Executive Summary of
A Resident Response to the “Framework for the Future”
Residents of the City of Minneapolis have come together to develop and recommend this substitute for the “Framework for the Future” because the “Framework” being proposed by the City does not address the concerns expressed by residents and neighborhood organizations about the original “Framework” distributed in December 2007
On July 24 the Minneapolis City Council Committee of the Whole and the Mayor received the final report of the Working Group addressing Track 3 of the City’s Community Engagement Review process
The report transmitted by the Working Group is entitled “Framework for the Future: Options for the focus, funding and governance of NRP Program and Action Plan activities after 2009.” To save space, we will refer to this document as the “Framework” for the remainder of this summary
The “Framework” is an updated version of an initial draft released last December for public comment. The more than 180 comments submitted on that original draft had some significant common themes. They disagreed with the recommendations of the “Framework” to build a new City department to manage community engagement (and NRP), they questioned the ability of the proposed resident advisory board to be effective, they expressed concerns about the amount of resources committed for the support of neighborhood organizations and they wanted to know the funding levels that would be dedicated to the two funds the “Framework” proposed –the Neighborhood Investment Fund (NIF) and the Community Innovations Fund (CIF)
In the final “Framework” clarifications have been added and minor changes have been made but the primary concerns of residents and neighborhood organizations remain: • It continues the commitment to form a new City department to manage community engagement and a new neighborhood revitalization program without defining the problems that such a department would fix; • It continues the commitment to establish the resident board as an advisory body without any real power; 2 • It contained an even more ambiguous commitment to supporting neighborhood organization administrative costs than the original draft until it was amended by a 6 to 5 vote of the Committee of the Whole on July 24th; and • It contains no funding commitment to either the NIF or the CIF
It appears that the City is developing a “Community Engagement” system without listening to the community for which it is being designed or the residents it is trying to engage
In the “Framework” residents of the City are being asked to give up a program that they have worked with, enhanced, and benefited from for over 18 years for a reorganization and restructuring which they have minimally affected, whose operations will be more removed than ever from their influence, and whose results are only a matter of projection. Before throwing out the bathwater, we need to be sure the baby is not in it
Residents from all parts of the City have joined together to provide a response and alternative to the “Framework.” These residents call themselves Neighbors4NRP and helped draft and lobbied for the originally introduced NRP legislation in 2008. The alternative retains some of the elements of the “Framework” and provides options in the areas of greatest disagreement. It is an effort to provide a realistic alternative that maximizes the potential for success and creates an improved community engagement system for Minneapolis residents and the City
The alternative proposes many changes but the most significant ones are: • Continuation of the Joint Powers Board governing NRP through the termination date of the new Transformation Districts • A restructuring and renaming of the NRP Policy Board • A base level of funding from the General Fund for administrative and operating expenses of neighborhood organizations • A specific funding commitment and source for the renamed Neighborhood Investment Fund 3 • A specific source for, and renaming of, the Community Innovation Fund The alternative also suggests that some of the recommendations of the “Framework” should have their cost and final details of their responsibilities and operation more carefully analyzed before they are approved for implementation. The recommendations for which we are providing qualified support are: • Creating the resident advisory board for community engagement • Establishing a City department to improve relations between departments and residents Neighborhoods and their residents are now confronted by challenges that are every bit as daunting and complex as the ones faced in the late 1980s that led to the NRP. NRP needs to change and the alternative presented here suggests significant changes to the existing program. It also supports making changes in the City that could eventually lead to the merging of the successful and proven NRP with a successful new community engagement structure in the future
We submit this alternative as a replacement for the “Framework” that you are considering
4 An Alternative From Residents to the “Framework for the Future: Options for the focus, funding and governance of NRP Program and Action Plan activities after 2009” Introduction The NRP Working Group, consisting of four City Council members, a Policy Aide from the Mayors Office and the Director of NRP, has developed and submitted a majority vision of the future of NRP and community engagement in the City of Minneapolis in its “Framework for the Future: Options for the focus, funding and governance of NRP Program and Action Plan activities after 2009”
Neighbors4NRP, a group of resident volunteers from all parts of the City, has conducted a review of the proposed “Framework” and prepared this alternative as our response
We believe that the approach that we are presenting preserves the best of NRP, builds on the existing community engagement system, addresses the concerns expressed by residents and neighborhood organizations about the December “Framework”, minimizes future administrative costs, and makes reasonable and achievable recommendations for positive change
The alternative is a resident-driven proposal to restructure and continue NRP beyond 2009 and reform the way the City works with its residents
General Principles This alternative is based on the following principles and beliefs: 1. Sustainability- Neighborhood organizations are critical components of the City’s civic infrastructure and have been recognized in the “Framework” as a basic City service. As such, the funding for a neighborhood revitalization program must be stable, committed, and sufficient
