>It seems the budget gets larger every time something new is printed. It is
>roughly three times as large as what was originally proposed about a year
>ago. The interesting questions begin to arise if the state says no to any
>new funding this session.
>
>Michael Hohmann
Mike, you seem to think that the price just jumped from $30 million (that
you had in your last post) to $34 million. From the April 16, 2001
StarTribune (page B3), reporting on the presentation of the three options
for the planetarium:
"A 48,000-square-foot space museum with an exposition
hall for touring exhibits and equipment for virtual space
traveling. Cost: $34 million."
Just because you had the cost wrong, it doesn't mean that it just jumped $4
million.
Regarding your claim that it miraculously jumped from $11 million to $34
million:
The $11 million that you quote was the price estimate for basically
replacing the current planetarium with a new, state of the art one of
approximately the same size. There was NO implication that the decision had
been made to build a $11 million planetarium.
The planning money was to review all the options and to decide on a course
of action (I believe it will also pay for the initial architectural work).
There were three options that were considered, a basic one, an intermediate
option, and the $34 million option. They were presented to the
Implementation Committee, the Library Board, the City Council and the Mayor
back in mid April. The Implementation Committee, the Library Board, a City
Council committee and the City Council all voted in favor of the $34
million option and the mayor agreed. They were public votes and the story
was carried on the front page of the metro section of the STrib. I seem to
remember seeing you at least one of those meetings but I know I didn't see
you testifying before any of the committees or the board that you opposed
the $34 million option. Why are you complaining now?
Regarding what happens if the state says no to the planetarium:
This is a bonding session at the legislature and this project and many
others will be up for consideration (I understand that St. Paul is asking
for a huge amount of money for a variety of projects). If the Planet arum
is not funded by the legislature, it will not get built unless other
funding is found. With creative architectural design, the library could be
designed to add the Planetarium in a phase 2 (although that would not be
ideal). If it is partially funded, depending on the level of funding, it
can be built to be expanded (a MAJOR cost is the equipment--we could just
build the space for parts of the planetarium project and not open all of
it. Take a good look at the Science Museum--it is build to house a lot
more exhibits). So Mike, if it is not funded, what are "the interesting
questions."
Mike, I agree with you that there are a lot of things wrong with the
current library management. Lets stick to the real issues. If you don't
support the planetarium, just say so. Don't raise non-issues. (Just to be
clear, I support the planetarium project--even though I have trouble typing
the word planetarium ;-} )
sheldon
>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>
sheldon mains seward neighborhood minneapolis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Candidate for Minneapolis Library Board of Trustees
DFL/Labor endorsed
Change is overdue
http://www.mainsforlibrary.org
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
