--part1_4f.3a847a7.27473ebf_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Whether you are a tax and spend liberal Democrat, a fiscal conservative
Republican, a WWF supporting Independent (we don't have reform people in
Minneapolis anymore do we)? or a hug a tree Green, I believe that we become
at times too concerned with the "politics" of government and forget the
"economics." Budgets are boring, budget documents hard to decipher.
CLIC just received the Mayor's recommended budget adjustments covering the
five year 2001-2005 capital period. For your weekend reading enjoyment I will
track you through the story of the Library Capital program from its
presentation to CLIC last June through today. Keep in mind the economics,
since from its overwhelming support this does not appear to be a partisan
issue.
The library submitted to CLIC in June an accelerated request for capital
to begin remodeling the community libraries. Their request over five years
was for $16,692,000 (approximately $3,340,000 per year). It was clear CLIC
did not have the funds to recommend the request and stuck with recommending
$1,600,000 per year which is the allocation per the adopted Capital Program.
CLIC told the library they would need to either go through the Council
process to seek an increase to their capital funding or they would have to
include the community libraries with their referendum request. Concern was
expressed with their need to find significant additional operating funds. It
was clearly stated in their capital requests that they had no way to fund the
increase in operations estimated to be approximately $2,000,000 per year.
Library staff at first just recommended a referendum for the Central
Library. They knew that the Central Library had no projected negative cash
flow, but they still had no idea how to cover the negative associated with
the community libraries so they left them out. From conversations with staff
and one Library Board member (read hearsay) the decision to add the community
libraries was made after the problem was brought up in a meeting with the
Library Board and mayor. Staff had recommended asking for operating funds as
part of the referendum. The decision by the Library Board and mayor to go
ahead was made with the idea that once the buildings were up they could worry
about the cash to run them. I was told this month by library staff that it
has not been uncommon for other libraries around the country to go back to
voters after their buildings are built to ask for more money for operations.
Although that might be true, and apparently that happened here after the
current Central Library was built, the problem is that the staff, Library
Board and mayor know of the shortfall now. Since it will take several years
for the construction projects to be completed the problem has been
conveniently put off into the future.
The city of Minneapolis voters, across partisan lines, displayed their
strong faith in their libraries and their elected officials by solidly
approving the $140,000,000 referendum. Perhaps you saw the October 2000
"Currents," the Citizens' Guide to the Minneapolis Public Library Referendum.
Highlighted in the lower right corner of the front page is the Proposed
funding for Library Projects. Nothing is said about operating cost problems
and the section on Community Libraries was written as follows:
Community Libraries
$30 million from the Library Referendum
This amount would supplement the Library Board's annual
allocation
from the City Capital Long-range Improvement process, which
has
provided about $1.6 million annually for library projects.
While reading this front page you might catch the Message from the Library
Board that says:
This issue of our "Currents" newsletter is being mailed to
every
Minneapolis household in order to provide voters with the
facts they
need to MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION about the Minneapolis
Public
Library Referendum on November 7. (emphasis mine)
Now that the referendum is approved, the Mayor in her Recommended Project
Adjustment just presented to CLIC Tuesday, recommended reducing the capital
expenditures for the library by $8,084,000 over the next five years. This
cuts $1.6 million PER YEAR from the library's capital program. This is the
$1.6 million the library said in their promotional material would be part of
their community library funding. Over ten years this cuts $16,000,000 from
the library's capital budget.
The voters of Minneapolis clearly were not given the information to make an
informed decision on the referendum. They were not informed that the library
does not have the operating funds to adequately staff and purchase materials
for the new and remodeled libraries. The library also does not have,
according to the recently adjusted mayor's budget, the $1.6 million per year
they were counting on for completing the capital improvements to the
community libraries.
So what happens to the library, and eventually to your taxes. With the
referendum money they have everything they need to build a new central
library. They will also be able to start the designing of the community
libraries, and actually begin the remodeling. They will run out of funds
however (according to their own budgets), both operating and capital, before
the projects are complete. The capital shortfall will be approximately
$16,000,000 ($1.6 million over ten years, assuming the mayor continues to cut
the $1.6 million per year over the five year budget 2006-2011). The operating
shortfall is projected by the library at about $2,000,000 per year. This is
just the negative for the community libraries.
