate arrangement must be made between the developer and the City. Such arrangements

are not contemplated in this analysis.

Summary of Time Price Differential

The Impact Fees Act allows for the inclusion of a time price differential to ensure that the future value

of costs incurred at a later date are accurately calculated to include the costs of construction inflation.

An inflation component is included in all capital project costs that are constructed in Fiscal Year 2013

and beyond. A time price differential is not contemplated for the cost of bond debt service that are

included in the impact fees as the payments do not increase over time with inflation.

Because all improvements have been adjusted for inflation, it is not equitable for new development

paying impact fees in the future to be charged an impact fee that is higher than a fee paid today.

There is no correlation between an inflation adjusted cost in products and an inflated impact fee.


19

Chapter 5

SUMMARY OF IMPACT FEE SUB-FUND CASH FLOWS

Impact Fee Revenues, Expenses and Cash Flows

As described in Chapter 1, each entity that charges impact fees must create an interest bearing impact

fee sub-fund for each utility that collects impact fees, and each entity must account for and report the

revenues, expenses and interest earnings therein.

The intent of the impact fees is not to generate profit for the City. Therefore, the gross revenues,

including all interest earnings, minus gross expenditures should equal zero at build-out. The Impact

Fees Act requires that each sub-fund be interest bearing, but the Impact Fees Act does not specify

whether impact fee payers should be credited for any interest earnings that may accrue. Most

communities that impose impact fees establish accounts in the Utah Public Treasurer’s Investment

Fund (“UPTIF”) for their sub-funds. The estimated interest earnings for each sub-fund used in this

analysis are based upon historical yields. The impact fees proposed in this analysis have been

calculated net of interest earnings to insure that each impact fee sub-fund has a zero balance upon

build-out.

The object of the culinary water impact fee fund is to maintain a positive balance which can be

achieved with debt financing or inter-fund loans described in Chapter 3 or by deferring projects until

sufficient funds are amassed. The proposed timings and amounts of debt issued shown in this

analysis are based on the projected growth rates of culinary water demand, measured by ERUs, as

described in Chapter 2 of this analysis. The actual rates of growth may vary significantly from the

projections presented in this analysis. Changes in growth projections may affect the impact fees

through changes in the timings of project construction, the years that the bonds will be issued, and

the need for bonds.


20

Figure 5.1: Projected Annual Ending Culinary Water Impact Fee Sub-Fund

Fiscal

Year

Impact Fee

Revenue Expneses

Excess

(Shortfall)

