Great. Thank you, everyone. Welcome to the Northfield City Council meeting for Tuesday, 06/17/2025. I'm calling this meeting to order and requesting a roll call. Mayor Zweifel? Here. Councilor Beamer? Here. Councilor Dahlen? Here. Councilor Holmes? Here. Councilor Ness? Here. Councilor Peterson White? Here. Councilor Soukup? Here. Thank you. Our first, item on the agenda tonight is a moment of silence that will be facilitated by councilor Soukup. Thanks, mayor. I just thought we could start our meeting tonight by taking a moment to recognize
the huge loss that we faced on Saturday, with the murder of representative Melissa Hortman and her, husband, Mark. Representative Hortman was known as, sorry, a consensus builder and a bridge builder. And I think, well, this is a nonpartisan space. Those are two values that I think we all strive for, and try to embody as as public servants. So I'd just like to recognize, the loss that our state is facing without her in it. Thank you, councilor Soukup,
for facilitating that moment of silence for us. I appreciate it. I would also like to thank, the Northfield Police Department for, their efforts in keeping our local, state representative amping up our, police awareness. We appreciate that very much as well. Next, we have open public comment, and I have one comment card from, mister David Lutcher. Oh, now it now yep. It's on. Is it on now? Okay. There we go. I went to look at this, week's packet, and it shows 725 pages long.
725 pages long. That's just ridiculous. I'd suggest that you take off the consent agenda numbers eight, nine, ten, twelve, and 13. They all deserve their own time. Each one of them could fill up a council session. The acceptance of the comp, comprehensive financial report, I mean, that needs a look at. Did you see that the, expenses were more than averaged around 3,000,000 more than the revenues for about the last four or five years?
You folks can talk about that? Or you're just going to accept that and go on? There's also a consideration of personal service agreement for the Northwest Water Tower. Northwest Water Tower? Why is it why is this on a consent agenda? Why are we hiring somebody for the Northwest Water Tower? Have we decided that we're gonna spend $40,000,000 out there? That needs to come off. Advertisement for bids for the water treatment plant street and utility extensions, $9,000,000. Really? We don't have a water treatment plant. Why are we building roads out there? Monetary donation for new ice arena project,
there there is no new ice arena project. It hasn't been approved for bids yet. Consider approval for the dry land training. What dry land tip training? We don't have an ice arena yet. We haven't bonded for it yet. The EDA doesn't meet until next week for the bonds. Thank you. Thank you, mister Luescher. The next item is the approval of our agenda, and I will note that we have, a supplemental memo on there. Is there a motion to approve the agenda? Councilor Holmes? I move I move to approve the agenda with the supplemental addition. Thank you.
Councilor Dolan? Second. Thank you. All those in favor of approving, the agenda as published, signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? All right. Our agenda passes. The next item is our consent agenda item. I do have a few items to note for number 10, that as to some of the reason why that is on the consent agenda item. That the purchase agreement with the land had a condition of the road being developed. This is the location of our future water plant. The utility extensions will be done in conjunction with other projects in the area,
so we're leveraging, a cost efficiency by doing it now. And it was included on the consent agenda as was previously discussed by the council and unanimously supported. So those are some of the rationales behind why item number 10 was on the consent agenda. And with that, I would entertain a motion, to approve the consent agenda. Councilor Peterson White? So moved. Thank you. Second? Second. Councilor Soukup. All those in favor of passing the consent agenda, please signify by saying aye. Aye.
Those opposed, same sign. The consent agenda passes. And that brings us to reports from the mayor and councilors. So we'll start with Ms. Councillor Ness. Had a, CVB meeting, Convention and Visitors Bureau meeting this noon, and nothing out of the ordinary. Yeah. So that's what happened with me. Thank you. Councilor Peterson White. I think my main update is just to remind folks that the Friends of Downtown are hosting a third Thursday tomorrow. No. Not tomorrow. On Thursday. Tomorrow's not Thursday. Third Thursday is on Thursday,
which also happens to be Juneteenth, so it should be a great celebration. We will have local beverages, local music, throughout the 304 Hundred Block Of Division Street. So come on down tomorrow evening for that. I think that's what I have to report. Thank you. Counselor Soukup. We had a finance policy subcommittee meeting on the fourth, and I'll let councilor Dolan speak to that, just because there's three of us on that, and he's the chair. But councilor Beamer, you could also speak to that if you want. And then there was a neighborhood meeting about the 2026 Street projects last week.
That was really well attended, and there were great questions and good feedback. So, that was a good event or a good meeting. Thanks. Counselor Holmes. Thanks. Yeah. I will, echo the community meeting from last week. Really good feedback, good engagement, and so thank you for staff for pulling together what you did and for facilitating that that conversation. There was a planning commission meeting last night, and I unfortunately missed it. It was supposed to be on Thursday, but it because of Juneteenth, it was rescheduled. And I didn't have time to watch it today to inform you of what was discussed, so I'll,
I'll update you. I will watch it this week, and I will update you the next time we meet. Perfect. Thank you. Councilor Dolan. Thank you, mayor. The first item was the NAFRIS board subcommittee on personnel, and, all is proceeding in a pace. It's there's really nothing to report for a very stable organization. On the Finance Committee, do you really want me to cover? So I think what will happen down the line is, which I would like to prep for the council, is that whether we have majority reports or minority reports together giving advice to the
full council on what financial issues we may be looking at, that is as an entire council. So rather than get into the detail of that because finance issues are pretty technical and numeric, so need to be on paper. And I think we'll bring all those advice, all those recommendations from the committee. So rather than talk about what we talk about, I'd rather make sure that it's part of a memo to the entire council as advisory memo to the entire council. Good? Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Beamer?
Thank you. Last week, we had a I think it was last yeah. Last week, we had a Beyond the Yellow Ribbon, meeting. I think it'll actually be the last one for the summer. Nothing crazy to report. We did receive a couple $100, I think, in donations at the, Memorial Day picnic. So that was fantastic. Potential there for helping somebody out that's in need. So, but I think we delayed. We're not doing meeting in, July or August, probably going back in September. So nothing further to report.
Great. Thank you. I just have a couple items. The Milltown Trail meeting that would have been happened this month was moved to July. I attended the Hawberg Woods, native planting event where volunteers planted a 192 native plants in the park. And I had my one on one check-in with the hospital CEO, and I encourage everyone. I don't know who's had it and who hasn't, but, I encourage everyone, if you haven't, taken up, Xander Abbott on that opportunity that, you should do that. So that those are my items to report. So that brings us to our regular agenda.
And the first item on the regular agenda is to consider a resolution providing the issuance and sale of general obligation street reconstruction and equipment bonds series twenty twenty five b in the proposed aggregate principal of $4,440,000 And so I'm looking for a motion to consider that resolution. Counselor Soakup. I'll move resolution twenty twenty five dash zero six five. Thank you. Is there a second? Counselor Ness. Second. Thank you. This is going to miss Anglestead.
