12/08/1969 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

42 a separate letter regarding the sewer system they also felt that the plan is feasible provided that an interim treatment plant can be approved by:the Metropolitan Sewer Board. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has tentatively approved an interim plant. They feel no preliminary estimate or hearing is necessary, and recommend plans and specs to be authorized as above. The Council and the Petitioner could then order or abandon the project based on actual construction bids. Mr. Gotwald stated that they had contacted Mr. Jandric and his engineer and had received the following estimated figures for construction: sewer system to cost $250- $300,000; water system to cost $350,000. These figures are subject to change with plans and design. There will be a hearing to establish procedure for the Metro Sewer Board on December 29, at 7:30. Mr. Locher stated that the State required a resolution on water systems which must be published. Mr. Busch favored that the water and sewer projects be implemented as soon as possible. There was discussion between Mr. Bohjanen and Mr. Gotwald on how the Sewer Board might feel on this. Mr. L'Allier felt we could authorize Mr. Gotwald to proceed on this when favorable word is received from Metro Council. There was discussion from the audience on problem sewer areas in Centerville and whether Metro Sewer Board would connect to the Jandric project. Mr. Gotwald stated that Lino Lakes had had the foresight to make prior sewer studies and that all plans fit right into the metro council plans. If the line goes through then the plant must be abandoned. Lines may go elsewhere first if development there gives it priority. In answer to a question by Ruth Rector, Mr. Gotwald stated that as of Jan. 1, 1971, Metro Sewer Board would take over all trunk lines and collector system. Any expansion of these would be planned and constructed by Metro Council. Mr. L'Allier thought these would be assessed to the entire 7- county area; we would pay for others and they would help pay for ours. This would be a self - contained package plan with approval by the PCA and Metro Sewer Board. Mr. L'Allier mentioned that earlier Metro Council had told us that we could forget sewer plans here, just sit and let the world go by; Mr. L'Allier had told them we wouldn't wait. Mrs. Bohjanen asked that since we got no bids on the bond, if we get any on sewer bonds how will this affect getting future building bond bids. Mr. Ricklefs explained that the market could change; the sewer bonds would make no effect on new general obligation bonds; there was no money available now at 7 %. After discussion the letter from Springsted was read; Mr. Langness felt that a six year bond issue could possi- bly get a bid on today's market but it would be at the legal limit of 7X,. If the Village wished to go ahead with the project and can sell bonds on the open market they recommend that the entire cost of the improvements be assessed on the benefited property at the rate of S% on the unpaid balance. The assessments should be filed as soon as possible and for a period not to exceed five years. The Council should receive a surety bond guaranteeing the timely payment of assessments as they come due. Assessments should be required to be paid in full on each piece of property when it is sold. He felt that the bonds would be rated BA. Mr. Ricklefs felt that if the money was there, the bidders would buy sewer and water bonds just as well as municipal building bonds. The proposal as outlined is a very normal way for projects of this type. Mr. Ricklefs explained the principles of the surety bond which should be required- that if the developer fell behind in his schedule of payments on the bond, then the bonding company would make up the difference to the Village. Mr. L'Allier explained that we would not have to go to general funds to make up the difference then.