Interest

Income

Annual Ending

Balance

2012 2,212,841

2013 - 397,500 (397,500) 10,892 1,826,233

2014 161,222 - 161,222 11,925 1,999,380

2015 161,222 - 161,222 12,964 2,173,565

2016 161,222 - 161,222 14,009 2,348,795

2017 161,222 28,138 133,084 14,891 2,496,771

2018 161,222 2,300,000 (2,138,778) 2,148 360,140

2019 161,222 - 161,222 3,128 524,490

2020 161,222 - 161,222 4,114 689,826

2021 161,222 31,669 129,552 4,916 824,295

2022 161,222 - 161,222 5,913 991,430

2023 161,222 760,000 (598,778) 2,356 395,008

2024 161,222 - 161,222 3,337 559,567

2025 161,222 35,644 125,578 4,111 689,255

2026 161,222 - 161,222 5,103 855,580

2027 161,222 - 161,222 6,101 1,022,902

2028 161,222 (790,000) 951,222 11,845 1,985,969

2029 161,222 277,418 (116,196) 11,219 1,880,992

2030 161,222 237,300 (76,078) 10,829 1,815,743

2031 161,222 237,300 (76,078) 10,438 1,750,103

2032 161,222 237,300 (76,078) 10,044 1,684,068

2033 161,222 282,453 (121,231) 9,377 1,572,214

2034 161,222 252,300 (91,078) 8,887 1,490,023

2035 161,222 237,300 (76,078) 8,484 1,422,428

2036 161,222 237,300 (76,078) 8,078 1,354,428

2037 161,222 288,120 (126,898) 7,365 1,234,895

2038 161,222 237,300 (76,078) 6,953 1,165,770

2039 161,222 237,300 (76,078) 6,538 1,096,230

2040 161,222 237,300 (76,078) 6,121 1,026,273

2041 161,222 294,498 (133,276) 5,358 898,354

2042 161,222 237,300 (76,078) 4,934 827,209

2043 161,222 237,300 (76,078) 4,507 755,638

2044 161,222 237,300 (76,078) 4,077 683,637

2045 161,222 301,677 (140,455) 3,259 546,441

2046 161,222 237,300 (76,078) 2,822 473,185

2047 - 237,300 (237,300) 1,415 237,300

2048 - 237,300 (237,300) 0 0

5,320,318 7,384,117 (2,063,799)

Summary


21

Figure 5.2: Projected Annual Ending Culinary Water Impact Fee Balances

-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000 2

01

2

20

14

20

16

20

18

20

20

20

22

20

24

20

26

20

28

20

30

20

32

20

34

20

36

20

38

20

40

20

42

20

44

20

46

20

48


22

Chapter 6

CONCLUSION The proposed impact fees will be assessed throughout the City-Wide Impact Fee Service Area, which

includes the currently incorporated boundaries of Ivins City.

Figure 6.1: Culinary Water Impact Fee With Recommended Financing


% Related to

Growth

Growth Related

Costs

Growth Related

ERU Cost per ERU






Miscellaneous Fee




Totals 5,760,317.55$ 5,717,817.55$ 1,086.21$


Figure 6.2: Recommended Culinary Water Impact Fees For Connections With Secondary Water

Meter


Culinary Cost

Per ERU

Impact Fee With

Secondary Water

3/4" Displacement 0.46 1,086.21$ 499.66$

1 Displacement 0.74 1,086.21 803.80

1 1/2 Displacement 0.92 1,086.21 999.31

2 Displacement 1.84 1,086.21 1,998.63





23

Figure 6.3: Recommended Culinary Water Impact Fees For Connections Without Secondary Water

Meter


Culinary Cost

Per ERU

Impact Fee Without

Secondary Water

3/4" Displacement 1.00 1,086.21$ 1,086.21$

1 Displacement 1.60 1,086.21 1,737.94

1 1/2 Displacement 2.00 1,086.21 2,172.42

2 Displacement 4.00 1,086.21 4,344.84




The proposed fees are based upon general demand characteristics and potential culinary water

demand that can be created by both residential and non-residential land uses. The City reserves the

right under the Impact Fees Act to assess an adjusted fee to respond to unusual circumstances to

ensure that fees are equitably assessed. If the City determines that a user creates a greater than

normal impact upon the culinary water system, the City may require the user to pay a higher impact

fee. However, if a developer can provide documentation that a development will create a lesser than

normal impact, the City is required to adjust the impact fee based upon the actual impact. The impact

fee for non-standard land uses is shown in the table below.

Figure 6.4: Impact Fees For Non-Standard Water Use Characteristics

Impact Fee per

ERU

Gallons per

ERU

Fee Per 1,000

Gallons

All Land Uses 1,086.21$ 315,969 3.44$





24

ENCLOSURE A:

IMPACT FEE CASH FLOWS


25

Impact Fee Expenses

Year

Total

ERUs

ERUs

Added

Cost Per

ERU

Annual Impact

Fee Revenue

Capital

Projects

Impact Fee

Update

Proposed 2028

Bond

Impact Fee

Revenue Expneses

Excess

(Shortfall)

Interest

Income

Annual Ending

Balance

2012 2,212,841

2013 2,793.00 159.52 1,010.70 372,500 25,000.00 - 397,500 (397,500) 10,892 1,826,233

2014 2,952.52 159.52 1,010.70 161,221.74 161,222 - 161,222 11,925 1,999,380

2015 3,112.03 159.52 1,010.70 161,221.74 161,222 - 161,222 12,964 2,173,565

2016 3,271.55 159.52 1,010.70 161,221.74 161,222 - 161,222 14,009 2,348,795

2017 3,431.06 159.52 1,010.70 161,221.74 28,137.72 161,222 28,138 133,084 14,891 2,496,771