Thank you, mayor and members of the council. I can take the opportunity to introduce Nick Anhut, who's with us remote tonight, to give a brief presentation on the the bond sale. Thank you, mayor, members of the council. Nick Anhut with Ehlers and Associates. And I'm here to You wanna hold on. An overview of the What was it on the screen? Issues? Yes. We don't have it on our screens. Oh, there we go. I think you're we can see you, so you're good to go. You to keep going, Nick. If you probably wanna share your presentation from your screen too.
Just getting ready to do it. And it should be sharing. Let me see if I can make sure it's zoomed in. Nick, if you wanna put it in presentation mode. Oh, there you go. It looks good. Thank you. Proposed issuance of $4,400,000 in general obligation bonds issued by the city of Northfield. This is to fund a couple of different projects, Wall Street Road as well as the 2025 reconstruction project. This comprises about 4, 20,000.00 of the total amount intended to be repaid by a fifteen year,
levy. And then an equipment portion that is for the city of Northfield's share of the acquisition of an of a new tanker truck. This is about 415,000 of the total amount and intended for repayment through a ten year levy. These would be bonds that are backed by the full faith and credit of the city and is consistent with the way the city has financed these projects or these types of projects in the past. Our current estimate, given the the observations in the market, conservatively estimate about a 4.22
true interest cost on these bonds. That's for the full fifteen year total repayment of the com combined amount. This does assume the city's double a credit rating, which is a very strong rating that the city has upheld for many years, and we anticipate that it will be able to, affirm through the engagement of S and P for this transaction. And applying that rate, our estimate of the average annual levy amount for the street reconstruction components, again, for Wall Street Road and this year's project, about $389,000 and about $53,000
annually for the equipment portion. Again, that over a ten year shorter time frame. Both of these obligations will be subject to the city's statutory net debt limit that is set by statute. It is is based on the size of the tax base that you represent. This is 3% of the estimated market value of all the taxable property within the city. That 3% threshold is equivalent to about $69,800,000. Currently, outstanding against that limit is 23,400,000.0. So this will add an additional 4,000,000
on top of that as well as the ICE arena financing if the council does choose to move ahead and support that, issuance by the EDA. That will also count against the city's, debt limit as a lease purchase agreement. And, that amount in combination will still leave roughly $19,000,000 remaining underneath the statutory debt limit so that the city can pursue funding future CIP needs, other street and equipment or other facility type projects into the future. So accounting for all of these issuances this year as well as your outstanding debt,
there will still be about 19,000,000 remaining underneath that statutory limit. So we're seeking counsel authorization to go ahead and proceed. I know you already have, approved those projects and the purchase of the tanker, and so now it's the point in time to finance them. And so with this approval, staff and Ehlers will prepare the various offering documents that will go out. We're proposing to competitively solicit bids from underwriters across the nation to bid and provide, their lowest potential cost interest rate, and that will be presented to you on July 22 for the council to formally
approve awarding the bonds based on the lowest cost, financing proposal. During that process, we'll also provide an update to Standard and Poor's to seek an affirmation of that credit rating so that it it can be applied to the bonds and give the marketplace an indication of a third party opinion about the creditworthiness of the city and everything that's going on. And, again, we expect that that will be affirmed at that AA rating. And that being applied to the bonds will help the city obtain its potential lowest
costs, hopefully on that financing. So, with all that said, we're looking for, the council to consider this resolution that's been prepared from your bond attorney to move ahead and initiate this transaction. Thank you. Thank you. We'll start this off with questions from the council. And I have a quick question for you, mister Anhut. What, that the portion that is not the ice arena, what is rolling off of that this year? So if we use this to fund our street projects, something something is rolling off as this rolls on.
Is that true this year? There are a number of different bond issues that have matured over the last couple of years. The majority of those are funding past street projects. So there are some that are still outstanding, but there have been a couple of that bonds that have been paid off in full. I think that might be what you're referring to. So every year, there are different bonds that are being paid off, and as those bonds, we get further along in the repayment, some are, completed, and the city no longer needs to levy for those.
So that that is happening on an annual basis and and is continuing. Great. Thank you. Other questions? Councilor, Beamer? Sorry. Thank you, mayor. That was the main question that I had as well, but I do have a follow-up for that. Typically, when those bonds fall off, are we are we pretty level? You know, so the bonds that we add versus the bonds that are falling off, are we are we close to apples to apples? Does that make sense? You know, it really depends on the the transaction. I think with, the size of the bonds that have been issued in the last couple of years,
I would say no. Those those size of bonds have been relatively high on a historical sense. But in terms of this particular bond issue, these 4,000,000, that that is roughly the size of the transaction that the city has has had in the past for its various street reconstruction and utility and, equipment needs. So it really depends on the time frame and what is coming off, you know, based on what was financed in the past. But the, you know, the ice arena is going to be a very large amount.
There have been some other, larger facility bonds, fire station, police station. Some of those will be continuing on in the future. So, you know, it it kinda depends on which year we're talking about. But, generally, from a street standpoint, yes. Thank you. That okay. Councilor Holmes had the a similar question, which you just answered. So thank you very much. Other questions from councilors? No? I was looking for it in the financial statement. I feel like there was a figure that showed that jump in debt capacity. I was just trying to find the,
page number. But, anyway right? Brenda or miss Angles did. Sorry. Isn't it in our, financial report? Thank you, mayor and members of the council. Right. The the audit does show, the bond payments for the upcoming so many years, and you'll see what's getting paid off as well. Last week's from Ehlers when we looked at that. And if you took the ice arena out, the debt this year would actually is less than what's falling off. So if we didn't have the ice arena, the debt would be relatively flat this year. So I don't know which ones were coming off and which ones have paid off,
but that was pretty flat. Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. Counselor Ness. Question for Mr. Bennett from a resident. Could you just recap the street projects that are happening, the reconstructions and mill and overlay? Just Yeah. Mayor Maris Castillo. So the twenty twenty five projects, we have, the reclamation of Laurel Court over by Kwik Trip to the Secular Entrance. We have Industrial Drive, kind of off the beaten track, but heavy use by Post and Cardinal Glass. That is reclamation. We also have Maple Street,
by the soccer complex that has not started yet this year. Now that school's out, that project will be kicking off here shortly, and that's an overlay along Maple Street. And then we also have the full reconstruction of Wall Street Road, which is a joint project with Rice County. Thank you, councilor Ness. You have follow-up now? Nope. Thank you. Alright. I found the debt key performance indicators on page 32 of the audit. So you can see it jumped from '22 to in '23 is where our jump has come in, and then we will see another one for the ice arena.
