I've come late to this discussion, but I have comments to make regarding the MPL operating and capital budgets; the greatly reduced hours of operation at all city libraries (and the MPL operating budget in general); and complaints made on this list concerning reduced capital expenditures for libraries-- in this case, reduced capital from city coffers that rely on property taxes, rather than capital from MPL budgets (including the $130 million in capital, authorized by referendum a couple of years ago, also dependent on property taxes).
I thank Bob Gustafson for his updates regarding the CLIC review and recommendations on MPL capital budget AND the related implications of the MPL operating budget. Looking back to the time of the MPL referendum ($110 million for construction of a new downtown central library and $30 million for capital improvements at neighborhood libraries), MPL Board members and the former Library Director were aware of the fact there would be a shortfall of operating funds as the new central library and expanded neighborhood libraries came online in 'future years.' Even with energy-efficient capital improvements and expansions, operating expenses were going to increase along with the physical expansions being planned. The decision was made by the MPL Board and the former Mayor to avoid addressing the need to increase operating revenues consistent with capital expansion plans at the time of the referendum, and to rather address said operating shortfall at a later date. The public was thus misled regarding the entire referendum-- all things equal, we would get nice new facilities, yet (unknown to voters and unstated by leaders) not have the operating money to maintain existing levels of service! Then the recession came along (all things are NEVER equal,) accompanied by state budget cuts, and compounded the problem. Those 'future years' arrived sooner than expected! And, yes, those necessary operating funds are no where to be seen. Several months ago, I watched the MPL Finance Committee (Board members) congratulating themselves as they approved a 2004 operating budget that included significant cuts (6-25-03); it was described proudly by one Committee/Board member as a balanced operating budget-- even though projections showed it going into the red by 2006. It anticipated no revenue cuts in 2004 (an unlikely scenario in my mind), and projected a 5% increase in operating revenue in the '04-'06 period. On the expenditure side, operating expenses were projected to increase 16% in the same '04-'06 period, resulting in a $1 million+ shortfall in '06. And, after numerous 'public meetings' to gauge public sentiment about closing some facilities and cutting some programs, it was decided to keep all libraries open at greatly reduced hours of operation, etc. These 'public meetings' used by many city agencies and Boards to represent public opinion, are nothing more than meetings of self-selected supporters-- be it Parks, Schools, the NRP or the Library, and are often attended by the same people all across town; and each neighborhood has it's own local supporters that show up and wave the support flag-- thus justifying the action/inaction by local elected officials charged with policy and fiduciary responsibility. Hopefully, the City Council, Mayor and broader public see the pattern and recognize that such self-selected 'public meetings' should not be construed as representing a cross section of the local community, and certainly not a cross section of voters. Several existing neighborhood libraries cannot be 'improved' until costly changes/improvements are made to make them handicapped accessible-- Roosevelt, Southeast and Webber Park. Given limited budgets, little net improvement, other than ADA improvements, can be expected in these facilities; although a completely new mixed-use library complex was/is planned to replace the Roosevelt Library (which is currently right across the street from Roosevelt High School). Why not just work with the MPS to improve the school library and make it accessible to the general public-- shared facilities? The Walker library needs about a million dollars to fix a leaky roof, that seems to leak even after previous fixes which doesn't even address the potential value of said real estate and other potential and related design options). Other scenarios discussed included closing a few libraries around town. Based upon the 'public input' no facilities were closed (representing no capital relief), employees were laid off and programs cut back or eliminated; operating hours were shortened dramatically; but, to large extent, no one's ox was seriously gored, except for those employees that lost their jobs; all facilities were still open, barely; a good political decision I guess. However, I agree with the CLIC recommendation that capital improvements to neighborhood library facilities should be frozen until the operating budget dilemma is resolved. A structurally balanced overall budget requires that adequate operational revenues should accompany the proposed capital budget plan-- this is currently not the case. In fact, it's very likely that the library operating budget will take additional hits as a result of the upcoming legislative session. Maybe by this time next year, all our libraries will be open one day a week and the bookmobile will be out of gas... or maybe a couple of neighborhood libraries will be closed after all. Let's get the operating scenario nailed down and establish a structurally balanced budget for MPL before we commit more capital toward the highly uncertain future of the city library system. Current fund raising strategies as discussed by the Mayor, various neighborhood groups, Friends, etc. are great and I applaud them. Some represent capital campaigns, others short-term operating funds. A structurally balanced budget must address consistent operating AND capital funds OVER TIME. The upcoming legislative session will have to address many ongoing budget shortfalls, and it behooves us to act responsibly at the local level until current levels of budget uncertainty are satisfactorily reduced or resolved. Don't forget there are MANY other budgetary issues on the table to deal with in Mpls.-- i.e. bonding for annual pension shortfalls, for example. Many issues will require reactionary decisions, but many should include anticipatory planning and decision making to resolve longer-term issues. We can only do so much with local property taxes as the revenue source. The buck ultimately stops with the taxpayer! Michael Hohmann Linden Hills Also, please note that the ramp-up of library referendum dollars on property tax statements is just beginning, and will not be fully applied for a couple more years, and will then continue for a couple of decades. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bob GUSTAFSON Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 3:13 PM To: mpls Subject: [Mpls] Killing the Libraries Slowly *[MH- references to NDB below refer to net debt bonding for capital projects] snip ... R.T. also cut the $1,600,000 CLIC had included for 2007 but he followed CLIC's recommendation for zero funding in 2008. I also stated that R.T. had followed CLIC's recommendations which is not correct monetarily, but I believe it is by our intent. I have included a portion of CLIC's recommendation to the Mayor on the library budget: CLIC's Recommendation: In response to their budget problems, the Library Board has chosen a plan that temporarily keeps all libraries open, although at drastically reduced hours and levels of service. Also considered had been the closing of several community libraries including the recently remodeled Linden Hills library. In light of these decisions, the task force feels it would be wise to follow the Library Board�s fiscally prudent lead and cut back on spending with a temporary halt placed on all additional capital funding of community libraries, whether from referendum or NDB funding. We do not recommend this action lightly. We cannot however justify the additional funding of renovations if the library continues to operate their remodeled libraries at such a reduced service level, or worse yet, if they decide to close renovated libraries in the near future. The task force recommends that such a halt remain in place until the Library Board can present operating scenarios that include the ability to adequately cover operating costs for the remodeled libraries that are fully staffed with an appropriate amount of programs to justify the expansions. CLIC funding for Webber and North Regional remain as shown in 2006 and 2007 with the assumption that operating questions are resolved by that time. Bob again Note that CLIC gave only a qualified endorsement to funding for 2006 and 2007. : Also note that CLIC recommended not only cutting NDB but also placing a moratorium on selling any further Referendum bonds to finance community libraries. How could we do otherwise when the Library itself in their Scenario B had just considered the option of closing Linden Hills, the most recently remodeled library under the 2010 program. The library under its new management is aware of the need to secure additional operating dollars. As a beginning, theirs and the communities fund raising efforts have saved Franklin from closing during its renovation. Victoria however is correct in noting that the library is undergoing huge changes due to advancing technologies. Circulation numbers tell the story well. In 1960 the total circulation of the library was 2,677,835. It peaked in 1992 at 3,273,876, Before the referendum the numbers for 1999 were down to 2,456,727. A number well below that achieved 40 years before. snip Bob Gustafson 13th snip 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. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ 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
