My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
05/15/1969 Council Minutes
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1969
>
05/15/1969 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/29/2014 2:08:24 PM
Creation date
12/29/2014 1:27:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
05/15/1969
Council Meeting Type
Special
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
1 <br />165 <br />into same. This would possibly mean an aeration unit for the sewage system and <br />a self - contained tank for water. The rates charged to users would be somewhat <br />higher than those for users on a municipal system because the developer must <br />pay income tax and property tax on his lines. <br />At an estimated cost of $500,000 for the line to run from County Road J to <br />Lakes Addn. #1, with a valuation of $1 million, we would have to bond at 1/2 <br />of our valuation. <br />Mr. Gotwald stated that his objections to the proposed franchise had been <br />covered by Mr. Busch's letter. The plans will have to be inspected when drawn and <br />also approved by the Minn. Pollution Control Agency. The $500,000 would be es- <br />timated for a line to run from Seventh Avenue to County Road J, and could be ex- <br />pected to be a low estimate as costs are rising. <br />Mr. Busch took the floor, mentioning the previous meetings, etc., stating that <br />the proposed franchises were nearly parallel, with a difference of fire protection <br />mentioned in the water franchise and the necessary approval by the Pollution Agency <br />in the sewer franchise. He then proceeded to outline the changes to be made in <br />the franchises. <br />art. I. Mentioned that Exh. A was not yet available as they did not have <br />the complete legal description of all the property to be included in the whole devel- <br />opment. However, he stressed that all of the area to be included in the franchise <br />agreement would be purchased by U. S. Lakes Development -- none of it would be <br />property on option. The definition of 'public places' was asked by Mr. L'Allier. <br />Mr. Busch stated that this would be a logical place for pipes to run other than <br />in the Village's streets or alleys in the case of surface drainage, etc, when a <br />line might be run through a park, for example. In any case it would be subject <br />to the Council's approval. <br />Art. Ii. There was much discussion on the approval of plans, both by the <br />Council and the Pollution Control Agency. Mr. Busch stated that this had to be <br />done on a step -by -step basis, with approval by both on each step. This is the way <br />all such engineering projects are done. They don't care to risk their funds on <br />an expensive overall design only to have it rejected. Mr. Jensen stated that they <br />wouldn't receive written approval until the last stage of the project is provided. <br />If any stage was not approved, they would have to revise it. Mr. Gotwald concureed <br />in':thetstep -by -step proceedure. Mr. Bohjanen queried the word various under the <br />third 'whereas' on page 1 of the agreement since there were only two franchises. <br />Art. III Mr. Busch stated that the word exclusive was necessary as it would <br />raise havoc to have competing sewage and water companies in the same area. <br />Art. IV. Mr. L'Allier asked whether any stock in the company would be sold <br />to the public. No, because they wouldn't want the public to gain control of a <br />utility; this could affect the rates. The Village retains complete approval of <br />the rates or else it goes to an arbitration board. (See No. 4.) in the Busch <br />letter for changes to be made.) This in eluded a definition of a reasonable <br />rate of return and that there would be no extra compensation to employees to <br />raise the costs in order to increase the rates. It was stressed that after <br />the denial of a request for a change in rates, it would be one year before another <br />request .could be made. Changes in the class of certain users would affect their <br />rates. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.