Other questions? Did you have mister Bennett? I mean, I I mean, I I mayor and member council, I think when we think about the debt in our roadway improvements, I would just say post COVID and the size of our projects, we've seen increases in the cost to do construction to do business. So it's, I think it would, like, it would be I think it's a target and a goal to try to keep that balance where the debt falling off and the debt coming on. But construction inflation is outpacing, and the cost of the projects are going up. So it'd just be potentially I think it's the balance that we work through,
less miles, less improvements. But I think that was that's one of the factors too weighing in on why it's not as balanced as I think we'd like to see it. Thank you. Counselor Ness. Question probably for mister Anhut. Who sets that $69,000,000 limit? Is it a government entity or is it S and P? That is a statutory limit that's imposed on all municipalities in the state of Minnesota. So it applies to cities across the state, and it's a formulaic limit based on the size of the tax base that each
city Oh, yeah. Represents. So it does change on an annual basis. So as new construction, new value, appreciation of existing property values take place, that limit grows, because it's set based on a percentage. Thank you. Follow-up? Yes, please. Thank you. Do you think the government entity will change that upwards given inflation, etcetera? Or I know it follows values, but it's still a percentage. Could that percentage change in the upward direction because of costs?
You know that I'd hate to project on on the legislate. It would it would need a legislative change, at the state. So it would be something that, would have to be introduced, you know, through the the house and the senate. They'd have to agree, to amend the existing statute and then ultimately approve by the governor. Now, obviously, things have changed in the past, similar type of things. I I would be hard pressed to imagine that that would be a priority at this point in time, but it is certainly something that the legislature could change in the future. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Dolan? Also a question for you,
Mr. Anhaut. So the $19,000,000 that's left under the statutory debt ceiling, as you compare that to other cities, is there any concern in your experience with other cities that we only have 19,000,000 left? No. I don't think so. I think, generally, the concern would stem from what are you planning in the future and whether or not that limit is going to somehow, constrict or not allow you to manage your assets within the city. You know, obviously, things age and need to be replaced or reconstructed, new facilities constructed, things like that.
Generally speaking, I don't think, that that 19,000,000 in in the context of the city of Northfield is going to impose any limitation. And and, you know, quite frankly, that's because, you know, without the ice arena, there would be, you know, an excess of 40,000,000 of capacity, which is well above, what's forecasted within your five year CIP. And so, you know, on a short term basis, no. There's there's no no need to worry about it. And as we have mentioned, there is debt that's falling off every year. So as bonds are repaid,
that means there's more capacity freed up under these limitations. And so I don't see this as really constricting the things that you have put in your CIP right now. If there are some things beyond five years that are envisioned future councils, you know, large scale projects, then it it might pose some kind of limit. But, generally speaking, no. It's not something that is, forecasted in your CIP right now. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Ness. Thank you. Is there penalties imposed if you exceed the that statutory limit?
You're actually just not allowed to. So you would be, in violation of the statute, by exceeding that limit. So there, you would not be able to consider, the issuance of new debt until some other debt had fallen off, or or, you know, the values within the community had risen up to a level that allowed for that capacity to, to to grow. So, it's not it's not a punitive measure in terms of, of a, like, a penalty or a fee or or something of that nature. It's it's really, whether or not the council can use its statutory authority to consider the issuance of
new debt. It needs to be cognizant of that limitation. Great. Thank you. Councilor, Dawn. Could I ask a quick follow-up to that? That's I agree with your assessment, but I've not been able to find any kind of written authority for that. So is that something you would put in writing that the city is simply prohibited by from going above its statutory debt ceiling? Is that something that is brought forward by the consultant who approves the debt that we're taking on? Or how does that get effectuated? It's a statutory, requirement. It it would be a finding that would be necessary for,
both the new offering as well as the the resolution. You'd have to be in conformance with the law in order to consider the new debt. It's within chapter four seventy five. I'm not sure if you're looking for a reference in this question, but, you know, the city of Northfield and its council can exercise authority to consider new debt as long as it is in compliance with the requirements under chapter four seventy five and and the other statutes, that, provide, for the specific issuance. And under chapter four seventy five, does allow the city to incur new debt obligations as long as it abides by
this limitation. Right. Thank you. I thought that was the answer, but I'd like to hear it in those words. Thank you. Thank you. I see miss Bolton has something to, add. Yes. Mayor and, council members, Jenny Bolton, the city's bond council. I just wanted to add that not all debt is subject to the debt limit. There are, you know, various types of of, debt that is not solely payable from tax levies, so revenue bonds, like water revenue, bonds. And, and and also going back to the question about, you know, what controls this,
you wouldn't have the authority under state law. And, in order to issue bonds, bondholders require an opinion of bond counsel that there is legal authority to issue the debt, and, bond counsel would not be able to give the legal opinion needed in order to issue the debt if if the limit were exceeded. So that's, one mechanism for control. Thank you. It looks like councilor Dolan has a follow-up to that. Yes. A quick question for you on that. So the water revenue bonds that you mentioned, of course, those are paid by the same taxpayers who happen to be ratepayers for the water
facility, let's say. So right, there is sort I agree with you that there is a certain kind of bonds that are go to the statutory debt ceiling. But we're looking at the same the taxpayers happen to almost always be ratepayers. So does that distinction is there something in that distinction that you would address? Nick, I don't know don't know if you wanna address this, but there there are rate studies for, that are make sure that the the rates paid by, the users are affordable for that purpose. Thank you. Alright. Councilor Beamer.
Thank you. Not sure who's best to answer this particular question. Maybe it's mister Martek. But if if the added bonds are less than what drops off, how does that affect the projected levy the projected levy for for the upcoming year. And and was that factored it was that factored in in the levy that that we had we have projected for next year? I'll be happy to answer the question. You know, I think staff would be just as good at answering that question. There have been and this the staff does maintain.
We help facilitate putting forecasts together that do look at your CIP. They look at the amount of bonds that are coming up in the future based on the estimated cost of projects within that capital improvement plan. We do forecast some levies, that has taken into consideration the levies that are falling off, the new ones coming on, as well as some estimates for potential operating levies for the kind of day to day operation of the city, non debt related activities.
So, yes, that has been produced, and, it is it is available. Thank you, mayor. Yeah. Miss administrator Martin. Thank you, mayor, member, city council. So, in addition, I would say that, pretty much every budget work session that we'll have from here on out would have wherever we're at in the five year estimated plan, including our capital equipment and capital improvement plan. And as the council gives direction to amend that, as we go, staff would be adjusting that. So you'd see how those levies would be impacted based on the projects that we currently have.
And then as you kind of give direction as we go through that process, it will amend it as we go or and or have options to bring to you for direction and consideration. Thank you. Counselor Holmes? It is a line item in the report we had last week if that was a question. So it's it is in that report that we had last week. So my follow-up to that would be just I'm not sure where the line of questioning is leading and if it's just getting information, but can you just clarify, mister Anhut? I mean, this is project that is already underway, and equipment that's already been bought.
So if we were to vote no on this tonight, what would that do? What what what impact does that have on us? Well, I think the council would have discretion to figure out another way to finance those projects. So it doesn't necessarily mean, that, you know, all is lost. But, yes, you are correct that, the projects are underway. They have been approved. They were included in past CIPs that were approved by prior councils. The construction bids had been accepted. Work has been started. We're just at the point in time during the year to,
consider how to finance those projects in particular, and we could potentially come back at a later date and, you know, come up with a different method to finance these projects. That would still be an option if the council did not want to pursue this resolution at this point in time. I would say that our anticipation is that this is going to be the most cost effective means of doing it, but that doesn't mean that you're you're pigeonholed into, you know, the inability to consider an alternative in the future.
