Home
 

CNO's response to the proposed funding "Framework"

February 11, 2008

Jennifer Lastoka
Community Engagement Coordinator
City Hall Rm 301M
350 S. 5th St.
Minneapolis, MN 55415

Dear Ms. Lastoka,

The Corcoran Neighborhood Organization Board of Directors met on Wednesday, February 6th, 2008 to discuss the Framework for the Future document and would like to submit the following comments into the record. 

  • The program that is outlined in the Framework for the Future is extremely different from the existing NRP and will certainly not sustain the current structure of neighborhood organizations in the City of Minneapolis. 
  • It is unclear how the task force identified the ‘Administrative Needs of Neighborhood Organizations’.  These needs vary greatly and a one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate. 
  • The framework does not indicate what types of organizations will be eligible for funding from the Neighborhood Investment Fund (NIF).  The NIF should be designated for funding neighborhood organizations. 
  • $2 million is not sufficient to “sustain capacity at the neighborhood level.”  If the $2 million dollars was divided equally between the 61 neighborhood organizations, each neighborhood would receive approximately $32,700.  That amount is not enough to maintain a professional staff person, taxes and benefits.  The average salary for an Executive Director with a budget less than $500,000 in Minnesota in 2006 was $54,724 and the average salary for a Community Organizer in the metro area in 2006 was $40,755 (MN Council of Nonprofits 2007 Salary and Benefits Survey).  
  • There is no dedicated source for the NIF which means that it would be subject to council action every year and neighborhoods would not know what to expect for the upcoming year until December 15.  This is unacceptable.  Neighborhoods need consistent funding to accomplish the goals of the community and programs can not be subject to wildly varying funding. 
  • The competitively allocated funds will not serve the best interests of the City or its residents. 
    • Neighborhoods are better equipped to identify needs and to react quickly to issues.  It will take considerable time for the City to identify a need, create a funding source, request proposals, and select grant recipients.  This is valuable time that neighborhoods could use to address issues as they arise; hence, funding should be provided for general operations rather than specific topics on a specific timelines.  
    • Providing funding for year-long projects does not allow for sustainable programming. 
    • Needs are not consistent across the city and different areas have different priorities.  A one-size-fits-all approach is not the best use of funds.
    • A competitive process will encourage neighborhood organizations to set priorities based on the proposed funding guidelines as opposed to actual needs. 
  • The framework does not make it clear whether priority will be given to allocated or competitive funds in the NIF.  It is also not clear what percentage of available funds will be allocated to neighborhoods on a non-competitive basis and how much will be dedicated to a competitive pool.
  • It is unreasonable to spend $1 million on “administrative costs to support this new structure” when the total allocation to neighborhoods is only $2 million. These administrative costs should be reduced considerably in order to increase funding to neighborhoods.  If the new Community Participation Division is expected to do more than just administer the program, its role should be clearly defined and a cost/benefit analysis should be done. Neighborhood organizations create citizen participation, while city bureaucracies do not. 
  • The City Council and Mayor should not be allowed to appoint members to the Community Participation Governance Board.  Members should be elected by neighborhood organizations. 
  • The Community Participation Governing Board (CPGB) should be an independent board and should not be under the City Coordinator’s office.   The board should have direct oversight and enforcement responsibilities for the director and the budget.
  • Neighborhood organizations should not be penalized or rewarded for formally consolidating with another neighborhood.  Partnerships between neighborhood groups to address issues can be a valuable strategy in certain circumstances, but should not be mandated or incentivized.  Such a suggestion is akin to saying that the City of Minneapolis should formally join with Robinsdale. 

On behalf of the Corcoran Neighborhood Organization, I thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed structure.

Sincerely,
Amy Arcand
Executive Director