96-8241
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
iJ1r� vc8?l�i�—
Council File # I �'0 �'y
Green Sheet # 39,C G o
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESO �A '
Presented By
Referred to
PROVIDING FOR THE
NEGOTIATED SALE OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
GROSS REVENI7E BONDS, SERIES 1996D
(RICE AND ARLINGTON PROJECT)
��
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota as follows:
1. Findina: Amount and PurDOSe. It is hereby found, determined and declared
that the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota (the "City"), should issue its Recreational
Facilities Gross Revenue Bonds, 3eries 1996D (Rice and Arlington Project) (the
"BOnds"1, in the approximate aggregate principal amount of $4,100,000 to defray the
expense of acquiring and constructing domed athletic £ields at Arlington and Rice
(the "Project").
2. Necxotiated Sale. The City has retained Springsted Incorporated as an
independent £inancial advisor relating to the Bonds and Project, and the City Council
hereby determines to sell the Bonds by private negotiation to Miller and Schroeder
Financial, Inc. The Director, Department of Finance and Management Services, Budget
Director, officials of the Parks and Recreation Department and other staff and
officials of the City are hereby authorized to negotiate the terms of the Bonds,
their price and the details of the £inancing with Miller & Schroeder Financial, Inc.,
and to participate in the preparation of an Official Statement for the Bonds, and to
present the Bonds for the final approval of their sale when the negotiations are
comPiete. Piper Jaffray Inc. will also participate in the negotiated bond sale.
3. Intent to Reimburse. The City intends to reimburse original expenditures
for the Project with proceeds of the Bonds. Federal rules for the tax-exemption of
bonds require the proceeds to be spent for the purpose for which the bonds are
issued, and proceeds used to reimburse expenditures originally paid from a source
( } � � 1� j \ 1 ,1
'� . t � . � e�s � 0 � . • ��
� � ���
1 other than bond proceeds are not considered expended unless the issuer, within 60
2 days after payment of the original e�cpenditure, adopts an o£ficial intent to
3 reimburse such expenditure. The maximum principal amount o£ obligations eacpected to
4 be issued for the Project is $4,200,000.
Yeas Nays Absent
Blakey �
Bostrom ��
Guerin J
Harris ✓
Megard ✓
Rettman �
Thune �
Adopted by Council: Date �i��a��t�� �
Adoption Certified by Counc S etary
B �' ..�— �t�y�� �
Approved by �or: Date: � � 2 !Y
By; �'h, I� ���
Requested by Department of:
Parks Recrea ' t
By : _ ��v11,
Form Approved by City Attorney
By: - C/ �.c.e�� � 11\ ��en
� CZ_.�'
Approved by Mayor for Submission to
Council
.
By: Y vl�
/ i � � � ,
� iI/
�
� � � , /. /
DEPARiMEMAFFlCF/COUNGL DATE I �TIATED
Parks and Recreation 07/10/96 G REEN SH EE � (.• 8�y
INITIAVDATE INITIAVDATE
CONTACT PERSON & PHONE � DEPARTMENT DIFECTOR � CrtY CAUNCIL
ASSIGN CITYATTOFiNEY CITYCLEflK
Vic Wit en ein 266-6409 NtiYBERFOA �
MUST BE CI NDA BY (DATE) ROUTING � BUpGEf DIRECTOR _ FIN. & MGT. SERVICES DIR.
ONDER � MqyOR (ORASS�STANn � Parks �
Jul 9
TOTA SIGNATURE PAGES 1 (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
ACTION REQUESTED:
Passage by the City Council of the attached resolution authorizing the City to enter into a
tax-exempt revenue bond issue for the construction of the Rice and Arlington Sports Dome
Project.
RECAMMENDnTiONS: Approve (A) or Reject (R) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTHACTS MUST ANSWER TME FQL40WIN 7
_ PL4NNING COMMISSION _ CIVIL SEFiVICE COMMISSION 1. Has this perso�rm ever worked under a contrac[ for Mi5 tlepartment�� ��+
CIB CqMMITTEE YES NO
� S7AFF 2. Has this personRirm ever been a city employee? �UL '� O���E`
— YES NO �
_ ol57fiIC7 CAUR7 _ 3. Does this personRirm possess a skill not normally possessed by any� cu�r ciTy employee?
