II-b. Second of two parts. This is the second part of a post dealing with the current MPRB budget and planning process. It follows the first part (II-a), posted 7/2/03, which highlighted some operating and capital budgeting issues and raised questions of budget priorities and how they are determined by the MPRB. I'm sorry it's taken me so long to get this part-two follow-up out to list members. [See part II-a at: http://www.mnforum.org/pipermail/mpls/2003-July/025378.html
My original concerns were with the process being used to justify cuts to the MPRB operating budget. The portion of the operating budget that relies on 'tax supported funds' totals approximately $50 million in '03, while the portion relying on 'non tax supported' operating funds (Enterprise and Internal Service accounts) totals nearly $20 million. These 'non tax supported' operating funds have been off limits for public discussion in the overall 'public' budget-planning process. The Enterprise funds include the golf courses, concessions, and more. The capital budgets were also not on the table for public discussion and review. To recap, the '01 MPRB Balance sheet identified $246 million in assets held. It is important to recognize that a large share of those assets represent real estate-- park land and golf courses, most carried on the books at original acquisition prices. Thus, the true value of those assets greatly exceeds the stated book values. Just what is the current market value of MPRB assets like the golf courses (or other MPRB support facilities located throughout town)? Does anyone know the answer to that question? Certainly the public has no idea how much of our public resources are tied up in seven public golf courses; I wonder if members of the Park Board, as fiduciaries and stewards of the land and our public assets, have any idea? Does the City Council or Mayor know? Budget talks continue. Meanwhile we see the Park Board putting up fancy signage identifying themselves with the Parkway system throughout Minneapolis. This is all fine, except I believe the City Public Works Department took responsibility for maintaining all Parkways a year or two ago. Talk about a mixed up system-- and, as all the signs were going up, the Park Board was considering closing wading pools and porta-potties throughout town for lack of funds. Where is the logic? The golf courses pay for themselves and contribute about $1.5-$2 million annually into the Parks system. Most of that money goes toward paying off the large recreational complex being built out near Fort Snelling-- where the MPRB leases about a hundred acres and owns 10-15 acres-- ball fields, soccer fields, gym facilities, etc. I think paying for that project creates a demand for maintaining the golf course revenue stream, thus precluding discussion on the appropriateness of owning/operating seven golf courses. The tail IS wagging the dog! Holding any given asset involves opportunity costs-- the forgone value of resources used in their 'best' alternative use; a currently available alternative that is sacrificed; the cash flows, or other values, that could be generated from assets owned-- based on market values, not book values. We should be looking at the possible trade-offs. What is it we really want to be pursuing and accomplishing with MPRB assets? The public, elected officials and the members of the Park Board should be cognizant of the values of assets held-- the current estimated market values; and how effectively they are being managed. Then, Park Board members and the public should compare the 'public value' of those currently held assets, as currently used, against other options- or opportunities- that could be pursued, but are not- given current planning priorities. The example I used was to compare the 'public value' of owning Meadowbrook Golf Course (located in Hopkins/St. Louis Park) against the potential 'public value' associated with reallocating that resource/asset toward purchasing lands in the Upper Mississippi River corridor for woodlands, park lands and trails, and public access to the river on the north side of town. In other words, trading the Meadowbrook golf course for Upper Mississippi River corridor lands, and preserving said lands in perpetuity for the general public. How would city residents value these two alternate opportunities if given the choice? However, the opportunity to ask these types of questions is not even on the table. Citizens don't even have an opportunity to envision such possible alternatives, because the option is never presented for public consideration. To summarize the situation, the MPRB is limiting budget planning discussions to the $50 million tax-supported portion of the operating budget, and disallowing discussion of the nearly $20 million in non-tax-supported operating funds. Capital budgets are off-limits, and by keeping golf courses and other assets off the discussion table, there is no chance for public consideration of the opportunity costs, public priorities and possible trade-offs associated with current uses of MPRB property. It's time the public gets an opportunity to examine overall MPRB operating and capital budgets, and evaluate the opportunities available given the assets held. Current operating budget shortfalls will get worse next year? And, the capital budget and asset base are not open for discussion. The Park Board has been holding Budget Work Session on proposed service reductions. There is still time to look at both the tax and non-tax portions of the operational budget and begin to examine public assets held, to see if other opportunities or other priorities might be available for consideration. Consider: 'Above the Falls-- A Master Plan for the Upper River in Minneapolis' was developed for the MPRB, Hennepin County, the Minneapolis Planning Department and the MCDA by BRW, et al., with funds provided by the State of Minnesota. The Master Plan is an extensive planning document that creates a bold vision for developing the Mississippi riverfront into a regional park in north and northeast Minneapolis. The vision includes 90 acres of new park, 15 miles of bike lanes and recreational trails, 4 miles of restored riverbank, over five miles of parkway and boulevard, 2,500 housing units in new riverfront neighborhoods, 2,000 net added jobs and over $10 million in added annual tax revenue. The area runs north from approximately Boom Island/Plymouth Ave. to the Camden Bridge. The Master Plan is truly a grand plan, however it only represents a vision. To become reality, it's estimated that literally hundreds of millions of dollars in public and private investment will be required. The new MPRB headquarters building is located just north of Broadway and an upscale private housing development is currently under construction just a couple blocks further north. Development is underway. However, we must remember and understand that development of these upper river lands will progress with or without the participation of the Park Board. If the Park Board wants an active seat at the development table, it will require them to have planning and development funds available to invest. Otherwise, private interests will make investments and dictate development patterns, possibly pushing public interests to the sidelines. This is why a more complete MPRB budget planning process is needed. This is why we need to consider how current public assets are being used, and if reallocations are appropriate. Do the citizens of Minneapolis really need to own and operate seven public golf courses, or would four or five suffice? What importance do city residents place on upper river development that includes public parks, trails and bikeways, and river access-- vs. owning seven golf courses? How does the public get to voice their preference in such longer-term planning decisions? How do other public officials enter and participate in the decision making process. These are important public resources and the public deserves to be more involved. I hope others will pursue answers to these and other similar questions involving how our public resources are being used-- now and in the future. Michael Hohmann Linden Hills www.mahohmannbizplans.com REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
