Minutes - 2001/02/26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council February 26, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 16 The Springsted Representative provided a handout and statement on the pro forma to Council. Council Member Stigney stated he was curious as to why Council did not receive the information in the packet in order to allow time for review. The Springsted Representative stated he was under the impression they were to provide the information at this meeting. He then explained one of the circumstances they have found themselves with is that the person that helped prepare the content of the document is on vacation in Florida and they have had to do some communication over the telephone noting they just wrapped up the final product this afternoon. He apologized that the information did not make it into the packets. Council Member Marty stated the information was not originally requested and thanked Springsted for providing the information. Council Member Stigney stated that Council has made it a policy that information will be provided in the packet prior to discussion at the Council meeting. He then requested that any future information get to Council prior to actual discussion. The Springsted Representative explained they were asked to do an analysis on the feasibility of the proposed golf course and during the course of the discussions a question was asked as to the original pro forma from 1993. Since the last discussion they have taken the 1993 Market and Economic Feasibility Analysis prepared by EGCS, who was the marketing and golf course consultant at the time, and prepared information that he thinks should demonstrate to Council the errors have been corrected as it pertains to the current feasibility study. The Springsted Representative then went through the eleven factors taken out of the EGOS study and explained them to Council. He explained the original pro forma called fora 50 station driving range and when actually constructed it was a 40 station driving range. The bonds were estimated at a net interest income cost of 6.175. When the bonds were sold the bonds came in at a little better rate than forecasted at the time resulting in an estimated net interest cost of 5.005%. The Springsted Representative noted Council would have the benefit of having a manager to oversee and ensure there would not be additional costs involved that were not anticipated by the feasibility study this time. The net income estimated actual is based on historical performance and comparables and that is the gist of the report. Springsted feels relatively comfortable in regard to the question posed concerning the pro forma in terms of the new study noting he believed the problems inherent in that first study have been corrected. Council Member Stigney asked what the projected original personnel costs were noting the 1999 costs were projected around $180,000 and actually were around $332,000. Council Member Stigney explained that when the course was originally built it appears by looking at the chart that the salary was projected to start at slightly over $150,000 in 1995 and went up to the $180,000 or $190,000 range in 2000.