On the principle that half-empty is also half-full I'd have to say that you are both correct. As of this moment NRP is not levy-supported - never was. However, for it to continue from this point at anything above a nominal level it would need to be.
Repeating an earlier response: "Statutorily designated sources of revenue for the NRP have been exhausted with the exception of some remaining Common Project TI that is committed to Common Project debt. Additional funding for NRP is, therefore, in competition with all other City demands for the Community Development resources that remain. The allocation of those resources is at the City's discretion; is the crux of the policy discussion now taking place. . ." I was reminded in an off-list post that there is an argument being made that some existing non-TIF funds should, in fact, be designated as NRP revenue. The outcome of that discussion, however, will not effect the situation as described above. Jack Kryst King Field David writes: 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, 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
