 |
Topics: Community
St.
Paul Participation
In the early
1970s, citizen groups and community councils organized to demand
a voice in city government and local development planning, and
the city responded by creating a comprehensive system of 17 District
Councils. Today these councils play a large role in land-use planning,
housing, hazardous waste and pollution control, crime watches,
and arts festivals, and also have a major voice in determining
the city's capital improvement budget. The councils are incorporated
as nonprofits, and engage in many collaborative projects with
other nonprofit organizations. Often housed in community centers
with a dozen other nonprofits, they serve as an important hub
of both formal participation and broader civic engagement. Case
study plus.
Prepared
by Ken Thomson as part of the Citizen Participation Project at
the Lincoln Filene Center at Tufts University, funded by the Ford
Foundation.
Contents
A.
Beginnings and Authorization
B. Neighborhood Structures
C.
Citywide Citizen Structures
D.
Outreach to Citizens
E.
Major Program Components
F.
Overall Perspective of the City on Participation
A.
Beginnings and Authorization
Born:
October 9, 1975
Place:
In five resolutions of the City Council defining citizen participation,
authorizing the Mayor to set up participation councils where they
did not yet exist, and allocating funds for the participation
system.
1967:
A City Planning Board Map dated August, 1987 shows the city divided
into Planning Area Units composed of approximately 18 "Communities"
and 50 "neighborhoods".
1972:
Mayor Lawrence Cohen formed a "Committee on Citizen Participation"
in June, 1972, fulfilling his election campaign promise to examine
"in detail" the question of "how to create the best possible structure
and process of participation of citizens in the affairs of Saint
Paul government". His invitation letter to committee participants
noted the evident need for citizen participation at all levels
of government to restore citizen trust, and indicated that, at
the time, "citizens often feel that their government is a hostile
institution which is actively working against them".
The Mayor's
stated purpose in establishing the participation committee was
to enable "reconsideration of the relation of community groups
to city government". Apparently a number of strong citizen groups
and community councils had existed for some time in St. Paul,
and were to be important in any new system. Cohen envisioned community
council elections by that November.
1973:
In a March 27, 1973 resolution, the City Council unanimously approves
the appointments of the 12 committee members, who apparently had
already been meeting for nine months. Two more members were approved
by Council resolution on July 17. Mayor Cohen and Councilwoman
Rosalie Butler were among the committee members. Three others
represented a group called the Association of Saint Paul Communities.
The committee distributed a "Community Council Questionnaire"
to groups and individuals and held five public hearings.
The final
report of the committee, "Making Democracy Work", was completed
on September 26, 1973. It recommended a participation system very
similar in design and spirit to the one currently in place in
St. Paul. Four committee members issued a brief minority report
recommending that the councils have final authority over zoning
and public improvements in their areas, and that the city's Planning
Commission be restructured to represent these councils directly.
Apparently both majority and minority proposals were defeated.
1975:
Mayor Cohen and two councilpeople (Hozza and Sylvester) try again
to establish a citizen participation system in the city. A League
of Women Voters report notes that "The catalyst for the attempt
was the Community Development program which specified that federal
funds could be used for citizen participation." Approximately
$267,000 was put into a "contingency fund" for citizen participation.
City officials took the lead, proposed a system of seven or eight
participation districts, and convened a forum on January 28, 1975.
Over 450 people attended. The League reports that "It was quickly
evident that many felt resentment toward city government." This
was the first of several weekly meetings of the Citizen Participation
Forum, which then continued to operate, through task forces and
general meetings, until at least the fall of 1975.
On July
22, 1975 the City Council adopted a resolution which accepted
proposals from the Forum, including a structure of 17 districts
and an "early warning communications system" for citizens, and
called for a 45-60 day "cooling off period" before taking further
action. The proposed resolution presented to the Council in July
by the Forum was not adopted. The major points of disagreement
apparently centered on a uniform council structure (especially
its relation to existing citizen groups), and on the formal power
of the district council in planning and development issues. On
October 9, the council passed resolutions defining participation
"as a process, not a structure", authorizing the mayor to "create
or improve the participation process" in each district when district
planning teams or neighborhood groups felt the district was ready,
and providing $50,000 for these purposes to the mayor while continuing
$10,500 per month to the "neighborhood development planning areas"
which had been created under earlier federally-funded projects.
