“But all of a sudden, the Wild wasn’t going to use it,” he said. He said the general contractor and the subcontractors would have known Fort was a shell company and they could have asked for a bond or money up front. The total costs according to Park Watch’s calculations are approximately $3,903,751. It has been a monumental failure. The bonds run for 20 years with two balloon payment of $1M each due in 2020 and 2021. Twenty-year bonds in the amount of $2,200,000 were issued for the acquisition of the 201 Building and adjacent land on July 11, 2002. The MPRB hired Miller Dunwiddie to estimate the cost to rehab the building to an ice facility – that estimate was about $3.5 million. Š We don’t feel the liens are a legal remedy.”. The sale of the old cavalry building and an adjacent parcel brought the park board $4.2 million, approximately the same amount the park board spent on acquisition, legal fees and other associated costs, Siggelkow said. The money went straight to the city to pay off the bonds used to acquire the property, he said. Chapter 1. This is a report item and will not be voted on at this time. However, it never was occupied and it never made any money. After the skateboard park deal fell apart, the park board even ended up paying $900,000 to settle a lawsuit – despite the fact that no public money was supposed to go into the project. Initially, the MPRB sold $6 million in bonds (through the City) for the athletic complex, the fields, at Ft. Snelling. Park Board attorney Brian Rice claims he never saw the contract between the Park Board and The Fort LLC. It was the cash flow from the lease with the Wild that was to pay for the interest on the second bond offering. The Wild talked about pumping in as much as $5 million into the facility, he said. But when the purchase agreement was signed on October 31, 2007, it was different from the offer price. Park Watch has been monitoring this failed enterprise project since the liens against it were filed in 2004. In 2004, about 280,000 rounds of golf were played at MPRB courses. staff report……………………………………………………………………………$105,968, Legal fees (Sale), based on the September 2009 The reconvening of the CAC for the Wirth Beach Project III. For instance, the two separate bond offerings were merged to create the impression of just one bond offering, which obfuscates the issue of bond interest. The Park Board would not have seen any money for several years, he said. What does it take to get elected officials to be accountable for the taxpayers money they carelessly squander? More information: On September 25, 2008, the Star Tribune published an article about the Minneapolis Park Board’s 201 Building, but the article did not elaborate on the circumstances that were responsible for the problems that caused it to be an eight-year white elephant. The Park Board granted Fort exclusive development rights in March 2002. The private corporation built an indoor tennis facility on the parkland. The vision was that the facility would generate revenue for the MPRB. As a result, what was supposed to be a privately funded project on public land will end up costing public money. Naegele and Fine signed the lease July 24, 2002. The issue is a flashpoint for Park Board critics, who charge the Board has wasted money.