2. Participation- The community engagement system should encourage involvement by all elements of the community and support the empowerment of residents
3. Funding – Beginning in 2010, and continuing for the duration of the Transformation Districts authorized by the 2008 legislature, at least $10 million per year should be placed into a fund for improving neighborhoods, with all future interest and program income credited to the fund, to finance the Neighborhood Revitalization Program and the continued revitalization of Minneapolis neighborhoods. This fund should be in addition to at least $3 million from 5 the General Fund of the City that is appropriated annually for the operating expenses of neighborhood organizations as basic City services
4. Governance – The NRP Policy Board should be reorganized and reestablished as the NRP Governing Board and its membership changed to increase neighborhood representation and encourage continued participation by, and collaboration with, the City, County, Schools and Parks
5. Staffing- The Director of the NRP should be hired by, and report to, the NRP Governing Board. The Director’s commitment and primary purpose must be to assist, support and advocate for neighborhoods in the development and implementation of their Neighborhood Action Plans. Other NRP staff would be hired by the Director
6. Community Engagement – The City should establish a Community Engagement Commission, as recommended by the City’s Community Engagement Task Force
7. City Support – The City should establish multi department teams from their existing staff resources to facilitate improved connections between City departments, NRP, and neighborhoods. The City’s elected officials should make a concerted effort to change the existing practices, procedures and attitudes of City departments toward residents. That change in attitude should begin at the top
The existing NRP program should be modified and retained while the City proceeds, if it wants to, with formation of the new Neighborhood and Community Advisory Board (or the Community Engagement Commission) and Community and Neighborhood Relations Department proposed in the Framework and demonstrates its commitment to the seven principles of Community Engagement that were adopted last fall by the City Council
The cost and final details of their responsibilities and operation should be more carefully analyzed before either of these organizational structures are approved for implementation
The Alternative 1. Resident Empowerment Organizations (REO’s) should be the vehicles for meeting a portion of the City’s community participation mission and the implementation vehicles for NRP. The REO would be a new designation that would be conferred jointly by the City and NRP and there would be only one REO representing any specific neighborhood. An organization, however, could apply for designation as an REO for more than one neighborhood. The eligibility criteria and the process used to select the REO’s would be developed by the City, NRP and representatives from neighborhood organizations. The criteria would be based, and build, on the existing 6 standards of Citizen Participation and NRP. The REO designation will be used to identify organizations that will be an officially recognized part of the City’s community engagement infrastructure. Receiving this designation would be required for an organization to be eligible to receive any community engagement funds from the City or any funds from NRP. Existing neighborhood organizations and associations will be given the opportunity to apply first for this designation and the designation shall remain in place unless there is a challenge based on criteria developed by the City, NRP and neighborhood organizations or organizational performance issues occur
2. The City should include all of the parcels from the pre 1979 TIF districts in the new Transformation District to maximize the revenues available for neighborhood improvement
3. The revenues generated from the Transformation District should be used as follows: a. Up to $ 10 million for the restructured debt of the Target Center b. At least $ 10 million for the Neighborhood Improvement and Implementation Fund (NIIF) (see below) c. The remainder allocated to a Phase II Gap Fund to make up the difference between the neighborhood allocations for Phase II approved in April 2004 and the amount of revenue actually received by NRP from the Common Project
If the NIIF is not funded at the minimum level in a given year, the difference between $ 10 million and the amount provided in that year will be treated as a future debt of the Transformation District or the City’s General Fund if the Transformation District revenues never satisfy the sum of the shortfalls during the duration of the Transformation District
4. If, and only if, all of the pre 1979 TIF districts are included in the new Transformation District, funding for Target Center debt should have first priority after the deduction for the County payment and fiscal disparities contribution and the existing Target Center debt should be refinanced and have a term that coincides with the term for the Transformation Districts. The City has projected that the annual Target Center debt payment, if restructuring occurs, could be up to $ 10 million. This ($10 million) should be the limit for the Transformation District contribution to the payment of Target Center debt
5. The Neighborhood Improvement and Implementation Fund (NIIF) (identified as the “Neighborhood Investment Fund” in the “Framework”) should be capitalized from the new Transformation Districts and should be funded at a minimum level of $ 10 million for each of the ten years the Transformation District is to be in place
Only designated REO’s would be eligible to receive these funds
The funds in the NIIF should be allocated to each and every neighborhood organization that is recognized as a Resident Empowerment Organization (REO)
The NIIF funds would be used to address neighborhood priorities in accordance with 7 a Neighborhood Action Plan approved by the neighborhood, NRP Governing Board, and the City
The Neighborhood Improvement and Implementation Fund allocation to the neighborhoods would be based on a funding formula similar to the ones used by NRP during Phases I and II. Neighborhood action plans would continue to identify which City goals each of the neighborhood goals, objectives and strategies support
The allocation formula would be developed and approved by the NRP Governing Board