But, yes, you know, without it, you do need to fund these projects and pay the contractors and would have to rely on existing balances from other funds and would need to seek some form of financing, to replenish those funds so that you had, you know, enough, balance to continue operations and things like that at the city. You know, the very high balances that you do have that you're able to, take advantage of. I think you'd be able to absorb this for a time. And so that we're not in any kind of a of a pinch at this
moment. But certainly before the end of the year, we'd wanna, you know, take some action to come up with an alternative plan. Thank you. I am not recommending that we open that can of worms, but I just wanted to make sure that that was clear. Thanks. Thank you. Other questions? Alright. Seeing no question more questions from the dais. This is the moment for open public comment. If anyone would like to comment on this agenda item. Alright. Seeing no one, and I believe I already asked for a motion and second on this one. So we'll just go right into, any council discussion. Councilor Beamer. Just just to be clear,
my questions aren't for me to decide whether I should or shouldn't vote for. It's just for me to learn a little bit more about the process. So, if I panicked anybody by my line of questioning, I'm sorry. I'm just trying to learn a little bit more about the process is all. Thank you. Thank you for the clarification. Other counsel discussion? I just have one item I wanted to say that I appreciate that Eller's reviews our existing debt and watches for opportunities, to reduce our debt when they become available. I know that you have done that for us in the past,
and I appreciate that you are watching our, debt load and bringing those opportunities for us when they arise. So thank you. Thank you. Alright. All those in oh, sorry. Hold on. Councilor Holmes has a Thank you, councilor Beamer. I wasn't super panicked, but I also think that in this everyone is looking at every every penny we spend with a fine like, under the microscope and trying to find ways to save money. And I just wanted I think that that's important and valuable as we as we have these conversations and also that sometimes there's money that we have to spend.
So, thanks. Thank you. Alright. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, the motion carries. Oh, wow. It's not even time for a break yet. All right. Just no break tonight. Okay. Here we go. The next item is considering a resolution approving the Ice Arena lease revenue bonds issuance parameters with the EDA. It looks like miss Englestead is also, introducing this item. I'll I'll introduce this one and Oh, great. Thank you. Nick and Jenny are also on here to to help out,
so I'll just do a little of the the high level overview and background. Again, currently, council has taken numerous actions, to support the construction of a new ice arena. Site work is is underway on the site. Most of the grading work has been completed, through the agreement with the hockey association and their donor of Anabec Construction. Utilities are currently being installed, And then the city does have the the contract with RJM Construction, underway. So a lot of the the long lead type items related to the construction are the the precast panels, all,
like, the major electrical systems. Those have, those are, been ordered. So those are on what getting underway too. Council approved the bids on May 6, and, we did receive the the money from the donations from, the great job the group did fundraising. So we do have that check-in hand here at the city. And, really, this next step is to is to really kick out, to do the financing. Lease revenue bonds, it's it's a tool used by cities across this across the state. HRAs, EDAs, port authorities also, issue this type of a debt.
The process does follow the state statute, does not require a referendum, and it's, it's really a a revenue obligation. The bonds are repaid through the lease revenue and the interest in the the collateral, which would be the billing of the new building. And it's it's an arrangement of a lease purchase agreement, with the EDA that we would ultimately the the city would own the building at the end of the the lease purchase period. The city has used this in the past. So back in 2006 when, the Memorial Pool, was constructed, so that that was a way that that that was the way that that project
was was funded. And there's other examples, that we I think we've worked with Ehlers and them that have that have identified different projects, like in Chaska, Otsego, other, types of uses that have been financed either through the EDA also. Again, the debt, would be we would have to annually appropriate the funds. The next slide illustrates the the financing, the partnership, and and the costs. What's unique with this financing is, because it's a leasehold interest and it's through the EDA. So, I mean, if there was a default, it's really, in the EDA and the the who who's holding the debt hands.
It's not really it it would not come back as a as a city obligation. And the bond holders copy. Yep. Yeah. So it's it's it's it's more actually the other way around. So it's the bonds are backed by the lease that the city would be entering into with the EDA. And the city's, ability to make payments on that lease is really what is securing the financing. So the bondholders are relying on the city being a good tenant, for this facility. Essentially, the city will be, agreeing through the lease purchase agreement that it is going to appropriate the funds necessary
to make the bond payments, and we'll talk about the amounts, in a second. But that is the the annual appropriation risk that is listed on this slide is is that that is the what the investors will be looking at. It is different from a general obligation pledge of the city. General obligation pledge carries the full faith and credit of the city. Essentially, the city telling the bondholders that it is going to use everything in its statutory authority to make them whole, whether that's, using, any existing fund on hand, levying a new tax in order to provide for the payment and and really going
all the way to filing bankruptcy, before it would be able to legally default on that obligation. This financing is backed, under the city's willingness to provide an annual appropriation. So the city is not applying its general obligation pledge, but it is pledging to the EDA that it is going to include within its budget and appropriate the funds necessary to make the payments on the bonds. So the EDA essentially is a pass through entity.