Representatives of the Forum formally stated that they did not
support the City Council resolution, but nevertheless disbanded
the Forum at this point. Councilman Sylvester apparently wrote
the final resolutions which passed the council. His report of
September 30, 1975, asserted that:
- each council
should determine its own structure involving new or existing
groups,
- the city
and each council should develop an agreed work plan (avoiding
use of the term "contract"), and
- recognition
of each new council should follow a ten-point plan involving
an inventory of existing community groups, definition of boundaries,
creation of bylaws, and final approval by the City Council.
Sylvester's
final proposals became the basis for the participation system still
in place today in St. Paul.
B.
Neighborhood Structures
1. District
Councils
The 17 District
Councils which completely cover the city of St. Paul are by far
the strongest, most visible part of the system. As in all the cities
we have examined, the downtown district is much less developed than
the rest. The population of the council areas ranges from 7,000
to 28,000, except for the downtown area which includes 3,300 residents.
The median district population is 15,800.
Each council is a separately incorporated nonprofit
organization, and several have or are applying for 501.c3 tax
exempt status. While each District Council has been formally recognized
by the City Council, and receive funds from the city, they remain
relatively self-governing bodies in all other ways. Their structure,
elections, relationship to other citizen organizations, officers,
committees, staff, and office location and functions all are determined
solely by the council itself, through its formal bylaws. Each
organization is free to raise additional funds from any source
open to a nonprofit organization. Only two visible city restrictions
exist: the councils must be nonpartisan, and the money from the
city must be used for its stated purposes--to hire a community
organizer, for example, rather than a secretary.
2. Elections
The method
of selection of each council is determined by each organization's
bylaws:
- Fifteen
of the districts elect the council at an annual meetings, two
at polls in a separate election.
- Seven
are all at-large, eight have elections by subdistricts, two
others have mixed representation systems.
- Nine have
specific positions for representatives of neighborhood or business
groups, in addition to the council members elected by the general
membership
- The size
of the council ranges from six to thirty-one members, with most
having fifteen to twenty.
- Average
turnout at annual meetings ranges from 30 to 200 people.
3. Drawing
Neighborhood Boundaries
Boundaries
for the districts were largely determined by the original citizen
participation committee and forum. It was widely noted in the reports
of these committees that citizens did not trust the city to come
up with a set of boundaries. According to the ten-point recognition
plan, the citizen groups within a proposed district "should first
make every effort to reach agreement among themselves on the boundaries.
If there is a dispute, citizen groups should be given a maximum
of 45 days to resolve the matter. Any disputes are to be finally
resolved by the City Planning Department.
Apparently most boundaries were settled by consensus,
in large part following the lines of the 1967 community map of
the Planning Department. Only in District 13 was a permanent lack
of consensus obtained, resulting in a split of the district between
three different organizations. Boundaries have occasionally been
changed, most recently with a slight restructuring between Districts
9 and 15 in southwest St. Paul.
4. CP Administrative
Funding
In contrast
to the structures in our other cities, the St. Paul participation
system has very little centralized administration. All the money
allocated to the participation system goes directly to the district
councils, with the exception of funds for the salary and expenses
of the citywide participation coordinator which is paid from the
Planning and Economic Development Department budget. In 1987-88,
the total budget allocated by the city to the District Councils
was $485,652. The sources of these allocations are the Community
Development Block Grant for the eleven districts eligible for CDBG
($371,386), and general funds for the remaining six districts ($113,266).
This breaks down to between $20,000 and $36,000 for each district.
Furthermore, city funds are only part of the
financial picture in St. Paul. A substantial amount of United
Way funds are allocated to community centers in eight of these
districts (up to $480,000 in one district) and these centers are
often a hub for the District Council activities. Grants from the
McKnight Foundation Neighborhood Self-Help Initiatives Program
(MnSHIP) have in some years increased the operating budget of
certain councils by as much as 50%. For the 1987-88 fiscal year,
over $423,000 came into the councils from non-city, non-United
Way sources, in addition to funds for a half-million dollar block
nurse program being administered by one District Council. These
additional funds are used by each District Council entirely at
their own discretion without any city oversight.
The city allocation is under heavy pressure in
1988 because of cutbacks in the city's CDBG funds from the federal
government.
5. Offices
and Staffing
Each district
has its own office and staff, paid for out of its own operating
budget. The staff are selected directly by the District Council,
with less of a role by the city than in any of the other participation
systems we examined. Staff size ranges from one to over three, with
a typical staff being a full time person with a half-time assistant,
or two part-time people. The equivalent of at least 32 full-time
staff people work in the District Councils in 1988.
Staff salaries are more in line with citizen
group organizers ($12,000 to $22,000) than with city employees.
This has been the cause for serious complaint in recent years.
Attempts are being made to form a union of sorts among the staff
to lobby for higher salaries and higher total grants from the
city.
