I appreciate the long and informative post from Greg Abbott, reporting on a meeting with CM Lane. One thing he noted was:
It may or may not be possible to reallocate some of the $22 million in federal [CDBG] funds to NRP to cover the gap, or to move federal dollars to the MCDA, freeing up non-federal dollars for NRP use. Under any scenario, NRP obviously has a high priority claim on these dollars. [GDL] I assume NRP has a "high priority claim" for political reasons, or am I missing some other municipal policy that provides support for this assertion? For example, one thing that is happening in all the budget triage is the scrapping of the 595/HRA Levy, which typically provides funding for affordable housing development. At the same time, the Council on Friday is considering the creation and funding of an Affordable Housing Trust Fund, which will be financed initially by leftover 595/HRA Levy funds from 2002 (to the tune of $1 million) and other CDBG funds. Future funding, however, calls for tapping into CDBG funds and for working to identify other sources of city and non-city funds. Given this, and the obvious importance of both the HRA Levy and the Affordable Housing Trust Fund (as well as other priorities people will undoubtedly raise), what's to say that NRP has a "high priority claim" on non-federal dollars that may be pried out of MCDA or other programs? It's an important question to consider as we have competing requests for things that seem complementary. Gregory Luce - Project 504 St. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Hohmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Greg Abbott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 10:14 PM Subject: RE: [Mpls] Five Year Budget Outline Does Not Hurt NRP > Excellent post Greg. Thanks, I missed the meeting! I hope all City Council > members vote in support of the proposed five-year budget plan and retain > maximum flexibility-- avoiding line item allocations that could create havoc > only a few months from now. > > I fully expect that the state legislature will cut local government aid > funding in an effort to balance the state budget-- it only makes sense; the > only question being how much and how it's structured over time. Any such > state cuts will place additional pressure on city budget across Minnesota, > and that is why we need to maintain maximum flexibility at the local level. > Indeed, a modest cut at the state level could easily amount to tens of > millions of dollars in added cuts at the local level here in Minneapolis. > > This is why the organizational changes and streamlining of city government, > originally called for in the McKinsey Report, is so important. City > business cannot continue as usual, it must adapt to fiscal reality; belts > must be tightened, processes improved and efficiencies realized. Raising > local taxes beyond the proposed 8 percent per annum is simply NOT an option. > The 8 percent level may not even be achievable beyond a couple of years. > > We should be able to improve the planning/development function in > Minneapolis, such that neighborhoods continue to play a primary role, while > likewise maintaining progress on the many larger-scale, longer-term > development plans currently in the works along Broadway, Franklin, Lake St. > and elsewhere throughout the city. > > It's time to quit complaining and start figuring out how we can leverage our > reduced budgets to reach our goals as best we can in the short term. The > economy will eventually improve, jobs will again be on the increase and > economic development will flourish-- but it won't be next week or next > month. In the meantime, basic city services must be maintained and > neighborhoods must be assured of a primary role in the planning process. > Urge your City Council member to stick with the proposed five-year budget > plan and preserve our flexibility to meet the unforeseen challenges that > most surely lie ahead. > > Michael Hohmann > Linden Hills > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > Greg Abbott > > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 6:55 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [Mpls] Five Year Budget Outline Does Not Hurt NRP > > > > > > Monday night, in my capacity as a board member for the Linden Hills > > Neighborhood Council, I attended a meeting called by Barret Lane for > > 13th Ward neighborhood groups to discuss the proposed five-year budget > > outline and its possible ramifications for NRP funding. > > > > It was an excellent meeting, and quite helpful in sorting through the > > details and heated rhetoric that the budget situation is generating. > > > snip > > > > These are dark times for the city. We got ourselves into this mess by > > choosing to fund individual programs and projects without regard for > > the overall economic picture. Focusing on the prospect of harm to NRP > > in isolation, without reference to overall tax and spending policies, > > is not a constructive contribution to the debate. Indeed, a narrow > > focus on NRP might tie the city�s hands when it desperately needs > > flexibility to address the worst budget crisis in living memory. > > > > ------------------- > > Greg Abbott > > Linden Hills > > 13th Ward > > > snip > > > 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
