Laserfiche WebLink
Cit�r Council iVlinutes Page 3 <br />January 10, 2023 <br />Mr. Puga presented findings on the se`ver service portion of the study, noting <br />challenges for the northeast area include its distance from facilities and limited <br />available capacityT to connect to the e�sting system. This necessitates at least three lift <br />stations and a regional lift station to pump directlyT to the treatment plant. <br />Mr. Puga went on to explain that, with one exception, a lift station would not <br />immediately be Yequired in the northwest area like it is in the noYtheast area. Service <br />to the far north`vest corner `vould require a lift station as the e�sting gravityT pipe is <br />not deep enough to connect He added that a Yegional lift station would be needed if <br />and when the rnining aYeas are developed, and that the lift station would support <br />future development to the north. <br />Mr. Puga presented an opinion of probable cost for pro�riding se�ver service `vith the <br />northeast aYea totaling $13,143,00 and the noYth�uest totaling $15,335,000. <br />Ms. Cook presented the Financial Analy sis Methodolog�T which provides options for <br />funding the projected expenses. <br />Ms. Cook repoYted that foY wateY and sewer service the cost peY single family unit in <br />the northeast aYea is $22,144 peY single family unit in development fees/assessment <br />while the total foY the northwest aYea is $19,724 per single family unit. <br />Ms. Cook provided a comparison chart for se�ren other communities �vith <br />development fees for water and sewer services which showed each of Elk RiveY's <br />pYoposed projects as the highest examples. <br />In pYesenting options for recovering costs, Ms. Cook noted that sizable investments <br />in the Northwest area need to be incurred in the first five yeaYs which is a risk for the <br />paYt�r funding the project She then pYesented the options. <br />The first option presented �uas developeY payment thYough an agreed cost sharing <br />approach. <br />Ms. Cook explained that the second option would be to use special assessments <br />which follow the land and aYe paid whether development occurs oY not.lVLr. Femrite <br />contributed that the cityr had done special assessments befoYe. <br />The third option is area trunk charges which are paid when land is platted. <br />1�1s. Cook noted that as these options pYogYess there is a greater gap in time between <br />installation of infrastructure and collecting revenue `vhich contributes to a greater <br />risk factor for the cityT/utilityT. <br />Option four would be utilizing sewer and water availability charges `vhich are paid by <br />builders through permitting. <br />rowEREo er <br />���V�� <br />