SUPPORTSWHICHCOUNCILO&IECTIVE7 YES NO �`'�+'��KJ:L� �I'�E�
Explain afl yes enswew on separate shaet antl attach to graen sbaet
Recreation/Economic development
INITIATING PROBLEM. ISSUE, OPP�RTUNITV (Wha. Whet, When, Where, Why):
Opportunity to exp'and our recreation offerings at the Rice and ARlington Athletic Facility.
See attached project description and financial summary.
ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED:
City will have a first class dome facility and clubhouse for its residents and visitors as
well as improved parking facilities, more restrooms and upgraded playing fields (lighting).
DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED:
City needs to re-pay tax exempt revenue bonds. Cash filow projections indicate that the
completed facility will generate enough revenue for debt service, management fees and
operating expenses. ��� ��� �;a,��,. ����tv�D
�`�� 1 � `���' JUL 10 1996
DISADVANTAGESIFNOTAPPfiOVED: � T}(
Loss of a recreational facility an� the oppor unity to up�adc� t���RN�Y
Athletic Fields.
TOTAL AMOUNT OFTRANSACTION $ 4,100,000 COST/HEVENUE BUDGETED(CIRCLE ONE) YES NO
FUNDIfiG SOURCE tdX exempt�: revenue bonds ACTIVI7Y NUMBER neW dCt� V1 ty wi 11 be set up
FINANCIAL INFORFSATION: (EXPLAIN)
See attached financial summary.
°1 G - 8 � �{
RICE & ARI.INGTON DOME CASH FLOW PROJECTIONS
YEAR 1 2 3 4 5
Revenue
PlayerParticipation $509,968 �524,506 5571,981 $588,815 �6li,955
OtherAttendees $ 90,000 $ 94,500 $ 98,280 �102,211 5106,300
Other Revenue Centers �309,994 �305,880 5315,141 �321,069 5328,576
Total Revenue 909 962 924. 86 $985 402 $1.012.095 �1.048.831
Cost of Sales
PlayerParticipation $ 25,547 S 26,113 $ 27,589 $ 27,877 $ 29,376
Other Attendees $ 24,000 $ 25,000 $ 28,600 S 29,700 $ 30,800
OtherRevenueCenters $171,085 $168,561 $173,255 $176,750 $18Q410
Total Cost of Sales 220 932 219.673 229 444 234327 24$ 0.586
GrossProfit 689.030 705?]3 755.958 �777.768 86$ 8.245
Operating Expenses 384 742 39$ 2,712 407.980 42$ 1•697 43$ 8.125
Cash Provided by
Operations $304,238 5312,501 �347,978 $356,072 $370,120
Debt Services 64 7 0 326 553 331.Sb5 3"$ �0.815 32$ 9.695
Net Change in Cash
Position $239,SS8 ($14,052) $ 16,413 $ 25,257 $ 50,425
On-going Cash
Flow $239,558 $225,506 $241,919 $267,176 $317,601
a� ��`�.
RICE AND ARLINGTON SPORTS DOME PROJECT
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
Proposed Bond Issue (1)
Uses of Proceeds:
Construction
Traffic Signal
Debt Service Reserve (2)
Capitalized Interest (3)
Issuance Costs (4)
Expected Bond Average
Interest Rate
$4,100,000
$3,548,500
51,500
350,000
70,000
80.000
$4.100.000
6.0% - 6.5%
1. Tax exempt revenue bonds, with pledge of Parks and Recreation gross
revenues.
2.
3.
�
Equal to one year's debt service.
Assumes interest capitalized through February, 1997.
Negotiated sale - Miller & Schroeder; includes all underwriter discount, printing,
legal, financial advisor and rating agency expenses.
_-_--=_
.�__.
e �m„��.
