Carol Becker comments on funding for the planetarium...
"...The Library is currently under construction. You need the money now to
build the Planetarium . You can't wait so see what fund raising you could
do or what corporations may do. You have to do whatever you are going to do
now."
{MH] -and after listing why innovative funding solutions aren't possible,
Carol concludes that:
"You fall back to a general revenue to be able to fund this facility. But
this is typical for educational institutions. We don't try to fund
elementary schools through fund raising. We see a general benefit to
citizens and thus fund it out of general revenues. A specialized
educational facility like the Planetarium should be no different."
[MH] -well I sure won't be holding my breath as we seek these traditional
funds, from traditional funding sources for a traditional 'specialized
educational facility like the Planetarium.' Such 'traditional' innovation,
or lack thereof, is all too typical of our government institutions and
entitlement-based mentality. The referendum for the library was passed by
Mpls. residents a year and a half ago, but we're just now looking for the
traditional funding for the planetarium portion of the project-- a
hat-in-the-hand approach at the legislature, where near-sighted, non-metro
lawmakers have no appreciation for such a 'specialized educational
facility,' and would rather dwell on stadium plans, rural highways and
soy-based diesel additives that bolster ag special interests. Just where,
geographically, does all that tax revenue come from that's being
redistributed in St. Paul?
Seems a more prudent course would have been to actively package alternative
funding solutions and shop them to both the public and private sectors in an
effort to get this thing done-- but that's a bit more difficult than simply
lobbying the traditional players for the traditional money. Will this
proposed state-of-the-art facility have nothing unique of value to offer
state and regional residents and students- urban and rural? Of course it
will, and it should be actively marketed and sold as such-- based on the
value-added for various segments of the market. If there is nothing unique
of value being offered, then why build it? Maybe this planetarium has more
in common with a Twin's stadium than I originally thought?
Michael Hohmann
Linden Hills
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Becker
> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 11:49 AM
> To: Mpls Issues
> Subject: Re: [Mpls] The Guv's Stadium Plan [& planetarium?]
>
>
> From: "Michael Hohmann wrote:
>
>
> > Why aren't state legislators and Library Board/mgmt/Friends debating how
> to
> > finance the Minnesota Planetarium and Space Discovery Center in the new
> > downtown library, employing such innovative schemes? Maybe a
> combination
> of
> > gov't. loans and capital bonding, and a %age of matching funds from the
> > private sector, (two-thirds state funds- loans & bonding, one-third
> private
> > matching), sell naming rights and branded meeting rooms... think Carlson
> > School, etc. Lease time to colleges/universities; have traveling
> exhibits.
> > The loan could be repaid from a portion of the planetarium gate
> fees over
> a
> > 15-20 year period. Do some innovative planning/marketing and make
> > planetarium revenues a part of the equation. [A deal where contraction
> isn't
> > an issue, most staff and management aren't millionaires, the private
> sector
> > loves the place and uses it, a majority of the Board are elected by the
> > public, there's no need for salary caps, and Minneapolis voters already
> > agreed to pay for nearly 80% of the project- the central library and
> > planetarium. The Minnesota Planetarium and Space Discovery Center is a
> > statewide educational resource-- let's pony up some statewide
> resources!]
>
> The Planetarium is part of the new Central Library. The funding for the
> referendum did not include the Planetarium, only the library. (As you
> note, the Planetarium is a state resource and appropriately should be paid
> for out of state resources.) The Library is currently under construction.
> You need the money now to build the Planetarium . You can't wait so see
> what fund raising you could do or what corporations may do. You
> have to do
> whatever you are going to do now.
>
> You could sell bonds to pay for the planetarium. The problem isn't in the
> borrowing of money but in the paying back of the money. Usually you can't
> borrow money unless you have a secure way of paying it back.
> Typically you
> can't sell bonds based on the revenues from fund raising because you can't
> guarantee that any of the money will be raised. It isn't clear that gate
> fees will cover even the operating costs of the facility much less capital
> costs. Typically colleges and universities don't have a lot of revenue and
> would not be able to pay large rental fees. You fall back to a general
> revenue to be able to fund this facility. But this is typical for
> educational institutions. We don't try to fund elementary schools through
> fund raising. We see a general benefit to citizens and thus fund
> it out of
> general revenues. A specialized educational facility like the Planetarium
> should be no different.
>
> Carol Becker
> Longfellow
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________
> 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