The city has one staff person, Jerry Jenkins,
as Citizen Participation Coordinator, who works officially in
the Planning and Economic Development Department but in practice
is largely independent.
6. Neighborhood
Activities
A great deal
of the activity of each Council seems to revolve around the large
number of requests for response that come from the city. Several
staff complained that these requests kept them too busy to do other
tasks pressing upon their district. Since there appears to be no
penalty for ignoring the requests, except perhaps reduced influence
with the city in certain areas, this problem seems to be within
the control of appropriate priority setting in District Council
itself.
While each Council does set very different priorities
for itself, all have a significant focus on land use issues. This
may include requests for zoning variances by developers, siting
for single-resident-occupancy housing sought by the city, street
and sewer reconstruction, environmental impact questions, or providing
adequate off-street parking. In all of these areas, major issues
have arisen and been resolved during the past few years with heavy
involvement of the District Councils.
Beyond some of the core land use issues, each
Council is involved in a wide range of other activities. These
projects include crime watches, recycling, hazardous waste and
pollution control, neighborhood clean-ups, drainage projects,
festivals, arts projects, community gardens and composting, traffic
control, park development, employment training, anti-pornography
campaigns, tree planting, and energy audits. Another major consequence
of the St. Paul's district orientation has been the construction
of large community centers in many of the District Council areas
during the last fifteen years (see description below).
C.
Citywide Citizen Structures
1. Long-Range
Capital Improvement Budget Committee (CIB)
One of the
few cases of major city-wide impact for the participation systems
we have seen is represented by the CIB Committee in St. Paul. This
committee is part of a Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget
Process which deals with all capital funds available to the city
during a two year period—including federal and state grants and
local bond revenues.
There are 18 members of the committee: seventeen
are nominated by the Districts and approved by the Mayor and City
Council, the eighteenth is appointed by the Mayor and approved
by Council. In addition, three task forces which do the first
stage of project evaluation (Community Facilities, Streets and
Utilities, Residential and Economic Development) are directly
appointed by the District Councils with one representative and
one alternate from each Council on each task force, no city approval
being required. Members of the overall CIB committee serve as
officers for each Task Force. Overall then, as many as 120 citizens
have a direct role in determining the capital budget for the city
of St. Paul.
Staff for the committee is provided by the Mayor's
Budget Office, supported by planning department personnel. Proposals
for the next biennial budget are submitted to the CIB by city
departments, the District Councils, and individual citizens and
are assigned to the appropriate task force. Each member of each
task force rates all proposals assigned to that task force using
an elaborate point system. The ratings of all task force members
are combined and each project is listed in order of its combined
score. The task force then goes over each project, in rank order,
and votes upon a recommended funding amount. During this evaluation
period, bus tours to the affected areas and meetings with the
district councils in the area are often arranged.
These recommendation of each Task Force go to
the full CIB committee where final changes can be made. They then
go to the Mayor and the City Council. The system is unusual in
the weight it gives to district representatives instead of city
staff. Even in the initial proposal submission, we are told that
the Districts often have the advantage, with city departments
sometimes seeking out District cosponsorship of proposals before
they are submitted. The mayor and city council apparently change
very little in the typical capital budget after the CIB recommendations
are made. We are told that 70-80% of the project finally funded
were initiated by the districts.
Some projects are "directly implemented" by the
District Council. This apparently means that the District Council
receives funds to do the job. Examples include a crime prevention
manual, a premises survey, and a neighborhood housing services
program.
D.
Outreach to Citizens
1. Council
Meetings and Meeting Notification
All District
Councils meet at least once a month, with most having separate executive
committee and issue committee meetings each month as well. Each
district uses a different means to reach residents of the district.
Mailing and literature drops are common, with at least one-third
of the districts mailing to all households on a quarterly basis
or more frequently. Almost all do door-to-door distribution of flyers
in several block areas affected by specific issues; for some districts
this is done on practically a weekly basis. The amount of outreach
in most districts compares favorably with many of the best community
groups we have seen throughout the country.
2. District
Newspapers
More than twelve
of the districts are served by neighborhood newspapers. Most are
published monthly, a few bimonthly or biweekly. These tend to be
run by independent citizen groups with lots of volunteer labor.
A few are run by District Council itself. These newspapers provide
good coverage for the district, tending to have a calendar and several
articles each month on issues related to the councils. Most are
distributed to every household in the district. These papers are
a source of great pride to the districts and those without active
papers usually place a high priority on finding a way to develop
one.
