I appreciate Mr. Gustafson comments on this issue. I asked our budget staff
about the issue of both capital and the $2 million "structural deficit." I
was told there will be no change in the library capital this year from the
currently allocated capital. The referendum doesn't kick in till next year.
So for those folks who were surprised by their truth in taxation statements.
That just reflects your property value increase. You'll see a combination of
that and the library referendum in next year's statement.
However staff also told me that the library board wants us to continue their
capital funding until 2003 which really should not be necessary since the
referendum is structured to cover the total library infrastructure gap. The
bigger problem is that staff feels it takes the library board forever to
finish some of their projects at branch libraries. But they ask us to float
the bonds and sometimes the projects don't get finished for several years.
Linden Hills is an example.
I agree with Mr. Gustafson's assessment that it was a bit duplicitous to
not talk about the large operating deficit. Perhaps Mr. Gustafson could
clarify an item in his earlier post. I was told the $2 million was ongoing
over the past few years not yearly?
Lisa McDonald
Tenth Ward Council Member
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 8:04 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: Taxes, Mayor's budget and Library Referendum
>
>
> --part1_4f.3a847a7.27473ebf_boundary
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Whether you are a tax and spend liberal Democrat, a fiscal conservative
>
> Republican, a WWF supporting Independent (we don't have reform people in
> Minneapolis anymore do we)? or a hug a tree Green, I believe that we
> become
> at times too concerned with the "politics" of government and forget the
> "economics." Budgets are boring, budget documents hard to decipher.
> CLIC just received the Mayor's recommended budget adjustments covering
> the
> five year 2001-2005 capital period. For your weekend reading enjoyment I
> will
> track you through the story of the Library Capital program from its
> presentation to CLIC last June through today. Keep in mind the economics,
> since from its overwhelming support this does not appear to be a partisan
> issue.
> The library submitted to CLIC in June an accelerated request for
> capital
> to begin remodeling the community libraries. Their request over five years
>
> was for $16,692,000 (approximately $3,340,000 per year). It was clear CLIC
>
> did not have the funds to recommend the request and stuck with
> recommending
> $1,600,000 per year which is the allocation per the adopted Capital
> Program.
> CLIC told the library they would need to either go through the Council
> process to seek an increase to their capital funding or they would have to
>
> include the community libraries with their referendum request. Concern was
>
> expressed with their need to find significant additional operating funds.
> It
> was clearly stated in their capital requests that they had no way to fund
> the
> increase in operations estimated to be approximately $2,000,000 per year.
> Library staff at first just recommended a referendum for the Central
> Library. They knew that the Central Library had no projected negative cash
>
> flow, but they still had no idea how to cover the negative associated with
>
> the community libraries so they left them out. From conversations with
> staff
> and one Library Board member (read hearsay) the decision to add the
> community
> libraries was made after the problem was brought up in a meeting with the
> Library Board and mayor. Staff had recommended asking for operating funds
> as
> part of the referendum. The decision by the Library Board and mayor to go
> ahead was made with the idea that once the buildings were up they could
> worry
> about the cash to run them. I was told this month by library staff that it
>
> has not been uncommon for other libraries around the country to go back to
>
> voters after their buildings are built to ask for more money for
> operations.
> Although that might be true, and apparently that happened here after the
> current Central Library was built, the problem is that the staff, Library
> Board and mayor know of the shortfall now. Since it will take several
> years
> for the construction projects to be completed the problem has been
> conveniently put off into the future.
> The city of Minneapolis voters, across partisan lines, displayed their
> strong faith in their libraries and their elected officials by solidly
> approving the $140,000,000 referendum. Perhaps you saw the October 2000
> "Currents," the Citizens' Guide to the Minneapolis Public Library
> Referendum.
> Highlighted in the lower right corner of the front page is the Proposed
> funding for Library Projects. Nothing is said about operating cost
> problems
> and the section on Community Libraries was written as follows:
>
> Community Libraries
> $30 million from the Library Referendum
> This amount would supplement the Library Board's annual
> allocation
> from the City Capital Long-range Improvement process,
> which
> has
> provided about $1.6 million annually for library
> projects.
>
> While reading this front page you might catch the Message from the Library
>
> Board that says:
> This issue of our "Currents" newsletter is being mailed
> to
> every
> Minneapolis household in order to provide voters with the
>
> facts they
> need to MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION about the Minneapolis
> Public
> Library Referendum on November 7. (emphasis mine)
>
> Now that the referendum is approved, the Mayor in her Recommended
> Project
> Adjustment just presented to CLIC Tuesday, recommended reducing the
> capital
> expenditures for the library by $8,084,000 over the next five years. This
> cuts $1.6 million PER YEAR from the library's capital program. This is the
>
> $1.6 million the library said in their promotional material would be part
> of
> their community library funding. Over ten years this cuts $16,000,000 from
>
> the library's capital budget.
