2020-098 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

WHEREAS, the public comment period on the draft CDWSP has been extended until December 10, 2020; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Lake Elmo, Minnesota that it provides the following comments on the draft CDWSP: 1. The City of Lake Elmo does not support the final CDWSP as it relates to the Lake Elmo water system. At the end of this process, a long-term safe and sustainable drinking water supply source has not been detennined for the City with any firm confidence. The lack of a defined safe and sustainable drinking water supply source keeps Lake Elmo in a state of uncertainty, which is impairing the City's ability to manage growth while building a viable, sustainable and efficient water supply system. a. The Woodbury interconnect has been presented to the City with the latest revision (1 lth hour). There was no previous analysis for this option throughout the plan development. It is being described as a "place holder" with little to no details for the city to review. This alternative remains incomplete, with incomplete cost infonnation. b. How does a "placeholder" of interconnecting to Woodbury allow the Lake Elmo staff and residents the opportunity to comment on what the actual solution will be prior to it being adopted by the Co -trustees? c. The Woodbury interconnect plan does not provide for or define a complete solution. There are no details regarding physical connections, redundancy plan, or distribution system changes and impacts to ensure a fully integrated and efficient water distribution system. A distribution system analysis needs to be completed by the City's consultant, to frilly understand additional distribution system impacts and improvements that may be required, and the associated additional costs for these improvements d. Cost estimates are not fully developed, cost estimate assumptions appear flawed, and overall the costs appear inadequate for the proposed solution: 1) no funds have been included for costs to purchase water from Woodbury; 2) no costs have been included for booster stations that may be needed to implement this option; and 3) additional distribution system improvements and the associated costs are yet to be detennined. To the extent that any current city infrastructure is rendered obsolete (i.e. $1.4 million booster station built in 2014) and is no longer used, the City should receive full compensation for the damages to the lost investment. e. Woodbury comments submitted to the State in October, 2020 indicate that they are not prepared to provide an interconnect with Lake Elmo until they are assured that they will be provided adequate appropriations for the proposed Lake Elmo Interconnect. The City of Woodbury is requesting approval of all required appropriations to supply Lake Elmo by interconnect before they will allow the construction of the interconnect. The delay this assurance may cause does not align with Lake Elmo's need to manage current growth and development. f. Both Lake Elmo and Woodbury will require a clear analysis and assessment of specific water rate impacts and administrative burdens, for each community to be assured that their respective water customers are not subsidizing the other community, now, or at any time in the future. This is a very difficult analysis when Lake Elmo will still be owning and maintaining a city-wide water system and will only need to purchase a "partial"