2016.04.18 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

diameter. Some of the future watermain locations from the cities' comprehensive plans were changed in order to accommodate connections between the cities. Initial construction of key interconnections would be needed as soon as a growing community needed access to an existing fully developed community's existing asset. The timing of the construction of the interconnections would need to be planned based on projected supply and storage need. Maintenance of the new interconnection would remain the responsibility of the community in which the interconnection exists. If an existing interconnection must be upsized to facilitate appropriate conveyance then a portion of the costs of the interconnection would be borne by the community in which the interconnection exists based on depreciated value of the existing watermain being upsized for the interconnection and the road above it if applicable. Beyond this, additional watermain and interconnections would be added as communities naturally developed. In some cases, when a specific interconnection is needed the Joint Utility could work with the member communities and their planners to create appropriate incentives for a given area where an interconnection is needed to develop first so that the needs of the Joint Utility as a whole could be met. Capital Costs for Option 2 —jointly owned supply, storage, treatment and distribution system The quantity and timeline of future infrastructure was estimated as described for Option 1. The only difference between Option 1 and Option 2 is ownership of the distribution system and sharing of all repair and replacement costs. Developers would provide the funds for additional watermain as the cities develop, but once the watermain is installed the Joint Utility, rather than the individual cities would retain ownership and associated costs of the distribution system. As in Option 1, initial construction of key interconnections would be needed as soon as a community needed access to another community's existing asset. The timing of the construction of the interconnections would need to be planned based on projected supply and storage need. In this case the costs of these interconnections would be shared by the Joint Utility as a whole rather than being split between the community needing access to the existing asset and the community in which the interconnection exists. Maintenance of the new interconnection would then be the responsibility of the Joint Utility. Beyond this, additional watermain and interconnections would again be added as communities naturally developed. As in Option 1, when a specific interconnection is needed the Joint Utility could work with the member communities and their planners to create appropriate incentives for a given area where an interconnection is needed to develop first so that the needs of the Joint Utility as a whole could be met. Capital Costs for Option 3 — individual development Costs for Option 3 were primarily developed using city comprehensive plans. Since these plans are slightly outdated, trigger charts were created using the most recent population projections and water use data. Where cities' capital improvement plans differed significantly from the trigger charts created for this study, engineering judgment was used to determine which scenario was most likely to represent future needs. In its current arrangement, the formation of a joint utility would reduce the cities' capital investment in new infrastructure by about 40%. The joint utility system is estimated to cost $12 million (41 %) less than individual development. Lengthy interconnections and the associated costs could be reduced by removing the City of Columbus from the joint system as it is not geographically close enough to make its inclusion economical. There are existing interconnections between most of the other cities Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study 31