09/27/1971 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

9/27/71 unit. Mr. Springsted noted that the charge was for capital costs, and that the annual cost fluctuates. Mr. Locher commented that there is not a per capita charge in the bond issue. Mr. Springsted stated that we could have built in the sewer assessment into the bond issue, but it would be poor fiscal planning. He reminded the Council that they needed to decide if we would procede with the $550,000 bond issue. Mr. L'Allier noted that he would not try to read the minds of the Metro Sewer Board, but he felt they didn't want the line built, but would rather save the land for a Metro park. If we don't proceed with this project, we will be playing into their hands. Mrs. Anna Bohjanen stated that she had talked with a representative of the Metro Sewer Board who said that if we are not hooked up to the interceptor, we do not have to pay the assessment. Also, that she had been told at a Metro Council budget meeting that the interceptor was not included in the 1972 budget, only the engineering costs were included. Mr. L'Allier noted that the Fiscal Agent had said that the costs for construction were included in the budget and that he would rather believe what the Fiscal Agent said than what someone had told her.,. Mr. L'Allier asked if it is legal for us to require Jandric to deposit cash before completion of the bonding. Mr. Locher stated that this was no problem, that it shows good faith. Mr. Bohjanen asked how long we could expect to keep the money in the bank that Jandric deposits if the line isn't built? Mr. L'Allier answered that we can dig into the $50,000 to make the payment if no assessments come in to cover the amount. Mr. Locher stated that any amount used for such would be replenished by Jandric. Per agreement to be drawn up by the Attorney, any money drawn out of the $50,000 would be replenished at the end of any given year, so that the money would be there each year. The original $50,000 is to be in a bank prior to Oct. 15, 1971 or under no circumstances, no later than the bond sale. Mr. Springsted noted that for further security a lien could be put on the property. Mr. L'Allier stated that this was cash in hand; if the hookups are not made, we could pay the interest and the cost would not go on the tax rolls which is our primary concern. Mrs. Sylvia Varier asked if we could get a Metro Sewer Board representative out to answer questions. Mr. Gotwald doubted if we could, that it would be better to go down there. He noted that it is the truth that we get conflicting stories since the Metro Sewer Board and the Metro Council are separate departments. He stated that the 1971 Metro Sewer Board budget included monies for the engineer- ing and the 1972 budget will include construction funds. Mr. Gotwald asked if we do not go ahead with this project, then what? He noted that when we originally authorized sewer for the Jandric project, there was no interceptor in the plans, but a treatment plant. The PCA would have gone along with a 5 year temporary plant and we had a letter from the Metro Sewer Board. The plans were drawn and ready for bids when the Metro Sewer Board decided they did not want a plant, but would put in a trunk line because of the problems in Centerville and the Treatment Center. If they do not build this interceptor we can go back to a treatment plant. Mr. Gotwald stated that a lift station was included in this project, that the sewage will be collected in a wet well and be pumped as required. The PCA allows trailer parks and others to do this. Mr. Gotwald saw no real problem if the interceptor if not constructed in 2 or 3 years. He thought that it would be hard to imagine the Metro Sewer Board and the Metro Council backtracking now, especially since there is a problem in St. Paul's water supply.