Public Review & Comment on the McKinsey ReportExecutive SummaryOn June 14, 2002, McKinsey & Company released its report Strengthening Community and Economic Development in the City of Minneapolis to Mayor R.T. Rybak and the City Council. As part of an overall review of the McKinsey report, the City of Minneapolis staff planned and coordinated a vigorous community education and engagement process.An Overview of the ProcessLaunched on June 14 and coinciding with McKinsey & Company’s presentation to the Mayor and Council, the community education and engagement process included:n300 summary reports mailed on June 14 to a variety of Minneapolis stakeholders;n21 rebroadcasts of the McKinsey presentation to the Mayor and City Council on City Cable 14n23 city-wide and stakeholder meetings and presentations conducted;n Creating and maintaining a Web presence on the report and recommendations, which included: the McKinsey report; interim reports released by McKinsey; a Frequently Asked Questions fact sheet; a summary report; logistical details on all public meetings and rebroadcasts; and additional supporting materials;n Collecting feedback through a variety of venues, including: 23 meetings and presentations; a Web feedback form; an email address; a mailing address; a telephone hotline for employees; and three comment boxes at City Hall and the Minneapolis Community Development Agency (MCDA).Feedback opportunities were announced and promoted heavily.n Email and mailing addresses for providing feedback were included in articles that appeared in the Star Tribune, Pioneer Press and other neighborhood and community publications.n Nearly 1,000 Frequently Asked Questions documents were distributed to the public, each containing information on how to provide feedback.n Feedback opportunities were announced at each of the city-wide and stakeholder meetings and presentations.n Each of four emails (sent weekly) to the nearly 600 potentially impacted city, MCDA and Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP) staff included details about how to provide feedback.It is worth noting that despite having a variety of options for how to submit feedback on the report, the majority of comments were collected at public and stakeholder meetings. Only 12 written responses were submitted through the three comment boxes located at City Hall and MCDA. Ten individuals submitted comments via email and two individuals submitted comments via the telephone line (each of these two individuals also submitted their feedback via email). Six written responses were sent to the mailing address provided.Consistent Themes EmergedA number of themes consistently emerge throughout this report, regardless of the audience. These are:1.The City needs to change how it conducts business. Specifically:n It needs to be easier to do business with the city.n The city needs to be more accountable.2.The City needs to set goals around housing and jobs, although some community memberssuggested additional goals.3.The City needs to improve its processes. Specifically:n The community expressed a very significant amount of concern that there needs to be mechanisms to ensure that neighborhood organizations are democratic and representative.n The community expressed a very significant amount of concern about how neighborhood organizations would be involved in the process.n Business, community, staff and government boards/commissions suggested additional performance measures, especially related to wanting to measure living wage jobs, cityunemployment rate, housing preservation and affordable housing.n The community and staff asked how to align city priorities and neighborhood priorities.n In general, business and the community want processes to be inclusive, fair, transparent, and coordinated across the organization.4.Staff, community members and government boards/commissions wanted to understand moreabout how they would fit in the new structure.n Staff wanted more information on how the boxes would relate to each other.n Government boards/commissions and the community pointed out that NRP had a mission that was broader than development, a structure that combined multiple jurisdictions, and was enabled by the legislature.n Some staff questioned the policy of combining of regulation and implementation into one department.n Some government boards/commissions, community representatives and staff believe that the goals can be achieved through increased coordination without organizational restructuring.The attached report is a summary of the many efforts made to collect public and staff comments on the McKinsey report and