I just want to clarify something that might have been misinterpreted on my
previous post on libraries. I got my information from budget staff. That
doesn't necessarily mean it is the mayor's point of view. So a cautionary
note. Secondly I appreciate all the information Mr. Gustafson has posted.
Sometimes we don't know the level of detail about different jurisdictions
budgets. I have kept a file on the library posts and intend to ask some of
these questions of the library board when we have our budget hearings with
them.
Lisa McDonald
Tenth Ward Council Member
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 4:55 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: Libraries, referendum, budget shortfall
>
>
> --part1_39.cc00758.274b06d3_boundary
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> In response to Lisa McDonald's post.
>
> >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.<
>
> I agree that the library capital for this year remains in place. The
> mayor's
> recommended budget proposal cuts $8,084,000 from the library board in the
> years 2002 to 2005, but does not cut 2000 or 2001.
>
> >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 library in their requests to CLIC and in their October 2000 Currents
> Special Issue: Citizens' Guide to the Minneapolis Public Library
> Referendum
> clearly state that according to their proposal the $30,000,000 portion of
> the
> referendum for community libraries "WOULD SUPPLEMENT THE LIBRARY BOARD'S
> ANNUAL ALLOCATION" from the capital long-range improvement process
> estimated
> at $1.6 million per year. The referendum WAS NOT STRUCTURED to cover the
> total library infrastructure gap. If these cuts continue the library will
> be
> short $16,000,000 from their capital budget. Perhaps the mayor has a
> future
> fund she hopes to tap to bring this money back into the library over the
> five
> year period 2006 to 2011. I am unsure what fund might have an excess.
> There
> is some left in the Public Works Infrastructure Gap (read streets and
> bridges) but she recommended cutting $19,601,000 in the 2001 to 2005
> budget
> and I am unsure how far she intends to deplete that account.
>
> >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.<
>
> This is a bigger problem? I am trying to focus on capital accounts.
> Squabbles
> between staff and the library board are a separate issue. I was told in
> the
> past by staff that the water works was also notorious for requesting
> funding
> and then taking forever to complete their projects. This to me is a
> management problem. I see no duplicity here.
>
> >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?<
>
> The $2,000,000 operating deficit is projected ON A YEARLY BASIS after
> remodeling the libraries. It was stated by the library in their requests
> to
> CLIC and was stated in their Outlook 2010 planning update in January 2000.
>
>
> The library ran a deficit of approximately $600,000 in 1991 and $230,000
> in
> 1992 but has since, according to the annual reports I have seen, been able
> to
> show essentially a positive year end. I have not seen reports from 1996
> and
> 1997. Although I am uncertain as of today's budget situation I am aware
> that
> in the mid 1990s the library implemented hiring freezes and budget
> restrictions on book purchases. The library reported a positive cash flow
> of
> $120,000 in 1999 on expenses of $18.5 million, hardly room to allow any
> flexibility for the library staff to have cash to respond to today's
> rapidly
> changing technology. The $2,000,000 yearly deficit includes the impact of
> the
> following items listed in the library's "Outlook 2010":
> 1)Public service staff required for enlarged spaces or in response
> to
> a rise in activity.
> 2) Building staff for maintenance for expanded facilities.
> 3) Technical Services support for computers and telecommunications
> equipment
> 4) Collection resources including books, audio visuals and
> electronic
> products.
> 5) Computer equipment including work stations, printers and
> supplies.
> 6) Management overhead for expanded services, staff, facilities.
> 7) Increased utilities cost for enlarged spaces.
> 8) New and higher level maintenance equipment necessary for upkeep
> of
> interiors and grounds.
>
> The $2,000,000 figure DOES NOT include expanded hours, which is one of the
>
> library's stated major goals (Future Directions, 2000-2004).
>
> The term duplicitous may correctly define what has happened. For that I
> would
> have to know people's intent. With all the problems lately in determining
> what someone's intent was, I think I'd rather not go there. I have heard
> the
> comments of library staff that say they have told the library board and
> mayor
> about the problems and were told to ignore them for now. I have heard a
> board
> member say they didn't have adequate information from staff on what
> operating
> costs will be. When I asked library staff how they were responding to
> their
> capital budget being cut they were unaware of it, no one had told them. I
> don't know what the mayor is saying, but from my track record I would
> guess
> it is not her fault.
>
> The Buck Stops Somewhere, and one of those bucks is mine. I am a fan of
> the
> library, like most people in Minneapolis am willing to support the
> library. I
> do not like being misled by anyone however, especially someone who is
> spending my money and watching over my city.
>
> Bob Gustafson
> 13th Ward
>
> --part1_39.cc00758.274b06d3_boundary
> Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> <HTML><FONT SIZE=2>In response to Lisa McDonald's post.
> <BR>
> <BR>>I asked our budget staff about the issue of both capital and the
> $2 million <BR>"structural deficit." I was told there will be no change in
> the library <BR>capital this year from the currently allocated
> capital.<
> <BR>
> <BR>I agree that the library capital for this year remains in place. The
> mayor's <BR>recommended budget proposal cuts $8,084,000 from the library
> board in the <BR>years 2002 to 2005, but does not cut 2000 or 2001.
