I had asked if anyone was concerned that MCDA director Steve Cramer had
mentioned funding NRP as a "maybe" in a recent Strib piece on long-term MCDA
financing. Steve sent me a direct response that he said could be forwarded
to the list.
He writes:
I made it clear to the Star Tribune and to the City elected officials that
the income projection in our document is based on current state law. I also
made it clear that this will almost certainly change pending final
legislative action, and the direction of the change will be a reduction of
revenue. The difference between revenues over 10 years projected on this
basis versus debt obligations and the NRP program (the $200 + miilion the
newspapar article identified) would disappear quickly under the plans now
being considered at the Capitol. Debt payments come first, then everything
else including NRP. Hence the "maybe" you asked about.
Me again:
Steve is absolutely right - the "maybe" comes from uncertainty relating to
the reduction in TIF funds through the state's proposed property tax
reform...not some lack of commitment to NRP as I implied. The Strib made
that context pretty clear, too, in several paragraphs following the original
Cramer quote. Had I thought about it a bit rather than reacting quickly to
the quote, it would have been obvious to me too. My original implication was
sloppy and unfair. Steve, my apologies.
David Brauer
King Field - Ward 10
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
