--part1_39.cc00758.274b06d3_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In response to Lisa McDonald's post.
>I asked our budget staff about the issue of both capital and the $2 million
"structural deficit." I was told there will be no change in the library
capital this year from the currently allocated capital.<
I agree that the library capital for this year remains in place. The mayor's
recommended budget proposal cuts $8,084,000 from the library board in the
years 2002 to 2005, but does not cut 2000 or 2001.
>However staff also told me that the library board wants us to continue their
capital funding until 2003 which really should not be necessary since the
referendum is structured to cover the total library infrastructure gap.<
The library in their requests to CLIC and in their October 2000 Currents
Special Issue: Citizens' Guide to the Minneapolis Public Library Referendum
clearly state that according to their proposal the $30,000,000 portion of the
referendum for community libraries "WOULD SUPPLEMENT THE LIBRARY BOARD'S
ANNUAL ALLOCATION" from the capital long-range improvement process estimated
at $1.6 million per year. The referendum WAS NOT STRUCTURED to cover the
total library infrastructure gap. If these cuts continue the library will be
short $16,000,000 from their capital budget. Perhaps the mayor has a future
fund she hopes to tap to bring this money back into the library over the five
year period 2006 to 2011. I am unsure what fund might have an excess. There
is some left in the Public Works Infrastructure Gap (read streets and
bridges) but she recommended cutting $19,601,000 in the 2001 to 2005 budget
and I am unsure how far she intends to deplete that account.
>The bigger problem is that staff feels it takes the library board forever to
finish some of their projects at branch libraries. But they ask us to float
the bonds and sometimes the projects don't get finished for several years.
Linden Hills is an example.<
This is a bigger problem? I am trying to focus on capital accounts. Squabbles
between staff and the library board are a separate issue. I was told in the
past by staff that the water works was also notorious for requesting funding
and then taking forever to complete their projects. This to me is a
management problem. I see no duplicity here.
>I agree with Mr. Gustafson's assessment that it was a bit duplicitous to
not talk about the large operating deficit. Perhaps Mr. Gustafson could
clarify an item in his earlier post. I was told the $2 million was ongoing
over the past few years not yearly?<
The $2,000,000 operating deficit is projected ON A YEARLY BASIS after
remodeling the libraries. It was stated by the library in their requests to
CLIC and was stated in their Outlook 2010 planning update in January 2000.
The library ran a deficit of approximately $600,000 in 1991 and $230,000 in
1992 but has since, according to the annual reports I have seen, been able to
show essentially a positive year end. I have not seen reports from 1996 and
1997. Although I am uncertain as of today's budget situation I am aware that
in the mid 1990s the library implemented hiring freezes and budget
restrictions on book purchases. The library reported a positive cash flow of
$120,000 in 1999 on expenses of $18.5 million, hardly room to allow any
flexibility for the library staff to have cash to respond to today's rapidly
changing technology. The $2,000,000 yearly deficit includes the impact of the
following items listed in the library's "Outlook 2010":
1)Public service staff required for enlarged spaces or in response to
a rise in activity.
2) Building staff for maintenance for expanded facilities.
3) Technical Services support for computers and telecommunications
equipment
4) Collection resources including books, audio visuals and electronic
products.
5) Computer equipment including work stations, printers and supplies.
6) Management overhead for expanded services, staff, facilities.
7) Increased utilities cost for enlarged spaces.
8) New and higher level maintenance equipment necessary for upkeep of
interiors and grounds.
The $2,000,000 figure DOES NOT include expanded hours, which is one of the
library's stated major goals (Future Directions, 2000-2004).
The term duplicitous may correctly define what has happened. For that I would
have to know people's intent. With all the problems lately in determining
what someone's intent was, I think I'd rather not go there. I have heard the
comments of library staff that say they have told the library board and mayor
about the problems and were told to ignore them for now. I have heard a board
member say they didn't have adequate information from staff on what operating
costs will be. When I asked library staff how they were responding to their
capital budget being cut they were unaware of it, no one had told them. I
don't know what the mayor is saying, but from my track record I would guess
it is not her fault.
The Buck Stops Somewhere, and one of those bucks is mine. I am a fan of the
library, like most people in Minneapolis am willing to support the library. I
do not like being misled by anyone however, especially someone who is
spending my money and watching over my city.
Bob Gustafson
13th Ward
--part1_39.cc00758.274b06d3_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT SIZE=2>In response to Lisa McDonald's post.
<BR>
<BR>>I asked our budget staff about the issue of both capital and the $2 million
<BR>"structural deficit." I was told there will be no change in the library
<BR>capital this year from the currently allocated capital.<
<BR>
<BR>I agree that the library capital for this year remains in place. The mayor's
<BR>recommended budget proposal cuts $8,084,000 from the library board in the
<BR>years 2002 to 2005, but does not cut 2000 or 2001.
