Forwarded at the request of the authors. - David Brauer, list manager
The following is a letter drafted by several Minneapolis residents in
response to the Goodman, Lane, and Benson letter, which was posted on
Minneapolis Issues on January 21 and titled: Goodman, Lane, Benson
Commentary NRP Resolution.
A small number of people drafted the letter, but many more have insisted on
signing it as if it were a "Declaration of Independence". Just as City
Council Members will often request to be added as an author to a City
resolution we have included many people who also wished to be recorded as
authors and signers.
Letter to Council Members Lisa Goodman, Barret Lane and Scott Benson
Thank you for your recent post to the Minneapolis Issues List about the
neighborhood resolution concerning the future of the Minneapolis
Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP). We applaud you for doing what
you view as right - but much of what you have said is wrong or misleading.
The City of Minneapolis faces a difficult future. The bills from decisions
of the past have now come due and we need to make changes. When NRP began
in 1990, the big fear of the leaders of the City was that Minneapolis was no
longer a place where people wanted to live. NRP was a bold step that gave
residents the ability to control a small amount of money and to set
priorities that they could fund to revitalize their community. Certainly
NRP is not the only reason the City stabilized its population or that people
from the suburbs began moving back, but it is a very significant
contributor.
Resources from neighborhoods have helped the City pay for basic services
(such as police and public works) and fulfilled promises (such as a Windom
Community Center and the revitalization of Nicollet Avenue and Lake Street)
that were made but never kept.
Neighborhoods have been making difficult decisions since they began drafting
neighborhood action plans more than a decade ago. They are perfectly
capable of doing so now.
What irony. A neighborhood's citizens make an incredible investment in
helping Minneapolis become a truly livable and unique city and the very
vehicle that made that investment possible is now being threatened with
elimination. Neighborhood-level investment through NRP is what the residents
of Minneapolis recognize as making a difference, every day, on their
streets, and in their shops, homes and offices.
Teamworks found, in their independent evaluation of NRP published in June
2000 that:
� NRP made a significant difference in increasing the number of
repairs and improvements in the Minneapolis Housing stock
� NRP made a significant difference in increasing homeownership
rates in neighborhoods throughout the city during the Program's first decade
� 66 percent of the adults in a random survey of 1,100 Minneapolis
households knew about NRP
The Star Tribune Minnesota Poll of voters likely to vote in the 2001 mayoral
election found that 77% of those surveyed said the NRP should be continued.
Last fall a random survey conducted by a consultant for the City of
Minneapolis found that 59% of the 1,210 residents in the random sample were
familiar with NRP and that 59% of those said the NRP had a "very positive'
or 'positive"' impact on their neighborhood.
It was only two years ago that elected officials and residents worked
together to establish the goals for Phase II of NRP and strengthen the
program. The goals that were established through that very public and
actively supported process were:
� Create a greater sense of community so that the people who live,
work, learn and play in Minneapolis have an increased sense of community and
confidence in their neighborhood and their city.
� Sustain and enhance neighborhood capability in order to strengthen
the civic involvement of all members of the community.
� Ensure that neighborhood-based planning remains the foundation of
the program, is informed and leads to creative and innovative approaches.
� Strengthen the partnerships among neighborhoods and jurisdictions
to identify and accomplish shared citywide goals.
� Ensure that government agencies learn from and respond to
neighborhood plans so that public services ultimately reflect neighborhood
priorities.
� Develop and support life cycle housing citywide through the
preservation of existing housing and new construction by reaffirming our
commitment to the state mandate that 52.5 % of NRP Funds be spent on
housing.
Regarding your comments about the specifics of the neighborhood resolution:
Background section:
Here you state that "ongoing expenses will exceed ongoing revenues by nearly
$55 million by 2008". The reader may be left with the erroneous impression
that 2003 operating expenses will need to decline by $55 million in order to
address the City's financial problems. The reduction that you are
identifying as needed, however, is a reduction in the level of increase in
spending growth. The 5-yr projected growth in spending in the "Council
Resolution Establishing Commitment to Business Planning and Five Year
Financial Direction" actually shows 2008 general fund expenses (even after
the increases have been reduced) that are 26% greater (or $65.5 million
more) than the 2003 figures.
