Volleys went through the net during the regular Blue Earth City Council meeting on Monday, September 20. Board members once again discussed building new tennis courts at Blue Earth Area High School.
Following meetings with the Tennis Courts Subcommittee, City Administrator Mary Kennedy presented the project to council.
Regarding the proposed layout of the new courts, Kennedy explained: “The subcommittee discussed at length. For training and spectator reasons, a four-quad layout was selected.”
The committee’s preferred layout will include dedicated spectator observation between courts, allowing the facility to be surrounded by a 10-foot fence to block wind.
The tennis courts subcommittee and Kennedy also received a memo from Doug Green, principal of Bakertilly Municipal Advisors, which provides municipal advisory services to local governments. Green’s analysis proposed several options for financing tennis courts.
“There are basically four options that could afford something like this,” Kennedy shared with the council.
Options include general obligation referendum bonds, general obligation reduction bonds, rental revenue bonds and recreation gross revenue bonds.
While Kennedy said the city was unlikely to receive approval for a general obligation referendum bond, she acknowledged that the second option of a general obligation reduction fund would generally be the best path forward.
“That would be the best option, but it’s not an option” Kennedy explained. “Right now we are at our limit. We could consider paying off the fitness center bonds to expand our limits, but ultimately that would put us in the same situation we are in now, which is being at the limit.”
Therefore, the board is weighing the pros and cons of pursuing rental revenue bonds versus gross revenue recreational bonds.
“Rental income bonds go through the EDA (Economic Development Authority) and are concluded with the bank. They are a little riskier and may not be tradable,”Kennedy shared. “They’re risky because future (EDA) boards might not vote to pay it. Every year you have to appropriate that money.”
As for the last option, Kennedy said: “Gross revenue recreational bonds may not be legally valid. They might legally be valid if we had some sort of cost-sharing agreement, but that depends on whether the lawyers approve it.”
Kennedy added that it was possible to obtain grants to mitigate the costs of the project, but they would not cover the entire cost of the project.
Kennedy concluded, “There are options, but there are things we really need to look at. It’s not going to be as black and white as other projects we’ve done in the past.”
$1 million is the estimated starting point for the total project cost.
The city works jointly with the Blue Earth Area School District to fund the courts.
“The city has a cost-sharing agreement with the school district. »Kennedy explained.
Part of the deal involves the demolition of the Putnam Park tennis courts, which fall under the city’s jurisdiction.
The Parks and Recreation Subcommittee recommended that the board authorize Bolton and Menk to immediately begin necessary feasibility studies and prepare cost analyzes for the demolition of the Putnam Park courts.
The committee would like to redevelop the space into a multi-court sports area, including a tennis court, basketball court and pickleball courts.
There has been some disagreement regarding methods of financing the construction of Putnam Park and the construction of the new tennis courts at the high school.
Mayor Rick Scholtes suggested: “If we’re doing this and we’re going to make connections, I’d like to tie Putnam Park into that (the tennis court project).”
He added, “We don’t have money in the bank. We need to connect what’s happening here so that it’s affordable for every side.”
Council member Glenn Gaylord, who has always had doubts about the tennis court project, responded: “We’re talking about two different levels of risk. One is not even our own project. I like the idea of a link for this one, but I would like it to be separated somehow,”
Scholtes replied, “But then you pay twice”referring to the costs incurred when issuing bonds.
Scholtes, in favor of carrying out both projects, concluded: “It’s a benefit to our community.”
“It’s a risk for our community”Gaylord replied.
The council made no concrete decisions regarding funding Monday evening, agreeing to consider the issue for future discussions.
Other issues discussed by the council on September 20 included:
• Establish the preliminary budget for 2022. The council approved setting the total levy at $1,896,074.40, a figure that is comfortably within the 10 percent increase range. The Council hopes to reduce the levy to a three percent increase before the final levy is certified on December 20.
• An update regarding the Three Sisters project. Council member Ann Hanna questioned whether the project had received the necessary permits for construction, as she did not see any permits posted at the construction site. City Attorney David Frundt explained that it’s possible the project received a permit from the state, in which case the permit doesn’t necessarily have to apply across the city.
• A letter concerning the sanitary facilities at the exhibition center which was sent to the town hall. The letter stated that the toilets in the stand were “a shame”and asked the council to allocate funds for their renovation.
Scholtes explained that unfortunately the toilets are not city property and therefore the council is unable to do anything to resolve the problem. He advised the anonymous author of the letter to contact the Fair Board so that further action could be taken.
• Updates on street improvement projects that will be completed throughout 2022. City Engineer Wes Brown, of Bolton and Menk, explained that two blocks of Galbraith Street are in poor condition and need more immediate attention. As such, they have been added as projects for next year.
To balance costs, improvements planned for the 10th Street and 11th Street blocks were theoretically postponed until 2023.
