This letter provides a little additional information regarding FAIR’s paid advertisement/article on page 10 of Wednesday’s Daily News, hopefully making FAIR even more, err, complete.

In addressing the city’s $8 million interfund loan from the Wheeler to finance property acquisitions made during 2007, the article quotes me as saying that it is “unusual” for cities to get so leveraged in anticipation of a bond issue.

Like ”unusual” is a bad thing in Aspen!

The quote is accurate but not complete. What’s missing is the part where I explained to the writer that this short term debt was planned by the City Council. They went into it knowing its risks and potential rewards. In the long run the loan has NO negative impact on the Wheeler fund, which earns interest on the loan at the same rate as its invested assets.

The real issue is that before the city makes any commitment to building a second theatre, the council should decide its priorities. Does it want more arts or lower taxes? Or, perhaps neither?

The endowment fund, created by council ordinance in 2002, is supposed to provide perpetual funding for the Wheeler Opera House when its RETT tax expires at the end of 2018 — now a mere 10 years away. Current operating and maintenance cost estimates to support the one existing Wheeler theatre place the endowment principal target at a minimum of $70 million. Its current balance is just south of $24 million.

Is it possible to get to $70 million? Yes, but only if RETT revenues recover to historic norms and there are no unforeseen capital improvement needs in the current 100-plus-year-old building.

By generating $3 million in income annually, and in combination with other self generated revenue, $70 million should be just enough to cover all of the Wheeler’s operating expenses from year to year; $80 million would be better.

However, if you take $15-$20 million of these funds and use them to build a second theatre, you get the “double whammy.”

First whammy: You decimate the endowment, taking its value down to under $10 million, eliminating its ability to generate earnings and grow to previously forecast levels. This happens even if you finance the second theatre. Resources previously dedicated to the endowment go to pay principal and interest on a bond issue or some other financing instrument, again reducing the endowment’s ability to grow.

Second whammy: You create a second theatre, the cost of which to operate may be lower than the current 100-plus-year-old building, but still high enough to require an operating subsidy. You can count on that.

Result? Now you cannot eliminate the Wheeler RETT — one purpose of the proposed endowment. You most likely must increase the current tax rate to cover the increase in operations, maintenance, and long term facility improvements.

The moral of this story? Internal bickering over an $8 million interfund loan is chicken feed. The important decision lies in the future of the endowment or the creation of a second theatre. You can’t have both, and in point of fact you may not be able to have either. Without strong RETT collections over the coming 10 years the endowment is in jeopardy, and a new theatre will certainly require an increase in subsidy. Pick your poison, ummm priority. More arts or lower taxes!

Paul W. Menter
Former City of Aspen Finance Director
Current Finance Director for Aspen Community Foundation

You have an uncanny, unerring ability to miss the point, but I am grateful you care enough to comment.

Post Time News is a unit of Post Time Media Inc., the publisher of Aspen Post, Snowmass Post, Skiing Post, and Fractional Post. I'm the chairman and CEO of Post Time Media and the founder as well.

Post Time News is actually the third news service I've established in my career: one in media, one in sports, and now this one in news. FAIR paid for this story, and the plan is for FAIR to raise enough money so we can in effect hire a fulltime reporter at City Hall. My guess is (fingers crossed) this could happen within the month.

On the subject of bylines, my model is Reuters, an old client of mine in a project called Reuter TV 2000 in which yours truly was the lead consultant. Reuters remains stingy about bylines. The idea behind NOT having a byline is to have the news organization present a consistent, coherent front. The name of the reporter is not a secret, just not germane.

By way of background, back in the day newspapers and news organization were far more selective about giving bylines. You could work for years without getting one. Now they give them to anyone who shows up.

I like the old-fashioned way better.

As for missing the point: have you no comment on the story itself? Even for you, I have to believe killing the messenger can get old.

Best, Michael!

Let me see if I have this right....

This article is written by some person named Post Time News, edited by some person named Editor, and posted by some person named Post Staff.

Seems pretty F.A.I.R. and B.A.L.A.N.C.E.D. (But Aspen Loves Another New Con Every Day). Or is it???? Bill, Roger, Tim, can you get right on this please?