Just to let folks know that I did read Vivian's e-mail for the record on August 7th - it is on the record. I have not responded to the list requests about this issue because I believe I stated my position a few weeks back and it has not changed. This decision is not about the financial difficulties of this year or next (we have financial ups and downs every few years as far as I can tell). This decision about the headquarters is a sustainability decision - about a decision made for seven generations. You all may not be thankful now but I believe your grandchildren will believe we were very smart and far-sighted by getting hold of this site. Right now, I have much more concern about the impending layoffs and that they be equitable throughout the whole system. Having 15 laid off in operations with none in administration makes no sense to me - that is a battle I will be fighting - every department must make some sacrifices and I would rather start downtown with mid-management positions than the mowers and trimmers - we will see how this plays out before budget season is over. For now, Annie
At 01:12 PM 8/24/02 -0700, Vivian Mason wrote: > In todays Star Tribune thhere is an opinion piece by Bob Fine concerning >the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Headquarters. I don't believe that >the concerns and questions of list members, or the general public, have been >addressed. > Mr. Fine stated that on August 7 by an 8-0 vote (implying it was >unanimous) the Park Board approved private financing with Wells Fargo Bank. >The Park Board has 9 members and I think Fine and the Star Tribune should >have reported I was absent. I had e-mailed the Superintendent before the >meeting (and sent a copy to Steve Brandt) that I would not be at the >meeting, and why, and requested that my strong opposition to this purchase >be included in the record. That courtesy had been given to Commissioner >Annie Young on June 5th when she was in the hospital and she wanted to have >her strong SUPPORT of the purchase on the record(as part of the minutes) >when the Board voted to authorize the Superintendent to negotiate a price >with the seller. That vote was 7 yes, 1 no (me) and one strong support but >not allowed to vote(Annie) I was in Duluth at an 8th Circuit Judicial >Conference on August 7 as a tribute was being given to honor my husband who >died suddenly on June 8. > Commissioner John Erwin had a thoughtful post on 8/15 stating his reasons >for changing his mind on this purchase and expressed his growing concern >with the continuously changing numbers. I agree with those concerns and I >point out that all number have been "projected". On the vote to override the >Mayor's veto on August 14 the vote was 7 yes and 2 no(John and me) > Fine reports a savings of $500,00 because with the purchase of this >building our northside maintenance facility will move into the new digs and >the old facility will not need to be repaired. I want to point out that a >couple of years ago the Park Board and the City developed a Service >Agreement and as far as I know we never discussed the possibility of >relocating this northside facility into a city owned building. I also >continue to question if this is a good, and appropriate, use of riverfront >property. > I also still have serious concerns about maintaining a 200 car surface >parking lot on the river and I think it most unfortunate that the staff who >will be working in this building did not have any input on how the move >will affect them and how they get to work. > The $10,000 Fine said we will saved on rent of office trailers at our >southside maintenance facility I also question. More than a year ago the >Superintendent reported we were going to get a report on the excess space we >had available in buildings throughout the system. She indicated that there >was a lot of unused space and we would receive a report that included >locations and then have a discussion on how to utilize that space. We have >not to date received this information. > The Park Board owns the Fuji-Ya building on the River. I think if a >riverfront site for Park headquarters is desired we should have looked into >this property or others that we already own. One suggestion I have received >is the possibility of our headquarters being located at the Fuji-Ya site >with Park User services being a part of this setting. ie: bicycle and >in-line skating rental and perhaps a >new revenue source such as informal dining area. > I disagree with Fine's statement that "this matter had been reviewed at >meetings open to the public." The only time this issue was listed as an >agenda item was on June 5. That was when a resolution authorizing the >Superintendent and Asst. Superinintendent for Planning to negotiate a price >with the seller. The vote on this resolution was 7 For,1 Against(me) and 1 >absent.(Annie) > I agree with Commissioner Erwin that we should have a permanent home but >this is not the time. I think we need to have more than one option presented >when we are dealing with this much money and I think the Public need to be >informed and involved. Anything that is worth doing will withstand Public >scrutiny. > >Vivian Mason, 4th District Park Commissioner and resident of CIDNA >_______________________________________ >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
