PSEM19680424•
• Minutes of the MUNICIPAI, SEWER COMMITTEE HELD AT THE CITY HALL ON
April 24, 1968, 4 P.M., with the following present..... Mayor
Wieselmann, Alder. B udish, Linck and Burgermeister, Eng. John
Mielke, Attorney Bonneville, Clerk Bowyer, Attorney Hammond, Messrs.
Beck and Brussett.
U
0
Mr. Mielke reviewed progress made thus far by their firm in planning
the next sewer stage for the Northeastern District. A "Summary of
Costs" for Sanitary Sewers and Sewage Treatment Facilities for
Projects MSS-1 thru 5 was reviewed. Mr. WWieselmann asked what was
meant by the 20% contingency fund and it was explained as to coverage, etc.
Mr. Brussett covered the "going" interest rate and general financing,.
Mr. Larry Hammond reviewed the importance of the amount of money that
must be produced now and the source of the balance of the income.
He also reviewed S.Statutes 66.54 Special Improvement Bonds and
certificates. He further defined and reviewed bonding procedures.
In reviewing said City sewer obligations and future speculative
programs such as municipal center, etc., tie suggested that these
future plans be considered now. According to Mr. Hammond any
municipal improvements such as such would become a general obligation
subject to the limitation of 5% of borrowing on the equalized worth.
He again emphasized how important it was that the Council decide at
this point what their plans of capital improvement will be so that
the type of financing could be determined for the sewer project and
any future capital improvements. Mr. Beck pointed out that there
is no "second guessing", as to an ultimate capital improvement program
financing. Mr. Hammond discussed operational costs of the district and
how these costs would be assumed by the benefactors within the district.
The formula used, was briefly explained by Mr. Brussett, using as an
example, 418 units divided into the actual operating costs of the
district thus developing an individual rate as well as commercial
being approximately 72.00 individual and 80.00 commercial. Both Mr.
Hammond and Mr. Brussett explained that in general obligation financing,
the base would'be 5% of the equalized and, of course, it is assumed
that equalized will increase about 2-1/2 million per year. Mr.
Brussett emphatically pointed out that in considering general obligation
it must be considered benefit received by the entire city. In reviewing
the financial structure of the City Mr. Hammond used the following
calculation 450,000 assessment, 250,000 financing, 500,000 general
obligation and 450,000 general financing. It was pointed out that
500,000 had -already been authorized by the Common Council providing
interim borrowing from the bank 'to complete payments to the contractors.
Due to the fact that the interim borrowing was done at such a low rate
of interest (3.75%) it was suggested that it would be more advantageous
to the City to complete the 10-year note. A financing plan most
advantageous for -the City was discussed as well as service rates,
operational. costs, mortgage revenue, general obligation and paradee
bonds.
Meeting, adjourned., 61120 P.J�J.
Ree/spq�ctiily submitted,
B. 3. Bowy r, erk
bjb