Why, in times when fire and police services are seeing their proposed
increases cut dramatically, are the Mayors Office, the City Council and the
City Coordinator taking no decreases in their proposed increases in the
approved "Council Resolution Establishing Commitment to Business Planning
and Five Year Financial Direction"? The projected 2008 figures for these
departments are 32% higher than the 2003 budget. How serious can the
future financial hardships be if the leadership of the City does not see
itself as needing to share some of the burden for helping resolve the
problem?
Your posting provides no information at all on what steps the City is taking
now to reduce current and future costs. Hiring freezes with waiver
provisions have been used repeatedly by the federal, state and county
governments and in the private sector to reduce current and future costs.
Has the City initiated such a freeze? The most recent weekly City Job
Listing includes non-police positions with annual wages that will exceed
$262,000, if the positions are filled at the lowest salary levels. Is the
City examining its administrative services to see if they can be provided
more cost effectively by another jurisdiction or the private sector?
You indicated in your posting that the "MCDA proposed that the City activate
the Chapter 595 Levy" to help meet the resource gap created by the state tax
law changes in 2001. It was this Mayor and City Council, however that
initiated the 8% levy cap and included the Chapter 595 Levy within that cap.
In effect the Mayor and the Council created the competition for resources
between community development demands and "police, fire, public works and
all other activities funded primarily through the property tax". NRP has
never received property tax revenues.
It is true that the residents and citizens who proposed the "Resolution on
the Future of NRP" to which you take exception are "active members of
neighborhood organizations". We believe this is a good thing and shows the
level of interest and concern the residents of this City have about the
future of their neighborhoods. It should be noted that the number of
residents and citizens who participated in the drafting and approval, not to
mention support, of this resolution, was far greater than the number of
people who prepared the "Council Resolution Establishing Commitment to
Business Planning and Five Year Financial Direction" or commented on the
Draft City Goals.
For a Mayor and Council elected on the basis of their commitment to bring
more power to the residents and ensure the openness of government, it is
disturbing to see a policy of this magnitude being rushed forward and
approved without a single public hearing.
1. $33 million for Community Development
Since you are immediately and without any discussion or consideration ruling
out the possible use of any federal funds for NRP projects we find it
difficult to believe that you are honestly "calling on neighborhood
associations, activists, and community leaders to work with" you to "help us
figure out the future of the NRP."
Your argument that "Resolutions like the one being circulated have little
basis in the financial reality we face together as a City" fails to
recognize that the resolution was based on the information in your own
resolution and supported approving a five-year plan and a specified
community development pool.
Your comment about the future availability of CDBG funds ("Should the
federal government continue to fund this program, which is under scrutiny
each and every year") appears to be either extremely na�ve or designed to
mislead. This program is under scrutiny every year but you fail to point
out that it has also been funded every year since its inception in 1974. It
has survived Reagan, Republican congresses, war and economic cycles much
worse than our present one.
The neighborhood resolution urged the City Council to "approve $33,000,000
for the City's community development resources". It is difficult for us to
understand how you can vote for the "Council Resolution Establishing
Commitment to Business Planning and Five Year Financial Direction" that
includes (under the heading "Funding Sources for Community Development
Activities" on page 13) "Total Average Annual Available Resources from 2003
to 2008" of $33,053,000 and then argue in your posting that we need to
"remove the $18.5 million from CDBG and $3.6 from the Empowerment Zone from
the $33 million available for community development".