>
> The voters of Minneapolis clearly were not given the information to make
> an
> informed decision on the referendum. They were not informed that the
> library
> does not have the operating funds to adequately staff and purchase
> materials
> for the new and remodeled libraries. The library also does not have,
> according to the recently adjusted mayor's budget, the $1.6 million per
> year
> they were counting on for completing the capital improvements to the
> community libraries.
>
> So what happens to the library, and eventually to your taxes. With the
> referendum money they have everything they need to build a new central
> library. They will also be able to start the designing of the community
> libraries, and actually begin the remodeling. They will run out of funds
> however (according to their own budgets), both operating and capital,
> before
> the projects are complete. The capital shortfall will be approximately
> $16,000,000 ($1.6 million over ten years, assuming the mayor continues to
> cut
> the $1.6 million per year over the five year budget 2006-2011). The
> operating
> shortfall is projected by the library at about $2,000,000 per year. This
> is
> just the negative for the community libraries.
> There will either have to be an extensive cutting back on the community
>
> libraries capital and operations or they will have to come back to the
> voters
> for more money (read taxes), the real money they should have been asking
> for
> in the first place.
> The other option is to raid another budget account when the funds are
> needed. That is happening in this years budget. Public Works is struggling
>
> with a gap in infrastructure funding (they need more money for deferred
> repairs for roads and bridges). An attempt was made, in the Capital
> process,
> to fund 50% of that gap over a ten year period. The mayor last week cut
> $19,601,000 out of that program over the next five years. Who will notice
> roads and bridges if we have new parks and libraries? The problem is that
> our
> infrastructure is an asset. If we don't take care of it on a regular
> basis,
> the cost to replace and repair does not go away. Each year our asset will
> be
> worth less, and the money needed to rebuild it will grow.
> The issue isn't always tax and spend liberals versus libertarian no
> government is good government. We all live in what we feel is a pretty
> good
> city (forgetting the occasional street cleaning problem and the fact that
> Moby Dick's was torn down). We also all live with budgets. If we keep
> using
> our credit cards to buy what makes us feel good, and then borrow against
> another credit card to cover the first, eventually we get in trouble. When
> it
> comes time to look at the next candidates for Minneapolis, lets hope there
>
> are some that can read a budget (whatever party they are from) and they
> have
> the guts to ask hard questions about what they see..
>
> Bob Gustafson
> 13th Ward, CLIC
>
> --part1_4f.3a847a7.27473ebf_boundary
> Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> <HTML><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT SIZE=2> Whether you are a tax
> and spend liberal Democrat, a fiscal conservative <BR>Republican, a WWF
> supporting Independent (we don't have reform people in <BR>Minneapolis
> anymore do we)? or a hug a tree Green, I believe that we become <BR>at
> times too concerned with the "politics" of government and forget the
> <BR>"economics." Budgets are boring, budget documents hard to decipher.
> <BR> CLIC just received the Mayor's recommended budget
> adjustments covering the <BR>five year 2001-2005 capital period. For your
> weekend reading enjoyment I will <BR>track you through the story of the
> Library Capital program from its <BR>presentation to CLIC last June
> through today. Keep in mind the economics, <BR>since from its overwhelming
> support this does not appear to be a partisan <BR>issue.
> <BR> The library submitted to CLIC in June an accelerated
> request for capital <BR>to begin remodeling the community libraries. Their
> request over five years <BR>was for $16,692,000 (approximately $3,340,000
> per year). It was clear CLIC <BR>did not have the funds to recommend the
> request and stuck with recommending <BR>$1,600,000 per year which is the
> allocation per the adopted Capital Program. <BR>CLIC told the library they
> would need to either go through the Council <BR>process to seek an
> increase to their capital funding or they would have to <BR>include the
> community libraries with their referendum request. Concern was
> <BR>expressed with their need to find significant additional operating
> funds. It <BR>was clearly stated in their capital requests that they had
> no way to fund the <BR>increase in operations estimated to be
> approximately $2,000,000 per year.
> <BR> Library staff at first just recommended a referendum for
> the Central <BR>Library. They knew that the Central Library had no
> projected negative cash <BR>flow, but they still had no idea how to cover
> the negative associated with <BR>the community libraries so they left them
> out. From conversations with staff <BR>and one Library Board member
> (read hearsay) the decision to add the community <BR>libraries was made
> after the problem was brought up in a meeting with the <BR>Library Board
> and mayor. Staff had recommended asking for operating funds as <BR>part of
> the referendum. The decision by the Library Board and mayor to go
> <BR>ahead was made with the idea that once the buildings were up they
> could worry <BR>about the cash to run them. I was told this month by
> library staff that it <BR>has not been uncommon for other libraries around
> the country to go back to <BR>voters after their buildings are built to
> ask for more money for operations. <BR>Although that mi!
> !
> !
> ght be true, and apparently that happened here after the <BR>current
> Central Library was built, the problem is that the staff, Library
> <BR>Board and mayor know of the shortfall now. Since it will take several
> years <BR>for the construction projects to be completed the problem has
> been <BR>conveniently put off into the future.
