CC_Minutes_2008_0317 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, March 17, 2008 Page 14 Councilmember Ihlan opined that the Mission Statement and their Value State- ment clearly emphasized the Christian portion of their ministry, and while it was a great and noble mission, and opined that it sounded very sectarian to her, and suggested that the City Council consider legal ramifications in providing public benefit to a private sectarian institution. Ms. Ippel noted that there was a whole gamut of sectarian or non-sectarian institu- tions, opining that what may or may not be contained on their website was not in- dicative of the entire spectrum of school financing issues and options. Ms. Ippel reiterated the review of every day curriculum; similar educational facility reviews and considerations across the spectrum; and their firm's legal opinion that this fa- cility was on the lower end of the spectrum in terms of religious involvement. Councilmember Pust questioned the current use of debt for the Bloomington and Roseville facilities. Ms. Ippel reviewed the three components of the project: the schools' incurred tax- able debt in doing improvements at their Roseville facility; acquisition of the Bloomington facility through taxable funding, for which they were now attempt- ing to refinance through tax-exempt funds; and non-classroom improvements to the Bloomington facility, constituting a total of $7 million, with roughly half al- lotted to Roseville and half to Bloomington. Ms. Ippel advised that it was not unusual to have one city issue bonds for projects in two locations; and that ration- ale for choosing Roseville as the issuing conduit was due to the City not issuing any SOl.c.3 bonds for government purpose. Ms. Ippel advised that this would be abank-facilitated loan, financed by Premier Bank. Councilmember Roe questioned if it were determined down the road that the bond issue was used for sectarian purposes, whether there would be any penalty to the City. Ms. Ippel advised that there would be no penalty or liability to the City; opining that lawyers were split on provision of education as the key; and referenced case law indicating that, if even pervasively religious, education was still being pro- vided. Ms. Ippel advised that, as a firm and as a standing recommendation to their clients, they have chosen a more conservative approach in making that de- termination, considering how pervasive the religion is to everyday education and basing their analysis on whether education or religious indoctrination is the goal, and thus only finance non-religious components and classrooms. Ms. Ippel reit- erated the opinion of bond counsel that this project is on the conservative end from a municipal standpoint. Councilmember Roe questioned ramifications if a future ruling were made that • disagreed with bond counsel's opinion.