We do not agree with your assertion that "two-thirds of the $33 million" in
the community development resource pool "are ineligible to be used to fund
NRP". We know, as you stated several times, that federal grant sources have
"built-in restrictions and /or prescribed processes which must be used to
access them". Some federal funds are restricted in use but you stated that
"a majority of the funding is restricted to specific uses such as funds for
emergency shelters, housing people with AIDS and affordable housing". Of
the $21,583,400 allocated in the Consolidated Plan that the Council approved
on December 16, 2002 and the Mayor approved on December 19, 2002 only
$580,000 was for Emergency Shelter Grants and $859,400 was for Housing
Opportunities for Persons with AIDS. The Code of Federal Regulations in 24
CFR, Chapter V, Part 570 implementing Title I of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974, as amended, allows many different uses of CDBG
funds.
To use these funds within the law and to help achieve the development
objectives of the City and the priorities of neighborhoods may require
creativity and flexibility but when the City can use $1.2 million of its
2003 CDBG allotment for Minneapolis Planning Department Administration,
$345,510 for MCDA Citizen Participation, $50,000 for MCDA General
Administration, $342,928 for Finance Department Administration, $229,339 for
the Grants and Special Projects section of Intergovernmental Relations,
$174,000 for Neighborhood Business Associations and $8,792,241 for MCDA
projects to be determined later by the Mayor and Council there appears to
already be a great deal of flexibility in how many of these funds can be
used.
We want to remind you that neighborhoods have successfully used these funds
in the past and that the MCDA has initiated and executed, with federal
approval, several swaps with neighborhoods in which they have traded CDBG
dollars for the development-based revenues that were the source of NRP's
funding. They were able to do this because the NRP funded projects
supported by the neighborhoods clearly met the requirements for use of these
federal funds.
We also want to point out that the $33,053,000 approved for the community
development resource pool on January 31st does not include all of the City's
CDBG revenue: it excludes "$2.5 million for public service grants, $500,000
in capital grants for non-community development activities, and $1.6 million
in administrative spending for non-community development activities". If
the $1.6 million for "non-community development activities" includes the
$1.2 million for the Planning Department and the $345,000 for MCDA Citizen
Participation then we feel these should be added back into the pool of CD
resources because of the proposed consolidation of MCDA and Planning.
Unfortunately, we cannot tell the composition of the exclusions because no
details are provided in the resolution or its supportive material.
The argument for excluding the Empowerment Zone fails to recognize that when
the City applied for designation as an Enterprise Community and, later, an
Empowerment Zone, it used the Neighborhood Action Plans and citizen
involvement infrastructure of NRP as one of its major arguments for
designation. Solid Neighborhoods and NRP was the second Strength mentioned
in the application and NRP was the first Model Program highlighted. In
the Governance section the code of ethics for the Governance Board was
"derived from the legal advisory note of the Neighborhood Revitalization
Program's neighborhood groups and Implementation Committee". In years 3-10,
funding decisions were to be based on a number of factors, including
"Neighborhood Revitalization Program plans". In Chapter Five: Planning
Process the application states that "The basic premise of the Minneapolis
Empowerment Zone Strategic Plan is to build upon the Neighborhood
Revitalization Program (NRP), a comprehensive effort to make Minneapolis
neighborhoods better places to live, work, learn and play". With your
comments you are now excluding neighborhoods from any access to a funding
source that they helped the City secure.
Many of the uses that have received City CDBG funds have also received NRP
funding from neighborhoods. It appears from the position articulated in
your message that you are unwilling or unable to even think about how
federal funds can be used to address neighborhood priorities.
2. Dedicated Resources for NRP
There does not have to be any adverse affect for "community development
programs or projects citywide" or City costs currently paid for by CDBG. The
funds identified for use by NRP could be the same non-federal sources that
have been used for the past 11 years.
You indicate that "If we were to dedicate all of this revenue to NRP" (i.e.
the one-third of the community development funding pool that is not from a
federal source) "the City would not have the ability to fund other
development citywide" and you cite a number of examples "which have used or
will need development account or tax increment revenue".
The costs that will be incurred to accomplish the projects in your listing
will far exceed any foreseeable community development revenue fund. In
addition, the City still has the ability to establish new TIF districts,
issue housing bonds, and use other federal and state programs that have not
been included within the Resolutions's presentation of the MCDA's and the
City's community development funding streams.