>
> <BR> The city of Minneapolis voters, across partisan lines,
> displayed their <BR>strong faith in their libraries and their elected
> officials by solidly <BR>approving the $140,000,000 referendum. Perhaps
> you saw the October 2000 <BR>"Currents," the Citizens' Guide to the
> Minneapolis Public Library Referendum. <BR>Highlighted in the lower right
> corner of the front page is the Proposed <BR>funding for Library Projects.
> Nothing is said about operating cost problems <BR>and the section on
> Community Libraries was written as follows:
> <BR>
> <BR>
> &n
> bsp; Comm
> unity Libraries
> <BR>
> &n
> bsp; $30 million from the Library Referendum
> <BR>
> &n
> bsp; This amount would supplement the Library
> Board's annual <BR>allocation
> &n
> bsp; &nbs
> p;
> <BR>
> &n
> bsp; from the City Capital Long-range Improvement
> process, which <BR>has
> <BR>
> &n
> bsp; provided about $1.6 million annually for
> library projects.
> <BR>
> <BR>While reading this front page you might catch the Message from the
> Library <BR>Board that says:
> <BR>
> &n
> bsp; This issue of our "Currents" newsletter is being
> mailed to <BR>every
> <BR>
> &n
> bsp; Minneapolis household in order to provide voters
> with the <BR>facts they
> <BR>
> &n
> bsp; need to MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION about the
> Minneapolis <BR>Public
> <BR>
> &n
> bsp; Library Referendum on November 7. (emphasis mine)
> <BR>
> <BR> Now that the referendum is approved, the Mayor in her
> Recommended Project <BR>Adjustment just presented to CLIC Tuesday,
> recommended reducing the capital <BR>expenditures for the library by
> $8,084,000 over the next five years. This <BR>cuts $1.6 million PER YEAR
> from the library's capital program. This is the <BR>$1.6 million the
> library said in their promotional material would be part of <BR>their
> community library funding. Over ten years this cuts $16,000,000 from
> <BR>the library's capital budget.
> <BR>
> <BR>The voters of Minneapolis clearly were not given the information to
> make an <BR>informed decision on the referendum. They were not informed
> that the library <BR>does not have the operating funds to adequately staff
> and purchase materials <BR>for the new and remodeled libraries. The
> library also does not have, <BR>according to the recently adjusted mayor's
> budget, the $1.6 million per year <BR>they were counting on for completing
> the capital improvements to the <BR>community libraries.
> <BR>
> <BR>So what happens to the library, and eventually to your taxes. With the
> <BR>referendum money they have everything they need to build a new central
> <BR>library. They will also be able to start the designing of the
> community <BR>libraries, and actually begin the remodeling. They will run
> out of funds <BR>however (according to their own budgets), both operating
> and capital, before <BR>the projects are complete. The capital shortfall
> will be approximately <BR>$16,000,000 ($1.6 million over ten years,
> assuming the mayor continues to cut <BR>the $1.6 million per year over the
> five year budget 2006-2011). The operating <BR>shortfall is projected by
> the library at about $2,000,000 per year. This is <BR>just the negative
> for the community libraries.
> <BR> There will either have to be an extensive cutting back on
> the community <BR>libraries capital and operations or they will have to
> come back to the voters <BR>for more money (read taxes), the real money
> they should have been asking for <BR>in the first place.
> <BR> The other option is to raid another budget account when
> the funds are <BR>needed. That is happening in this years budget. Public
> Works is struggling <BR>with a gap in infrastructure funding (they need
> more money for deferred <BR>repairs for roads and bridges). An attempt was
> made, in the Capital process, <BR>to fund 50% of that gap over a ten year
> period. The mayor last week cut <BR>$19,601,000 out of that program over
> the next five years. Who will notice <BR>roads and bridges if we have new
> parks and libraries? The problem is that our <BR>infrastructure is an
> asset. If we don't take care of it on a regular basis, <BR>the cost to
> replace and repair does not go away. Each year our asset will be <BR>worth
> less, and the money needed to rebuild it will grow.
> <BR> The issue isn't always tax and spend liberals versus
> libertarian no <BR>government is good government. We all live in what we
> feel is a pretty good <BR>city (forgetting the occasional street cleaning
> problem and the fact that <BR>Moby Dick's was torn down). We also all live
> with budgets. If we keep using <BR>our credit cards to buy what makes us
> feel good, and then borrow against <BR>another credit card to cover the
> first, eventually we get in trouble. When it <BR>comes time to look at the
> next candidates for Minneapolis, lets hope there <BR>are some that can
> read a budget (whatever party they are from) and they have <BR>the guts to
> ask hard questions about what they see..
> <BR>
> <BR>Bob Gustafson
> <BR>13th Ward, CLIC</FONT></HTML>
>
> --part1_4f.3a847a7.27473ebf_boundary--