6. Funds will continue to be accumulated in the Phase II Gap Fund from the “excess revenues” of the Transformation District until the Phase II shortfall is completely covered. When that amount has been reached any additional revenues from the Transformation District that exceed the $ 10 million for the NIIF will be reserved for a Discretionary Development account that can be used by the City for projects requested by REOs
7. The City Improvement and Implementation Fund (CIIF) (identified as the “Community Innovation Fund” in the “Framework”) would be established and administered by the City and funded from its General Fund, CDBG or other non Transformation District resources. It would be monies that are over and above the Neighborhood Improvement and Implementation Funds identified earlier and would have no impact on the neighborhood allocation formulas. The City will determine the amount of dollars in this fund and its uses. The projects, program, activities, and services funded by the CIIF would be selected by the City based on responses to a Request For Proposals sent to all Resident Empowerment Organizations. Only designated REO’s would be eligible to compete for these funds
8. The Resident Empowerment Organization Operating Support Fund (REOOSF) would be established as a City fund with a base appropriation of at least $3 million
This amount would come from the Property Tax supported General Fund of the City
Each year the amount of this budget item would be established as part of the City’s regular budget process but it would never be lower than the base level of $3 million
Only designated REO’s would be eligible to receive these funds
9. The NRP Policy Board, in its Joint Powers Agreement, exists through the end of 2011. Because the funds used in Phase I and Phase II became NRP funds after Neighborhood Action Plans were approved, the Policy Board and NRP staff will be overseeing contracting, planning, and evaluation activities for many years to come
The life of the Policy Board should be extended to at least 2020 and its composition and name should be changed to more accurately reflect its purpose and constituencies
8 10. The new NRP Governing Board would be comprised of the following 17 members: a. 8 Minneapolis residents elected by neighborhoods (2 from Redirection Neighborhoods; 2 from Revitalization Neighborhoods; 2 from Protection Neighborhoods; and 2 At Large) b. 1 Minneapolis resident selected by the Hennepin County Board; c. 1 Minneapolis resident selected by the Minneapolis Park Board; d. 1 Minneapolis resident selected by the Minneapolis Public Schools Board; e. 5 Minneapolis residents selected by the City Council and Mayor
f. 1 Minneapolis legislator selected by the Minneapolis legislative delegation
11. The Director of the NRP Program would be an employee of the Governing Board and would be hired, fired and evaluated by that Board
12. The City should develop multi department and multi jurisdictional teams for each planning district to serve and support the neighborhoods in that district. The specific composition of the Teams would be based on the priorities and concerns of the neighborhood organizations in the District
Additional details on the alternative and the background that led to its development are included as Attachment A. This alternative to the proposed “Revised Framework” moves the City and its residents in a positive direction that responds to the guidance and concerns that residents themselves have expressed
Attachment A 1 Proposal for Continuing and Restructuring the Existing Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP): A Resident Response to the “Framework for the Future” Background In the mid 1980’s the City of Minneapolis was a City in the midst of major challenges
The downtown area had been the subject of massive infusions of public money to help renovate, rescue, and revitalize its deteriorating buildings and businesses. The city government was focused on rebuilding the image of Minneapolis as a major employment and commercial center. That revitalization had a cost. Neighborhoods throughout the city were seeing increasing crime, declining homeownership, significant movements of the middle class to the suburbs, little new private money being used to improve homes or business locations, and minimal government investment in local public spaces and buildings. To many, downtown’s improvement was coming at the expense of the residents and the places where they really lived
Homeowner surveys conducted by the City showed that a significant part of the Minneapolis population planned to leave within five years. How would the City be able to maintain the tax base needed to meet its needs if its population continued to decline? In 1950 the City’s population was 521,718. By 1990, even with the same geographic boundaries and the same number of households, the City’s population had declined to 368,363. Clearly, something had to be done to change these trends, Two City Task Forces examined the condition of the City in the mid and late 1980’s and determined that a massive revitalization of the neighborhoods was needed if Minneapolis was to regain and retain its vitality. One of those Task Forces estimated the total cost (public and private) to “physically revitalize Minneapolis neighborhoods” to be “approximately $3.2 billion” – in 1987 dollars! Faced with these trends, problems, and recommendations the leaders of the City worked with the State Legislature to allow Minneapolis to conduct a truly unique and unprecedented effort to change its course
The Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP) was authorized by the legislature in 1990 to revitalize the neighborhoods of Minneapolis
At that time, neighborhoods were a neglected creature of the Minneapolis Planning Department. Few residents knew that they lived in a neighborhood or could identify the neighborhood they lived in. Although some neighborhoods had organizations of residents, most of these had never been incorporated, did not have federal tax numbers, had very limited resident participation and few resources, and almost always operated in a reactive mode
Attachment A 2 NRP was established as an independent quasi Joint Powers entity, with the participation of partners such as: Hennepin County, the Minneapolis School District, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, the Minneapolis Library Board, members of the Minneapolis delegation of the State Legislature, United Way, labor, the Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce, foundations, neighborhood residents, and others
NRP’s mission was to help residents make their neighborhood a better place to live, work, learn and play. To accomplish this mission, two of the primary goals of the NRP were to give residents a sense of place and build neighborhood capacity
