My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2016-04-27 CC Packet
Centerville
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1996-2022
>
2016
>
2016-04-27 CC Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/29/2017 8:43:19 AM
Creation date
4/22/2016 3:13:33 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
277
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• Need to hire fewer future staff <br />For the developed cities: <br />• Influx of capital as growing communities, via the Joint Utility, purchase access to existing <br />infrastructure - - <br />• Less expensive well maintenance as more communities share in the expense of maintenance <br />• Less expensive tower maintenance as more communities share in the expense of maintenance <br />For the Joint Water Utility communities as a whole: <br />Need for fewer groundwater wells <br />o Lower life cycle maintenance costs for the wells due to fewer installations <br />Need for fewer storage tanks <br />o Lower life cycle maintenance costs for storage due to fewer installations <br />+ Delay in infrastructure needs <br />• Efficient use of resources <br />• Potentially improved purchasing leverage <br />• Strategic infrastructure siting potentially resulting in easier and less costly permitting <br />• Capital cost savings through shared infrastructure and reduced redundancy <br />• Operational cost savings through shared operations, maintenance, management staff and <br />equipment <br />Opportunities for cost sharing may be realized through more efficient use of infrastructure, shared labor <br />and shared maintenance and operations. Cost savings can also be realized through reduced need for <br />future investment in water system infrastructure. The most important costs, and benefits identified in this <br />study are outlined below. <br />2.3.9 Capital Costs <br />For large capital projects, it is estimated that a joint system of the six cities would eliminate the need for <br />3 million gallons of water storage and seven (7) future groundwater wells over the course of the <br />planning period through 2030, as compared to individual city development. This translates to a cost <br />savings of $12 million as compared to individual development. <br />2.3.2 Operational Costs <br />The formation of a joint utility would provide cast savings in administrative and operations staffing and <br />equipment. Much of this savings would be dependent on how the joint utility would be governed and <br />operated. Maximum savings would occur under Option 2 with the completely joined system. Billing and <br />distribution system maintenance would be combined under one entity, and distribution system <br />maintenance could be the responsibility of one joint utility crew. Since most Minnesota cities hire <br />maintenance staff to meet snow plowing demands, cities may also need to share this responsibility to <br />see the maximum savings. Savings would be reduced If billing and distribution system maintenance <br />were to stay with individual cities. Given the high level scope of this study and the number of options <br />available, cost savings are not quantified for specific operational benefits; however, it can be concluded <br />that significant savings could be made by combining into a single utility. <br />2.3.3 Financial and Organizational Structure <br />Based on the high level findings of this study, the potential for resource and rate efficiencies in forming <br />a joint utility exists. Financially, capital costs and projected water rates are reduced overall by forming a <br />Joint water Udit Feasim ft* a <br />87 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.