Laserfiche WebLink
10.0 Recommendations <br />This study suggests that a joint system would provide benefits to each of the member communities, but <br />that more information is needed before making a decision on forming a joint utility. <br />The recommendations of this study are as follows: <br />• Continue to investigate forming a Joint Utility under Option 2 <br />According to the analysis performed in this study, the formation of a joint utility appears to be <br />mutually beneficial to all cities involved so long as the Joint Utility is constructed alongside the <br />cities' natural development. Option 2, joint ownership of the entire system is recommended as <br />the best ownership structure as it is more equitable for all cities involved, providing more benefit <br />to the older, smaller cities than Option 1. <br />Plan for joint development now before the opportunity is lost as each city builds out <br />more infrastructure that might not be needed in a Joint Utility setting <br />A preliminary timeline for the formation of a joint utility is shown in Appendix C as well as a <br />timeline for individual development for comparison. At the conception of the Joint Utility, Hugo, <br />Lino Lakes and Centerville would initiate interconnections and begin sharing resources until <br />there is a need for more supply and storage. It is expected that within the next five years, the <br />Joint Utility would add 2 wells and 2 million gallons of storage and initiate an interconnection <br />with Circle Pines. As the cities continue to develop, they share infrastructure until capacity is <br />reached and ultimately add an interconnection with Lexington. By 2030 it is expected that five <br />cities (Hugo, Centerville, Circle Pines, Lino Lakes and Lexington) would share interconnections <br />and the joint utility would have added a total of four wells and 2.5 million gallons of storage, <br />saving roughly $11 million compared to individual development. Note that the timeline for <br />development is merely a suggestion based on the population information available. Projections <br />should be revised based on the most up-to-date population and development projections as <br />they become available. <br />• Investigate which cities should be in the Joint Utility, and consider removing Columbus <br />due to geographic reasons <br />Due to its geographical separation from the other cities, Columbus should not be incorporated <br />as part of the joint utility in the near future. Columbus does not have any existing interconnects <br />with other cities and connecting it would require significant investment in new watermain along <br />1-35 that would render the joint utility financially infeasible until development naturally occurs in <br />this area. As development does occur along 1-35 from Lino Lakes to Columbus, Columbus could <br />be integrated into the joint utility. Removing Columbus from the joint utility for the foreseeable <br />future requires the addition of two more wells and increases the total supply capital cost. <br />However, storage needs are reduced so the total capital cost is roughly the same, albeit shared <br />by fewer cities. The revised cost estimate without Columbus is shown in Table 10.1 below. <br />Compare this to Tables 9.1 and 9.2 in the previous section. <br />Joint Water Utility Feasibility Study 35 <br />