This is a copy of the letter that was delivered to the Park Board earlier
this afternoon. It explains the reasoning behind the Mayor's veto.
Laura Sether
Office of Mayor Rybak
August 13, 2002
President Bob Fine
Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board
400 South Fourth Street, Suite 200
Minneapolis, MN 55415-1097
Park Board Chair Bob Fine and Park Board Members:
I have vetoed Park Board Resolution NO 2002-143, authorizing execution of up
to $3,100,000 mortgage note and mortgage to finance headquarters building
acquisition, and the following actions: 7.8, 7.9, 7.10, 7.10a, and 8.3 as
passed by the Park Board on August 7, 2002.
I support the independence of the Park Board, as outlined in the City
Charter. I also respect the judgment of each of you as individuals and
intend to use the veto power the charter gives me sparingly. However, I'm
vetoing this for three reasons:
1. I have offered to work with the Park Board on a comprehensive
assessment of our common real estate before constructing another building. I
make that offer again. In that process, we may find property we already own
that may be suitable for Park Board headquarters. Even more promising, that
study could offer opportunities to co-locate other neighborhood services.
Any comprehensive assessment should include locating a community-based
one-stop shop service center, providing convenience for citizens and savings
for taxpayers. These more innovative uses of our facilities may affect how
much space is needed at a potential headquarters.
The argument has been made that there's a need to act quickly to
secure this property. I repeat my offer to work together on a comprehensive
assessment, while at the same time moving forward to acquire this property
as long as we do not presume its ultimate use. Pending that comprehensive
review, we should leave open all possibilities, including putting it back
into the private market, designating it for housing or placing a public
facility there.
2. I challenge whether this is an efficient use of public resources:
* The chief financial officer for the City questions whether there are
any savings to taxpayers.
* No RFP for competitive bids for property or other options.
* The site in question has limited access to mass transit.
* There has been a lack of public consultation with neighborhood
groups in affected communities.
The City, Park Board and Library Board have been in the habit of
building capital, without factoring in long-term maintenance and operational
costs. All three have made this mistake in the past; we don't have the
luxury of making it anymore, under our current financial constraints. The
Capital Long-Range Improvement Committee (CLIC) can help us avoid such
mistakes. We need to respect the time and wisdom of this citizen-led
process, and I'm concerned that this is not happening.
3. This comes at a time when all public organizations are struggling
with scarce resources. I'm confident we can work together to solve these
issues better than we can solve them individually. Along those lines, let me
take this opportunity to formally make the offer I described in my budget
address last week. These are ways the City is prepared to assist the Park
Board with its financial situation:
* Place more police in the parks for less money.
a.) A savings to the taxpayers of $208,000 if the City
were to take over Park Board investigations
b.) A savings to the taxpayers of $433,000 if the
current Park Police becomes a precinct under the Minneapolis Police
Department.
c.) A savings to the taxpayers of $1,048,000 for a
complete merger, including collapsing the command structure and integrating
the officers into existing geographically based precincts.
* Have city garbage haulers serve parks and libraries.
* Coordinate current Park Board youth athletics programs with the
Police Athletic League (PAL)
While the Park Board, Library Board and the City are independent on policy
matters, they are not fiscally independent. We're all on the same checkbook
with the taxpayers. The Charter gives the Mayor veto power over Park Board
actions because it is my responsibility to look out for the interests of the
City as a whole. This means making sure our financial house is in order and
that we are delivering services in the most efficient and effective way
possible.
R.T. Rybak
Mayor of Minneapolis
_______________________________________
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
