Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Water topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Murray County approves joint powers agreement to back regional water bonds
Summary
The Murray County Board approved a Joint Powers Agreement enabling counties to issue bonds for the Lincoln Pipestone Rural Water System construction project; the JPA lists a $9.8 million bond and a 3.3% contingency share for Murray County if LPRW defaults.
The Murray County Board of Commissioners on June 2 approved a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) to enable counties in the Lincoln Pipestone Rural Water (LPRW) service area to issue bonds to finance a multi-county construction project.
Ron Schramel, attorney for LPRW, told the board that LPRW lacks authority to issue bonds itself and needs a county to issue general-obligation debt on its behalf. The JPA presented to the board carried a bond amount of $9.8 million; the agreement allocates backstop responsibility among ten counties should LPRW default, with Murray County’s portion listed as 3.3 percent. County Attorney Travis Smith reviewed the agreement and advised the board that its form was legally sufficient; the board voted to approve the JPA and authorized the Board Chair to sign it.
Why it matters: under Minnesota law the ten counties named in the JPA would be legally responsible for bond payments if LPRW failed to pay; the JPA therefore creates a contingent liability for participating counties even though LPRW is expected to be the beneficiary and payer of the debt. The agreement follows a similar arrangement from 2025 in which Lac qui Parle County issued $9.9 million of bonds for an earlier phase.
Details from the agreement: the JPA lists each county’s share of liability in the event of default. The counties and percentages listed in the JPA are: Jackson 2%; Lac qui Parle 2.5%; Lincoln 21.7%; Lyon 19.8%; Murray 3.3%; Nobles 16.5%; Pipestone 15.5%; Redwood 0.3%; Rock 2%; and Yellow Medicine 16.4% (total 100%). The board record indicates that LPRW’s bond counsel required all ten counties to approve the JPA before the bonds may be issued.
Next steps and oversight: the board’s action authorizes execution of the JPA; it does not itself issue bonds. Any county bond issuance or further financial commitments would follow separate approvals and legal processes. County staff said that the JPA was prepared with input from LPRW’s engineering and bond counsel.
Provenance: LPRW JPA presentation and board approval as recorded in the meeting minutes (discussion introduced SEG 004; motion and approval recorded SEG 005).
