This is the document that Mayor Rybak has been sharing to communicate his views
on NRP and Community Engagement in Minneapolis:
Building a Great City Takes an Engaged City
October 2007
As Mayor I have the privilege of spending most nights talking with neighborhood
and community groups in all corners of Minneapolis. I am continually impressed
that night after night there are thousands of people giving up their time to
make Minneapolis a better place.
Our neighborhood organizations have made a tremendous contribution to the City,
and some of that work has been done in partnership with the City. We should be
proud of that. However it is also time to deepen that partnership, and make
sure it is open, transparent and sustainable for years to come.
Doing this will mean we have to respond to the changing dynamics of what it
means to run a city and engage residents:
1. Changing demographics have made Minneapolis much more diverse.
2. New technologies have changed the way people get information and engage in
community.
3. Actions outside the City's control have meant that sources that
traditionally funded geographic-based community engagement have been decreased
or eliminated.
4. The growing role of community organizations is more important than ever.
Building a great City is a two-way partnership between government and its
residents. Residents need to be active participants in shaping our City's
future, and we need to better align city-wide priorities with local
neighborhood priorities - and vice versa.
In May, the City Council (through the leadership of Councilmember Lilligren)
and I adopted a three-track work plan to bring the City's community engagement
system into its next generation, including supporting what is currently working
and exploring new ideas to improve what we're doing:
*Track One is implementing improvements where a clear consensus has emerged
that the City can and should make right now to make decision-making more open,
transparent and accessible to residents. For example, we need to do a better
job of explaining how different City decisions are made and clarifying the
roles and responsibilities of official advisory groups.
*Track Two is about addressing how neighborhood groups, community organizations
and the City government can support each other to build a city that reflects
the priorities of its residents. The Community Engagement Task Force, whose
recommendations are due to the City Council and myself in just a couple weeks,
is part of this track.
*Track Three is focused on working with our NRP partners to develop a strategy
for the future of the Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP) beyond 2009.
As we work through this three-track plan, and especially as we tackle Track
Three, I hold to several core principles that I believe will get us to a place
where the City better engages residents and community organizations:
*Support neighborhoods. A partnership between the City and neighborhoods is
critical to a strong City, the backbone of which needs to build on and support
the ongoing community-building work of neighborhood organizations. Minneapolis
has many well-run, responsive neighborhood organizations, and we need a
sustainable funding strategy that supports high-quality, responsive
neighborhoods organizations in every part of town.
*Direct relationship between the City and neighborhoods. A resident working in
their community should be able to speak directly to their City government, and
the City government needs more direct communication with neighborhood
organizations. The current system makes that difficult by having the NRP
central administration sitting between these groups and the City. Whether the
NRP continues to have a central administration, we need to have a more direct
link between the City and the citizens it serves. This includes having the City
build and support financially community engagement staff at the City, and a
more formal in put from neighborhoods into City spending, ie. a neighborhood
role in the Capital Long Range Improvement (CLIC) Process.
*Inclusive. Our community engagement should include diverse peoples and be
open to innovative approaches that emerge around issues that may not be
geographic. Neighborhood organizations are the backbone of community
engagement, and they are always needed, but in additional to them we should be
open and supportive of other ways that residents organize themselves. We also
need to recognize that full participation means we have to use new and
alternative ways of communicating with residents beyond the traditional evening
meeting.
*Shared priorities with flexible funding. City decisions should respond to
neighborhood priorities and neighborhoods should respond to City-wide
priorities. Minneapolis should have clear, accountable ways that neighborhood
and community priorities more directly influence the City's work and allocation
of resources. One way to accomplish this is to have the City expand the use of
flexible "micro grants" to neighborhoods for City priorities such as graffiti
removal and action on climate change.
*Neighborhoods need discretionary funding. Providing neighborhoods some
funding to allocate on their own encourages the innovation that has been so
successful over the years. We have not identified a source for these funds, and
our first funding priority in this area should be direct support to
organizations, but we will explore ways to provide funds neighborhoods
themselves could control.
*Accountable and transparent governance. Taxpayers require accountable,
transparent, accessible systems of decision-making at the City-wide and
neighborhood level, especially regarding public funding. Specifically in
regards to NRP beyond 2009, the program should be governed by a combination of
neighborhood representatives, and representatives from those governmental
jurisdictions who are willing to contribute financially to the program.
