[Original message to list sent via my partner's computer, Jenny Heiser. I am reposting my response from my computer in case it was missed by Meg Forney or any other list members. DZ]
Robert and all: My point was that the Park Board has the money for this project under control. In fact we stand to lose some of the money if we are not able to purchase the entire parcel. As far as the Park Board, in general, having its money under control: We have indeed restructured our tax plan; we are phasing it in over a 3 year period. This coming year, the 2002 budget we are now working on, will be year two. After the 3 year phase-in, our taxing level will be at a point where we can operate our system without always being in crisis mode. The only thing that stands in the way of this plan is the Board of Estimate and Taxation. The Board of E&T has 7 members: Mayor, City Council President, Chair of Ways & Means, Park Board Rep, Library Board Rep, and two elected members. The Board of E&T sets a maximum levy limit for all boards and council in the city. Now, if the city reps to the Board of E&T do not renege on our agreement, the Park Board will have its funding under control. The Park Board has not been over at City Hall asking for help. We have been over at City Hall asking for others to get out of our way. You are right, two years ago the Park Board did not have its money in order, now it does. As long as the City does not renege on our agreement. There are other issues. Money that comes from the state, often referred to as "state aid." We have agreements with the city on how it is to be divided between the city and the Park Board. HACA money was divided % to Park Board, 84 % to City Council. LGA was divided 11% to Park Board, and 89% to City Council. These were long standing agreements. Last year the state eliminated HACA and put all the money into LGA. Because the Park Board gets only 11% of LGA, we are now getting less money from the state. HACA was a bigger pot of money. The Park Board perspective is that we need to restructure the % agreement so that we continue to receive the same amount that we were receiving before. This of course is what some call, "the Park Board begging for money at city hall." So far the City has showed no inclination to rectify this problem. This is typical behavior for the city. They have historically found ways to steal the Park Board's money. The reason they are able to do this, is because all of the money is run through the city's accounts. The Park Board is lobbying to get our state money directly. In the interest of saving taxpayers money, the Park Board and the City have made some service redesign agreements in the last couple of years. For example, Public Works now does routine maintenance of road surfaces on Parkways (we used to contract with Public Works for this service) and the Park Board now does routine maintenance on Green Spaces owned by Public Works. There are a number of details and other areas in the agreement that all agree have led to savings of $'s by increased efficiency. Dean Zimmermann Park Board Commissioner Council Member-elect/Ward 6 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Robert Gustafson Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 10:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Mpls] Park Board and Money Dean Zimmermann notes that concerning the Riverview Supper Club site, "The Park Board does want to purchase. The Park Board has a way of coming up with money--that is not the problem at all. We have the money for this situation under control." It is a great relief for me to hear that the Park Board has their money situation under control. Listening to them when they come to the city asking for financial help the last few years one began to think that they had some money issues. Just two years ago the Park Board prepared an Infrastructure and GAP Report showing that the $1.9 million the city annually assigned to the Park Board for capital projects was not sufficient. Their calculations showed they needed something more in the order of $10.4 million per year, a slight shortage of $8.5 million per year. Apparently at that time the Park Board didn't yet have the money situation under control like they do now so they worked with the Mayor to arrange a new tax levy for the Park Board. That should raise by 2006 an additional $5.5 million per year. That wasn't quite enough to handle their shortage however so the mayor agreed to let them transfer responsibility for the Parkway roads and the Park Board sewer system over to Public Works. That helped a bunch, since the Park Board estimated the amount of their GAP attributed to these two items alone was $4.2 million per year. For those of you who have actually heard of Infrastructure Gaps you are probably thinking of the Public Works Gap. That's the one where Public Works in 1997 identified an ANNUAL gap in maintenance for Public Works of $16 million per year and an ANNUAL gap in capital funding of $52 million per year. I'm not sure why the Mayor agreed to move these Park Board items over to Public Works, but then I suppose its easier to keep track of all the things you are not taking care of if you keep them in one place. One of my favorite movie lines of all time is "Show me the money!" Dean, I would sure like you to show where you're getting money for new parks when you have had so much trouble taking care of the ones you have. Bob Gustafson MMM __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals http://personals.yahoo.com _______________________________________ 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 _______________________________________ 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
