Hello list members, After returning to Mpls from a great vacation in Glacier National Park, and a quick review of over 400 accumulated emails, I must offer my belated support and congratulations to MPRB Commissioner John Erwin for his posts to the list regarding the MPRB HQ deal.
Commissioner Erwin's previous post documenting his reasoning for supporting the project and his recent follow-up note describing why, upon further review and analysis, he changed his mind and opposed the project, are welcome commentary concerning the decision making process. All decision makers should welcome new information and be willing to incorporate such data in an evolving thought process that results in the best decision, given the data and information available. I hope we see more, not less, similar public reasoning and discussion at all levels of local government, including all the independent boards. Such discussion facilitates public involvement in the political process and makes that process more transparent and understandable to city residents, voters and taxpayers. In my quick review of recent posts on the MPRB HQ subject, I read that new numbers were presented to the MPRB concerning the deal, and I read several pro and con arguments concerning the merits of the deal. I also read comments chastising the 'uninformed' views [about the deal], as shared by list members on this public forum. As with all uncensored public forums, there is the good, the bad and the mediocre-- the proverbial wheat and chaff. I reviewed the initial staff financial analysis on the MPRB HQ deal and found it lacking, as I posted here on July 23rd. I have no preconceived notion about the deal, but would hope that our elected leaders have the best information available to make objective, well-informed decisions concerning the expenditure of our tax dollars-- period. Hopefully, the revised numbers/analysis included a discounted cash flow, net present value analysis with realistic O&M costs for the ownership option over time-- I haven't seen the new numbers. WAS THIS THE CASE? anyone? I also congratulate Mayor Rybak relative to his suggestions to the MPRB as part of his veto of their proposal. Specifically, his suggestions that a comprehensive assessment of common real estate needs by all units of local government is in order; his suggestion that there may be opportunities to co-locate other neighborhood services in the one-stop-shop approach; the lack of competitive bids associated with the HQ deal; and most importantly, the Mayor's criticism of the now historically common practice of local government, including the MPRB and the MLB, of pursuing capital projects without including the ancillary O&M budgets that will be necessary to operate and maintain the projects into the foreseeable future. This lack of structurally balanced (capital and operating) budgeting is in large part the cause of the current fiscal difficulty being experienced by all units of local government. Everyone needs more annual operating funds to adequately maintain existing capital projects and facilities. The Mayor's list went on to include other potential cost saving measures the MPRB should consider, including consolidated policing, solid waste hauling, and youth programming. All good ideas and worthy of consideration as cost cutting and efficiency improvement measures-- ways for the city to provide better service delivery at lower cost. I applaud the Mayor and new City Council for taking this budget-bull by the horns, and it is my hope that concerned city residents reinforce the point in daily discourse, in the local newspapers and here on this electronic forum. And all elected officials should take heed. Michael Hohmann Linden Hills www.mahohmannbizplans.com -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John Erwin Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:40 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Mpls] Re: Why I Changed My Vote - John Erwin - Commissioner Perspective Hello Everyone, I wanted to take a moment to explain the rationale for changing my vote related to the New Park Board Headquarters on the Mississippi River. As many of you remember/know I have been supportive of this purchase in the past. Recent changes in the financial numbers as well as public input changed my opinion on this issue. The new numbers were presented to the Board last week. I had significant concerns. I voiced those at the meeting last week � but in the end supported the purchase. After more thought and looking at the numbers, I could no longer support the purchase. Obviously, the majority could. Although this may seem like a reversal to some, it's simply an informed decision based on continuously changing numbers. Those numbers have been changing weekly! My decision is based solely on the benefits to the citizens of Minneapolis and the Parks. My rationale is/was simple: 1) When City Council essentially did not approve the Park Board's effort to bond the purchase through the city about two weeks ago it forced the Park Board to seek external funding to complete the purchase. This occurred. Two things occurred with respect to financing - the interest rate on the loan increased and the term of the loan decreased. The result was a significant increase in the monthly payment (approx. $150,000). In previous financial breakdowns, potential rental space would have resulted in a net profit to the park system. Under the current financing, all the rental monies will likely go into making the payments. The previous numbers resulted in a revenue stream to the system beyond the loan payment. I do support finding a permanent home for the Park Board and it simply makes sense to purchase a place rather than paying rent for another 125 years! However, because we are looking at significant cuts in services and a potential reduction in staff due to budget cuts through recent actions of the economy, City Council, and Mayor, I could no longer justify the purchase at this time. Remember that the original numbers showed the purchase was revenue neutral with an income stream via rent that would have helped offset the recent cuts! In addition, the state's, city's and park board's financial pictures have steadily been getting worse! 2) As a City-Wide (At-Large) Commissioner, my focus is the entire Minneapolis Park System. In my estimation, the Park System needs a city-wide referendum. There has simply been a slow erosion of the maintenance of our facilities and reduction in staff. Staff and facilities are stretched to the limit! snip Plus, I have always been concerned with the lack of public involvement in this entire process! The culture on the Board has been to purchase and then ask the public - in my estimation this is backwards. snip Sincerely, John Erwin City-Wide Park Commissioner _______________________________________ 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
