--part1_83.2c697f1.2740d55b_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
rt@rtrybak ended his comments on the library with:
We shouldn't blow it by thinking small,
or letting others off the hook. This has the potential to be one of
the most
important projects this generation will leave behind.... It's just
that all
the spending on other projects means we shouldn't, and can't, pay for
it on
our own.
The problem is that we have not been voting on an entire package. The library
staff recommended at first just doing the new Central Library. The reason was
that the negative cash flow in the libraries own projections after
remodelling the branch libraries approaches $2,000,000 per year. The library
board was aware of this unfunded negative cash flow and made the decision to
not include a request to fund it in the referendum.Their consultants told
them they had to include the branch libraries in the referendum in order to
get voter support for the Central Library. The decision was to get the
capital projects funded and when the negative numbers hit go back to the
voters, or the city, to fund the rest. Once we are on the hook they figured
it would be hard to turn down the additional request. Staff has even
mentioned that this need for additional cash flow came up after the current
library was built so the Library Board felt there was precedent to go back to
the citizens after they see thier new buildings.
The problem gets worse in that the $2,000,000 estimate per year appears
to be low. Wizard mentioned in an earlier exchange that Hosmer library, after
remodelling, needed 70 to $80,000 per year above the budget of the library to
run the remodelled facility. With all the remodelled libraries looking for
similar services that will significantly increase the negative. The
$2,000,000 also does not include any additional operating losses for the
Central Library. It also does not include any expanded hours from the current
hours. One of the libraries major goals has been listed as expanding the
service hours to meet todays needs. I believe the potential negative more
likely approaches $3,000,000 per year.
It is obvious the voteres are supportive of the libaries and are willing
to pay for the improvements. I agree that now is the time, even though we
have weakened our negotiating position, to pursue other funding sources. If
outside sources are not available we should make sure the Library can answer
how they will cover their budgets. If they can not provide the answer it
seems we should go back to the voters and ask for additional funding before
we authorize the 140,000,000 of capital improvements.
Bob Gustafson, 13th
--part1_83.2c697f1.2740d55b_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT SIZE=2>rt@rtrybak ended his comments on the library with:
<BR>
<BR> We shouldn't blow it by thinking small,
<BR> or letting others off the hook. This has the
potential to be one of <BR>the most
<BR> important projects this generation will leave
behind.... It's just <BR>that all
<BR> the spending on other projects means we
shouldn't, and can't, pay for <BR>it on
<BR> our own.
<BR>
<BR>The problem is that we have not been voting on an entire package. The library
<BR>staff recommended at first just doing the new Central Library. The reason was
<BR>that the negative cash flow in the libraries own projections after <BR>remodelling
the branch libraries approaches $2,000,000 per year. The library <BR>board was aware
of this unfunded negative cash flow and made the decision to <BR>not include a request
to fund it in the referendum.Their consultants told <BR>them they had to include the
branch libraries in the referendum in order to <BR>get voter support for the Central
Library. The decision was to get the <BR>capital projects funded and when the negative
numbers hit go back to the <BR>voters, or the city, to fund the rest. Once we are on
the hook they figured <BR>it would be hard to turn down the additional request. Staff
has even <BR>mentioned that this need for additional cash flow came up after the
current <BR>library was built so the Library Board felt the!
!
!
re was precedent to go back to <BR>the citizens after they see thier new buildings.
<BR> The problem gets worse in that the $2,000,000 estimate per year
appears <BR>to be low. Wizard mentioned in an earlier exchange that Hosmer library,
after <BR>remodelling, needed 70 to $80,000 per year above the budget of the library
to <BR>run the remodelled facility. With all the remodelled libraries looking for
<BR>similar services that will significantly increase the negative. The <BR>$2,000,000
also does not include any additional operating losses for the <BR>Central Library. It
also does not include any expanded hours from the current <BR>hours. One of the
libraries major goals has been listed as expanding the <BR>service hours to meet
todays needs. I believe the potential negative more <BR>likely approaches $3,000,000
per year.
<BR> It is obvious the voteres are supportive of the libaries and are
willing <BR>to pay for the improvements. I agree that now is the time, even though we
<BR>have weakened our negotiating position, to pursue other funding sources. If
<BR>outside sources are not available we should make sure the Library can answer
<BR>how they will cover their budgets. If they can not provide the answer it <BR>seems
we should go back to the voters and ask for additional funding before <BR>we authorize
the 140,000,000 of capital improvements.
<BR>
<BR>Bob Gustafson, 13th</FONT></HTML>
--part1_83.2c697f1.2740d55b_boundary--
