Tag Archives: brec

Special meetings called

Posted on by
Reply

The Bemidji City Council will meet Friday afternoon in two special meetings.

First, the council will convene at 5 p.m. as itself to discuss (and, presumably, approve) an amendment to state grant agreements for bonding dollars used to construct the Bemidji Regional Event Center. Then, councilors will consider approving the naming rights contract with Sanford Health for the BREC, which is expected to become The Sanford Center.

Immediately following that meeting, the City Council will convene as the Bemidji Economic Development Authority to also consider the naming rights agreement.

BREC and property taxes

Posted on by
2

Hopefully, this isn’t “old news” – it took me a little while to find the time to write this up.

Councilor Barb Meuers said last week, during the council’s budget work session, that some councilors have repeatedly stated that the Bemidji Regional Event Center’s operations would not raise property taxes.

Her statements addressed the 2011 city budget , which include a $300,000 operating subsidy for the BREC.

“This is why I’ve been voting no all along,” she said.

City Manager John Chattin and Mayor Richard Lehmann disagreed with Meuers, saying that they, all along, have said that the facility would lose money.

So, since then, I’ve done a little research – and this is what I found: (Note: All emphasis added by me, just today.)

- June 10, 2008, Bemidji Pioneer, “South Shore Redevelopment: Project scrapes by,” written by me. (This article detailed the 4-3 vote to approve the funding plan for the south shore redevelopment.)

‘While (City Manager John) Chattin said city staff have developed a plan that would be utilized without raising property taxes, Meuers said she could not put the residents’ property taxes on the line.”

-  The June 9, 2009, minutes – the meeting from which the above article was written (just in case someone wants a source other than my reporting…):

“Chattin reviewed possible sources to cover operating deficits without raising property taxes which include: 1) sale of naming rights ($75,000 to $150,000 annually); 2) charge for parking during events; 3) increase ticket surcharges; 4) dedicate savings from the creation of an airport authority to the center; 5) dedicate a portion of the $150,000 savings from reorganization of the wastewater treatment facility; 6) reassess the need to continue city arena operations (Chattin noted that the City arena loses over $100,00 annually plus ongoing capital needs); 7) develop the old fairgrounds site, with the county and split lease revenues; 8) find additional opportunities for advertising revenues, i.e., scoreboard, sponsorships, etc.; 9) lease any unused office space; 10) increase the current hospitality tax to cover promotional costs included in the budget; and 11) pursue corporate pledges.”

- Jan. 11, 2008 Bemidji Pioneer, “Financial strategies planned to not affect taxpayers,” again, written by me:

“The event center project team, which consists of representatives from city staff, Headwaters Regional Development Commission and the design team, has developed funding strategies for the events center that do not rely on taxpayer dollars.”

- From the city’s Frequently Asked Questions about the BREC, which were released in September 2008.

First set of FAQs: Question: “I’m told the BREC will operated at a deficit. how will the city cover that cost?

“Convention, Sports, and Leisure, our consultants, suggest that an operating loss is inevitable for this facility. However, there are many possible revenue streams identified by CSL that could mitigate those losses. We should also consider the economic impact to our region generated by this facility and what that is worth. The city operates many facilities, none of which make a profit (except for our liquor stores). Parks, arenas, streets, and other facilities all have a cost associated with them. So will the BREC. It will be the city’s goal to operate the facility as efficiently as possible and minimize any loss. City staff have also identified other revenue sources and expenditure reductions that could help cover operational deficits. The goal is to prevent, or minimize, any increase in property taxes.“

Second set of FAQs:

Question: “How will the city pay for … deficits?

“Possible sources to cover operational deficits may include, but are not limited to, the following:

“Airport contribution – As the airport moves towards a stand alone taxing authority, the city could reallocate its $180,000 annual contribution to BREC operations.

“Arena – The future of the City Arena should be examined. The Arena has annual operating deficits of $90,000, plus on-going capital requirements.

“Sell/Lease old fairgrounds property – Jointly develop site with Beltrami County and split the sale or lease revenue.

“Sale of Naming Rights/Parking Fees/Ticket Surcharge/Budget Mandates – These opportunities are described in detail in the CSL report and could generate from $80,000 to $303,000 annually.

“Property Taxes – Should all other funding sources fail to cover operational deficits, the last resort, and least favorable remedy, remains property taxes. The extent of tax increases, if any, would depend on how revenue sources and operational projections materialize”

OK, back to present time.

I have a few thoughts.

The oft-referenced CSL study details anticipated deficits for the BREC. But one should note that the operational assistance needed is quite different when one considers the early start-up years versus later years (i.e. after year five), when the BREC is stabilized.

The CSL study, done in April 2008, shows an expected base stabilized deficit of $436,000.

