CCP 07-15-1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, .. . . Agreement Among Parties I There exists a draft "Master Agreement" dated March 5, 1995 among parties involved in the -. National Sports Center Ice Arena. The parties include the following: City of Mounds View, City of Arden Hills, City of New Brighton, City of . Shoreview and School District 621 (Mounds View). - City of Blaine. . - City of Coon Rapids. - City of Forest Lake. City of Spring Lake Park. I - Minnesota Amateur Sports Commission Down payment . The proposed agreement assumes that each of the parties to the Master Agreement makes a . down payment in an amount equal to 5500,000. It is assumed in this report that the down payments are received prior to construction starting and are available immediately for expenditures related to the project. I MASC will contribute land and related facilities, goods, and services which will be described in the Master Agreement. e- Priority Ice Time Commitment Each of the five parties to the Master Agreement listed above will be financially responsible for - 2,080 hours of ice time at the facility's regular hourly rate. The initial regular hourly rate is assumed to be equal to 5125 per hour. This equates to a maximum initial annual financial I obligation of 5260,000 per party; however. in reality the financial exposure can be expected to be lower than the full guarantee. In return for their guarantee, each of the parties except MASC can schedule usage of an ice surface during prime time hours up to its allotted 2,080 hours. MASC will have a similar priority for all four ice surfaces for the months of June, July I and August. There are several exceptions to the exclusive use of ice time that run to MASC and the other parties. These exclusions are described in the Master Agreement and frequently relate to tights to use all four ice surfaces Simultaneously for tournaments. . The Master Agreement assumes that, with the exception of MASC, the parties' financial obligation for ice time will be in the form of a general obligation. It isn't clear whether a legal . commitment of this kind is permitted under current law; however, if there is a deficit in any year application of facility revenue first to operations would cause a shortfall for debt service to which the general obligation of the parties could be pledged; however, this application of revenues is inconsistent with the draft Master Agreement dated March 5, 1996. I The alternative currently under discussion would have each of the parties, except MASC, create an obligation under the gross revenue bonding authority discussed earlier. These . obligations would be pledged to the County which would lend its general obligation to the bond financing. This approach would require that revenues first be applied to the payment of debt service, that each party pledge to operate the facility until the bonds are paid and that each e. party further pledges to provide operating funds in the event that facility revenues are insufficient. DRAFT REPORT 5/30/96 Page 15 I