The State Legislature provided the funding source and authorization for the program and NRP developed a planning and implementation effort that eventually became part of every neighborhood in the City. The original commitment was that NRP and the neighborhoods would receive $20 million per year for every year through 2009. This total of $400 million would never meet the need that the City Council Task Forces had identified but it was hoped that it would be a start
And that was how NRP began
The Successes of NRP During their first 18 years, NRP and neighborhoods have used the NRP’s resources to do important work that had been neglected or overlooked by the City: • Invested more than $130 million in improving existing and developing new housing; • Invested more than $10 million in improvements to seven major commercial corridors; • Invested more than $20 million in improving parks, more than $6 in improving schools and almost $1 million in improving libraries; • Approved 597 public safety strategies that allocated more than $10 million to increased public services and innovative public safety strategies that ranged from bike and beat patrols to neighborhood organized walking groups; • Provided more than $1.5 million to support alternative transportation approaches and improvements for pedestrians, bicyclists and mass transit; • Conducted projects to stabilize river and lake shores and helped finance improved pedestrian and bicycle paths in parks; • Promoted art in public parks throughout the city; • Conducted neighborhood cleanups; • Planted thousands of trees in public spaces; • Established and maintained community gardens; • Promoted energy conservation and recycling; • Helped improve water quality in Minneapolis lakes and streams; • Built playgrounds, tot lots and trails; • Provided Computers for Schools and Libraries to help bridge the digital divide; • Funded programs for youth, seniors, and new Americans; Attachment A 3 • Funded community health clinics, immunization programs, disease screenings and parenting classes; • Financed building improvements for small businesses; • Conducted thousands of community gatherings and events
Revenues and Leverage In 2001 the State Legislature made some significant changes to the property tax laws
That action reduced the level of revenue expected in NRP’s second ten years from the original promise of $180 million to less than $85 million. In 2003 the Minneapolis City Council and Mayor took actions that removed another $ 22 million from the Common Project that was the revenue stream for NRP
Despite these significant changes, the program and the residents have continued to invest in the improvement of their neighborhoods. NRP and the neighborhoods have leveraged more than $ 1 billion of additional private and public investment in neighborhood improvements, increased the City’s tax base, fostered neighborhood stability, and involved thousands of resident volunteers in improving their neighborhood and the City
Recognition In 2000, NRP was selected as one of the 100 best programs in the world for “improving the living environment” by the second Habitat Conference of the United Nations Centre for Human Settlement (Habitat) and the Dubai Municipality of the United Arab Emirates
This was an award for which programs had to be nominated and for which they could not apply. Two separate teams of experts reviewed the program in 1999. The first team of international reviewers narrowed the list of nominated programs that would be “finalists” and the second, which was led by local consultants, submitted the reports from which the Technical Advisory Committee of international representatives selected the best 100
The framed certificate hangs in the downtown NRP office and the inscription reads: “The UN Centre for Human Settlement (Habitat) and Dubai Municipality in the United Arab Emirates certify the Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program was selected as a Best Practice by an independent Technical Advisory Committee”
The award was for “Outstanding Contribution Towards Improving the Living Environment” and was given in September 2000 as part of the international Habitat II Conference. In their report, the Technical Advisory Team,cited NRP’s contribution to empowering residents and achieving real change in local areas as the basis for their award
NRP was recently honored by the Ash Institute and Harvard University and asked to present on resident empowerment at the international Community Innovations Conference in Boston. It has also been invited to present at the October 2008 International Conference on “Learning Democracy by Doing: Alternative Practices in Attachment A 4 Citizenship Learning and Participatory Democracy”, being hosted by Canada and the University of Toronto
While NRP has been the model for other cities around the country and the world, it is now fighting with the Mayor and City Council for its life and the values and approaches that have made it unique and effective
The Threat In 2006, after receiving the report of the NRP Policy Board’s multi jurisdictional Task Force examining options for the continuation of NRP and further investment in the improvement of neighborhoods after 2009, the City Council and Mayor decided that discussion of NRP’s future would be part of the City’s community engagement review process. The process started with a background report prepared by City staff in the fall of 2006 and has now progressed to producing a blueprint for major changes in NRP called the “Framework for the Future” (“Framework”)
The City requested public comments on the background report and during the collection of those comments in January and February 2007, residents voiced (in surveys and public meetings held throughout the City), overwhelming support for continuing and funding the existing NRP program. They wanted any community engagement system to be built upon the existing programs
Unfortunately, the “Framework” being proposed by the City provides a much different vision of the future
The NRP Working Group, consisting of four City Council members, a Policy Aide from the Mayors Office and the Director of NRP, has developed and submitted a vision in the “Framework” for the future organization and function of a city Community Engagement system that was supported by a majority of its members. A great deal of that vision is derived from the existing NRP program but there are also many significant components of NRP that are missing