There will either have to be an extensive cutting back on the community
libraries capital and operations or they will have to come back to the voters
for more money (read taxes), the real money they should have been asking for
in the first place.
The other option is to raid another budget account when the funds are
needed. That is happening in this years budget. Public Works is struggling
with a gap in infrastructure funding (they need more money for deferred
repairs for roads and bridges). An attempt was made, in the Capital process,
to fund 50% of that gap over a ten year period. The mayor last week cut
$19,601,000 out of that program over the next five years. Who will notice
roads and bridges if we have new parks and libraries? The problem is that our
infrastructure is an asset. If we don't take care of it on a regular basis,
the cost to replace and repair does not go away. Each year our asset will be
worth less, and the money needed to rebuild it will grow.
The issue isn't always tax and spend liberals versus libertarian no
government is good government. We all live in what we feel is a pretty good
city (forgetting the occasional street cleaning problem and the fact that
Moby Dick's was torn down). We also all live with budgets. If we keep using
our credit cards to buy what makes us feel good, and then borrow against
another credit card to cover the first, eventually we get in trouble. When it
comes time to look at the next candidates for Minneapolis, lets hope there
are some that can read a budget (whatever party they are from) and they have
the guts to ask hard questions about what they see..
Bob Gustafson
13th Ward, CLIC
--part1_4f.3a847a7.27473ebf_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT SIZE=2> Whether you are a tax and spend
liberal Democrat, a fiscal conservative <BR>Republican, a WWF supporting Independent
(we don't have reform people in <BR>Minneapolis anymore do we)? or a hug a tree Green,
I believe that we become <BR>at times too concerned with the "politics" of government
and forget the <BR>"economics." Budgets are boring, budget documents hard to decipher.
<BR> CLIC just received the Mayor's recommended budget adjustments
covering the <BR>five year 2001-2005 capital period. For your weekend reading
enjoyment I will <BR>track you through the story of the Library Capital program from
its <BR>presentation to CLIC last June through today. Keep in mind the economics,
<BR>since from its overwhelming support this does not appear to be a partisan
<BR>issue.
<BR> The library submitted to CLIC in June an accelerated request for
capital <BR>to begin remodeling the community libraries. Their request over five years
<BR>was for $16,692,000 (approximately $3,340,000 per year). It was clear CLIC <BR>did
not have the funds to recommend the request and stuck with recommending <BR>$1,600,000
per year which is the allocation per the adopted Capital Program. <BR>CLIC told the
library they would need to either go through the Council <BR>process to seek an
increase to their capital funding or they would have to <BR>include the community
libraries with their referendum request. Concern was <BR>expressed with their need to
find significant additional operating funds. It <BR>was clearly stated in their
capital requests that they had no way to fund the <BR>increase in operations estimated
to be approximately $2,000,000 per year.
<BR> Library staff at first just recommended a referendum for the Central
<BR>Library. They knew that the Central Library had no projected negative cash
<BR>flow, but they still had no idea how to cover the negative associated with <BR>the
community libraries so they left them out. From conversations with staff <BR>and
one Library Board member (read hearsay) the decision to add the community
<BR>libraries was made after the problem was brought up in a meeting with the
<BR>Library Board and mayor. Staff had recommended asking for operating funds as
<BR>part of the referendum. The decision by the Library Board and mayor to go
<BR>ahead was made with the idea that once the buildings were up they could worry
<BR>about the cash to run them. I was told this month by library staff that it <BR>has
not been uncommon for other libraries around the country to go back to <BR>voters
after their buildings are built to ask for more money for operations. <BR>Although
that mi!
!
!
ght be true, and apparently that happened here after the <BR>current Central Library
was built, the problem is that the staff, Library <BR>Board and mayor know of the
shortfall now. Since it will take several years <BR>for the construction projects to
be completed the problem has been <BR>conveniently put off into the future.
<BR> The city of Minneapolis voters, across partisan lines, displayed
their <BR>strong faith in their libraries and their elected officials by solidly
<BR>approving the $140,000,000 referendum. Perhaps you saw the October 2000
<BR>"Currents," the Citizens' Guide to the Minneapolis Public Library Referendum.
