--------------6FBB39E9FE7C7F69A419E871
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
It appears our city leaders have truly gone mad ("Wally Swann Opposes Library
Funding") A world-class library is what the City of Minneapolis should be
spending its money on. Perhaps if the mayor and city council were not
"targeting" tax-payer dollars to fund an over-sized convenience store owned by a
corporation whose enjoys an ever-increasing stock value, or wasting additional
tax-payer money funding a suburban style "e" playground so at least one council
member has a place to "drop off his kids" to see a movie, the city could afford
the type of civic projects city governments were meant to fund. But perhaps
Wally believes these are the "basic municipal needs" the city should focus on.
Who needs a good book when you can pick up your toilet paper and play a game of
pac-man in one downtown trip!!
List Manager wrote:
> In his library story Sunday, the Strib's Steve Brandt referenced a letter
> from Wally Swan, an elected official with the Board of Estimate and
> Taxation, opposing the referendum. Here's the text (all typos mine)... --
> David Brauer, List manager, Minneapolis-issues
>
> Letter Regarding the Minneapolis Library Referendum on November 7...
>
> I serve on the Minneapolis Board of Estimate and Taxation ( a city-wide
> office responsible for city auditing, handling much of our municipal
> bonding, and setting the maximum tax levy for the city), but I am not
> speaking for the Board in this letter, although I am currently Board
> President. I have also taught public policy and finance at Metro State and
> St. Thomas.
>
> One of the basic foundations for everything that a city accomplishes is its
> financial health, very much as it is for individuals. People typically use
> their paycheck for bills, but take out loans for larger investments (such as
> houses and cars). When an individual uses loans or credit cards too much,
> they begin to dedicate an overly large amount of their paycheck to covering
> bills for credit card companies, banks and mortgage companies. Cities are
> somewhat analogous because they use their revenues for operating purposes
> ( e.g. employee salaries, as well as other expenses), but they are also
> somewhat different because they use municipal bonds (the equivalent of
> long-term loans) to purchase those items that are too expensive to acquire
> in a single year (e.g. sewer systems, streets, buildings). Like individuals,
> cities sometimes get into serious trouble when they decide to bond for
> anything which looks attractive at the time- rather than postponing things
> until they can afford them. Some cities (e.g. New York) have spiraled down
> to extreme financial problems by continuing to bond beyond their means.
> Other cities ( such as Indianapolis) have been warned by rating agencies
> when they do not provide sufficient revenues to cover expenses. If cities
> charge too much to bonding, they limit the amount of revenue available to
> support basic needs in their operating budget, and their debt payments can
> become overly large in proportion to the remainder of the budget.
>
> Minneapolis currently is one of the two cities in the country which has
> rock-solid AAA credit rating from all three rating agencies (Fitch, Standard
> and Poor's as well as Moody's). I want to keep it this way. The value of
> this is that when we go out to buy things, the interest rate we pay is quite
> low compared to most other cities. To maintain this preferred rate, we have
> to exercise some restraint on our "credit card" (bond) purchases, or we will
> lose our preferred rate. If we bond well beyond our means, we can even lose
> our financial credibility with rating agencies.
>
> The people who support the Library Referendum are well aware of the problems
> of the Central Library and the community libraries, as am I ( since I use
> the Central Library regularly and have visited most of the community
> libraries). But our problem is that we as the City of Minneapolis (with a
> debt load of $1,249,003,187 on December 31st, 2000 after all Year 2000 bond
> sales), are like the person who has a lot of debt who is close to the credit
> limit, but who still wants to go out and charge for something realty
> attractive and useful but quite expensive.
>
> By contrast I think that it is financially imperative that we defer the
> Library Referendum until we can pay down some of our debt. It is for this
> reason that I recommend the following:
>
> (1) Vote No on the $140 million Library Referendum (but Vote Yes on the much
> smaller School Referendum --- which is simply an extension of an existing
> bonding stream).
>
> (2) We also need to advise our city council to develop a systematic plan to
> severely limit our credit card & bonding efforts by dramatically limiting
> the use of development and tax increment and all other forms of bonds;
>
> (3) We reed to focus on our basic municipal needs by having the city council
> be& this year to put money into the 2001 budget for basic infrastructure and
> internal service fundsTo do otherwise will risk the financial health of our
> city.
>
> Let's keep our rock-solid AAA credit rating, and make the right decisions on
> November 7th to protect our city's future!
>
> Wallace Swan, City-wide member of the Mpls. Board of Estimate and Taxation.