After spending the introduction to the “Framework” praising the work of neighborhood organizations and NRP over the past 18 years, the “Framework” proposes the elimination of the program and establishing a new program, with many of the same features, as part of a brand new City department. The question that the Framework fails to address is: Why? From the comments submitted on the draft “Framework”: “The Framework is a step backward for the neighborhoods and the City.” “The City has never been able to adequately include neighborhoods in its processes, so why do they think they can do it now?” Attachment A 5 “It centralizes the money, power and control downtown and out of residents hands.” “Framework for the Future appears to replace an enviable program which is desired by other cities. Some of us have worked in other cities and wanted what Minneapolis NRP does because it works so well.” “The Framework document should not use the term NRP at all. It replaces NRP with a City program with unclear purpose and uncertain funding. The assertion that the Framework is a sensible replacement for NRP is insulting to the intelligence of the citizens of the City of Minneapolis.” New Legislation Earlier this year, the neighborhood residents in Neighbors4NRP worked with several state legislators to draft legislation to fund NRP beyond 2009. Residents worked hard to explain the problem and the proposed solution. Many residents testified at legislative committee hearings in support of future funding for NRP. The City of Minneapolis lobbied hard against the proposed legislation. Subsequently, the Legislature enacted legislation authorizing the City of Minneapolis to establish new tax increment financing districts (Transformation Districts) that could be used for existing bond obligations of the Target Center and “neighborhood revitalization purposes”
The legislation authored by Representative Jim Davnie and Senator Scott Dibble in the Tax Conference Committee, with the City’s support, uses the language “neighborhood revitalization purposes” instead of the originally proposed “Neighborhood Revitalization Program” in an effort to avoid providing funding specifically to NRP. The change in language was more than semantic
The Minneapolis City Attorney opined on July 24, 2008 that the language in the new statute does not allow the revenues from the proposed Transformation District to be used for administrative costs for neighborhood organizations or for any use outside of the very limited uses provided in the Tax Increment Financing statutes. NRP was created though a special law that greatly broadened the authority and eligible uses for TIF revenues. Removing the reference to NRP has resulted in much more restrictive limits on the type of improvement efforts that can be paid for from the new revenue stream. Additional work at the legislature will be needed if these potential revenues are to fulfill their purpose and contribute to the improvement of Minneapolis neighborhoods
The new statute offered the hope of a source of money that could potentially continue neighborhood revitalization. Even though the language provided by the City has limited that potential, the City is proceeding with the effort to adopt the “Framework” and restructure NRP’s functions, governance, and operation
The Process for Input Attachment A 6 On July 24th, the City Council set a public hearing on August 20th for the final report of the Working Group (the proposed “Framework”). The City is preparing to take action on their version of major changes to the proposed structure of the current Neighborhood Revitalization Program
With the report of the Working Group being submitted on July 24th and the only public meeting input on the proposed “Framework” being scheduled for August 20 at 5 p.m., residents and their neighborhood groups were given only 18 work days (during the dog days of summer) to review, discuss and comment on a proposal that will dramatically change NRP and the relationships between City departments and residents of Minneapolis! The City Council has scheduled action to adopt the proposed “Revised Framework” for September 12. Why the rush? From the comments submitted on the draft “Framework”: “To date, our comments, and the continual support of NRP from many residents across the City, have yet to be equally weighed into, included without bias, or even acknowledged in any report regarding this City process.” “There is great concern that the City will eliminate the true power of this program: the creativity that arises from grassroots initiatives. The citizenry of this City does not need another reason to disinvest and take a passive approach regarding the future of Minneapolis.” “If it is an ‘NRP’ work group, it should seriously support NRP, respect and acknowledge the accomplishments that NRP has achieved in the neighborhoods and find a way to continue the program.” “We see the city administration increasingly disengaged from its neighborhoods and their residents. It is not a matter of organizational structure that keeps residents’ concerns from being heard. It is a matter of organizational culture.” Establishing a new advisory board and a new department can occur at any time
The questions about NRP’s future were raised more than 4 years ago by the NRP Policy Board. Changes to the City’s community engagement system could have occurred at any time in the past 18 years if it had been a City priority. In the nine months since November 2007 when the Community Engagement Task Force provided its 36 recommendations to the City Council and Mayor, only one has been adopted: the seven principles of community engagement. Another 60-90 days that would allow fuller vetting and discussion of the “Framework” will not derail, and will probably improve, decisions about the future of NRP and community engagement. It would also be consistent with Principles 1 (“Right to be Involved”),2 (“Contribution will be Thoughtfully Considered”), and 4 (“Seek Out Involvement”) of the Minneapolis Core Principles of Community Engagement
Attachment A 7 It certainly appears that this “rush to judgment” is intended to produce a City controlled community engagement system without the participation or ownership of the community
To justify the short time period for comment the Council Vice President and Working Group Chair has repeatedly and publicly stated that residents and especially the neighborhood activists in Neighbors4NRP have raised concerns about current public input processes and supported shorter time lines and fewer opportunities. He has used this argument to defend the City’s single hearing and timeline for adoption of the “Framework”
