BY DENNIS GEISINGER

There seems to no disagreement among representatives from the City of Minneapolis, the City’s many neighborhood associations or the State of Minnesota that efforts to improve Minneapolis’s inner city neighborhoods should be continued. The fight over the continuation of the 20-year-old, multi-million-dollar Neighborhood Revitalization Project (NRP) after the state provision’s sunset clause kicks in next year is more in how it will continue to be funded and who will control its governance.

“I don’t think I’d call it a fight,” said Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak. “I think when people sit down and look the issues, there’s not that large of a gap.”
“It must be mostly a grudge,” said Longfellow Community Council’s DeWayne Townsend. “The mayor is supported by several council members who simply do not like neighborhood organizations because they sometimes get in the way of developments,” said Townsend.

“If the City really supported NRP it should have looked for ways to finance it,” said State Senator Patrica Torres Ray (DFL-Minneapolis).

Torres Ray introduced a bill last month to extend NRP using TIF (Tax Increment Financing) funds through the year 2019. TIF has been the source of neighborhood improvement money over the life of NRP. But once the bill, SF 3643, reached the Senate’s Tax Committee, its TIF funding language was stripped and replaced with a provision saying if local government aid (LGA) funding to Minneapolis was increased, it could use that money to fund NRP.
“Much has changed since 2001, including the loss of more than $30 million annually in local government aid from the state and dramatic tax reform that has dramatically changed the city’s (and NRP’s) financial situation,” said Rybak’s Communications Director, Jeremy Hanson. The City Council’s “Framework for the Future of NRP” City has proposed that NRP funding come out of its annual budget. The City has also proposed to allow an annual budget item of $2 million to pay for the staffing of all 70 registered neighborhood associations.

“I would like to see the neighborhoods take more of a part in the City’s budget process,” said Rybak. “We’ve seen real success with neighborhood representation on the Capital Long-Range Improvements Committee (CLIC),” Rybak said. The CLIC makes recommendations to the City Council and Mayor on capital improvement program development and annual capital improvement budgets.

“Locking in a positive long-term financing plan, the City has never been able to adequately include neighborhoods in its processes, so why do they think they can do it now,” reads a statement from a neighborhood resident submitted to the City during the comment period for its Framework for the Future proposal. “Neighborhoods will always lose if competing against police, fire, and public works for funding,” said the posting.

“The City was not opposed to extending TIF funding,” said Torres Ray. “What became unclear was to what extent the City was willing to lobby for the TIF extension. There seemed to be a lack of effort,” Torres Ray said.

“The proposed $2 million per year for administrative funding is woefully inadequate,” said a Standish-Ericcson Neighborhood Association (SENA) member. “Somewhere in the range of $25,000 to $30,000 a year, depending on the allocation system, would not cover an office and one staff person,” the SENA rep said.

But the bone of contention closest to the heart of the struggle over the future of NRP is the question of who will ultimately govern the program. Neighborhoods have enjoyed a great deal of autonomy under the current system, identifying their own concerns, priorities and projects, applying for their individual funding through a largely independent NRP Board. The City’s “Framework” proposes that such decisions be controlled by a governing board made up of elected representatives and appointees who oversee a “Neighborhood Investment Fund” for allocating project dollars.

“We need strong neighborhood organizations that have a greater impact on city spending,” said Rybak.

“This is not governance—this board will have no power, all the power comes from City Hall with no neighborhood engagement,” read a comment collected at a joint Longfellow-Nokomis East Town Meeting. “How does this improve upon NRP?” said the resident.

“The neighborhoods are saying, ‘We have the structure, the people, the ability—and now you want to govern us from a central office,’” said Torres Ray. “But I don’ t think the Legislature should be telling the City how to govern NRP,” Torres Ray said.

According to Torres Ray, whatever defines the outcome of the current debate over the future of NRP, her bill that would ensure at least a version of what has been a widely popular program in Minneapolis is facing an uphill battle this legislative session.

“There’s been such huge focus on funding transportation this year,” said Torres Ray. “It’ s going to be very difficult to get a lot of support [for the NRP bill] in the Senate. In the House, I don’t know,” Torres Ray said.
“We actually have one more session to go before the TIF funding provision for NRP runs out in 2009,” said the senator.