Dean, I appreciate your comments but I am still unclear about the Park Board and some of its money issues. I am not familiar with the details of the Riverview Supper Club project but you speak of money that you will lose if you don't purchase the entire parcel. What is the source of this funding that you stand to lose it, and if you lose it who gets the money or is it just money not spent?
I am slightly confused by your take on the Board of E&T as being the "only thing that stands in the way" of your financial plan. You also state that the Park Board has not been at City Hall asking for help, they have been "asking for others to get out of our way." If I am reading this correctly you have some concerns that the Board of E&T might cancel your adjusted levy. The way I understand it the Board of E&T's approval of your additional levy is the deal you cut to avoid presenting your case to the public in a referendum. If they decide now with the new players involved that tax dollars need to be more equitably spread amongst the other agencies of government then you will be free to pursue your case in front of the public. You win either way they chose. If they renege on your deal, they are "out of your way" which is what it appears you want, and the Park Board can pursue a referendum. If they don't renege you're home free with a 100% financing program in place for your capital program. Personally I question why the Park Board was funded at a level to achieve 100% of their gap phased in over a such a short period ($1,920,000 yearly increased to $7,420,000 in three years) when Public Works with a larger infrastructure gap is receiving only around 25% of their estimated funding shortfall and it is taking 11 years to get there ($18,200,000 yearly increased to only $21,800,000 in the same three year period). That is an increase of 20% for Public Works at the same time the Park Board receives a 386% increase. I must admit with these numbers it makes it difficult to believe that the city has "historically found ways to steal the Park Board's money?" Perhaps they lost the knack. You couch the Park Board savings created by ridding the Park Board of responsibility for their streets and sewers as an attempt to create efficiencies and save the taxpayers money. I might be confused here but the only real money being saved appears to be by the Park Board that no longer has to maintain, or replace, their streets and sewers. I understood that the maintenance savings for the Park Board was estimated at $1,000,000 per year by this transfer, while also avoiding any Park Board responsibility for capital concerns on assets of over $160,000,000 which according to Park Board estimates would have required an additional $4 million annually to properly fund. I personally think the movement of these items to Public Works is an appropriate move. But lets acknowledge this was a significant contribution by the city towards Park Board finances. Your post also explained the split of state aid between the city and Park Board and stated your opinion that Park Board funding should be restored to its original level. Since the state government has changed the amounts of money coming to the city, which was the basis for the original arrangement made with the city, why should the city take the whole hit themselves just to allow the Park Board to remain whole. It seems reasonable that the City and Park Board need to work out a new deal, based on new realities. You also accused the city of being able to control your money because the Park Board has to run all its money through city accounts. I understand the agreement made with the city in which the Park Board split the state aid proportionally also included an agreement that "all fees, charges and other revenues generated or received by the Board will be retained by the Board in their entirety." Are you saying that the Park Board is now running all the income they receive from golf courses for instance through city accounts? One of the concerns I have that led me to bring up this issue is your claim that the Park Board seems to have no problem buying and setting up a new park. Has the Park Board also changed their financial policy that states "It will be the policy of the Board that new or expanded programs or facilities can only be added to the system when additional funds are assured for their operation or an off-setting reduction in another cost center can be accomplished in order to provide for the increased costs?" People have made some emotional arguments for the Supper Club site being a new park. Maybe that is what should happen. My concern is with a Park Board that has been given full funding to establish a program to adequately fund their existing infrastructure, and now without the budgetary restraints of the past, they appear ready to look for new projects to build. Projects that the Park Board will not have money to adequately maintain or operate. I hope that is not the case. 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