���;
��
Fountled By
RICHARD SAGSTE7TER
JUIy Ly, 19�Jfi
The HOft01'Hbl@ Norm coleman, Mayor,
City of Saint Naul; and
Ihe Fionorable Uavitl Ittune, Presitlent,
antl Members of the City
Councii of the C�ty of Saint Naul,
The Nonorabie .lerry Blakey,
The Honorable Uaniel k3ostrom,
Ihe Nonorable Uino Guerin,
The Honorable MiKe Harris,
The Honorable htobert Megara, antl
The Honorable Jan�ce Ftettman
�ity Hail
15 West Ke7iogg k3ouievard
Saint Paut, Minnesota 551U2
Uear Mayor and Councii Members:
i et f, � >, _
JUL 31 i�96
There is an item on tne agenaa ior the City Councii meeting of Wednesaay, July
�1, 1996, tleaiing with the proposai to construct a seasonai aome with adjoim ng
paricing over athletic Tieids at Ftice and Arl�ngton Streets in the City af Saint
I'aui. Because of local zom ng restrictions which iimit the he7gnt of structures in
R-4 zoning districts to thirty (3tij teet, antl tne neight of the proposed aome, whicn
is ninety (�Uj feet, a variance needed to be securetl prior to construction.
As you may know, kichards Nroperties owns antl maintains certain residential
rentai properties adjacent to the proposetl pro�ect. Wnen the pro,7ect was first
proposed in 1992, certain inciividuals associatetl w�th kichartls Nroperties chaiienged
the granting of tne variance. Notwitnstanciing that chaiienge, the Board of Zoning
Appeais (BZA) by resoiution dated August 24, 19yz, granted the variance, and tha
City Councii, by resolution ciateci Uctober 2U, 1yy2, upheid the granting of the
variance by the F3LA.
A court challenge fo7lowed, which was finaliy resoived when tne Minnesota Court
of Appeais upheid tne granting of the variance in a ciecision dated Aprii 4, �yy5.
No iurther court action was pursuetl.
As you also may know, SS6a.209 of the Saint Naui Legisiative Code,
commoniy referreci to as the °Zoning Cotle° reauires that any ortler,
inciuding the variance grantecf in this case, permitting the erection oT
a builciing or creation of otf street parking is valiq onty for a perioq
of one year, subject to two contingencies.
�.ichards �roperties
� �- �a�1
Wishing Well Apartments
44 WESTARLINGTON I ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA55117
TEL. 488-0526
��-���I
Nage 2 oi z
Rice anci Arlington
First, if the party to wnom tne var�ance ls grant2a secures a buli�lna oermlt
for the erection of Duiltling witnin tne one year periotl antl is proceetling with
construction untler the permit at the time of expiration of the ans year per�od, the
variance tloes not expire. However, no permit was securetl in this case, nar was any
construction commencea.
Secontl, either the City Council or the t3ZA, may grant an extensian for a pe�iotl
not to exceea an atlditionai year. In this case, as af the writing oT this 7etter,
no sUCh extensiOn tidS been sought.
Arguably, the variance expireci one year atter tne City Council affirmetl tne
decision ot the BLA, or Uctober 20, iy9:i. However, unaer any construction of tne
law anci the timing section thereof most favorable to the holder of the variance, the
variance expireci one year after the court of Appeais upheid tne city Council, or
Aprii 4, iy96.
That date has come and gone. No extension was applied tor. No bu�laing permit
was secured. Nor was any construction commenced. Tnerefore, tne variance has
expired antl the former height requirement of thirty (3U) feet is bacK �n fu�i force
and effect and may only be varied it tne variance process is begun anew.
In adtlition, 1 have learned that any request for a variance must, accortling to
5564.203(a) of tne [om ng code, be accompanied by a site pian meeting the
requirements of SS64.102 of the Lom ng Code. 7he application for the original
variance tlid not, 1 beiieve conta�n any sucn site pian, and is, theratore, arguabiy
invalid, despite tne court action. .4t any rate, any request for a new variance
wou7d require a site pian submission.
3t seems oniy fair to a7i interestea parties, because of the passage o� time.
that the City Councii acknow7edge that the variance has expired and require, in
accoraance with the iaw, the application be submitted and consitlered anew in its
proper form.
Sincereiy,
�
Connie Sagstetter
t2ichards �roperties