The city is really the one that is providing for the payment. It's operating the facility. And because it is not a general obligation, it does carry a different risk profile, to the bond investors, but it is an accepted risk. So I previous slide mentioned it has been used quite extensively by many communities throughout the state. The ones that were on the slide previously were actually transactions that have been, completed within the last year. So there are numerous examples, just within the last year from other entities that have used this very same,
statutory authority. They've agreed, with their city, that the city will annually appropriate the funds necessary to make payments on the bonds, and, the investors have accepted them fairly well. They do typically carry a lower credit rating than the city's, you know, general obligation pledge. Again, that general obligation is a pretty strong backing. Typically, an annual appropriation pledge is is about one step below the general obligation pledge. So we would expect that a EDA lease revenue bond with the annual appropriation pledge
of the city, would not carry a double a rating, but would carry a double a minus rating, which is the very next step down on the credit profile and is still a very strong credit rating. We do expect that these bonds will price very well in the market. They will be accepted, but it is not the same as the general obligation pledge. So I'm I'm sorry for belaboring this. I just wanted to make sure that we're very clear about it. We don't think that it's a risk. We don't think that the bondholders are going to see it as a as a, extreme negative,
but they will, potentially look at it, differently than the city's GO bonds. In the event of a non appropriation, you know, essentially, you know, the city, if the city chose not to approve, the funding, in any future year, the city will bear a penalty on that. So not only will the bonds, default, and the the bond holders would have, a series of remedies, for how they can potentially collect their money back. But the city as well, would bear, some responsibility not only in its ability to continue operating that facility,
but also in the past, when, there has been an event of non appropriation, the credit rating agencies have have significantly downgraded the cities that are involved in those transactions. So we would expect that if the city were to make that decision in the future, I'm not saying that you all will, and obviously if you're supporting this project and and moving ahead and voting, you're you're making that, with good faith. But there are some consequences, to that, non appropriation, and, and it would potentially impact your ability to access the capital markets in the future
because a severe downgrade of your credit rating would give a signal to the marketplace that the the city has had a default in the past and, and it would impair your ability to borrow funds for other types of projects in the future. Again, not saying that this is going to happen by any any stretch of the imagination, but it is something to be aware about, and it does carry some consequences. So I just wanna clarify some of the statements, that were said. With that, you know, the bond estimates, with, having the cash donations in hand, having some proceeds available from the sale of the existing property,
We are estimating, just shy of $23,000,000 in order to complete the funding of this project. This would be, also in addition to any of the funding that the NHA has, pledged to provide to, contribute the land and, the site improvements that are that are underway on that land as well as the bid alternates, that are to be considered. But the estimated amount of financing in today, our estimates is, dollars 22,930,000. That amount, we anticipate would carry an annual appropriation need of about $1,880,000
This is consistent with the projections that we've provided to you in the past. And the city does have some partnership arrangements with the school district as well as the city of Dundas to offset some of that, burden. So those entities will be contributing funds, to provide for the annual repayment, and the city, will be able to reduce its, annual payment down to below one point, $5,000,000. Our current estimates are $1,478,000. It's about $7,000 less than the last time,
we spoke on this topic. Interest rates change on a daily basis. And, anyway, this is our most recent estimate of that cost. It is based on conservative estimates as I mentioned with the pre prior bond approval. We do conservatively estimate these rates. So 5.14% true interest cost is our is our estimate, but that is conservative based on what we've seen over the course of the last couple of weeks. We hope that it will come in lower to the lower than that, but we need to go out and let the market decide. And that does also assume that the bonds obtain a double a minus or a
plus. Again, that's that one or two notch, credit rating below the city's general obligation double a rating, which we do expect, will be affirmed. So, with that, I'm going to hand it over to Jenny to talk about, the legal overview. Good evening again, mayor and council members. Jenny Bolton, the city's, bond council. So you have seen the description of the documents in we've we've discussed those in pre previous meetings, but, this time, the the actual documents forms of documents are attached to the resolution. They are quite voluminous,
but wanted to give everybody the opportunity to see them, review them, understand, but I am just going to give a summary of kind of the structure. So once the city acquires the property, the the city is the the the owner of the land and will then ground lease it to the EDA. The EDA will then be able to act as the landlord for the building that is built on the land.
And, the ground lease, it provides that underlying lease of the land on which the building is built. The lease purchase agreement is the agreement between the city and the EDA under which the EDA delegates to the city the authority and, obligation to construct the building and to operate and maintain it and, also to make lease payments that are equal to the debt service, principal and interest on the bonds that are issued by the EDA.
And then in addition to, there is a lease payment component that covers, annual costs like the trustees fee. So all of those obligations are set out in the lease purchase agreement and, as Mr. Anhott was describing earlier, it also lays out the procedure if the the city council were ever in the future to decide to non appropriate and kind of recognizing the the consequences of doing that. Any payments that precede that non appropriation
would be continued to be collected by the EDA and used to pay the bond holders and thereafter the the city would no longer have the obligation to make those payments. That is a rare event but it is, it is built into the documents and is necessary for this to be considered a true lease and not a debt obligation on behalf of the city. The EDA's obligation is solely a revenue obligation, and, therefore, it is, it is authorized under state law. The statute is,
469.103. That is a revenue not a general obligation pledge and if there were ever to be a non appropriation by the city there would be a workout process with the bondholders and an attempt to find a new operator tenant under the lease or under some other arrangement to continue to generate whatever revenues are possible and for that reason the ground lease has a ten year period that extends beyond the statutory or beyond the the maturity date of the the EDA
lease revenue bonds. It sort of gives that extra cushion if there were ever to be a default that the bond holders would be able to continue to collect revenues for a longer period to make up for the loss of revenues from the city's non appropriation. So then assuming that doesn't happen, which is you know the typical situation, at the end of the the bond financing, once those bonds mature, the building is essentially paid for so the title for the building the the lease the lease structure goes away and
the city is now the the full owner the EDA just steps out and is no longer no longer has any interest in the building it is then the city's building. Because of the way this is structured unlike the city's GO bonds, which are which are simply paid for directly, you know, through funds and accounts maintained by the city, with this type of lease structure, it is very common. And, proposed in this instance to have a, a trustee act as sort of the,
paying agent and also the, will maintain hold the funds and accounts. And so that is addressed under the document called the trust indenture and that is an agreement between the EDA as the issuer and the the, the trustee as the sort of account holder, funds and account holder, and paying agent. So that that trustee receives the the revenues, the lease revenues as they're as they come in and makes the payments out to bondholders, and also if there were ever to be an issue,
kind of acts as the agent of the, the bondholders. Under that, indenture, the the lease revenues are pledged as as the source of payment for the bonds. So that's that's a pretty standard those documents are pretty standard, parts of documents for the this type of, lease revenue financing. In addition, the unique circumstances here are that that you've got a couple of funding partners, the City Of Dundas and the school district and so there are additional sources from
those two entities that will help the the city make those lease payments and those are documented under separate agreements between the city and those entities but ultimately the city is the obligated party under the lease, and, you know, we'll we'll need to work directly with, those funding partners to to make sure their their funds are collected, but the city is is ultimately the one, obligated to make the lease payments, and that is the the funding structure, and if you have any questions, I'd be happy to address them.
Sorry. Anything else from staff? No. We don't have. Alright. Thank you. We'll move into council questions then. Councilor Ness. Thank you. I thought I heard you say when you were talking about ground lease and lease whatever, that the city doesn't have debt in this. So why does the 23,000,000 affect the percentage of our debt limit? Mayor and council members, yeah, these are very get we're getting into the real technical weeds here. So, so the the EDA is the issuer. They're issuing bonds.
That is debt, and but they are revenue bonds. The city is a tenant under a lease and has the authority to nonappropriate. And, therefore, for the under the under chapter four seventy five, which is the the, governing statute that would say whether or not the city has the authority to issue debt, that that, because of that nonappropriation clause, the the obligation the lease payment obligation is not considered debt of the city. So instead,
the city has the authority to enter into a lease, a lease purchase arrangement, under Minnesota statute section four sixty five point seventy one. And that statute says that if the the amount of the obligation that the city is paying under the lease purchase agreement, the the amount of the financing is greater than a million dollars, it is it is still counted against that net debt limit. So even though it's not debt, the statute that governs it says,
factor it in when you're looking at your your outstanding debt. Thank you. Other questions? Councilor Dolan? Yeah. Question for the bond council. Yeah. I agree with your assessment of that the city is the ultimate ultimately on the hook for the entire arena or whatever, the appropriation has to be. So as you know, our taxpayers are in the city of Northfield, and the school district has a wider area in which they have taxpayers. So our taxpayers overlap. Those who are in the city of Northfield are also the taxpayers to the school
district. So in the case of our contribution from the school district that we all belong to, right, they give us $200,000 a year. If that doesn't the payment is not made, the city taxpayers, us, we have to pick that up. Am I am I right? Because that's what we're saying that the city is ultimately on the hook for the entire annual appropriation. Right. Under the the lease, under the lease purchase agreement, the city's obligation would be for the full, principal and interest on the the, you know, the annual payments on the bonds.
