Mayor's Memo: KARE

As I noted in my last Mayor Memo the “simulated conversations” taking place in the DCI in regards to the Old School need to be looked at objectively and within the context of the original document or conversation.  In last week’s edition of the DCI, KARE, has liberally taken my words out of context.
The letter and offer to partner with the City was refused by KARE.  I did reference a public-private partnership, however, KARE chose not to accept because, in their words, they did not want “ownership”.  So, I met with two of their board members and offered to remove all ownership from the offer AND it would have still allowed them to go and get all of the grant money and do all of the fundraising they could to save the building.  This was a simple 50/50 partnership in which the City would have had all of the risk.  We would have owned the building; we would have maintained the building.  We would be responsible for the building and its tenants.  All KARE was responsible for was to fund/raise 50% of the cost to remodel.  I did not feel this was unobtainable due to their repeated statements that grants and tax incentives are readily available.

So why would they refuse to work with us?  Even after ownership was removed upon their concerns, why did they not wish to work with us? Why would those board representatives state they would gladly take my proposal back to the KARE Board but never get back to me with the results of their meeting?  Could it be that even though they continue to state that there are all of these grants available that even they understand there is a competitive market for them?  That $100,000 grants sound great and some may be higher but many are much less?  And that even at $100,000 each they would need 39 grants to cover their 50% of the partnership. Just think about that - 39 grants at $100K each.  Does that sound so simple and easily obtainable?  Furthermore, I find it interesting that KARE rarely mentions the cost to remodel the building from the Lauber study – $7 million to $8.2 million depending on year in which the project would begin. (The cost rises each year.) You don’t see Flo or Jo “chatting” about that.  On another note, I need to point out that the City Council never approved the Lauber study.  We simply received the report from the consultants at their presentation.  From the City Council perspective there are issues that the study did not address adequately.

I personally find it interesting that in the five years or so since the failed referendum, both the city and I have often asked KARE to come up with a plan, find a development partner, work on creative financing, basically do something to show us they actually want to do the work needed to save the building. All the fancy drawings and articles in the paper unfortunately do not do anything to forward their stated goal of saving the building -- it only distracts from the larger tasks at hand.  Such as, what is best for the community as a whole?  How long do we wish to continue “chatting” and delaying the work needed to turn that almost perfect setting into a larger and fully functional library? 
So, residents of Kasson – how long do we wish to continue debating this issue as we watch the costs to do anything with that area rise? 

While “Flo & Jo” may be “entertaining”, I encourage you as responsible residents to research the facts.  As always feel free to contact myself or City Hall if you have questions.

In your service,
Mayor Tim Tjosaas
mayor@cityofkasson.com