Sheldon comments, in part, regarding the libraries:

> Finally, regarding Mike's idea of moving some of the Referendum money
> from capital to operating.  I understand that legally that possibility
> could be summed up as "in your dreams."

[MH] This suggestion has too quickly been dismissed by several folks,
including Sheldon.

I'm talking about a sale-leaseback transaction, whereby the library bonds
(or similar shorter term debt instrument) are issued to build the new
downtown library.  When the library is completed, it is sold to a third
party (i.e. an insurance company via a pre-negotiated deal) and the sale
proceeds are applied to retiring a majority of the bonds issued in the first
place.  Some of the sale proceeds could also be applied to cover the
incremental operating shortfall (over a limited period of time).  This would
buy some time in terms of operating cost shortfalls.  The library system
would still have to achieve dramatic cost savings system-wide over the next
few years, bringing ongoing operating costs in line with ongoing revenues
into the future-- a structurally balanced budget.  But this strategy could,
in effect, convert a portion of capital funds to operating funds, and save
millions in debt service.  We would no longer own the facility but it would
be operational for everyone to use and enjoy.  If the debt load can be
significantly reduced- preserving city borrowing flexibility for other
emergency needs-- while freeing up some operating funds, why not run some
numbers for various scenarios?

Sale-lease back arrangements are a common method used to reduce debt levels
on the balance sheet and move cash toward operating expenses.  The tax
situation would be a major issue of concern in structuring the bonds and the
sale-lease back transaction, but that's why bond houses get the big bucks!

As far as I know, there should be no reason this type strategy could not
work.  A variation on the theme would be to negotiate a deal with Hennepin
County such that Minneapolis pays for the structure/ or a portion thereof,
and the county assumes operating responsibility... yada, yada.  Again, the
city would want to get rid of as much debt as possible, but that's all part
of the negotiation.  City residents would then likely assume some tax
liability to the county library system, again part of the negotiation.
Neighborhood libraries would remain under city control, but everything is
negotiable! There are undoubtedly many scenarios that could be discussed,
but this is definitely not a "in your dreams" concept.

Michael Hohmann
Linden Hills

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For market research,
financial analysis,
business planning, and
project management...
www.mahohmannbizplans.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Sheldon Mains
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 9:18 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Mpls] Roosevelt, Southeast, Webber Park and the Walker
> libraries to close?
>
>
> http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/3749578.html
>
> With this post I'm probably making the decision not to try again for a
> Library Board seat:
>
snip
> Finally, regarding Mike's idea of moving some of the Referendum money
> from capital to operating.  I understand that legally that possibility
> could be summed up as "in your dreams."
>
Sheldon Mains


TEMPORARY REMINDER:
1. Send all posts in plain-text format.
2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible.

________________________________

Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls

Reply via email to