This the school district has different authority, including, state lease aid. So the the funding sources for schools are are a little different from the the funding sources for, cities. So, that this is structured to to take that into account that this is a, a a a lease payment under their agreement as well. Quick follow-up. Yes, please. Quick follow-up. So just so just so it's clear to me, that I I think I know how to interpret what you just said.
But if the school doesn't district does not pay us the $200,000 in the year 2030, we have to pick that up, the city taxpayers do. If for some reason they miss a year because of their own financial problems, whatever, it doesn't matter, or they add the 200,000 instead of next year, we would have to pick that up in 2030, the $200,000 that was not paid by the school district. Assuming that the city wanted to continue the lease and didn't non appropriate in that circumstance, yes. That would be the way to to, to state, you know, to keep the the the deal going.
Yes. Right. Thank you. Thank you. Other questions? Count oh, oh, counselor Peterson White. I guess I have a follow-up from miss Bolton. Have you ever heard of that happening? Of, a school district not paying, to use the, answering out. I mean, I guess this is a very specific example, but I guess I mean, have you heard of a partner in a project with this type of financing essentially defaulting on their agreement in in similar municipal facilities? Is I I I think that if we're I guess,
I'm just trying to evaluate how much we should worry about this. Right. Not I have not. There I wouldn't say this is utilized in every circumstances, but there are a number of, you know, local governments do work to cooperate and school districts very frequently use, municipal ice arenas, and are often a significant user of ice arenas and, and have a a real interest in in in running their their athletics programs with
a facility in the community. So, the it I I would not say it is typical for a for a a local funding partner that is, you know, has a vested interest in using a facility to, stop using it. But each circumstance could be unique and and certainly each financing. This is not necessarily a standard financing. Thank you. Councilor Soukup. This might be more for mister Bennett.
On the slide seven, that's the lease revenue bond estimates. I'm just curious. Can you explain why the cash donations line is 1.24 $54,000,000 when the NHA, had raised 3,800,000.0 in donations? Or I know their goal was 2,000,000, but they raised 3.8, and that was not supposed to include the the donations of the land or the site grading. And so I'm just wondering why those numbers are different,
or is that a whole different pot of cash? Is that I don't know where it would come from. Air management council. So, part of it is, the in kind contribution dollars that are currently, underway that the NHA and Anabec are constructing and doing, part of the work for the building. So they are doing the grading, the utility work, and that's that's also part of the donation. So it's not shown on this. The previous one that was prepared by Ehlers did show that in there, but that's, that's kinda being done,
and and we're receiving that as, like, shovel ready, site graded, utilities installed property. Just follow-up, mister So councilor Soka. So that the donation of all of that site prep adds up to the 3.8. Is it am I understanding that right? Let me just pull the slide up from the previous presentation to make sure I'm accurate, but that that is my Nick, do you do you you had the old one in before let me just grab that quickly. I can pull I don't know if you wanna keep going, and then I'll come back once I pull it up. Or Sure. I think Nick had to jump off at seven,
so he's not gonna be able to Did you have a yes. Counselor. Yeah. I mean, unless others wanna see it, I don't I'm just curious if that's what so the so the cost of the site grading and utilities and shovel readiness was is that amount is subtracted from what needs to be bonded for, and what's left over is the 1,250,000.00. Am I under I just wanna make sure I'm understanding that right. Yes. That's so that is correct. Yeah. So that's coming off the top,
so that's not getting bonded. It's not included in this. And then the cash is shown, the cash that's been deposited at the city. Thank you. Councilor Ness. Thank you. I'm just slightly confused. The EDA does not have its own full faith and credit whatever and doesn't have collateral of $23,000,000 probably. What do they base those bonds on to get them sold? Is there some special magic? If I could answer, mister Nessa, this that's exactly why I mentioned the slide with the annual appropriation on it is
because they're they are the investors are actually looking at the documentation that's been prepared and the drafts are in your packets. They're looking at that lease agreement. They're looking at who's the tenant of this ice arena. Are they gonna be able to make their appropriation payments? And that is the city of Northfield. And so they are banking all of their investment decisions on whether or not the city of Northfield is gonna make good on providing for the rent and operating the facility, into the future. So it's it's the city of Northfield, and it's entering into that lease purchase agreement that is is,
serving as the the credit or the security behind the transaction. Thank you. And and all that is in the lease purchase agreement. That's the document that says Northfield is good for this? It's at the lease purchase agreement, and then there's the indenture of trust is where the the EDA is actually, you know, all of its rights under that lease agreement with the city. It's passing it through to the bondholders through that indenture. Thank you for that clarification. Thank you. Other questions? No. Thanks. I I appreciate all the questions. We this is not something that happens on a regular basis like the GO bond.
So, alright. We will move on now to open public comment. I have two cards, and we'll start with mister David Blutisher. I only have two minutes, but I could answer almost all those questions that you had. See, what's gonna happen is if if you want to, make it very clear in the bonds that the city of Northfield is not responsible if you don't appropriate. Make it very clear so that it won't hurt your credit rating when it comes back. You know, Nick has an incentive for you guys to put out these bonds or for the EDA to put about because he'll make money selling them.
And Nick right now is telling you what's going on, but the EDA doesn't have its own bond counsel. There's nothing in this for the EDA. The only reason you folks are doing this, and everybody knows this, I mean, it's pretty clear, is because you don't wanna put it out for a vote. Why else would you do this? Jessica, do you have an answer besides that spooky face you always have? This will be the EDA's debt. Point point of order. We're gonna This will be the EDA's debt. Know what to do. Yes. Yep. We're not yeah. We're not gonna, accept comments about counselor or mayor's physical.
Folks, I want you to listen. Alright? This will cost Yeah. 2,000,000 Thank you. $2,000,000 more if you have the EDA do it, and that's at the rate that it's at now. The proposal here is that go up to 6%. It says right in here, it could go to 6%. You folks don't know what you're voting on. You're listening to these people. You have a CFO here of a company that can tell you how you can finance this. You don't have to go around the people. You could just follow the law. And so I only get two minutes.
These hired guns get lots of time. But I can tell you that the only reason you're doing this is because you wanna be your own princess and princesses. You you don't wanna put it out to the voters. And I would remind you, the last mayor only got 13% of the vote. Thank you, mister Lutisher. Your time is concluded. Our next, person is mister Lee Runzheimer. Lee Runzheimer, 1308 Prairie Street, twenty four year resident of Northfield. And, I've been involved in a lot of city related activities.