This is a gross misrepresentation of the positions taken by Neighbors4NRP
Neighbors4NRP wants residents to have the opportunity to provide input and supports review schedules that allow enough time for the gathering of different opinions, the discussion and development of a community perspective and the preparation of reasonable and rational input. We want a real community input process – not one hearing 27 days after publication of a 27-page report. What Neighbors4NRP does not support are hearings that are for appearance only, repeated requests for comment and input that produce few or minimal changes in the final reports, and public rhetoric that suggests that the community perspective matters while the decisions that are made clearly indicate that it does not
An Alternative Proposal for the Future of NRP and Community Engagement Despite concerns about the process that has been used to develop the “Framework” and issues with the timelines for a hearing and approval, Neighbors4NRP has conducted a review of the proposed “Framework” and prepared this alternative as our response. We believe that the approach that we are presenting preserves the best of NRP, builds on the existing community engagement system, responds to the concerns expressed by residents and neighborhood organizations, minimizes future administrative costs, and makes reasonable and achievable recommendations for change
The following is a resident-driven proposal to restructure and continue NRP beyond 2009 and to reform the way the City works with its residents
General Principles This alternative is based on the following principles and beliefs: 1. Sustainability- Neighborhood organizations are critical components of the City’s civic infrastructure and have been recognized in the “Framework” as a basic City service. As such, the funding for a neighborhood revitalization program must be stable, committed, and sufficient
Attachment A 8 2. Participation- The community engagement system should encourage involvement by all elements of the community and support the empowerment of residents
3. Funding – Beginning in 2010, and continuing for the duration of the Transformation Districts authorized by the 2008 legislature, at least $10 million per year should be placed into a fund for improving neighborhoods, with all future interest and program income credited to the fund, to finance the Neighborhood Revitalization Program and the continued revitalization of Minneapolis neighborhoods. This fund should be in addition to at least $3 million from the General Fund of the City that is appropriated annually for the operating expenses of neighborhood organizations as basic City services and any funds that the City appropriates for grants to neighborhoods
4. Governance – The NRP Policy Board should be reorganized and reestablished as the NRP Governing Board and its membership changed to increase neighborhood representation and encourage continued participation by, and collaboration with, the City, County, Schools and Parks
5. Staffing- The Director of the NRP should be hired by, and report to, the NRP Governing Board. The Director’s commitment and purpose must be to assist, support and advocate for neighborhoods in the development and implementation of their Neighborhood Action Plans. Other NRP staff would be hired by the Director
6. Community Engagement – The City should establish a Community Engagement Commission, as recommended by the City’s Community Engagement Task Force
7. City Support – The City should establish multi department teams from their existing staff resources to facilitate improved connections between City departments, NRP, and neighborhoods. The City’s elected officials should make a concerted effort to change the existing practices, procedures and attitudes of City departments toward residents. That change in attitude and organizational culture should begin at the top
The Details In the “Framework”, the City has spent a great deal of time emphasizing that one of the major outcomes from the new organizational structure, and one of the reasons the new structure is being proposed, is that there will be better relationships between neighborhoods and the City. This appears to be the reason for proposing the new Neighborhood and Community Advisory Board and the Neighborhood and Community Relations Department
Attachment A 9 There is nothing in past or current law that would prevent the City from establishing either the Neighborhood and Community Advisory Board or the Neighborhood and Community Relations Department. In fact, either of these groups, or both, could have been established any time within the past 18 years: if improving these relationships had been a City priority and a new Board and Department was needed to accomplish this goal
In the “Framework’s” detailed description of the Roles and Responsibilities of the Neighborhoods and the City, not one of the City actions described requires this new structure. The Community Engagement Task Force, which was established by the City to review and make recommendations for the community engagement system, considered the possibility of establishing a new City department but did not include any such recommendation in its final report. They could not agree with those who advocated for a new department
The only organizational elements that appear to be supporting this addition to the current community engagement bureaucracy are the City Council and Mayor. Before incurring all of the costs and confusion involved with creating a new department, the City’s elected officials should make a concerted effort to change the existing practices, procedures and attitudes of City departments toward residents. That change in attitude should begin at the top. Only after such efforts have been made and only if they have failed should consideration be given to incurring the additional costs to the taxpayer that will result from adding a new component to the existing City bureaucracy
To date, some City Council members and the Mayor have used the rhetoric of “increased cooperation”, “increased collaboration”, “greater accountability”, “improved relationships”, etc. as arguments for the proposed new structure. Yet the new organizational structure has only the “potential” to achieve any of these results. There is no evidence to date that suggests that the City commitment is present to make these possibilities a reality
Therefore, the existing NRP program should be modified and retained while the City proceeds, if it wants to, with formation of the new Neighborhood and Community Advisory Board and Community and Neighborhood Relations Department and demonstrates its commitment to the goals of the Framework and the seven principles of Community Engagement that were adopted last fall by the City Council. Before throwing out the bathwater, we need to be assured that the baby is not in it
