Just want to set the record straight on this issue. The Mayor didn't
actually support full-funding of the Park Board Infrastructure package.
There are three pots of money that could have been allocated for the Park
Board. The first was their CLIC or net debt capital money that is about $2.5
million a year, the second pot is the levy money that the Board of Estimate
and Taxation approved and the third pot was the capital gap money of
$325,000 that the mayor DID NOT include in her budget. The levy money this
year is immovable, if the Council wants to make any changes it has to been
done with the CLIC money.
Several of us are concerned about this allocation in the Mayor's budget
because this aggressive closure of the Park Board's infrastructure gap
corresponds with a tremendous lessening of the financial commitment to the
Public Works infrastructure gap closure. The Park Board's total funding in
four years goes from a $2.2 million base to an annual total of $7.7 million
or a 250 percent increase, while Public Work's 2001-2005 net debt funding
level is reduced from the currently adopted capital by $19.6 million and the
infrastructure gap closure will only reach 29 percent closure in 11 years as
opposed to the adopted 50 percent closure target.
What does this mean in pragmatic terms? While the Park Board takes care of
all their infrastructure and probably adds some new facilities, on the city
side, new bike lanes, parkway paving and lighting and street paving in the
city will remain undone and we will slip further back in our planned gap
program.
Some of us felt that a more prudent approach would be to shave some money
from the CLIC Net debt amount (approx. $700,000) to bring our infrastucture
gap amount back up closer to 50 percent. Would this set back the Park Board
program somewhat? Certainly. But it wouldn't do any good to have every Park
totally fixed and have the streets falling apart. Three years from now
citizens certainly wouldn't be happy with us. As council members we have to
look at both sides of the financial ledger and be fiscally responsible. Plus
last year we took on several services for the Park Board which freed up
another million in their budget for extra park staffing and we took on
responsibility for their sewer infrastructure which has NEVER been updated
and has the potential to run the city another $1 million a year until it is
updated.
Lastly as to the issue of the deal that the Mayor cut with the Park Board. I
find it interesting that the "consensus building"
Mayor never bothered to discuss her actions with her colleagues on the
council..only with the majority leader and the council president. That
really isn't the way to build support for initiatives like this.
I personally would have preferred that the Park Board would have gone out
for a referendumYyes it would have cost a little more, but I think the Park
Board needs to make the case to the public, as an elected, responsible body,
why they need more money. And the best thing about a referendum is that is
guarantees that the money gets spent on what it is allocated for. It is
clear, given the success of the library referendum, it would have passed.
The Park Board chose to take the deal the Mayor offered and didn't question
whether the rest of the Council was on board. A referendum would have
insured that the money couldn't have been touched by any other entity. Now
the Park Board will have to deal with the fact this money will be on the
table for the next few budget discussions.
Lisa McDonald
Tenth Ward Council Member
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dean Zimmermann [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 7:17 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: RE: truth in taxation
>
> Re: Park Board Funding
>
> Tim:
>
> Perhaps some people didn't, as you say, see why the mayor supported full
> funding of the Park Boards infastructure - perhaps it is because the mayor
> didn't support the Park Board's desire to fully fund its infastucture.
> Let
> me see if I can explain some of this funding stuff - it is complicated, so
> please bear with me.
>
> The Park Board sets its own property tax level - as does the City Council
> and the Library Board.
> The Park Board was created by the legislature in 1883. It was not created
> by the City of Mpls. However, even though all three of these bodies (PB,
> LB
> & CC) all set their own tax levy, that levy can not exceed the ceiling
> that
> is set by the Board of Estimate and Taxation. The Board of Estimate
> and
> Taxation is made up of 7 people; the mayor, the pres of City Council, the
> chair of the City Council ways and means committee, a Park Board Rep, a
> Library Board rep, and two others elected by the citizens in the General
> Election.
>
> The Park Board felt that it needed to have more revenue to support our
> expanding system. In case you don't know, the Park Board is the largest
> daycare provider in Mpls, we operate 50 (up from 15 just 25 years ago)
> recreation centers, 53 miles of both biking and hiking trails, 29 ice
> skating facilities, provides after school activities for thousands of
> kids,
> maintains all of the cities boulevard trees, and hundreds of softball and
> soccer fields, to name just a few things. Many of these things were added
> or greatly expanded without a basic change in the tax rate. Everybody,
> from
> the legislature to NRP wants to give the Park Board money to build new
> things, but it is much harder to find money to maintain these facilities
> once they are build. Maintainance is just not as glamorous as building
> new.
> Thus the need for new reliable monies.
>
> The Park Board could get the money from the people of Mpls in one of two
> ways: 1) put the matter on the ballot and let the people vote for it,
> i.e.
> a referendum, or 2) use the taxing authority that was given to the Board
> by the legislature in 1883. (a side note: because of some complicated
> reasons I don't know how to explain, the first method would put a larger
> burden on home owners and a smaller burden on downtown business than
> method
> two.)