As Councilor Ron Johnson noted lasted Monday, the city now is anticipating needing only about $300,000 for assistance in 2011, which is in line with the best-case scenario CSL presented.

Projections at this point are “conservative at best,” Johnson said, noting that  budget figures do not include any revenue brought in from naming rights (which are still planned to be sold); include non-sold-out hockey games, (when many already have sold out); and there is a community fund available, totaling about $70,000, to assist with deficits.

Further, Johnson argued at the BREC would generate additional development, such as the two planned hotels in the area, that would help relieve any tax burden.

Bemidji speaks and Pawlenty listens?

Posted on by
Reply

I was going to do a blog entry today about a resolution the Bemidji City Council passed last night opposing the possibility of further unallotment of Local Government Aid funds.

But, as it turns out, Gov. Pawlenty said those funds will not be touched this month. Read more at www.areavoices.com/CapitolChat/

(Of course, Pawlenty didn’t make any promises about future LGA funds.)

FYI, if you’ve missed the numbers: Bemidji lost $241,303 in LGA cuts in 2008 and another $210,493 in 2009. The city is anticipating a $485,688 loss in 2010.

OK, so I’m sure Pawlenty’s actions were not specifically in response to Bemidji’s resolution – but it probably didn’t hurt, right?

- Bethany

Note: A correction will run tomorrow, but I thought I should point out an error that appeared in my council story in today’s Pioneer. Members of the Bemidji Regional Event Center Advisory Board now includes: City Manager John Chattin, Finance Director Ron Eischens and Bemidji City Councilors Ron Johnson and Greg Negard; Bill Maki, Bemidji State University’s vice president of finance and administration; Gayle Quistgard, the VisitBemidji executive director; and Ken Howe, the owner of Dunn Bros. and a member of the Bemidji Area Chamber of Commerce. My apologies to Ron Johnson (whom I replaced on the board with Councilor Kevin Waldhausen).

BREC Zamboni approved

Posted on by
6

The Bemidji City Council last night voted 5-1 to award a bid for an ice resurfacer for the Bemidji Regional Event Center. Frank J. Zamboni & Co. had the low bid of two received at $85,780.18. (The other bid was from Becker Arena Products, Inc. for $98,970.) Councilor Barb Meuers was opposed; Mayor Richard Lehmann was absent.

Bemidji City Councilor Ron Johnson noted that the existing ice resurfacer at the John Glas Fieldhouse, where the Beavers now play, is electric while the new Zamboni will be propane-powered. He wondered whether that would create an issue if the old machine would be used as a backup.

City Manager John Chattin noted that Bemidji State University will still need its old Zamboni at the Glas, which will still have ice for at least one more year.

This, honestly, had not occurred to me. I guess I never thought of it, but I figured that BSU would find another use for the Glas rather than close it. But I hadn’t considered whether it would continue to hold ice.

Makes sense, though. If the BREC opens on time (which is expected), it would open in October 2010 when the Beavers open their seasons. It figures, then, that BSU will still need ice to practice on until the new arena opens.

Other thoughts on the Zamboni discussion:

– Councilor Roger Hellquist thought he remembered reading or hearing that an electric-powered ice resurfacer was a requirement of some kind, either by the WCHA or someone else.
Chattin said the recommendation came from VenuWorks, which is managing the BREC.
"We’re not the experts," Chattin said. "We left it up to VenuWorks and it was their unanimous recommendation."

– Councilor Jerry Downs asked if the new Zamboni would be energy-efficient or if it would have lower emissions.
Chattin said the BREC will be required to undergo regular exhaust testing once a week and report the results to the state of Minnesota.
"Our arena is set up for monster truck events," he said

– Chattin, in responding to a question from Johnson, said an electric-powered ice resurfacer would be "significantly more expensive" to purchase.

– Chattin, in responding to a question from Councilor Greg Negard, stated that the Zamboni will be owned by the city of Bemidji and would be able to sell and keep all profits from advertising placed on the machine.

– Even if the Glas does cease to hold ice in the future, Chattin said he did not believe that two ice resurfacers would be used to clean the ice between periods of a hockey game. He noted that while two may be used at other arenas "where money is no object," the BREC would use one.
"Most arenas still operate with just one," he said.

a new BREC art plan?

Posted on by
Reply

I rarely get U.S. mail at work. I would say I recall receiving maybe four piece of mail in the last 2 1/2 years at the Pioneer. Most everything is sent to editor Molly Miron or Brad Swenson, our political and editorial page editor who handles letters to the editor.

This morning, Brad gave me some mail, saying that it didn’t qualify for the letters to the editor page because it was not signed as a letter. And it included some sketches.

The writer, who wrote "Resident" on the return address, apparently took issue with artist selected for one of two art projects in the Bemidji Regional Event Center. He or she apparently found the the design provided for the terrazzo floor concourse to be "too busy." (Click  www.bemidjipioneer.com/event/article/id/100013022/ to read the article I wrote on the artists selected to provide the artwork for the BREC and see an image of a section of the floor design.)