Two of the major elements of the “Framework” (the funding mechanisms and the governance and administrative support structure) should be clarified and modified
The “Framework” should be clear about the sources, purposes and methods of distribution for each of the funds that it is identifying as part of the new Community Engagement system. The language used to describe those funds and their names should also be revised to remove negative connotations (such as “Innovation” being the Attachment A 10 purpose only of the City directed grant fund) and more accurately and clearly describe their purpose
The City should include all of the parcels in the pre 1979 TIF districts in the new Transformation District to maximize the revenues available for neighborhood improvement and the leveraging of these public funds
The revenues generated from the Transformation District should be used as follows: a. Up to $ 10 million for the restructured debt of the Target Center b. At least $ 10 million for the Neighborhood Improvement and Implementation Fund (NIIF) (see below) c. The remainder allocated to a Phase II Gap Fund to make up the difference between the neighborhood allocations for Phase II approved in April 2004 and the amount of revenue actually received by NRP from the Common Project
If the NIIF is not funded at the minimum level in a given year, the difference between $ 10 million and the amount provided in that year will be treated as a future debt of the Transformation District or the City’s General Fund if the Transformation District revenues never satisfy the sum of the shortfalls during the duration of the Transformation District
Funds will continue to be accumulated in the Phase II Gap account from the “excess revenues” of the Transformation District until the Phase II shortfall is completely covered. When that amount has been reached any additional revenues from the Transformation District that exceed the $ 10 million for the NIIF will be reserved for a Discretionary Development account that can be used by the City for neighborhood initiated projects requested by REOs
Resident Empowerment Organizations (REO’s) would be the vehicles for meeting a portion of the City’s community participation mission and the implementation vehicles for NRP. The REO is a new designation that would be conferred jointly by the City and the NRP Governing Board and there would be only one organization representing any specific neighborhood. An organization, however, could apply for designation to represent more than one neighborhood
The criteria used to select these organizations would be developed by the City, NRP and the neighborhood organizations and would be based on the current Citizen Participation and NRP criteria. The REO designation will be used to identify organizations that will be an officially recognized part of the City’s community engagement infrastructure. Receiving this designation would be required for an organization to be eligible to receive administrative, NIIF or CIIF funds
Existing neighborhood organizations and associations will be given the opportunity to apply first for this designation and any conferred designation shall remain in place unless there is a challenge based on criteria developed by the City, NRP and neighborhood organizations or organizational performance issues occur
Attachment A 11 The Neighborhood Improvement and Implementation Fund (NIIF) (identified as the “Neighborhood Investment Fund” in the “Framework”) should be capitalized from the new Transformation Districts and should be funded at a minimum level of $ 10 million for each of the ten years the Transformation District is to be in place. Only designated REO’s would be eligible to receive these funds
The funds in the NIIF should be allocated to each and every neighborhood organization that is recognized as a Resident Empowerment Organization (REO). The NIIF funds would be used to address neighborhood priorities in accordance with a Neighborhood Action Plan approved by the neighborhood, NRP Governing Board, and the City
Neighborhood action plans would continue to identify which City goals each of the neighborhood goals, objectives and strategies support
The Neighborhood Improvement and Implementation Fund allocation to the neighborhoods would be based on a funding formula similar to the ones used by NRP during Phases I and II. The formula would be developed and approved by the NRP Governing Board
The City Improvement and Implementation Fund (CIIF) (identified as the “Community Innovation Fund” in the “Framework”) would be established and administered by the City and funded from its General Fund, CDBG or other non Transformation District resources. It would be monies that are over and above the Neighborhood Improvement and Implementation Funds identified above and would have no impact on the neighborhood allocation formulas. The City will determine the amount of dollars in this fund and its uses. The projects, program, activities, and services funded by the CIIF would be selected by the City based on responses to a Request For Proposals sent to all Resident Empowerment Organizations. Only designated REO’s would be eligible to compete for these funds
The Resident Empowerment Organization Operating Support Fund (REOOSF) would be established as a City fund with a base appropriation of at least $3 million. This amount would come from the Property Tax supported General Fund of the City. Each year the amount of this budget item would be established as part of the City’s regular budget process but it would never be lower than the base level of $3 million. Only designated REO’s would be eligible to receive these funds
Concerns about governance appear to be another reason for the proposed “Framework.” The City appears to want more control of the neighborhood improvement program. It is the belief of many neighborhood organizations and residents that the existing NRP Policy Board is already performing the functions proposed for the new Neighborhood and Community Advisory Board
The NRP Policy Board, in its Joint Powers Agreement, exists through the end of 2011
Because the funds used in Phase I and Phase II became NRP funds after Neighborhood Action Plans were approved, the Policy Board and NRP staff will be Attachment A 12 overseeing contracting, planning, and evaluation activities for many years to come. The life of the Policy Board should be extended to at least 2020 and its composition and name should be changed to more accurately reflect its purpose and constituencies
