My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
02/27/2006 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2006
>
02/27/2006 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/16/2014 12:47:05 PM
Creation date
4/14/2014 11:02:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
02/27/2006
Council Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
90
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
• <br />• <br />• <br />FEB. 17. 2006 5:18PM EHLERS & ASSOCS. Na 3947 P. 4 <br />Sources of Revenue <br />Exhibit D shows the NSCF projections for the first year of operations and a stabilized income <br />projection in 2011 compared to the 2004/05 Super Rink actual performance. The second four sheets <br />are projected to produce $700,000 less in net revenue than the Super Rink, primarily because ice <br />rentals hour expected to be less. The first Super Rink was built with sand floors. The second four <br />rinks are anticipated to be used for non ice recreation and events in the spring and summer. <br />The reason that MASC/NSCF is asking for a lower number of hours from the cities is that a wider <br />variety of ice users is expected and because dry floor recreation in the summer is also expected to be <br />a revenue generator, though at a lower rate. Exhibit E has a schedule with the first year estimates for <br />ice and for dry floor rentals. <br />Analysis <br />The commitments for ice time are very fluid at this time. Commitments for ice time of 1,340 hours <br />for two of the ice sheets will be the only long-term guarantees by the time of bond closing. The Herb <br />Brooks Foundation has indicated that it will provide up -front cash for a portion of the four sheet <br />facility and construct its own training center adjacent b the new four sheets. MASC/NSCF have <br />demonstrated a long list of potential user groups, many of which will be relocating from Columbia <br />arena. Fundraising for these efforts are not complete. The County's actual security, however, rests <br />more on trust in the experience of MASC/NSCF in operating similar facilities than any guarantees <br />from user groups at this time. If the financing could wait for six months to a Year, the actual list of <br />user groups. the amount of ice time versus dry floor uses and a more detailed operating cost schedule <br />would be available. MASC/NSCF have decided the benefits of a lower construction contract and <br />current low interest rates outweigh the risks associated with a fluid list of users. The County and <br />HRA also should weigh those factors. <br />The potential viability of the second four sheets is bolstered by the fact that fixed costs should be <br />less. Debt service on the second four sheets will be $125,000 to $135,000 less than the original <br />Super Rink. One can assume that economies of scale will result in lower operating costs for both <br />facilities due to sharing of staff. We have reviewed the revenue and expense projections for the <br />project and find them to be reasonable, given the NSCF past history of efficient operation of a wide <br />variety of recreational facilities. <br />A topic of concern at this time is the adequacy of replacement reserves for this facility and for the <br />original Super Rink. We would recommend that each five years the MASC and NSCF be required to <br />submit a report to the HRA detailing the need for capital improvements for the next 10 years <br />following the report and a plan for funding the necessary improvements. We recommend these <br />actions for both facilities. <br />Bond Rating <br />We expect that Moody's Investor's Service will rate the Bands at an "A2" level. Rating agencies <br />typically reduce the rating on lease revenue bonds by one or two notches from a general obligation <br />bond rating. The Bonds will likely be two notches below because they are funding a recreational <br />facility rather than a more "essential" facility such as a building which houses the county courts or <br />administration, <br />Debt Limit <br />Bond counsel has indicated that the Bonds will count against the county's total debt limit. Currently, <br />the county has over 5390,000,000 in remaining debt limit. <br />Page 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.