The projects and efforts that you listed (i.e. Central Avenue, Lake Street,
re-opening Nicollet at Lake Street, the redevelopment of the Hi-Lake
shopping center site, and the Upper River Master Plan) have also been in the
planning or implementation stages for years. Making Central Avenue Great
(the plan upon which the redevelopment of Central Avenue is based) was
completed in September 1997 and paid for by NRP funds from Northeast
neighborhoods. The Upper River in Minneapolis plan published by the
Minneapolis Planning Department in August 1985 was updated and improved in
2002. Lake Street at the Crossroads (the most recent of the many
redevelopment plans for Lake Street) was completed in 1996 and paid for from
neighborhood NRP funds. Much of the implementation that is planned or has
occurred (i.e. the Mercado on Bloomington and Lake, the Lake Street YWCA) on
the commercial corridors has been supported by neighborhood NRP funds.
These areas were neighborhood priorities before they were City priorities.
Your last comment in this section states that allocating federal and other
development revenues to NRP and the neighborhoods "would severely cut the
number of people working on the City's development goals at the MCDA since
employee labor is paid for out of this pool of resources as well". In July,
2002 the MCDA had 143 staff members and a personnel budget of more than
$10,000,000. Of these staff members, 17 (or 12%) received more than $95,000
in salary and fringe benefits. Only 14 of the agency's full time staff
received less than $40,000. If all of the non-federal funds were allocated
to MCDA/CPED, the only thing it would cover would be staff. A change in the
agency's staff complement will be needed, but the reason is the financial
problems of the city and the size and cost of the agency.
3. Community Development (Chapter 595) Levy
The Council made the decision to eliminate the Chapter 595 levy at its
January 31st meeting.
4. Nine Principles - NRP Structure
We were surprised to read that "The whole purpose of the McKinsey Study of
development functions and the adopted Focus Minneapolis Plan was to align,
streamline and bring together staffs who work on community planning and
economic development under one umbrella department". In "Strengthening
Community and Economic Development in the City of Minneapolis", the McKinsey
report to the Mayor and City Council, the consultants indicated that "Mayor
R.T. Rybak and representatives of the City Council asked McKinsey & Company
to help the city determine how it can best address its development issues."
Their report does not indicate that they were to justify "an umbrella
department" and we hope that the findings presented by McKinsey were the
result of an honest analysis instead of an attempt to justify a conclusion
that had already been reached by the Mayor and Council.
The McKinsey Report states that "Neighborhoods should maintain discretion
over their funds". Neighborhoods want "better coordination between
planning and development functions" since they have often had to bear the
brunt of the disconnects that have occurred. They do not, however, want to
achieve that outcome by giving up the only resources that they have at their
disposal to address neighborhood priorities. It was not "separate staffing"
that created the "lack of coordination" but often the unwillingness of City
departments to accept residents and neighborhood organizations as partners
and legitimate parties to discussions about City and neighborhood projects.
The consolidated community development and planning organization proposed in
the McKinsey study and endorsed in the Focus Minneapolis resolution adopted
by the Minneapolis City Council on September 13, 2002 is being implemented.
We have no indication, however, of:
a. How well it will address the problems that led to its creation;
b. What level of staff resources will be made available to support
neighborhoods or how these resources will be accessed;
c. What the approach and attitude toward citizen engagement, and cooperation
and collaboration with neighborhoods will be; or
d. How well concepts, theory and philosophy will be turned into reality.
The last thing we need to do during a time of uncertainty is to dump
something that works in favor of a promise.
The five jurisdictions representing the residents of Minneapolis agreed that
NRP should be governed by a Joint Powers Board. They did so because all
five jurisdictions were being adversely affected by the problems in the City
in the late 1980's and all five will suffer if the neighborhoods again
become places where people do not want to live. The law does not require
representation proportionate to the level of funding provided by a
jurisdiction.