The NRP program will change; the question is how we can set it up for success
into the future. As the program approaches its 20-year end, we have an
opportunity to take what has worked, and strengthen what hasn't, all with the
effort to build a better city - a great city - in which residents are actively
engaged in shaping the way their city looks, feels and grows. We should expect
nothing less.
on NRP and Community Engagement in Minneapolis:
Building a Great City Takes an Engaged City
October 2007
As Mayor I have the privilege of spending most nights talking with neighborhood
and community groups in all corners of Minneapolis. I am continually impressed
that night after night there are thousands of people giving up their time to
make Minneapolis a better place.
Our neighborhood organizations have made a tremendous contribution to the City,
and some of that work has been done in partnership with the City. We should be
proud of that. However it is also time to deepen that partnership, and make
sure it is open, transparent and sustainable for years to come.
Doing this will mean we have to respond to the changing dynamics of what it
means to run a city and engage residents:
1. Changing demographics have made Minneapolis much more diverse.
2. New technologies have changed the way people get information and engage in
community.
3. Actions outside the City's control have meant that sources that
traditionally funded geographic-based community engagement have been decreased
or eliminated.
4. The growing role of community organizations is more important than ever.
Building a great City is a two-way partnership between government and its
residents. Residents need to be active participants in shaping our City's
future, and we need to better align city-wide priorities with local
neighborhood priorities - and vice versa.
In May, the City Council (through the leadership of Councilmember Lilligren)
and I adopted a three-track work plan to bring the City's community engagement
system into its next generation, including supporting what is currently working
and exploring new ideas to improve what we're doing:
*Track One is implementing improvements where a clear consensus has emerged
that the City can and should make right now to make decision-making more open,
transparent and accessible to residents. For example, we need to do a better
job of explaining how different City decisions are made and clarifying the
roles and responsibilities of official advisory groups.
*Track Two is about addressing how neighborhood groups, community organizations
and the City government can support each other to build a city that reflects
the priorities of its residents. The Community Engagement Task Force, whose
recommendations are due to the City Council and myself in just a couple weeks,
is part of this track.
*Track Three is focused on working with our NRP partners to develop a strategy
for the future of the Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP) beyond 2009.
As we work through this three-track plan, and especially as we tackle Track
Three, I hold to several core principles that I believe will get us to a place
where the City better engages residents and community organizations:
*Support neighborhoods. A partnership between the City and neighborhoods is
critical to a strong City, the backbone of which needs to build on and support
the ongoing community-building work of neighborhood organizations. Minneapolis
has many well-run, responsive neighborhood organizations, and we need a
sustainable funding strategy that supports high-quality, responsive
neighborhoods organizations in every part of town.
*Direct relationship between the City and neighborhoods. A resident working in
their community should be able to speak directly to their City government, and
the City government needs more direct communication with neighborhood
organizations. The current system makes that difficult by having the NRP
central administration sitting between these groups and the City. Whether the
NRP continues to have a central administration, we need to have a more direct
link between the City and the citizens it serves. This includes having the City
build and support financially community engagement staff at the City, and a
more formal in put from neighborhoods into City spending, ie. a neighborhood
role in the Capital Long Range Improvement (CLIC) Process.
*Inclusive. Our community engagement should include diverse peoples and be
open to innovative approaches that emerge around issues that may not be
geographic. Neighborhood organizations are the backbone of community
engagement, and they are always needed, but in additional to them we should be
open and supportive of other ways that residents organize themselves. We also
need to recognize that full participation means we have to use new and
alternative ways of communicating with residents beyond the traditional evening
meeting.
*Shared priorities with flexible funding. City decisions should respond to
neighborhood priorities and neighborhoods should respond to City-wide
priorities. Minneapolis should have clear, accountable ways that neighborhood
and community priorities more directly influence the City's work and allocation
of resources. One way to accomplish this is to have the City expand the use of
flexible "micro grants" to neighborhoods for City priorities such as graffiti
removal and action on climate change.
*Neighborhoods need discretionary funding. Providing neighborhoods some
funding to allocate on their own encourages the innovation that has been so
successful over the years. We have not identified a source for these funds, and
our first funding priority in this area should be direct support to
organizations, but we will explore ways to provide funds neighborhoods
themselves could control.
*Accountable and transparent governance. Taxpayers require accountable,
transparent, accessible systems of decision-making at the City-wide and
neighborhood level, especially regarding public funding. Specifically in
regards to NRP beyond 2009, the program should be governed by a combination of
neighborhood representatives, and representatives from those governmental
jurisdictions who are willing to contribute financially to the program.
The NRP program will change; the question is how we can set it up for success
into the future. As the program approaches its 20-year end, we have an
opportunity to take what has worked, and strengthen what hasn't, all with the
effort to build a better city - a great city - in which residents are actively
engaged in shaping the way their city looks, feels and grows. We should expect
nothing less.
