I am on the Central Library Implementation Committee. We were presented with three options for the planetarium, basically replacing what we have, replacing what we have with something somewhat better, and creating a real destination for the State, a learning center about space, science, and technology. We chose the third option because we think that this will be the best for our citizens, especially for our children. That is why the cost went up from $11 million (basic replacement) to $34 million (a real learning center destination).
I think, (although would have to verify this) that the difference between the $31 million and the $34 million is that the $34 million is the inflation-adjusted figure which is being requested from the State. I can check on that. It is our intention to design the library so that the planetarium can be built later if need be. But I believe that the vision of a place to take our children and fill them with wonder about science and space is a vision that people will be willing to support. Carol Becker Longfellow ---- Original Message ----- From: "Sheldon Mains" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 12:21 AM Subject: [Mpls] Planetarium (was League of Women Voters....) > >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 > _______________________________________ 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
