David Brauer wrote:
WM: If I'm not mistaken, the second ten years was not fully funded at the inception of NRP. The papers were signed knowing that the funding for the second ten years [then] would still need to be worked out.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.
WM: I'm leaning toward saying that the break in funding is a good time to marshall neighborhood human resources, correct mistakes, make room for the complete change in the economic picture for residents.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.
WizardMarks, Central
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
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