recommendations. It includes separate summaries of community comments, business comments, government board and commission comments, city staff comments, and input from comment boxes that were open to both staff and the general public. Also attached are support documents, including a list of meetings conducted and formal organizational responses submitted regarding the report. Individual letters, emails and comment forms are not included in this report, as they contain personal information, but the content of this input is referenced in the relevant summary section.A team, composed of: Sara Dietrich, Communications Department; Leslie Krueger, Management Analysis division; Laura Lambert, Management Analysis division; Lori Olson, Office of the City Coordinator; Vaman Pai, Communications Department; and Jeff Schneider, Management Analysis division; staffed individual meetings and recorded individuals’ comments. Laura Lambert produced this report. It is possible that additional comments may have been submitted directly to the Mayor and City Council without having been submitted to this team.COMMUNITY COMMENTSComments from North Regional Library community meeting, Zurah Shrine community meeting, Minneapolis Issues Forum posts, Center for Neighborhoods meeting and document, Minneapolis Council on Foundation meetings, MPHA Tenant Advisory Committee letter, and letters and e-mails from individuals.Overall Comments:•I support the plan. We need NRP in our neighborhood. (South Community Meeting)•I support the change. (Mpls. Issues)•I support a majority of the changes. (Mpls. Issues)•How will this change save money? (South Community Meeting)•I welcome a unified vision and goals. (Mpls. Issues)•YES, it is a good idea to establish priorities and goals. YES, the city should adopt new processes that include strategic planning, performance measurement andcustomer service improvement. (Mpls. Issues)•Who can we make accountable for Block E? (E-mail Comment)•It is unclear why a new structure is needed. The majority of issues are related to process and not structure. Most of the issues can be resolved by re-evaluating the process, not by changing the structure. (E-mail Comments)•Organizing resources to meet the goals is obviously necessary. (Mpls. Issues Person C)•I bet this plan will grow government. (Mpls. Issues Person A)•We elected RT and the rest to save NRP and neighborhood planning, not to comprehensively consolidate it downtown. (Mpls. Issues)•Results could lead to less local decision-making and control over funds. (Mpls.Issues)•What will be different for the people of Minneapolis? (Council on Foundations meeting)•Basically, I support much of what McKinsey report is trying to do, but I’m withholding judgement until there are more details. (Mpls. Issues)•Significant changes are needed, and it’s time we start hearing about how to make the needed changes. McKinsey deserves credit for their efforts. Now, let’s fine-tune their plan. (Mpls. Issues)•My first take is that the proposal looks a lot like St. Paul’s approach to development.•The whole point of the report is that we gotta do something to free developers from all the blankety-blank rules at City Hall. What happened with Block E is an argument to toughen the rules so no one can get around those rules again, not to make them faster and easier.(Mpls. Issues Person C)•I think McKinsey’s answer to structural reform may be too broad and wrong, but the Block E story’s process details indicate they are asking the right question. (Mpls.Issues)•The history, findings, and need for reorganization are endorsed. McKinsey writes this proposal should be accepted in its entirety. If so we reject the plan. TAC sees changes are inevitable. Changes must be made for the concerns of MPHA, NRP and other entities. (MPHA-TAC letter)•I think an initiative to change the way the city departments and agencies conduct business certainly is called for. I am especially encouraged by the realignment of departmental functions and relationships. (Letter Person D)•Well done report. The missing element is the regional economy and building inter-jurisdictional leadership. (Letter Person E)•We want a city that is easier to do business with. (South Community Meeting) Problem Definition:Housing•52 units—what happened to that money? (North Community Meeting)•The report of 52 units is a flaw in the report. Over 10,000 units were created or maintained. Policy makers chose to tear down housing. (North Community Meeting)• A net gain of 52 units…our knock down/rebuild approach isn’t working. (Mpls.Issues)•I’m sure we gained more than 52 units. (Mpls. Issues)•So neighborhood planning with half its funding spent on housing only gave us 52 units. (Mpls. Issues)•I’m confused about the 52 units—we did 100 in Whittier. (Mpls. Issues)•Is there a way to find out why units were demolished—there may be valid reasons.