PROSPECT PARK nrp phase I Reallocation 2002
900 East River Terrace
Minneapolis MN 55414
October 1, 2002
Over seven years ago, our neighborhood began the Neighborhood Revitilization Program Phase 1. That process allowed us to make our own decisions on the best way to spend tax money for our neighborhood. We held public meetings to debate alternatives and then made decisions. We created an Action Plan that resulted in the allocation of $3.2 million dollars in neighborhood projects.
We are now nearing the end of NRP Phase 1 and $625,268 of the funds allocated in the original Action Plan might not be spent as originally planned. The largest portion of that money is the $528,000 that our Action Plan designated for use on the redevelopment of the Unocal site. The redevelopment of that site is now underway and our funds were not needed.
As a result, the neighborhood needs to re-allocate funds. This letter and its enclosures tells you the process on how that reallocation will be done. And, more important, it tells how you participate in the process.
To start with, we invite you to propose projects that would benefit the neighborhood. Those proposals may be, but do not have to be, within the scope of the original Action Plan.
Your proposal and all those proposed by your neighbors will be considered. Proposals will be presented at a neighborhood informational meeting and then voted on at a subsequent decision meeting.
To further explain the process, enclosed are: (1) a statement of funds available for reallocation; (2) the schedule for the decision-making; (3) a statement of the consequences of some choices; and (4) a form to propose reallocation. You may review our original Action Plan at http://www.pperr.org/nrp/nrp-plan.html. You may call one of us at the numbers below to request a paper copy. If you should have other questions, please call us too.
Mary Alice Kopf
Housing redevelopment $528,000
Reason for Availability: These funds were allocated for the redevelopment of the "Unocal" Site. That site is now being redeveloped and the funds were not needed.
Motley housing improvement $56,940
Reason for Availability: These funds were allocated for subsidizing owner/occupants in the purchase and repair of homes in the Motley area of the neighborhood. The subsidy used loans that were forgivable over seven years. It is the opinion of our contractor who processes the loan applications, that there will be no further applicants. This is due largely to the unavailability of houses for sale in the Motley area because most are owned by absentee landlords, and to the small number of current homeowner-occupants who can get repair funds.
Motion sensors $5,000
Reason for Availability: These funds were allocated for providing no- or low-cost motion sensors on yard lights. The idea was to warn of approaching bad guys. However, the motion sensors seem to warn mostly of approaching squirrels or rabbits. There seems to be no interest in the use of motion sensors to turn on yard lights.
Traffic calming efforts $35,328
Reason for Availability: These funds were used mostly for subsidizing the addition of speed humps on streets where it is necessary to slow the cars. Many speed humps have been installed. However, interest in more speed humps seems to be waning. The funds might be put to projects with greater needs.
TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDS: $625,268
Note: This is not the total of all currently unspent money. However, the other funds will be spent on the projects and strategies provided for in the original Action Plan.
Our neighborhood’s reallocation of funds that could not be spent as directed in our original Action Plan is shown below. Reallocations may:
- provide more funds for an existing strategy in the original Action Plan; or
- provide a new strategy and specifying the funds to implement that strategy.
All meetings commence on the days listed but, if the amount of business requires more than one evening, they may be adjourned from day to day. A 30-day notice is required before the final meeting. It is expected that public meetings will be governed by the courteously and fairly enforced Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised.
Use the form on the reverse side to submit proposals. Directions on how to submit a proposal are shown on that form.
The reallocation is an all-neighborhood process. Anyone or any group in the neighborhood may initiate proposals and attend and vote on the proposals.
Quite simply, there is no restriction on the projects that our neighborhood could choose for its benefit. That said, there are consequences of some choices.
1) State law requires that 52% of the city-wide funds be spent on housing. "Housing" includes:
a) new construction and improvements to the existing stock; and
b) market-rate and affordable housing (not just "affordable housing").
Minneapolis has spent 48% on "housing." Our original Action Plan designated 40% for housing, which made us "average" among all neighborhoods.
Of the approximate $625,268 available for reallocation, $584,900 is currently included in "housing." To the extent that any of that $584,900 is reallocated to non-housing strategies, our 40% figure, obviously, will go down.
The consequence of a "significant" reduction in the funds we designate for housing may be that our funds under NRP-2, if any, that we don’t designate for housing will be held-back until the whole-city goal of 52% is achieved.
2) New strategies must be approved by the City Council. Broadening existing strategies requires approval of the NRP Policy Board. Movement of funds between existing strategies must be approved by NRP staff.
The consequence is that more significant changes will require a longer time for approval before the funds become available.
Approval of new strategies may depend on making the case that the reason for the new strategy is "compelling" and "community-wide."
3) Insurance carried by NRP covers only the activities of incorporated non-profits.
The consequence is that if any of the implementation work involves un-incorporated or for-profit corporations, then those doing the implementation must prove that they have sufficient liability insurance. That raises the cost of the implementation.
4) Any implementation of social-services strategies must be contracted to Hennepin County Social Services. Any implementation of education strategies must be contracted to the Minneapolis Public Schools.
The consequence of proposing a strategy that does not conform to those requirements is that it may not be approved by NRP or the city.
5) Anyone making a proposal should have the form technically checked by Susan Gottlieb before it is officially filed.
The consequence is that the proposal may be rejected by the neighborhood just because nobody can understand it.
Steve Cross 10/01/2002
Amount to be reallocated:
(State a single figure, not a range.)
Action Plan Strategy to move funds FROM:
(State the Action Plan strategy by paragraph and title)
Action Plan Strategy to move funds TO:
(If this is an entirely new strategy, indicate "NEW" and state a brief title for the strategy)
What is the reason/rationale/argument
for the move (or new strategy):
(You may continue on the reverse side of this page. But please keep your statement terse.)
How was the amount requested calculated?
(Show a detailed budget. State the source of all "prices"and show your math)
Who could be a contractor to implement
(If not an non-profit corporation qualified under USC 501 (c)(3), then provide detail.)
Will the funds leverage money from other
sources? If so, then explain:
(That is, the nature of the program will automatically result in additional money from other sources being expended.)
Will the funds only partially support
a larger project? If so, then explain:
(That is, if you don't get more money from somewhere else, then this money can't be spent.)
Please provide information on who can provide more information on this proposal:
Any group or committee name:
Contact Person's Name:
City, State, & Zip:
Proposals may be filed by:
Mail: PPERRIA, 66 SE Malcolm Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55414
Hand: Pratt School Office; PPERRIA mailbox