The new NRP Governing Board would be comprised of the following 17 members: a, 8 Minneapolis residents elected by neighborhoods (2 from Redirection Neighborhoods; 2 from Revitalization Neighborhoods; 2 from Protection Neighborhoods; and 2 At Large) b. 1 Minneapolis resident selected by the Hennepin County Board; c. 1 Minneapolis resident selected by the Minneapolis Park Board; d. 1 Minneapolis resident selected by the Minneapolis Public Schools Board; e. 5 Minneapolis residents selected by the City Council and Mayor
f. 1 Minneapolis legislator selected by the Minneapolis legislative delegation
The current Policy Board is established and governed by a joint powers agreement and bylaws adopted by the Board. The Joint Powers Agreement does not expire until January 1, 2012 and can be extended by the agreement of the participating jurisdictions. An extension through the end of the term for the newly authorized Transformation Districts that will be generating revenue for neighborhood revitalization would appear to be both reasonable and appropriate, given that there will still be NRP contracts with neighborhoods for the expenditure of Phase I and II funds
Each of the existing signatory jurisdictions will be asked to support a revision to the Joint Powers Agreement that endorses the new composition of the Board and makes any corresponding changes to NRP’s by laws
The Director of the NRP would be an employee of the Governing Board and would be hired, fired and evaluated by that Board
Establishing Better Relations With the City The proposed “Framework” appears to assume that creating a new City department will improve the relationships and responsiveness of City departments to neighborhoods and their Neighborhood Action Plans. Unfortunately, this is another unproven assumption
From the comments submitted on the draft “Framework”: Attachment A 13 “Creation of another powerless Board may result in blurring of accountability and increased bureaucracy.” “Why would the City replace a successful program like this with an unknown, untried, centralized top heavy bureaucracy.” “The City has a reputation of moving slowly and having bureaucracy. Not adaptive or responsive to immediate neighborhood needs or encouraging of creative problem solving.” “There is nothing in the proposal that leads us to believe that the City would be more responsive to neighborhood needs than they are now.” As an alternative, the City should commit to developing multi-department and multi-jurisdictional teams for each City planning district to serve and support the neighborhoods in that district. The composition of the Teams would be based on the specific priorities and concerns of the neighborhoods in the District and the requests of the designated REOs. The City departments on the Teams could include, for example, Public Works, Police, Regulatory Services, and CPED. Representatives from the Park Board, Minneapolis Schools, Hennepin County Library, Minnehaha Watershed District, Hennepin County Attorneys Office and others might be included if their services and support were identified by the neighborhood organization as important for meeting neighborhood priorities. The Team would be available to assist with development of Neighborhood Action Plans and review proposed Neighborhood Action Plans before they are submitted to the NRP Governing Board to facilitate coordinated planning and identify opportunities for partnerships
The Teams should be established as a portal for resident groups to use to gain access to City department professionals and vice versa. The current system of developing neighborhood programs is extremely complex when City departments are involved
These Teams would be able to help present the neighborhood position to the City Council, help neighborhood organizations with special needs (such as interpreters, legal support, grant writers, and marketing), and ensure the two way communication that residents want
Restructuring the use of existing resources should be used to try to achieve this objective before new boards and departments are created
Advantages to Continuing and Restructuring NRP Rather than Adopting the City’s New Program • Continuing NRP builds on a successful program with a track record of accomplishment over 18 years. It is tried and true, not new and uncertain
• The NRP program supports programs, projects, services and activities that help accomplish both City and neighborhood goals
Attachment A 14 • Costs for revising the existing structure will be less, in both the short and long term, than those required to build and maintain a new program/department
• The alternative being proposed is in the best interest of the residents and recognizes that residents interact and work with private and non-profit organizations as well as governments in addition to the City
• Other governmental jurisdictions that are important to residents are kept at the table and treated as important partners. Money may be one indicator of level of interest and a basis for a “seat at the governing board table” but it is not the only one
• Much of the program proposed in the “Framework” is based on the existing NRP program and its policies and practices. The only major changes being proposed in the “Framework” are in the governing and control structures for NRP. It is those governing and control structures, however, that have helped NRP achieve its results • NRP has a positive image in the neighborhoods and with most residents. It is a “brand name” with credibility
• Continues to build on already established relationships between neighborhoods and multijurisdictional partners
Final Comments The “Framework” presented to the Committee of the Whole on July 24 (and published after amendment during the July 24 meeting) is an expanded version of the draft initially presented in December 2007. Details have been added and roles and responsibilities have been fleshed out. Unfortunately, the components that were the most controversial in December and solicited the most negative comment from neighborhood organizations and the other responders have been retained without much change
The circumstances within which the debate on the future of NRP is occurring have significantly changed since December. The potential for having a new long-term source of funding for neighborhood improvements makes discussion of the future meaningful and appropriate. The time to make modifications to NRP and move toward a City that values, respects and works with its residents is now
Comment