(Mpls. Issues)Jobs•Counterproductive to look at suburban vs. city jobs. (South Community Meeting)•I am not entirely in agreement that job creation is a primary goal of municipal government. Jobs in this economy are generated by private business. It is thebusiness of governments to provide the critical infrastructure to attract thosebusinesses. No other institution can attract investment and opportunity as can the University of Minnesota. (Letter Person D)Other•The city is being faulted for failure to achieve goals that nobody knew about. I don’t see a connection between that failure and the solutions recommended. (Mpls. Issues Person C)•Don’t see a discussion of poverty. (South Community Meeting)•THAT [spaghetti] graphic is as good as 1000 erroneous words. (Mpls. Issues Person C)•Lacking an outside set of clear and measurable goals, the MCDA devolved into doing what it did best: using its financing tools to make big projects more feasible.Production was measured in terms of more deals, not a set of concrete external goals.(Letter Person E)Recommendation 1: GoalsHousing•What are you going to do to have owner occupied housing so you don’t chase away the middle class? (South Community Meeting)•Fear that while the city is focusing on processes and that the window of opportunity for doing something about affordable housing will close. The change will require political will. How do you develop commitment to this? (Center for Neighborhoods meeting)•Augmenting the city’s efforts on housing and job creation is a worthy endeavor.(Mpls. Issues Person C)Jobs•Are you assuming a livable wage for job creation? (South Community Meeting)•Job creation should be THE city priority coupled with skills/training, get-up-and-get-there sort of program. (Mpls. Issues Person B)•Government does not do well at creating jobs. (South Community Meeting)•What kind of jobs and for whom? (Letter Person E)•The focus should be on maximizing the effective utilization of the human resources that exist within the city. Improve the match between resident’s skill sets and the availability of jobs. (Letter Person E)•Report on firms by SIC code and do shift share analysis. Understand Porter’s clusters. (Letter Person E)Additional Goals•The real goal is to maximize the effectiveness of people through education. (South Community Meeting)•Look at community wealth creation and neighborhood indicators. (South Community Meeting)•Childcare can consume 22 percent of a family budget and 24 percent for housing so childcare is important and inseparable. (South Community Meeting)•The central mission should be promoting sustainable development. (2 posts on Mpls.Issues)•To be “a neighborhood of neighborhoods” is not an unrealistic goal. (Mpls. Issues)•If community development is a focal point for the city, it runs the risk of leaving out key components of city business. If the plan includes safety, parks, and humandevelopment it runs the risk of being all things to all people. The change will require political will. How do you develop commitment to this? (Center for Neighborhoods meeting)•We need to do all 5 of the goals, not just housing and jobs. (South Community Meeting)•Is expanding the tax base part of the economic strategy? (Letter Person E)•Education, education, education. (Letter Person E)Other Goal Comments•At what price are you willing to achieve the city’s goals? [concern for local goals] (South Community Meeting)•How will we set our jobs and affordable housing target numbers? If we throw a number on the wall without an idea of what it implies, we could be doing ourselves a serious planning disservice. (Mpls. Issues)•It is imperative that it strive toward real goals and objectives that are measurable and that are measured and reported on a regular basis. (Letter Person E) Recommendation 2: ProcessRepresentative Neighborhood Organizations•Neighborhoods are not necessarily representative. (Center for Neighborhoods meeting)•There needs to be a mechanism that is representative of the residents and not the neighborhood association. (Mpls. Issues)•Various entities within neighborhoods sometimes prevent it from being democratic.