2018 3,590.58 159.52 1,010.70 161,221.74 2,300,000 161,222 2,300,000 (2,138,778) 2,148 360,140

2019 3,750.09 159.52 1,010.70 161,221.74 161,222 - 161,222 3,128 524,490

2020 3,909.61 159.52 1,010.70 161,221.74 161,222 - 161,222 4,114 689,826

2021 4,069.12 159.52 1,010.70 161,221.74 31,669.25 161,222 31,669 129,552 4,916 824,295

2022 4,228.64 159.52 1,010.70 161,221.74 161,222 - 161,222 5,913 991,430

2023 4,388.15 159.52 1,010.70 161,221.74 760,000 161,222 760,000 (598,778) 2,356 395,008

2024 4,547.67 159.52 1,010.70 161,221.74 161,222 - 161,222 3,337 559,567

2025 4,707.18 159.52 1,010.70 161,221.74 35,644.02 161,222 35,644 125,578 4,111 689,255

2026 4,866.70 159.52 1,010.70 161,221.74 161,222 - 161,222 5,103 855,580

2027 5,026.21 159.52 1,010.70 161,221.74 161,222 - 161,222 6,101 1,022,902

2028 5,185.73 159.52 1,010.70 161,221.74 1,610,000 (2,400,000) 161,222 (790,000) 951,222 11,845 1,985,969

2029 5,345.24 159.52 1,010.70 161,221.74 40,117.66 237,300 161,222 277,418 (116,196) 11,219 1,880,992

2030 5,504.76 159.52 1,010.70 161,221.74 237,300 161,222 237,300 (76,078) 10,829 1,815,743

2031 5,664.27 159.52 1,010.70 161,221.74 237,300 161,222 237,300 (76,078) 10,438 1,750,103

2032 5,823.79 159.52 1,010.70 161,221.74 237,300 161,222 237,300 (76,078) 10,044 1,684,068

2033 5,983.30 159.52 1,010.70 161,221.74 45,152.78 237,300 161,222 282,453 (121,231) 9,377 1,572,214

2034 6,142.82 159.52 1,010.70 161,221.74 15,000 237,300 161,222 252,300 (91,078) 8,887 1,490,023

2035 6,302.33 159.52 1,010.70 161,221.74 237,300 161,222 237,300 (76,078) 8,484 1,422,428

2036 6,461.85 159.52 1,010.70 161,221.74 237,300 161,222 237,300 (76,078) 8,078 1,354,428

2037 6,621.36 159.52 1,010.70 161,221.74 50,819.85 237,300 161,222 288,120 (126,898) 7,365 1,234,895

2038 6,780.88 159.52 1,010.70 161,221.74 237,300 161,222 237,300 (76,078) 6,953 1,165,770

2039 6,940.39 159.52 1,010.70 161,221.74 237,300 161,222 237,300 (76,078) 6,538 1,096,230

2040 7,099.91 159.52 1,010.70 161,221.74 237,300 161,222 237,300 (76,078) 6,121 1,026,273

2041 7,259.42 159.52 1,010.70 161,221.74 57,198.19 237,300 161,222 294,498 (133,276) 5,358 898,354

2042 7,418.94 159.52 1,010.70 161,221.74 237,300 161,222 237,300 (76,078) 4,934 827,209

2043 7,578.45 159.52 1,010.70 161,221.74 237,300 161,222 237,300 (76,078) 4,507 755,638

2044 7,737.97 159.52 1,010.70 161,221.74 237,300 161,222 237,300 (76,078) 4,077 683,637

2045 7,897.48 159.52 1,010.70 161,221.74 64,377.07 237,300 161,222 301,677 (140,455) 3,259 546,441

2046 8,057.00 159.52 1,010.70 161,221.74 237,300 161,222 237,300 (76,078) 2,822 473,185

2047 237,300 - 237,300 (237,300) 1,415 237,300

2048 237,300 - 237,300 (237,300) 0 0

5,264.00 5,320,317.55 4,685,000 353,116.54 2,346,000 5,320,318 7,384,117 (2,063,799)

Growth Projected to Buildout Impact Fee Revenue Summary

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

� � � � � �

ivins city culinary water master plan and impact …...culinary water needs of ivins city for the...

Documents