10-23-07 PTRC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PARKS, TRAILS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE MEETING October 23, 2007 Page 2 Stacie pointed out some legal parameters, the statutory guidance for referenda in Chapter 475 and Chapter 205, and the list of things that the City will need to go through in order to do an election. One option is to have it at a normal regular election in November or to call for a Special Election which will have some restrictions. She stated the ballot language is very specific and must include the amount of the bond, the amount of debt the city is going to issue to accomplish what they want to do, the term and rate of financing. It’s looking at what the tax impact will be to the homeowners and making the statement that by voting “yes” they are voting to increase taxes. Stacie indicated that the tax supported debt is limited to 2 percent of the city’s taxable market value so for Arden Hills the 2 percent limit is $22 million. She indicated most general obligation debt for street improvements is paid on tax capacity and anything that is voter approved debt is paid on market value. Stacie also indicated the restrictions are that the funds need to be used for what was specified and the City cannot use any of those funds to advocate for passage of the referendum. She stated the City can do communications for providing factual information to the voters and provided the Council with sample communications of referendums that were done by other communities. She suggested that for a successful referendum the City needs to define what the funding is for and what the problem is, also to let the taxpayers know what options the City has looked at, and the process the City went through to arrive at their decision. She indicated the key thing is to know what the City wants to finance and to get some fairly accurate estimates on what the cost will be. Chair Henry questioned if a referendum failed in the school would it also fail in the city. Stacie indicated “no”, that it could succeed in the City if it failed in the school. In closing, Stacie indicated it is helpful to the Council when they’re making budgetary decisions to lay the CIP out in a 10-20 year timeframe. 5. SHEEHY TENNIS COURT DISCUSSION Arden Hills No. 3 Association Input and Discussion: Arden Hills Association No. 3 residents Tim Ronchak, Kay Reyerson and Mary Bremer attended the meeting to represent their position and to hear more information regarding the Sheehy Tennis Court. The Association expressed their desire to continue leasing the Tennis Court as they had done in the past. Parks and Recreation Manager Olson gave a history of the Tennis Court and indicated the reason this was brought to Council with different options, which were discussed in a prior meeting, is because there was some question as to why this was private and not public. She indicated with the option to lease there are concerns regarding maintenance of the property. The Association residents indicated they leased the tennis court in 1996 and in 1999 they put $5,000 into repairs and they realize it is again in need of maintenance and indicated they are ready to repair. They also indicated that when the Sheehys gave it to the City as a gift it was intended for neighborhood use and not for a public park. They indicated the intent of the neighbors and the Association is to keep this in the neighborhood and that this would also take the burden off the City for cost of repairs. They understand that private use of public land is an issue, but they would like the Committee to reconsider and recommend to the City Council that the lease for exclusive use of the tennis court be extended.