Laserfiche WebLink
Thoughts for the NE/NW urban services expansion discussion at the combined meeting <br />ERMU's focus should be on supporting the NE expansion area. <br />o Consulting services to review infrastructure needs is included in our 2023 budget. <br />o The city has already identified multiple development projects that are adjacent to the <br />existing urban services area. <br />o Building out from adjacent developments provides more direct cost -sharing of trunk lines by <br />having developers pay to extend existing trunk lines to their developments. <br />o In addition to roughly eight miles of trunk main, the NE expansion area will require a new <br />well, treatment plant, and water tower, likely within five years. <br />o Project costs for the NE area alone are estimated at $32M and will require bonding. <br />• The NW expansion is cost prohibitive at this time, especially given the $32M needed to proceed with <br />the NE expansion area. <br />o Proceeding with the NW expansion simultaneously with the NE expansion would add <br />approximately $44M in project costs, the majority of which would require bonding. <br />o Only one development project has been identified in the NW area and it's located at the <br />farthest point from existing trunk mains. No adjacent development projects have been <br />identified at this time. <br />o Connecting to this development project would require adding roughly five miles of trunk <br />main to support a single, 500-unit development. This could lead to water quality concerns <br />related to stagnant water in large trunk lines over long distances, especially in the winter, <br />when water use is at its lowest. <br />• Financial prudence would advise waiting 10-15 years before tackling the NW expansion area <br />o Waiting to move forward with the NW area provides time to pay down, and possibly pay off, <br />bonds incurred to support the NE expansion area <br />o Waiting provides time for interest to grow in developments adjacent to existing <br />infrastructure, maximizing cost sharing opportunities and minimizing stagnation concerns. <br />• If we do wait on the NW area: <br />o Commission and Council will need to decide whether to maintain the current urban services <br />policy which requires: <br />■ New developments within the urban services area are required to hook up to both <br />municipal water and sanitary services. <br />■ New developments outside of the current urban services area are not provided with <br />either water or sanitary services. <br />o Public works has determined the city has the capacity to provide sanitary services to support <br />the development in the far corner of the NW expansion area (if the current urban services <br />policy were to be updated). <br />Should the urban services policy be updated to allow the developer to hook up to <br />city -provided sanitary service but use privately -owned wells for water? <br />Should the development be postponed until additional, future development efforts <br />enable ERMU to incrementally build out to the far corner of the NW expansion <br />area? <br />Mark P. Hanson, P.E. <br />General Manager <br />Page 2 of 2 <br />101 <br />