3. Block
Clubs
Several of
the districts have placed a high priority on the development of
block clubs within the district, usually as part of a crime watch
program. Several districts have received MnSHIP grants to fund block
club organizers, and a few claim to have a block captain on every
block in the district. (District 14 boasts 350 block clubs, and
districts 12 and 16 have organized 120 each). These block clubs
typically serve as communica-tion links to the residents, in addition
to their crime watch activities. Block club captains are often responsible
for distribution of issue flyers and meeting notices to all residents.
Maintenance is difficult: a periodic task for many district councils
is rejuvenation of the system of block clubs in their area.
E.
Major Program Components
1. Early
Notification System (ENS)
This system
was formally detailed in an eight-page ordinance enacted in August,
1979. Its stated purpose is "to provide TIMELY information to community
organizations regarding the City's various activities that are being
considered, proposed, planned or implemented. Further, the system
facilitates feedback to the City regarding the neighborhoods' response
and position."
The ENS system consists of a two-part mailing
list (by district and citywide) and a policy for using and maintaining
the list. Included on the list are the community organizers in
each district, two District Council members, two members from
each citizen organization in the city, and neighborhood newspapers.
The system requires that each ENS communication designate the
districts affected, and the contact person in the sending agency.
A log of all such mailings is required, with quarterly reporting
to the Citizen Participation Coordinator.
All major agencies must send meeting notices
and agendas to the ENS mailing list, and other committees and
commissions may be required to do so if a request is made by citizen
organizations or the Coordinator. One provision states that any
district may request that a controversial issue may be held over
until the next regularly scheduled meeting. Tavern and liquor
licenses require a 45 day notice through the ENS system, as do
"development ads, street vacations, special assessments, and any
public policies affecting neighborhoods". Quarterly notices of
public lands available for redevelopment are also part of the
ENS system. Detailed requirements are given for notices involving:
rezoning, "determination of similar use", conditional uses and
variances, "40-acre study", and building condemnations and demolitions.
In general, the ordinance adopts the tone and
substance of the participation system itself. For example, the
ordinance exhorts city officials to "Emphasize the positive aspects
of what City government is proposing. In every case possible,
do more than simply notify: explain reasons behind a project,
activity, or change." The Citizen Participation Coordinator is
the ENS manager, with responsibilities which extend to maintaining
the ENS mailing list, establishing a central log of mailings,
and training city staff on how to use the system.
2. District
Plans
In the late
seventies most districts worked on land use plans for their area.
Some are undergoing revision at this time. Staff from the Planning
and Economic Development Department have spent a great deal of time
assisting in the formation of these plans. But it is unclear how
effective these have been for managing growth and development in
the districts. We did not frequently hear them referred to by the
District Council leaders. A 1970s planning department report notes
that this planning process "brought lots of city staff out to neighborhood
meetings" and was designed to be tied into the capital budgeting
process.
3. City Planning
Staff support
A striking
feature of St. Paul is the degree to which the staff of the Planning
and Economic Development Department are neighborhood oriented. There
seems to be a very high degree of communication between PED staff
and the District Council staff. Most project plans and proposals,
except those for the downtown area, seem to be cleared through the
appropriate District Councils before staff take them to the Planning
Commission or the City Council. These include capital improvement
projects to be proposed to the Capital Improvement Budget Committee.
Several divisions of the planning department specifically target
neighborhoods as the basis for their operations.
4. Community
Centers
At least eight
of the Districts have major community centers of their own. These
facilities typically house up to a dozen nonprofit organizations,
and provide a focus for community meetings and recreational opportunities
in the district. Apparently much of the construction cost for these
buildings originally came out of the CDBG and CIB process. Since
their construction, however, maintenance and staffing for the buildings
has sometimes been a problem. The United Way covers a substantial
share of this cost, in two districts nearly 2/3 (or over $350,000
per year). A number of current issues for the District Councils
revolve around ways to find funds for continued maintenance and
staffing of these facilities.
5. Neighborhood
Partnership Program
A major development
program of the city, the Neighborhood Partnership Program (NPP),
is designed to fund small business ventures created by individual
entrepreneurs. Over the course of six years (1980-86), NPP has awarded
over $4 million to 42 projects, with a private funding match of
over $20 million. These have ranged from commercial and residential
area revitalization programs, to crime watch, human service, and
community art projects. District Councils have occasionally taken
advantage of these programs through development of applications
of their own.
6. Advisory
Boards
There are at
least 30 citizen advisory boards to government agencies in St. Paul.