(Mpls. Issues)•The neighborhood association does not equal the neighborhood. (Mpls. Issues)•I want tax dollar decision made by people that I elect, not a group of civil servant wannabes. (Mpls. Issues)•How do we get citizen participation groups to the point where they can be effective representatives of their neighborhood? (Center for Neighborhoods meeting)•Require NRP contracting groups to be truly representative including demographic make-up. (Mpls. Issues,letter)•People who attend endless meetings are not representative of all the people who don’t have the same stamina. (Mpls. Issues)•Clarify the criteria that will be used to authorize neighborhood planning groups in the City’s planning efforts. (Center for Neighborhoods document)•The decision process in neighborhoods is grossly flawed. Neighborhood organizations aren’t accountable, or representative and NRP and MCDA allows it.(same person in North Community Meeting and Mpls Issues)•Who decides which group represents the neighborhood? (North Community Meeting)•Concern about elevating neighborhood plans without making sure that NCP is inclusive of tenants and communities of color. (South Community Meeting)•While the NRP process is not perfect it does embody democracy, those that show up get to “vote” on what they want, and NRP makes a greater effort to get “All” people to the table than any other governmental mechanism that I know of. (Mpls. Issues)•[To make NRP representative of residents instead of inclusive of business and non-profits] get a bunch of neighborhood residents together, go and stack the NRP and neighborhood meetings, and TAKEOVER. Then change it to fit those residentsneeds and wishes. (Mpls. Issues)Neighborhood Organization Representation in the Process•Any mechanism that doesn’t allow for neighborhoods more of a say in city planning is doomed. (Mpls. Issues)•How are neighborhoods going to be lodged in the implementation structure? Will it depend on first come first served? Will it depend on the staff person? (Center for Neighborhoods meeting)•How do we pull neighborhood assets together in a more cohesive manner? (Center for Neighborhoods meeting)•It is unclear how neighborhood fit into the process. (Center for Neighborhoods meeting)•Neighborhoods have worked on their own priorities and not on city priorities. (Center for Neighborhoods meeting)•Recognize neighborhood organizations as official channels for citizen input into the City’s strategic planning process. (Center for Neighborhoods document)•Neighborhoods should weigh in early on city goals. How would the city gather and distill input on goals? (Center for Neighborhoods meeting)•Ensure that neighborhood organizations have access to technical assistance. Look outside City departments for neighborhood technical assistance expertise (that the city could contract with). (Center for Neighborhoods document)•Not all neighborhoods have the same level of sophistication, capacity and accountability. (Center for Neighborhoods meeting)•Better organized neighborhoods could manipulate the process. (Mpls. Issues)•Level the playing field so that it’s not just those neighborhoods/CDCs that know how to work the system that have strong funding. (Council on Foundations meeting)•Make sure that you don’t recreate an “us vs. them” with some neighborhoods banding together against other neighborhoods. (South Community Meeting)•Unlike a lot of neighborhood representatives, I do not see a conflict between neighborhood-level objectives and City objectives. (Letter Person D)•Will there be continuing NRP dollars? (South Community Meeting)•Ensure that neighborhood organizations are sufficiently funded to perform the duties they are asked to perform on behalf of the City. (Center for Neighborhoodsdocument)Other Process Comments•Where do elected officials fit into the process? (Center for Neighborhoods meeting)•Will this work so that I won’t have to call my council member to get issues resolved?(North Community Meeting)•What mechanisms will you have to get rid of people who aren’t providing service?(North Community Meeting)•My concern is that when you begin to measure things, you change them. (South Community Meeting)•Sustainability should be part of the city’s planning process now, regardless of what future reorganization takes place. (Mpls. Issues)•Eliminate onerous “red tape” in the NRP. (Center for Neighborhoods document)•There was no single place and time where the city officials with a hand in the Block E’s approvals met and compared notes. (Mpls. Issues)•Minneapolis desperately needs design and development guidelines. (Letter Person D)Recommendation 3: ReorganizationConcern about the boxes.