The writer of the letter is stating his or her belief that the entire community should vote on the BREC art design. And s/he even offered his or her own sketches on what s/he believes the floor should include.

You can see in the sketches outlines of Paul and Babe and the Bemidji State University beaver. Also, there are images of the Mississippi River showing where Bemidji is located.

 

 

You can tell the letter writer was quite enthusiastic about his or her design.

We reporters never really know what people read. Sure, we can check article views online, but we never really know what our print readers are interested in. We almost always get feedback when we make mistakes (which happens) – but we rarely get phone calls from readers who just want to share other options or points of view.

So the mail I received today was welcome. And interesting.

What do you think?
- Bethany

 

A unanimous vote on something BREC-related

Posted on by
1

The last unanimous vote by the Bemidji City Council on an event center-related topic was in March, when the council voted to reduce the budget for the project by $10 million. This action was taken following the receipt of bids, which came in significantly under budget. (Of course, that wasn’t what I’d call a controversial motion: The council was reducing the cost of the Bemidji Regional Event Center, which would appeal to, well, most everyone.)

But last night, the council again had a unanimous vote on an event center-related topic as it approved the the final plat for the south shore redevelopment, which includes the BREC. The vote was 7-0. I almost dropped my pen when I heard Councilor Barb Meuers, a vocal BREC opponent, cast her vote in favor of the motion to approve, saying: "I suppose."

It’s easy to forget now the earlier days of the project, when the council (then comprised of different officials) was united on the BREC. From September 2005 to May 2007, the council had 16 unanimous votes on the topic.

But everything changed June 4, 2007. At this meeting, the council was asked to consider a more costly project, voting to ask the Legislature for 50 percent of the funding needed for a $50 million BREC. That vote (which followed two other failed motions for a $35 million and $60 million BREC) passed 6-1 as Meuers was opposed. That was the beginning of the council division on the BREC. There were a combination of unanimous and 6-1 votes for about one year, until April 2008, when the 4-3 council split became apparent.

I don’t bring this up to rehash the past. Chances are that if you’re reading this, you probably follow the Bemidji City Council fairly closely. We all know how we got to this point.

But I think it’s worth a reminder only because it made the vote last night all that more unexpected.

- Bethany
 

Reaching new heights?

Posted on by
Reply

A few hours from now, the Greater Bemidji Area Joint Planning Board will decide just how high development will be allowed in the south shore. I don’t expect the decision, whichever way it may go, to come without some good discussion. Consider that the Joint Planning Commission last month tied on its vote, 5-5, as it considered the issue.

By ordinance, development in the Lakeshore District (the south shore redevelopment) can reach 65 feet. The Bemidji Regional Event Center will be about 21 feet above that, for which the city of Bemidji received a variance in December.

Now, the city has requested a variance to allow associated development to reach 80 feet.

The arguments on both sides have merit. The city wants to allow higher development to reach up to 80 feet tall so that development would be more "aesthetically-pleasing" and utilize different roof levels. The city would require that anything built above 65 feet would not be occupiable (I know this isn’t technically a word, but it works nicely here) and that only 50 percent of the building be allowed to be that tall. Basically, the city wants to force developers to build something other than big, rectangular buildings.

But on the other side are those who want to preserve the views of and from the lake. Planning commissioners have said that the 65-foot level was based on the height of trees in the area so buildings would not extend higher than what is naturally along that shoreline now.

Further, some JPB and JPC members believe they were misled on the height issue. Select members recall that when they were initially asked last year to consider the raised height for the BREC that they were assured, by city representatives, that the city would not request an additional height for complimentary development.

Did this happen? I can’t be 100 percent sure, although I’m inclined to say yes. I was at the meeting and I do have a faint memory of a city representative stating that he did not believe the city would request an additional height variance, as it is now. But I can’t find that statement in my notes. City Manager John Chattin, who made a presentation to the JPC last month on the latest height request, acknowledged that he, too, has heard of the assurance — but said that if someone did say that, he would have misspoken. The city has always intended to ask that the height limit be raised, Chattin said.

So all of this will come into play tonight as the JPB makes a final determination on the height issue. Public comment will not be taken, considering that the public hearing was held earlier this year.

This is the kind of meeting I really look forward to covering. Good discussion, valid arguments.

But, perhaps even more so than that, I am interested in seeing the JPB decide on the future of city development. The joint planning process just began a couple of years ago – and now officials from not only the city, but also the neighboring townships will dictate how a very key piece of city land will develop. I find that fascinating.

So will it pass? I really don’t know, either way I think it will be close. But my gut says yes, that if all eight JPB members are able to attend tonight’s meeting, the city will get its height variance.

We will see.