You state, "Remember, the purpose of NRP was to provide service re-design
and to better integrate neighborhood planning into all City planning and
development decision making". Neither of these purposes are part of the NRP
law. "Redesigning public services" was a goal established by the Policy
Board for Phase I but it was dropped as a goal during the two years of
discussion that led to the 6 goals for Phase II. The goal could not be
achieved because the City did not support it.
In your statement you say, "Now NRP has become more about the money, not the
planning, and that's unfortunate". Yes it is, but in Phase I it was the
City agencies and departments that were most often focused on the
neighborhood's NRP money and how to get it. Neighborhood control of less
than 1% of the City's revenue gave them the opportunity to accomplish their
priorities. The dollars make volunteering worthwhile.
Every City in the United States has some form of citizen participation
program but they all make turning plans into reality the responsibility of
someone other than the neighborhoods and citizens who developed the plans.
What is unique in Minneapolis is that residents are involved in both
planning and implementation.
Neighborhood associations and the residents of this City expect to be
involved in "figuring out the future of the NRP". But January 12 was the
first time the Council or Mayor brought any information to the neighborhoods
about the magnitude of the problem facing the City. Six days notice to a
select group of invitees does not seem to be a good start on "Bringing all
voices to the table for an honest discussion."
We also want to remind you that the neighborhoods had, over a year ago,
anticipated the City's financial problems and agreed to reduce the level of
funding expected per year by 45% and extend the time period for the program
by 6 years. The Five Year Financial Plan is about setting priorities for
the City and the Neighborhood Resolution on the Future of the Neighborhood
Revitalization Program makes it clear that NRP should be one of those
priorities.
Conclusion
All of us recognize the difficult times facing the City and the State and
applaud you for leading the effort to responsibly address the City's future
needs within the revenue streams that you see as being available.
We eagerly await the report of the Joint NRP/City Working Group on Focus
Minneapolis and its recommendations so that we will have an opportunity to
more fully participate in the discussion of NRP's future.
In the future the need for neighborhoods and the City government to work
more closely together will be even greater. The environment within which
that occurs must be one of shared power and control. We are now paying for
decisions that we had no role in and often opposed. We will not go back to
a time when residents had little say in what happened in their neighborhood
or how they were serviced by the government they pay for.
Signed,
>From the City of Minneapolis
Jim Graham
Debbie Evans, Anne McCandless, Jeff Strand, Ann C. Fix, Julia Burman, Andrea
Allie, Mark Davis, Jay Perlman, Carol Abramson, Ralph Abramson, Carol
Abramson, Ralph Abramson, Monica Olmschenk, Gary Grisbeck, Monica
Olmschenk,
Gary Grisbeck, Tamatha Perlman,
Patricia A. Stojevich , Georgie Gatz , Andrea Allie,
Kelly Phillips, Ivis Mitchell, Ken Taguchi,
Leonard Land, Greg Bastien , Jack Newton,
Virginia Bratton, James L. Bratton ,
Maria Alena Castle, Craig Cooper,
Donald I. Anderson, Margo Ashmore,
Kathy Radford, David Brown, Jim Wentzell,
Bernadette J. Moore, Karen Taylor, Allen J. Saless,
Kristin Saless, M. B. Schultz, Mark Gookin,
Charlotte Lucht, Roberta Englund, Mary Ann Schissler,
Dave Boyd, Marilyn Weber, Stephanie Gruver,
Linda Koelman, Jeanette Wesson, Steven Oates,
Marty Will, Pat Suhrbier, Mary Martinson,
Lynn Austin, Bruce Nolan, Thomas J. Mitchell,
Donald Hunker, Eric Grant, Lilly Bersina,
Steven Dryer, Shane Graham, Robert Eubanks,
Janet Graham, Mesias Agudo, Robert Albee,
Ira Mishow, Kathy Mishow, Rogi Al-Bargouthi,
John Englund
If you would like to add your name to the signers of this letter please send
e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
