Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council backs temporary holding tank to let Route 65 catering business open while sewer options studied
Summary
Staff presented a short‑term holding‑tank option (~$10,000) for a Route 65 building with a failing septic system and said full sewer/water extension estimates ranged from about $150,000 for a partial run to roughly $1.5 million for a larger extension; council indicated support for a holding tank with written hookup agreements to be clarified.
City staff raised an economic‑development request for a Route 65 property where a prospective tenant identified as Brad wants to run a food‑preparation/catering operation. Staff said the building has a likely‑failing septic system from the 1950s and described two main options: complete hookup to city sewer and water, which staff said could be expensive, and a temporary holding tank to allow immediate operation while mains are extended.
Staff quoted two cost references during the discussion: an offhand figure of "maybe $150,000" for certain mains work and a later estimate that an extension tied to road work could be "probably 1,500,000.0". Classic Construction (as referenced by staff) estimated a plastic holding tank around $10,000 as a short‑term fix. Staff also reminded the council that commercial hookups typically require payment of SAC and WAC fees to the city and Met Council.
Council members and staff discussed who would pay different elements. Staff said historically the city has sometimes borne the cost to bring main lines to existing businesses, while developers normally carry extension costs for new developments; TIF has been used in the past to offset some costs. Several council members said they were supportive of allowing a holding tank to let the business start if the owner pays the immediate cost and signs an agreement to connect when sewer becomes available.
Council asked staff to confirm whether the same owner was responsible for adjacent buildings and to return with written agreement language and clarifications on long‑term hookup responsibilities before formalizing any exception to connection policy.
Next steps: staff to clarify ownership and responsibilities, document required future hookup agreements, and report back to the council. No formal vote was recorded in the transcript.
