[Mpls] Neiman Complex decisions before my time - info delivered toStone - apologies to List

[Chris Johnson]

> Candidate Kummer wrote:  "I was not on the Park Board during the initiation
> of the Ft. Snelling/Neiman Complex and so, although I have tried to supply
> Mr. Stone with the information he seeks, I am unable to answer all questions
> to his satisfaction.  So, I dropped a packet of documents at his home
> this evening.  It contains a copy of the Tin Fish contract and copies of
> MPRB meeting agendas for the time period that covers development of the
> Fort Snelling/Neiman Complex (beginning in 1998 through April 2003.)"

Copies of the meeting agendas for 1998 to 2003 are going to answer financial 
questions about the Neiman Complex?  Is Candidate Carol Kummer serious?

Anyone who has seen a few Park Board agendas would know the following:

1.  They are very sketchy on details.  Often all that is listed about an item 
is a bullet point title.

2.  Since they are agenda documents, they don't say a thing about what the 
commissioners actually decide by vote on an issue, nor do they record any 
discussions where questions, answers and concerns might be addressed.

3.  Park Board agendas have been notorious for not even listing all of the 
business considered.  Major votes -- such as the purchase of the Taj Mahal new 
headquarters building -- were not even listed on the agenda, but were slipped 
in late at night.

If this is what Carol Kummer calls "[trying] to supply [a constituent] with 
the information he seeks," is it any wonder that many people think the Park 
Board is intentionally making it difficult to check up on how they are 
spending our money?  This is just another of many examples of lack of 
transparency and accountability by the majority five Park Commissioners, and 
is one of many reasons why Carol Kummer, Bob Fine, Walt Dziedzic and Jon Olson 
should not be re-elected.

Jeremy Wieland asks:
> Can anyone out there post just what our debt liability and service are at
> Fort Snelling for those fields that, as far as I can tell, don't serve the
> people of Minneapolis?

Our debts at Fort Snelling include at a minimum $14,000,000.00 in bonds being 
paid off over roughly 30 years, with annual payments just a bit over $1,000,000.

Some people might include the $2,500,000.00 in legal claims against the Park 
Board for unpaid work at the Drill Hall (aka the 201 building) in the debt 
liability at Fort Snelling, as well.


The way the Park Board has handled money in the recent past is highly 
questionable.  On August 14, 2002, the majority voted to authorize a loan of 
up to $1,050,000.00 from the self insurance fund to help buy the Taj Mahal 
headquarters building.  Somehow magically without board approval, that loan 
turned into a "transfer" in 2004, thus never to be repaid directly.  Doesn't 
that sound like misfeasance?  It does to me.


--
Chris Johnson
Fulton