Jim writes: > David Brauer is correct about competition for similar funds, if in fact a > tax levy were approved to fully fund NRP. At present, NRP is not funded > through that source.
I'm venturing a little further out on the plank here - someone who knows more feel free to saw it off if I'm wrong - but Jim is incorrect...depending on what the meaning of "present" is. Phase I - NRP's first 10 years - was indeed not funded with a levy. There are many neighborhoods (including mine) that still have Phase I money to spend...and that is safe. However, we are embarking on Phase II (the next 10 years, recently extended to 15 years). This is the "present" everyone is worried about - and here, Jim is wrong. The dedicated TIF funding (from the Downtown Common Project) is insufficient to meet Phase II obligations at $11 million per year. That means new money must likely come from property-tax supported funds - be it cuts in city departments, lengthening other debt repayment, or a new (or preserved & expanded) property-tax levy. So, again, the bottom line: Used to be NRP didn't need a levy to be fully funded. As of the Phase II "present," it does. The question again is how much, or whether. (Also, it does not mean its necessarily NRP-versus-cops...could be any property-tax-supported spending...but you need to find several million somewhere.) Walking forward and hoping not to get wet, David Brauer King Field TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