--------------6FBB39E9FE7C7F69A419E871
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
It appears our city leaders have truly gone mad ("Wally Swann Opposes Library
Funding") A world-class library is what the City of Minneapolis <u>should</u>
be spending its money on. Perhaps if the mayor and city council were
not "targeting" tax-payer dollars to fund an over-sized convenience store
owned by a corporation whose enjoys an ever-increasing stock value, or
wasting additional tax-payer money funding a suburban style "e" playground
so at least one council member has a place to "drop off his kids" to see
a movie, the city could afford the type of civic projects city governments
were meant to fund. But perhaps Wally believes these are the "basic
municipal needs" the city should focus on. Who needs a good book
when you can pick up your toilet paper and play a game of pac-man in one
downtown trip!!
<p>List Manager wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>In his library story Sunday, the Strib's Steve Brandt
referenced a letter
<br>from Wally Swan, an elected official with the Board of Estimate and
<br>Taxation, opposing the referendum. Here's the text (all typos mine)...
--
<br>David Brauer, List manager, Minneapolis-issues
<p>Letter Regarding the Minneapolis Library Referendum on November 7...
<p>I serve on the Minneapolis Board of Estimate and Taxation ( a city-wide
<br>office responsible for city auditing, handling much of our municipal
<br>bonding, and setting the maximum tax levy for the city), but I am not
<br>speaking for the Board in this letter, although I am currently Board
<br>President. I have also taught public policy and finance at Metro State
and
<br>St. Thomas.
<p>One of the basic foundations for everything that a city accomplishes
is its
<br>financial health, very much as it is for individuals. People typically
use
<br>their paycheck for bills, but take out loans for larger investments
(such as
<br>houses and cars). When an individual uses loans or credit cards too
much,
<br>they begin to dedicate an overly large amount of their paycheck to
covering
<br>bills for credit card companies, banks and mortgage companies. Cities
are
<br>somewhat analogous because they use their revenues for operating purposes
<br>( e.g. employee salaries, as well as other expenses), but they are
also
<br>somewhat different because they use municipal bonds (the equivalent
of
<br>long-term loans) to purchase those items that are too expensive to
acquire
<br>in a single year (e.g. sewer systems, streets, buildings). Like individuals,
<br>cities sometimes get into serious trouble when they decide to bond
for
<br>anything which looks attractive at the time- rather than postponing
things
<br>until they can afford them. Some cities (e.g. New York) have spiraled
down
<br>to extreme financial problems by continuing to bond beyond their means.
<br>Other cities ( such as Indianapolis) have been warned by rating agencies
<br>when they do not provide sufficient revenues to cover expenses. If
cities
<br>charge too much to bonding, they limit the amount of revenue available
to
<br>support basic needs in their operating budget, and their debt payments
can
<br>become overly large in proportion to the remainder of the budget.
<p>Minneapolis currently is one of the two cities in the country which
has
<br>rock-solid AAA credit rating from all three rating agencies (Fitch,
Standard
<br>and Poor's as well as Moody's). I want to keep it this way. The value
of
<br>this is that when we go out to buy things, the interest rate we pay
is quite
<br>low compared to most other cities. To maintain this preferred rate,
we have
<br>to exercise some restraint on our "credit card" (bond) purchases, or
we will
<br>lose our preferred rate. If we bond well beyond our means, we can even
lose
<br>our financial credibility with rating agencies.
<p>The people who support the Library Referendum are well aware of the
problems
<br>of the Central Library and the community libraries, as am I ( since
I use
<br>the Central Library regularly and have visited most of the community
<br>libraries). But our problem is that we as the City of Minneapolis (with
a
<br>debt load of $1,249,003,187 on December 31st, 2000 after all Year 2000
bond
<br>sales), are like the person who has a lot of debt who is close to the
credit
<br>limit, but who still wants to go out and charge for something realty
<br>attractive and useful but quite expensive.
<p>By contrast I think that it is financially imperative that we defer
the
<br>Library Referendum until we can pay down some of our debt. It is for
this
<br>reason that I recommend the following:
<p>(1) Vote No on the $140 million Library Referendum (but Vote Yes on
the much
<br>smaller School Referendum --- which is simply an extension of an existing
<br>bonding stream).
<p>(2) We also need to advise our city council to develop a systematic
plan to
<br>severely limit our credit card & bonding efforts by dramatically
limiting
<br>the use of development and tax increment and all other forms of bonds;
<p>(3) We reed to focus on our basic municipal needs by having the city
council
<br>be& this year to put money into the 2001 budget for basic infrastructure
and
<br>internal service fundsTo do otherwise will risk the financial health
of our
<br>city.
<p>Let's keep our rock-solid AAA credit rating, and make the right decisions
on
<br>November 7th to protect our city's future!
<p>Wallace Swan, City-wide member of the Mpls. Board of Estimate and
Taxation.</blockquote>
</html>
--------------6FBB39E9FE7C7F69A419E871--