>
> Because, the mayor used her power on the Board of Taxation to keep the tax
> ceiling low, the Park Board had no choice but to go directly to the people
> for a referendum to get the needed money, and made preparations to do so.
> At this point, the mayor got a little panicked at the thought of 3
> referendums on the ballot at one time, since the Library and School Boards
> were already doing referendums. The feeling was that if there were too
> may
> referendums on the ballot at once, they would all fail. Therefore, the
> mayor relented and used her influence and her vote to get the Board of
> Estimate to approve a ceiling high enough for the Park Board to raise its
> tax levy to its desired level. Please note, that this is all Park Board
> doing, and has nothing to do with City Council money. It in no way
> increases or decreases City Council money.
>
> And now, all is well that ends well. No, no, no not so fast. Certain
> City
> Council members feel that somehow all of this added up to the mayor doing
> a
> secret deal with the Park Board and are looking for a way to punish her
> and
> the Park Board. Because the tax levy is set by the Park Board there is
> nothing the Council can do about it, but: All cities, including
> Mpls,
> get state aid to cities A normal regular kind of thing. There has been a
> long standing agreement that the money that comes to Mpls is divided up
> between the City Council and the Park Board according to fixed formula -
> it
> is something like 87% to 13% -- but I am not sure of the exact split. So,
> now, certain council members have been making noises of unilaterally
> changing the agreement, and to keep part of the Park Board.s share. This
> is
> possible because the money passes thru the City Council's books.
>
> Now, there is a totally unrelated thing going on that some people get
> confused with what I just outlined above. Over the past couple of
> years
> Public Works (read City Council) and the Park Board have looked over what
> each is doing in order to see if we could save any money by exchanging
> some
> tasks. For example, the Park Board has taken on the task of maintaining
> certain green spaces owned by Public Works and Public Works has taken on
> the
> task of maintaining certain parkways. There are a few more areas being
> looked at and some others agreed to, all in the name of saving the
> taxpayers
> a few dollars thru increased efficency.
>
> I hope I have clarified this some, and not just made it more confusing.
>
> Sincerely,
> Dean Zimmermann
> Commissioner Mpls Park Board. Dist 3
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 612-722-8768
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of timothy connolly
> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 4:01 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: truth in taxation
>
> i attended the truth and taxation meeting monday
> evening which mark brunswick reported on in todays
> strib.
>
> one thing i think he failed to mention was a
> summarized statement by clic detailing their general
> opinions of the mayor's proposed budget.
>
> those opinions included consternation at library
> budgets in the out years relative to branch library
> remodeling, etc. they recommended that $1.6 million be
> reserved annually beginning in 2006 for construction
> projects starting in 2009. they also are extremely
> concerned with potential future library operating
> budgets. these issues have already been raised in this
> forum.
>
> they also failed to understand why the mayor would
> fully fund park board infrastructure at the same time
> she was shorting the city's infrastructure gap. some-
> one, i don't know who brought up the subject of
> conditions of park board infrastructure coming over to
> the city in exchange for maintenance services provided
> by the park board.
>
> Clic is also miffed that decision packages and target
> strategies are not part of the reviewal process. good
> question.
>
> they also think that we ought to do a dry run on
> avenue of the arts with temporary barriers, etc to see
> what the impact on traffic will be before we put that
> cart before that horse.
>
> the meeting ended early. council seemed surprised that
> more people didn't speak. what could anyone say that
> would make a difference. we had just witnessed several
> people go before the council literally pleading for
> help with affordable housing knowing that this council
> and this mayor had been forewarned from the day their
> butts hit those chairs that there was a storm brewing.
> as the affordable housing task force said in so many
> words we have passed the crisis state and now are in
> catastrophe mode.
>
> one woman and her husband and child got up before the
> microphone and referred to themselves as "the average
> black family" (and make no doubt about it; though the
> affordable housing crisis faces all people its propa-
> gation is racially based) struggling under the weight
> of past failures, ud's and such, trying to keep their
> family of five together, dad working northeast for
> $9.50/hr just having got a raise after having been
> hired on full time whereas before he'd been working
> through a temp agency and you know damn well the
> employer was paying the agency a damn sight more than
> $9.50/hr, all of them living inshelters(people helping
> people and such) going on and off now five years, and
> i'm looking at rodney later and his son zachary and
> the two others sleeping or despairing and we're
> talking and i got no way to help him, thinking i
> shoulda got up and spoke but what would i do but
> berate these people again and i know they squandered
> the money and there's little left in the kitty for ah,
> and yes i know it's a regional/state/federal problem
> and i got no hope to offer rodney and it doesn't seem
> right to say if i had been incharge this would not
> have happened or that the democrats ain't much better
> than the republicans when it comes to helping poor
> people these days and i just wanted to scream WHERE IS
> THE MORAL OUTRAGE IN THIS CITY, IN THIS COUNTRY?
>
> it was harder than normal getting to sleep last night.
>
>
> tim connolly
> ward 7
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
> http://shopping.yahoo.com/