•Affordable housing should have a more prominent role. (Mpls. Issues, letter)•There is an inherent conflict of interest in combining the regulatory functions and promotion functions into a “one-stop shop.” (Mpls. Issues Person C)•I believe that NRP should remain a separate entity. (E-mail Comment)•If Planning and MCDA are combined, don’t we automatically create a conflict of interest? (Mpls. Issues)•We want to keep our innovative affordable housing personnel for very low income persons in MPHA. TAC is all for increased communication. It is very difficult to handle all types of affordable housing in one department. We remember whenMCDA wasn’t doing a good job administering Public Housing and the MPHA was formed. (MPHA-TAC LETTER)City Manger•Is there any talk about creating the position of City Manager? (Mpls. Issues)•What is the City Coordinator—if not the City Manager? (Mpls. Issues)•You either have a city manager with a mayor as part of the council or you have a strong mayor. But you don’t have what we currently have plus a city manager. (Mpls.Issues Person A)•The CPED director appears to be a city manager. (MPHA-TAC LETTER)•Did you think about a city manager? (South Community Meeting)Concern about how boxes relate to each other.Neighborhood relation to the City•How does this change how neighborhoods work with the city? (North Community Meeting)•What is the role of neighborhood groups and citizen participation? (South Community Meeting)•How would citizen participation funding change? (South Community Meeting)•Will neighborhoods have influence and empowerment? (South Community Meeting)•How will it impact NRP steering committee? (North Community Meeting)•How will the community be involved? (Council on Foundations meeting)•Is the comprehensive plan an aggregate of neighborhood plans or will neighborhood plans be required to enforce the comprehensive plan? (Center for Neighborhoods meeting)•Can we still ensure that what the city chooses and what neighborhoods choose don’t overlap? If the city chooses not to do community gardens, it shouldn’t precludeneighborhoods form doing community gardens. (Center for Neighborhoods meeting)•Define the role of neighborhoods organizations as partners of the City. (Center for Neighborhoods document)•I do not unreasonably fear that subsuming NRP in CPED will necessarily diminish the NRP’s influence. NRP initiatives should be based on concerted master planning efforts that are coordinated with City-wide plans already in place. (Letter Person D)•Local leaders should function as the liaisons with City Hall offices, not City Hall denizens acting as liaisons with neighborhoods. (Letter Person D)•We need to balance local and citywide interests. (2 posts on Mpls. Issues)•Currently neighborhoods don’t merely influence how NRP money is spent—they control it within certain guidelines. Concern about retaining control. (Mpls. Issues)•The concept of a more centralized, rational planning and development procedures is a laudable one. I also believe that subsuming these functions essentially under thestewardship of Planning is a good idea. (Letter Person D)•Concern about how reorganization will affect neighborhood organizations and planning at the neighborhood level. (Mpls. Issues)Other box relationships•How does the Park Board play in? (North Community Meeting)•Why is there a dashed line around EZ? (North Community Meeting)•Like the breaking down of barriers. It gets frustrating when the Park Board won’t work with you. (South Community Meeting)•We need to plan with the School Board. (South Community Meeting)•Unclear how the city is going to control the development functions and capital budgets of the School Board and the Park Board. (Mpls. Issues Person C) FunctionsMulti-jurisdictional Function of NRP•I am concerned about losing the best of NRP because it brings multiple jurisdictions together. (Mpls. Issues)•Making NRP functions part of the city means reporting relationships to other jurisdictions is terminated. That seems contrary to the purpose of getting different governmental bodies to work together. (Mpls. Issues Person C)•NRP draws other jurisdictions together. (Council on Foundations meeting)•NRP is broader than community development. (Center for Neighborhoods meeting) NCP Policy Board Structure and Function•What is the structure and what is the selection process? (Center for Neighborhoods meeting)•What would happen to the current NRP Policy Board? (Center for Neighborhoods meeting)•Conduct an assessment of the NRP Policy Board to determine its effectiveness and use as a governance model. (Center for Neighborhoods document)•Consider having five neighborhood representatives on the NCP Policy Board. (Center for Neighborhoods document)•The NRP Policy board has 5 neighborhood representatives and McKinsey has called for a reduction to 3 neighborhood representatives on the NCP Policy