<BR>
<BR>>However staff also told me that the library board wants us to continue their
<BR>capital funding until 2003 which really should not be necessary since the
<BR>referendum is structured to cover the total library infrastructure gap.<
<BR>
<BR>The library in their requests to CLIC and in their October 2000 Currents
<BR>Special Issue: Citizens' Guide to the Minneapolis Public Library Referendum
<BR>clearly state that according to their proposal the $30,000,000 portion of the
<BR>referendum for community libraries "WOULD SUPPLEMENT THE LIBRARY BOARD'S
<BR>ANNUAL ALLOCATION" from the capital long-range improvement process estimated
<BR>at $1.6 million per year. The referendum WAS NOT STRUCTURED to cover the <BR>total
library infrastructure gap. If these cuts continue the library will be <BR>short
$16,000,000 from their capital budget. Perhaps the mayor has a future <BR>fund she
hopes to tap to bring this money back into the library over the five <BR>year period
2006 to 2011. I am unsure what fund might have an excess. There <BR>is some left in
the Public Works Infrastructure Gap (read streets and <BR>bridges) but she recommended
cutting $19,601,000 in the 2001 to 2005 budget <BR>and I am unsure how far she intends
!
!
!
to deplete that account.
<BR>
<BR>>The bigger problem is that staff feels it takes the library board forever to
<BR>finish some of their projects at branch libraries. But they ask us to float
<BR>the bonds and sometimes the projects don't get finished for several years.
<BR>Linden Hills is an example.<
<BR>
<BR>This is a bigger problem? I am trying to focus on capital accounts. Squabbles
<BR>between staff and the library board are a separate issue. I was told in the
<BR>past by staff that the water works was also notorious for requesting funding
<BR>and then taking forever to complete their projects. This to me is a <BR>management
problem. I see no duplicity here.
<BR>
<BR>>I agree with Mr. Gustafson's assessment that it was a bit duplicitous to
<BR>not talk about the large operating deficit. Perhaps Mr. Gustafson could
<BR>clarify an item in his earlier post. I was told the $2 million was ongoing
<BR>over the past few years not yearly?<
<BR>
<BR>The $2,000,000 operating deficit is projected ON A YEARLY BASIS after
<BR>remodeling the libraries. It was stated by the library in their requests to
<BR>CLIC and was stated in their Outlook 2010 planning update in January 2000.
<BR>
<BR>The library ran a deficit of approximately $600,000 in 1991 and $230,000 in
<BR>1992 but has since, according to the annual reports I have seen, been able to
<BR>show essentially a positive year end. I have not seen reports from 1996 and
<BR>1997. Although I am uncertain as of today's budget situation I am aware that
<BR>in the mid 1990s the library implemented hiring freezes and budget
<BR>restrictions on book purchases. The library reported a positive cash flow of
<BR>$120,000 in 1999 on expenses of $18.5 million, hardly room to allow any
<BR>flexibility for the library staff to have cash to respond to today's rapidly
<BR>changing technology. The $2,000,000 yearly deficit includes the impact of the
<BR>following items listed in the library's "Outlook 2010":
<BR> 1)Public service staff required for enlarged
spaces or in response to <BR>a rise in activity.
<BR> 2) Building staff for maintenance for
expanded facilities.
<BR> 3) Technical Services support for computers
and telecommunications <BR>equipment
<BR> 4) Collection resources including books,
audio visuals and electronic <BR>products.
<BR> 5) Computer equipment including work
stations, printers and supplies.
<BR> 6) Management overhead for expanded services,
staff, facilities.
<BR> 7) Increased utilities cost for enlarged
spaces.
<BR> 8) New and higher level maintenance equipment
necessary for upkeep of <BR>interiors and grounds.
<BR>
<BR>The $2,000,000 figure DOES NOT include expanded hours, which is one of the
<BR>library's stated major goals (Future Directions, 2000-2004).
<BR>
<BR>The term duplicitous may correctly define what has happened. For that I would
<BR>have to know people's intent. With all the problems lately in determining <BR>what
someone's intent was, I think I'd rather not go there. I have heard the <BR>comments
of library staff that say they have told the library board and mayor <BR>about the
problems and were told to ignore them for now. I have heard a board <BR>member say
they didn't have adequate information from staff on what operating <BR>costs will be.
When I asked library staff how they were responding to their <BR>capital budget being
cut they were unaware of it, no one had told them. I <BR>don't know what the mayor is
saying, but from my track record I would guess <BR>it is not her fault.
<BR>
<BR>The Buck Stops Somewhere, and one of those bucks is mine. I am a fan of the
<BR>library, like most people in Minneapolis am willing to support the library. I
<BR>do not like being misled by anyone however, especially someone who is <BR>spending
my money and watching over my city.
<BR>
<BR>Bob Gustafson
<BR>13th Ward </FONT></HTML>
--part1_39.cc00758.274b06d3_boundary--