<BR>Highlighted in the lower right corner of the front page is the Proposed
<BR>funding for Library Projects. Nothing is said about operating cost problems
<BR>and the section on Community Libraries was written as follows:
<BR>
<BR>
Community
Libraries
<BR>
$30
million from the Library Referendum
<BR>
This
amount would supplement the Library Board's annual <BR>allocation
<BR>
from
the City Capital Long-range Improvement process, which <BR>has
<BR>
provided
about $1.6 million annually for library projects.
<BR>
<BR>While reading this front page you might catch the Message from the Library
<BR>Board that says:
<BR>
This
issue of our "Currents" newsletter is being mailed to <BR>every
<BR>
Minneapolis
household in order to provide voters with the <BR>facts they
<BR>
need
to MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION about the Minneapolis <BR>Public
<BR>
Library
Referendum on November 7. (emphasis mine)
<BR>
<BR> Now that the referendum is approved, the Mayor in her Recommended
Project <BR>Adjustment just presented to CLIC Tuesday, recommended reducing the
capital <BR>expenditures for the library by $8,084,000 over the next five years. This
<BR>cuts $1.6 million PER YEAR from the library's capital program. This is the
<BR>$1.6 million the library said in their promotional material would be part of
<BR>their community library funding. Over ten years this cuts $16,000,000 from <BR>the
library's capital budget.
<BR>
<BR>The voters of Minneapolis clearly were not given the information to make an
<BR>informed decision on the referendum. They were not informed that the library
<BR>does not have the operating funds to adequately staff and purchase materials
<BR>for the new and remodeled libraries. The library also does not have, <BR>according
to the recently adjusted mayor's budget, the $1.6 million per year <BR>they were
counting on for completing the capital improvements to the <BR>community libraries.
<BR>
<BR>So what happens to the library, and eventually to your taxes. With the
<BR>referendum money they have everything they need to build a new central
<BR>library. They will also be able to start the designing of the community
<BR>libraries, and actually begin the remodeling. They will run out of funds
<BR>however (according to their own budgets), both operating and capital, before
<BR>the projects are complete. The capital shortfall will be approximately
<BR>$16,000,000 ($1.6 million over ten years, assuming the mayor continues to cut
<BR>the $1.6 million per year over the five year budget 2006-2011). The operating
<BR>shortfall is projected by the library at about $2,000,000 per year. This is
<BR>just the negative for the community libraries.
<BR> There will either have to be an extensive cutting back on the
community <BR>libraries capital and operations or they will have to come back to the
voters <BR>for more money (read taxes), the real money they should have been asking
for <BR>in the first place.
<BR> The other option is to raid another budget account when the funds are
<BR>needed. That is happening in this years budget. Public Works is struggling
<BR>with a gap in infrastructure funding (they need more money for deferred
<BR>repairs for roads and bridges). An attempt was made, in the Capital process,
<BR>to fund 50% of that gap over a ten year period. The mayor last week cut
<BR>$19,601,000 out of that program over the next five years. Who will notice
<BR>roads and bridges if we have new parks and libraries? The problem is that our
<BR>infrastructure is an asset. If we don't take care of it on a regular basis,
<BR>the cost to replace and repair does not go away. Each year our asset will be
<BR>worth less, and the money needed to rebuild it will grow.
<BR> The issue isn't always tax and spend liberals versus libertarian no
<BR>government is good government. We all live in what we feel is a pretty good
<BR>city (forgetting the occasional street cleaning problem and the fact that <BR>Moby
Dick's was torn down). We also all live with budgets. If we keep using <BR>our credit
cards to buy what makes us feel good, and then borrow against <BR>another credit card
to cover the first, eventually we get in trouble. When it <BR>comes time to look at
the next candidates for Minneapolis, lets hope there <BR>are some that can read a
budget (whatever party they are from) and they have <BR>the guts to ask hard questions
about what they see..
<BR>
<BR>Bob Gustafson
<BR>13th Ward, CLIC</FONT></HTML>
--part1_4f.3a847a7.27473ebf_boundary--