Board. (Mpls.Issues)•Consider ways to increase investment in and accountability to the NCP Policy Board among jurisdictional members. (Center for Neighborhoods document)Other Functions•What are the plans for training the workforce for those newly created jobs? (South Community Meeting)•Will there be staff to train neighborhoods? (Center for Neighborhoods meeting)•Consider establishing five neighborhood regional planning groups. (Center for Neighborhoods document)•Why does the report say to “work directly with the Strategy and Partnership Development to increase acceptance of Section 8 vouchers.” All section 8 vouchers have been used this year. (MPHA-TAC Letter)Other Reorganization Comments•If I have only one liaison, what if that person isn’t responsive? (Currently able to shop around for a preferable staff opinion or service) (North Community Meeting)•How can you think that a new structure will change bad apples? This is a lifetime opportunity to shut down the MCDA. (Mpls. Issues Person A)•Restructuring contains the same ingredients and will still taste the same. (Mpls. Issues Person C)•The one stop shop is crucial, but it’s also necessary to change culture. The change will require political will. How do you develop commitment to this? (Center forNeighborhoods meeting)•One-stop applications is a great idea. (MPHA-TAC Letter)•What does the solution of “one-stop” shopping have to do with the problem of poor results on housing and job creation? (Mpls. Issues Person C)•City centralized planning for affordable housing is a must. (MPHA-TAC Letter)•TAC is unopposed to adding a HDD person to the Board of Commissioners. (MPHA-TAC Letter)•Any reorganization that will coordinate public works projects with local plans will goa long way to restoring to citizens a sense of ownership and participation in decisionsabout their environment. (Letter Person D)Implementation ProcessLegislative changes for implementation•The thing is a minefield in terms of implementation—union negotiations, legislative change. (Mpls. Issues Person A)•Going back to the legislature means you take your chances that NRP could be ended or fundamentally changed. (Mpls. Issues Person A)•It doesn’t conform to state law. (Mpls. Issues Person C)•I’m no lawyer, but the new board would be able to take over NRP without legislative changes as long as the board includes the core representation. (Mpls. Issues)•I don’t think it’s possible to be both a city department and an independent multi-government board at the same time. (Mpls. Issues Person C)•For the director of CPED, does the charter need to change? Do we need state approval? (MPHA-TAC Letter)Involve stakeholders in implementation•How will you inform people of the goals? (North Community Meeting)•What can we do now? (Council on Foundations meeting)•We could convene a work group to bridge the gap between the city and the philanthropic community. (Council on Foundations meeting)•Consult with neighborhood organizations about how to best structure the NUP geographically based teams. (Center for Neighborhoods document)Other implementation comments•Don’t hire a director until the city has a road map. (Mpls. Issues Person A)•Could CPED director be filled by a nationwide search? (MPHA-TAC Letter)•It would be quite a feat to have the new agency up and running within a year’s time.(Mpls. Issues Person B)•The change will require political will. How do you develop commitment to this?(Center for Neighborhoods meeting)•Ensure that the new staff roles at NUP are filled by people with the necessary skills.(Center for Neighborhoods document)•Running a government like a business isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Specifically, the report just doesn’t seem to contemplate the web of law in which all governments must operate. (Mpls. Issues Person C)•Charter the Office and its departments so that over time it would be assured of being guided by constitutional definitions of its powers rather than by current politics or personalities. (Letter Person D)Other Comments•What weight did McKinsey put on personality and culture? (North Community Meeting)•What weight did McKinsey give to race? (North Community Meeting)•Understanding the demographics of immigrant is critical. (Letter Person E)•Why was Civil Rights outside of the scope? (North Community Meeting)•How will you address the long term needs of the Latino and African American people? (South Community Meeting)•We are part of a regional economy and need coalitions with suburban communities.(South Community Meeting)。
![麦肯锡平安保险员工培训咨询报告[1]](https://imgs-1438308264.cos.ap-hongkong.myqcloud.com/9304221b26fff705cc170af5.webp)