I was on the original NAFRS board for a couple of terms and also chair the finance study group back about thirteen years ago when LGA got suddenly cut during the Great Depression or the Great Recession as it was called, and Governor Pawlenty cut LGA significantly. Anyway, and I've also been involved in originally getting the YMCA going and originally getting the food co op going. I've had quite a bit of background in venture capital business development. So on that, let me to be concerned about where we're going here with this ice arena project just continually
increasing where the costs are now up almost 50% over the original $18,000,000 that maybe had a chance to being viable. But when I say affordability, I'm talking about it being affordable to the 50% of our population that has household income of $50,000 or less. And that's my concern that we're just not become we're just becoming uncompetitive in the combination of property tax and utility fees. So, and I think, we gotta keep in mind,
this whole project is for 234 active skaters. That's per our recent report to the state, form nine ninety. 234, that's less than 3% of our of our tax paying population excluding the colleges. So here we are a small low growth high tax city and it all came to head last Tuesday when we got the preliminary budget numbers saying our preliminary estimates of taxes going to be 14.5% of which 8.4%,
8.4% is related to the debt service cost. So that's where the bind is and, you know, we're getting we're basically gonna be paying 1,800,000.0 per year, 150,000 per month for debt service cost on this $23,000,000 That's page eight of the document. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So that's the problem. Thank you. And thank you, Councilor Pearson White. I usually let people finish their sentence. Alright. I'm looking for a motion. Anyone like to make a motion? I'll move. Thank you. Councillor Holmes? I'll move Resolution twenty twenty five-sixty six,
considering approving ICE Arena lease revenue bonds issuance parameters with the EDA. Counselor Beamer? I'll second. Thank you. We have a motion and a second, and we will now have council discussion. Would you like to start us off, counselor Holmes? I don't know that I really have anything to add. We've had multiple conversations about the project, and so I think, I don't necessarily wanna get into details about the project. Or I just feel like this is we're moving ahead, and I support it. Thank you. Councilor Beamer. I'll second that. Thank you, staff. Thank you, EDA members,
and everybody else that's donate don't the donators, Northfield Hockey Association School District, City of Dundas, thank you, everybody. So that's where I'll leave it. Thank you. Other comments? Councilor Ness. Thank you. I too wanna thank staff for all the time that's been put in on this. We've been talking about this for years. And to the, again, the EDA and its members, miss Bolton, mister Onhood, you straightened up my mind this evening, which is a legendary feat.
So thank you for all the work you've put in on this. That's all. Thanks. Thank you. Councilor Peterson White. Thank you. I also just wanna thank staff and council for their very thorough explanation of these, tools and mechanisms that we're using, and thanks to the community for their perseverance in moving this forward. It's for the use of many, many people in the community. I think a number was quoted here about a number of users that actually only reflects one organization that uses the facility. So I just want to highlight for folks again that the facility is used by
Northfield Hockey Association, Northfield Skating School, Carleton College, Northfield High School, Northfield Middle School, I believe. I don't even know. I'm not not my kids don't play hockey, and they don't figure skate. But, and and innumerable community members who thoroughly enjoy using this facility for open skate both on ice and on roller skates as well as the numerous other, things that happen in this facility and will continue to do so as we move forward with a beautiful new facility. So, thank you. I look forward to moving this. Councilor Dolan? Yes. I would like to,
extend appreciation to the community members who have brought so much to our attention about the process and the impact of this ice arena. And we are replacing an old facility that outlived its usefulness. I go back to that, that it was built by philanthropists, and I wish that the philanthropist community that exists here today in Northfield would have come forward in the same way that those people did fifty years ago. I think we should minimize the impact this is having. Yes, we get a beautiful facility, a facility that actually started out at $18,000,000
and then grew to this number that we have today. So, yes, we're handing the community a very beautiful facility. We're supporting a sport and ice skating. And that can be used for other things in the down in the in the off season. But I don't wanna minimize what this means to people's tax bills. I mean, if either we say make note of that and and and and try to bring the community together knowing full well that we have their our hand in their back pocket and need their support,
financial support, I think 1,500,000.0 in our budget every year for twenty years is a big number, and and it's going to be discussed probably every year in which we have to face this 1,500,000 debt, that we have to payment on the debt. And I am sad it didn't go to a referendum. I think the voters would have would perhaps with the right type of philanthropic community support would have come forward and voted for it. But we preempted that. The previous council preempted that. We inherited this project from the previous council that had already spent 1 point no.
2,300,000.0 on the architects. And so we're gonna get a very beautiful facility, But it does come out ahead to our reputation as a council who wants to protect or recognize the impact it has on households. So I just I mean, I'm in that household, and I could go further with my own personal involvement in this issue. But I think it's enough to say that if we're going to represent everybody in this community, we need to take that into account and not just congratulate ourselves for what we are doing tonight. I find that just
it's it's it's gonna make our work as public servants very difficult if that's how we approach projects of this magnitude. We just have to think about the people who are not gonna be happy at taxpayer time at the, in the tax season. So I'll end there. Thank you for the indulgence for a longer answer. Thank you. I don't think you went over your five minutes. You're good. Thank you. Other comments? Councilor Soka. I'll just keep it short. I just wanted to kind of echo what councilor Dolan was saying about, about this. I I feel like I'm gonna vote yes because I want the project to continue
to go forward, and I agree with the way that it's being funded through this this type of bonding with the agreement with the a EDA. I just wanna reiterate the burden the the cost share, in my opinion, should have fallen way heavier on cash donations from people in this town who could absolutely afford it. So I'm reluctantly voting yes so we can keep moving forward. But 18 what was it? $18 a month? $12 a month?
I'm gonna get the number wrong. Either one of those is way too much for a median household in Northfield to be paying for a nicer arena. Councilor Holmes. I haven't gone yet. Yes. I'm I'm just trying to decide. I don't favor this type of funding for a nonessential service. I did participate in this type of funding for the police center, which I did so because it was an essential service. I didn't like how the pool was financed, and, I'm not in favor of this type of financing. However, it did pass the council.
It is moving forward. I don't think it it's going to pass tonight, so I'm not sure if I'll vote yes or no. It doesn't really matter. But, yeah, councilor Holmes. I just want to, I guess, clarify my comments if they were taken as me celebrating. I don't I I guess I I don't think that as someone who has sat on this council and as someone who sat on the previous council, at no point were we delighting in what was happening. I think there was absolutely and you can go back and check every time I spoke and I think every time we had discussion that this is something that has
weighed very heavily on me as a person, as a counselor, for the two and a half years that I've been on council. So any representation of gleefully clapping or clapping or patting ourselves on the back, that is not how I feel. I think absolutely this is a this is a very huge, this this will have a huge impact. And I think we've discussed that, and decisions have been made. And and I hope that we find ways to help alleviate that,
that impact in the future. But I just wanted to I I just didn't wanna be mischaracterized as as being celebratory and ignorant to the impact that this has on our community because I don't think any of us up here are ignorant to that and are stepping over that. I think we all realize the weight that we have as we make these decisions. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Alright. Yes. Thank you for that. And it I'm yes. It is it's a it is, a yes and. It is both those things. It is coming at a cost,
and yet it is a significant project that has taken years to put together. It will add economic impact to our community. And as I have been listening and thinking, since personally, for me, it is the mechanism of funding that I disagree with, I will be voting no on this mechanism of funding. But I do, I I will be supporting the ice arena as it goes forward. That makes any sense. Alright. Are we ready to vote? Question? Yes. Just take five? It doesn't say that on my agenda, but it it would seem like it should. Mayor Michael.