Most receive appointments by the mayor or the City Council. Two
special types of advisory boards affecting neighborhoods are the
Mayor's Rehabilitation Advisory Committee and six Identified Treatment
Area (ITA) Committees. The ITA committees provided oversight for
several major development-oriented projects located in half a dozen
districts, in the 1979-1983 period.
7. Citizen
Monitoring and Evaluation Process
The St. Paul
Citizen Monitoring and Evaluation Process, which began in 1978,
is focused on the CDBG program, but includes all aspects of the
unified capital budget process. It includes quarterly and annual
status reports sent to "interested citizens", evaluation sessions
held annually by city staff at district council meetings in districts
which receive CDBG funds, and an annual, citywide Performance Hearing.
With the major impact of the CIB process, however, this monitoring
operation seems to have much less of role than in many other cities.
8. District
Council Leadership and Board Development
Several of
the boards have received grants, primarily form the from McKnight
Foundation's MnSHIP program, to help with board training. Ron Hick,
an outspoken advocate of neighborhood empowerment, and frequently
a critic of the District Council system, has been one of the trainers
in this program. The city itself seems to take a minimal role in
this process.
9. Neighborhood
Information
The Planning
and Economic Development Department is the source of most neighborhood
information in the city. It produced the book, St. Paul Today, and
the St. Paul Tomorrow study, both extensive sources of comparative
information by neighborhoods. The Citizen Participation Coordinator
also provides a great deal of information about the Districts, and
is the chief troubleshooter for the whole operation.
In addition, an Office of Information and Complaint
reports to the City Council. Their primary role is to direct citizens
to the right government agency to take care of their problem.
There are no direct ties of this office to the District Council
system, but the office does work with the community organizers
in the districts when appropriate questions or requests come in
from citizens.
But the primary contact point for citizens to
receive information about their neighborhood in St. Paul is their
local District Council. Almost all information that goes out from
the city which relates to the participation system in any way
includes the names, address, and phone number of all 17 District
Council offices and community organizers.
10. Other
Projects and Events:
- Altogether,
the McKnight Foundation's Neighborhood Self-Help Initiative
Program has more than $5 million available for Minneapolis and
St. Paul neighborhoods during the next ten years.
- The city
also has had a Neighborhood Business Revitalization Program
since 1982.
- Mayor
Latimer asked the districts to submit priorities for a Better
Neighborhood Program in 1986.
- The city
has a number of citizen-administrator task forces to work on
specific problems for a limited time. One recent task force,
on Community Residential Facilities, proposed changes in state
law and city ordinances to better distribute halfway houses
and the like throughout the city. Six of the ten non-Planning
Commission members of the task force were from district councils.
Other recent task forces have focused on dangerous traffic patterns
on Shepard Road, Snelling-University neighborhood design, College
Zoning, and parking in Victoria Crossing.
- The Riverfront
Initiative is a long range planning project for St. Paul's riverfront
areas. In addition to the usual planning operations, and attention-gathering
events such as arts projects and the Mississippi Peace Cruise,
a small grants program is offering funds for citizens and groups
to develop events on or about the riverfront.
F.
Overall Perspective of the City on Participation
St. Paul has
a history of independent neighborhood groups and a reputation among
its citizens for citizen participation. Born in an era of city vs.
citizen group confrontation, the theme of the participation system
lies in people working together to build better neighborhoods, and
in citizens having a direct role in the city's decisionmaking process.
Land use planning and control and communication with citizens are
seen as central roles for the district councils.
The participation structure has gradually grown
into one of the most coherent and comprehensive of any city we
have seen. While originally proclaiming that participation is
process, not structure—because the city and citizen groups could
not obtain agreement on the complete structure—clearly defined
structure has become a mainstay of the St. Paul system. From the
CIB system to the District Councils themselves, the structure
that has developed gives every appearance of being there to stay.
Almost all participation opportunities offered by the city are
funneled through the council system. Because councils were given
such a substantial role, other citizen groups came to feel that
there was an overwhelming advantage in becoming part of the council
system. And so they did. The result may be somewhat cooptive of
independent citizen action, but the variety that does exist is
striking: each district has its own style and mode of operation
which grew out of its original citizen group beginnings.
A substantial advantage to the St. Paul system
is that each neighborhood of 7,000 to 28,000 people is able to
have its own office and at least one full time staff person. The
grant from the city seems to come with very few strings attached.
The main "string" is the dependency the group develops on this
city money. On the other hand, since each neighborhood has staff,
each neighborhood has a substantial level of activity. Contrary
to every other city we looked at, no part of St. Paul suffers
from a complete lack of citizen organization.
Back
to Community Index
|
