--part1_b8.e9944dd.275da70b_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a previous post I pointed out that the mayor had proposed cutting
$8,000,000 from the Library's normal capital allocation over the next five
years. Over the ten year library remodeling, if continued, that would have
cut $16,000,000 from the Library's capital needs.
I have since had time to read the proposed budget further (it helps me go to
sleep at night) and I missed a footnote! The mayor's proposal is that the
Library's normal 1.6 million per year for capital be cut in half through 2003
and cut totally in 2004-2008. This part I knew. The note I missed says that
after the library spends its referendum money through 2008 that the Mayor and
Council will "use net debt bonds to complete the funding gap in 2009 and
2010." I confirmed with Library staff that they estimate they will need an
additional 8 to 10 million at that time. That isn't as bad as the 16 million
originally estimated, and its nice to know there is a plan.
The part that should make the library nervous is that they are counting on
the mayor and council to follow through on a footnote to cover this gap. In 8
to 10 years there could easily be a new mayor and new council members who
might be surprised by agreements such as this and might not feel obliged to
live up to them. An additional concern brought up by library staff is how do
they plan and negotiate with neighborhood groups without knowing what
committed funds they have to complete the project? Even if the current
politicians are all still in office, how tight will finances be in 8 to 10
years and will they be able to come up with 8 to 10 million in 2009 and 2010.
The library staff also needs to be concerned that the negative cash flow they
are projecting will begin to hit before that time. When they are looking for
the final money to complete their improvements they will also need to come
back for the additional $2,000,000 per year they will need for operations.
With no dollar commitment yet made by the Mayor and Council, how willing will
they be to fund the cash flow problem as well.
Apparently the Library Board has put the topic of their operations shortfall
on the agenda for their next meeting. There is a lot of citizen good will
behind the Library referendum. I hope that we hear soon, even though
belatedly as concerns the referendum, about their plans to pay for the
operations of their new facilities.
Bob Gustafson
13th
--part1_b8.e9944dd.275da70b_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>In a previous post I pointed out that
the mayor had proposed cutting <BR>$8,000,000 from the Library's normal capital
allocation over the next five <BR>years. Over the ten year library remodeling, if
continued, that would have <BR>cut $16,000,000 from the Library's capital needs.
<BR>
<BR>I have since had time to read the proposed budget further (it helps me go to
<BR>sleep at night) and I missed a footnote! The mayor's proposal is that the
<BR>Library's normal 1.6 million per year for capital be cut in half through 2003
<BR>and cut totally in 2004-2008. This part I knew. The note I missed says that
<BR>after the library spends its referendum money through 2008 that the Mayor and
<BR>Council will "use net debt bonds to complete the funding gap in 2009 and
<BR>2010." I confirmed with Library staff that they estimate they will need an
<BR>additional 8 to 10 million at that time. That isn't as bad as the 16 million
<BR>originally estimated, and its nice to know there is a plan.
<BR>
<BR>The part that should make the library nervous is that they are counting on <BR>the
mayor and council to follow through on a footnote to cover this gap. In 8 <BR>to 10
years there could easily be a new mayor and new council members who <BR>might be
surprised by agreements such as this and might not feel obliged to <BR>live up to
them. An additional concern brought up by library staff is how do <BR>they plan
and negotiate with neighborhood groups without knowing what <BR>committed funds they
have to complete the project? Even if the current <BR>politicians are all still in
office, how tight will finances be in 8 to 10 <BR>years and will they be able to come
up with 8 to 10 million in 2009 and 2010.
<BR>
<BR>The library staff also needs to be concerned that the negative cash flow they
<BR>are projecting will begin to hit before that time. When they are looking for
<BR>the final money to complete their improvements they will also need to come
<BR>back for the additional $2,000,000 per year they will need for operations.
<BR>With no dollar commitment yet made by the Mayor and Council, how willing will
<BR>they be to fund the cash flow problem as well.
<BR>
<BR>Apparently the Library Board has put the topic of their operations shortfall
<BR>on the agenda for their next meeting. There is a lot of citizen good will
<BR>behind the Library referendum. I hope that we hear soon, even though <BR>belatedly
as concerns the referendum, about their plans to pay for the <BR>operations of their
new facilities.
<BR>
<BR>Bob Gustafson
<BR>13th</FONT></HTML>
--part1_b8.e9944dd.275da70b_boundary--