It should be a simple majority of four for this. K. Alright. Thank you. Alright. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, aye. Roll call. Councilor Beamer? Yes. Councilor Dahlen? Aye. Councilor Holmes? Yes. Councilor Ness? Yes. Councilor Peterson White? Yes. Councilor Soukup? Yes. Mayor Zweifel? No. Alright. Motion passes. Thank you, everyone. Next item on our agenda is an update on the old memorial pool repair. Mayor, members of council? So, so when we we started up the pool this year,
things were up. We're running, and then, unfortunately, we did find a leak in the pool. So we were we were unable to to locate the leak, with the pool still filled with water, so we did have to drain down the pool. We're we found, multiple breaks in the pipe in the the zero entry kind of fan area when you come in, to be determined if it was water in there from and and freezing or if it was we do have a lot of shifting and groundwater or groundwater and heaving and could be movement that caused
it. Started the pool back up, and then we've there was one other break. So, the the pipe repairs are done now. We've we've patched in, we had to cut open the pool floor to to get to the pipes, and we'll be doing the the plaster work, tomorrow. And we're we're hoping that we're open on Saturday. I think our tentative plan is that the pool, it's been down. It'll be two weeks down, but what we our plan is to open on on Saturday. So the final work is should be tomorrow, and then it's just really the, like, the balancing of the the chemicals and that sort of stuff.
So we should be ready to go by Saturday. In terms of due to the delayed opening, we typically have a ten to eleven week pool season. So it kinda depends. We we monitor the end a lot of times. When we close at the end is dependent on the lifeguard availability because we do and when students, go back to school, we get very short, like the August. So we can, look at the two weeks down versus the season, and we can look at issuing refunds to the pre pool sales,
the pre pass sales that have been purchased. And then everybody else would still pay their daily fees once the pool opens. Thank you. Anyone like to ask questions? Yes. Councilor Peterson White. I I think I've asked this question before, but I just wanna say I I don't know if the parks and rec board has talked about this, but it continues to be difficult to understand as a frequent pool user, why it's so difficult to plan for staffing. That it's always a surprise in August. And I understand. I also employ young people, and I know that sometimes their plans are unpredictable. But if we have a if we have a critical need for the functioning of
a city facility, it seems to me like this is something we ought to be able to plan for and inform people about so that they know what they're getting. And I also just wanna reiterate that those last couple weeks in August are a time in Northfield that's very difficult to keep children entertained. Every camp is done. There are no programs anywhere. The pool is almost the only thing going. And, that is why people get so annoyed and upset when we suddenly announce that even that will not be happening. It's also often the hottest part of the year when for folks who might not have central AC in their homes, facilities like that are even more important,
just for keeping cool during the day. People of all ages, not just children. So I just I'm taking this opportunity to reiterate my belief that this should be a management problem we can solve. We manage to staff every other city facility very consistently and predictably. And I know that there is special training associated with this role. Many people have it. Many people can access it. I would like to see us, do better. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Alright. Oh, thank you. Councilor Holmes. Just as a representative to the parks board, I just wanna clarify that the pool,
it doesn't fall under parks. It's facilities. So it's not something that the parks board has advisory capacity over. We have had a discussion of the pool as we did last fall, and then the pool did remain open an extra week, I believe, or so. Like, there was a a concerted effort to try to keep try to keep it open. And I know I know what the response to this will be, but, the the our closing date is in line with the other regional pool closing dates. And I know we can do better, and and potentially we can solve that problem. But it just that it's not just that this is a unique to Northfield situation
with pools. It's pools everywhere. I mean, Apple Valley, Faribault. So, so and and I agree that there are things I think we can do to help solve this and and hopefully fill that gap because I think it would be valuable to our community. Thank you. Sorry, Mike. No. Well, we're this is not something that this is just an update, so there's no we're not following we've gone completely off script, with this one. Alright. If anyone else has questions from Mr. Bennett about the pool, otherwise, we can move on to the city administrator update.
Thank you, mayor, members of city council. Just a few things, follow-up, as we prepare for the Economic Development Authority related to the ICE Arena financing. For the council members that are on that board, they know that, although the council gets a lot of things you have to work on, they've been actually getting pretty much more in the weeds on the financing details on a monthly basis at the Economic Development Authority Board, even starting middle of last year and then they actually passed a resolution in September of last year with their intent to support the financing mechanism.
And then we've been having regular legal updates and memos to them explaining how the details of some of the questions that you had tonight. So we probably have a couple of council members who are probably getting more regular deeper information on some of the questions. I think it's all it was all good discussion. Ultimately, though, I do want to just emphasize that I think the fiduciary responsibility and looking at potential liability is an important role of the full counsel to ask those questions. But on a practical standpoint, I think the common sense response is the school district, as an example,
only doesn't, have the long term commitment because statutorily they can't. They have to appropriate it every year, but their intent is to do that. So full transparency, those agreements with Dundas and the school district are, are going to the full extent that we can. Everybody's good faith effort on this is eyes wide open support of those commitments and obligations that we all expect from one another. And the bond counsel, Jenny Bolton also is assumed with the economic development authority as a component unit of the city and they have honored Jenny as their legal counsel as well to advise
them on that. And again, this is a common tool. Everything is legally being done by city charter, by city ordinance, by state statutes for this financing mechanism. We rely very heavily on our legal counsel to advise us on that. So that's the bottom line on that. Ultimately, there are a lot of good policy discussions with that, but we are ramping that up for next week with the EDA Economic Development Authority. Just a reminder on Juneteenth, mentioned we are closed as a holiday for that on Thursday. And the school district, again, thanks to the business community and healthy community initiatives,
are providing a free event for the public from 11:30 to 01:30 at the high school. And they'll have a, assistant commissioner for the agricultural department of the state of Minnesota, will be giving a speech. So, certainly encourage, people to be there. I'm gonna try and make it a priority to be there myself for that meeting, just as a heads up. Next week, we will have the on the twenty fourth, the transit hub, ribbon cutting event that we have coming up, 03:30 to 04:30. There'll be some music, that will be incorporated with that. We're kind of fine tuning the event details and we'll be pushing out more information
on that. But I just also wanted to call attention to that. Certainly, as noted earlier on our moment of silence a really a horrific and event that occurred this weekend. And again I just like to also offer my support for local law enforcement and responders. And I do know that, the chief has noted that we do have representatives on our department that actually serve on the SWAT teams that we rely on working together with other departments to be effective. And we did have people that were involved directly in some of that work as
well. So hats off to law enforcement and swift action to try and protect those elected officials in that event and also apprehend and bring the, those to account or to be brought before the courts to make ultimate decisions on accountability for that. So I also wanted to note that thanks as well to them. So with that, that's all I have at this time. Thank you. Councilor Ness. Move to adjourn. Second. Councillor Boehmer? I'll second. Thank you.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? Motion carries. We are adjourned.