2016.04.18 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

9.4 Benefits of Individual Development (Option 3) The main deterrent to a Joint Utility are the upfront costs it will take to plan and implement the combined system. Though not easily captured in terms of cost, the political issues associated with forming a Joint Utility also need to be considered. Communities will need to agree to create incentive for each other to make a joint utility work. This will mean negotiating the purchase price related to sharing existing infrastructure, equipment, and staff and finding a way to equitably share maintenance costs. While these prices and costs can all be "determined" using financial and engineering tools and analysis, in the end they will likely be a result of negotiations. This will mean sitting down and agreeing how much some of the communities will pay to the others for the rights to access their assets. If the communities want to make this happen and are looking for a way to create mutual benefit this may be relatively easy. Obviously there can be places where these types of negotiations can be more difficult. In most cases this is a single time up front issue. Once the communities have agreed to join and the prices are negotiated then ongoing operations are usually less challenging. 9.5 Summary of Costs and Benefits to each City Table 9.5 Summary of costs and benefits for Options 1, 2, and 3 City Benefit to combining Cost to combining Centerville • Gain firm well capacity Share capital costs of new • Meet recommended water storage volumes development Gain an interconnect • Shares cost of rehabilitation of aging infrastructure Circle Pines Meet recommended water storage volumes Share capital costs of new Share costs of watermain replacement development Q Shares cost of rehabilitation of aging infrastructure Hsjgo • Lower cost to meet future supply and storage needs • Share replacement costs • Share costs of new trunk watermain for older systems Shares costs of new infrastructure Lexington Gain firm well capacity • Share capital costs of new • Meet recommended water storage volumes development • Improved water quality • Shares cost of rehabilitation of aging infrastructure Lino Lakes Lower cost to meet future supply and storage needs • Share replacement costs • Gain firm well capacity for older systems • Meet recommended water storage volumes • Share costs of new trunk waterrr,ain • Shares costs of new infrastructure All cities • Optimized well siting • Development may need to • Improved water circulation in the distribution system be moved to areas which • Decreased new water storage and number of wells are more convenient to 6 Increased backup supply and interconnections serve as part of a print Some small cost savings system Operational and logistical • More resilient system challenges to combining systems Joint Water utility Feasibility Study 34