> <BR>
> <BR>>However staff also told me that the library board wants us to
> continue their
> <BR>capital funding until 2003 which really should not be necessary since
> the
> <BR>referendum is structured to cover the total library infrastructure
> gap.<
> <BR>
> <BR>The library in their requests to CLIC and in their October 2000
> Currents <BR>Special Issue: Citizens' Guide to the Minneapolis Public
> Library Referendum <BR>clearly state that according to their proposal the
> $30,000,000 portion of the <BR>referendum for community libraries "WOULD
> SUPPLEMENT THE LIBRARY BOARD'S <BR>ANNUAL ALLOCATION" from the capital
> long-range improvement process estimated <BR>at $1.6 million per year. The
> referendum WAS NOT STRUCTURED to cover the <BR>total library
> infrastructure gap. If these cuts continue the library will be <BR>short
> $16,000,000 from their capital budget. Perhaps the mayor has a future
> <BR>fund she hopes to tap to bring this money back into the library over
> the five <BR>year period 2006 to 2011. I am unsure what fund might have an
> excess. There <BR>is some left in the Public Works Infrastructure Gap
> (read streets and <BR>bridges) but she recommended cutting $19,601,000 in
> the 2001 to 2005 budget <BR>and I am unsure how far she intends !
> !
> !
> to deplete that account.
> <BR>
> <BR>>The bigger problem is that staff feels it takes the library board
> forever to
> <BR>finish some of their projects at branch libraries. But they ask us to
> float
> <BR>the bonds and sometimes the projects don't get finished for several
> years.
> <BR>Linden Hills is an example.<
> <BR>
> <BR>This is a bigger problem? I am trying to focus on capital accounts.
> Squabbles <BR>between staff and the library board are a separate issue.
> I was told in the <BR>past by staff that the water works was also
> notorious for requesting funding <BR>and then taking forever to complete
> their projects. This to me is a <BR>management problem. I see no duplicity
> here.
> <BR>
> <BR>>I agree with Mr. Gustafson's assessment that it was a bit
> duplicitous to
> <BR>not talk about the large operating deficit. Perhaps Mr. Gustafson
> could
> <BR>clarify an item in his earlier post. I was told the $2 million was
> ongoing
> <BR>over the past few years not yearly?<
> <BR>
> <BR>The $2,000,000 operating deficit is projected ON A YEARLY BASIS after
> <BR>remodeling the libraries. It was stated by the library in their
> requests to <BR>CLIC and was stated in their Outlook 2010 planning update
> in January 2000.
> <BR>
> <BR>The library ran a deficit of approximately $600,000 in 1991 and
> $230,000 in <BR>1992 but has since, according to the annual reports I have
> seen, been able to <BR>show essentially a positive year end. I have not
> seen reports from 1996 and <BR>1997. Although I am uncertain as of
> today's budget situation I am aware that <BR>in the mid 1990s the library
> implemented hiring freezes and budget <BR>restrictions on book purchases.
> The library reported a positive cash flow of <BR>$120,000 in 1999 on
> expenses of $18.5 million, hardly room to allow any <BR>flexibility for
> the library staff to have cash to respond to today's rapidly <BR>changing
> technology. The $2,000,000 yearly deficit includes the impact of the
> <BR>following items listed in the library's "Outlook 2010":
> <BR> 1)Public service staff required
> for enlarged spaces or in response to <BR>a rise in activity.
> <BR> 2) Building staff for maintenance
> for expanded facilities.
> <BR> 3) Technical Services support for
> computers and telecommunications <BR>equipment
> <BR> 4) Collection resources including
> books, audio visuals and electronic <BR>products.
> <BR> 5) Computer equipment including
> work stations, printers and supplies.
> <BR> 6) Management overhead for
> expanded services, staff, facilities.
> <BR> 7) Increased utilities cost for
> enlarged spaces.
> <BR> 8) New and higher level
> maintenance equipment necessary for upkeep of <BR>interiors and grounds.
>
> <BR>
> <BR>The $2,000,000 figure DOES NOT include expanded hours, which is one of
> the <BR>library's stated major goals (Future Directions, 2000-2004).
> <BR>
> <BR>The term duplicitous may correctly define what has happened. For that
> I would <BR>have to know people's intent. With all the problems lately in
> determining <BR>what someone's intent was, I think I'd rather not go
> there. I have heard the <BR>comments of library staff that say they have
> told the library board and mayor <BR>about the problems and were told to
> ignore them for now. I have heard a board <BR>member say they didn't have
> adequate information from staff on what operating <BR>costs will be. When
> I asked library staff how they were responding to their <BR>capital budget
> being cut they were unaware of it, no one had told them. I <BR>don't know
> what the mayor is saying, but from my track record I would guess <BR>it is
> not her fault.
> <BR>
> <BR>The Buck Stops Somewhere, and one of those bucks is mine. I am a fan
> of the <BR>library, like most people in Minneapolis am willing to support
> the library. I <BR>do not like being misled by anyone however, especially
> someone who is <BR>spending my money and watching over my city.
> <BR>
> <BR>Bob Gustafson
> <BR>13th Ward </FONT></HTML>
>
> --part1_39.cc00758.274b06d3_boundary--
