Graffiti Removal from Sensitive Surfaces I thought you might be interested to know that as of October 16, 2000 the City of Minneapolis has spent $343,487.86 removing graffiti from sensitive surfaces. Of this amount, the we have spent $274,326.75 and private property owners have spent $75,758.84. Here is a breakdown of how much has been spent in neighborhoods in the 10th Ward. Lowry Hills East: City-$19,948.85, Private owners-$3,067.78, Total-$23,016.63 ECCO: City-$4,956.60, Private Owners-$842.57, Total-$5,799.17 CARAG: City-$6,880.86, Private Owners-$1,662.55, Total-$8543.41 Lyndale: City-$1524.02, Private Owners-$866.38, Total-$2,390.40 East Harriet: City-$761.00, Private Owners-$488.99, Total-$1,249.99 Kingfield: City-$874.44, Private Owners-153.26, Total-$1,027.70 > -----Original Message----- > From: List Manager [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 1:04 PM > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: GMCVA response to list discussions > > Forwarded on behalf of Karen Gruenberg of the Greater Mpls Convention and > Visitors Assn: > > I am writing to clarify the recent article published in the Star Tribune > regarding the presentation made to the City Council by the Greater > Minneapolis Convention & Visitors Association for a three year strategic > plan. The article reported incomplete information. > > The GMCVA presented a first time - three year plan to the City Council to > explain the strategic plan that will generate more visitors and > conventioneers to Minneapolis in the coming years, which in effect results > in more general fund revenue to the city. The purpose, of course, is to > create new sources of revenue (through taxes charged to visitors outside > the > Minnesota market) to create more additional financial sources for > Minneapolis improvements. Last year convention attendees, alone, spent > $450 million in the market creating $12.8 million in unencumbered general > fund revenue for the city. These are new dollars, dollars that would not > have been brought to this city if we did not book conventions for the > Minneapolis Convention Center. > > This is the first time a long-range plan has been presented. The Star > Tribune article mentioned only two items on the plan, one which is a > different initiative then the norm of how we have done business and the > second an idea. A small portion of the of $1.5 million dollars would be > set > aside to create a fund to help offset the cost for conventions that fill > slow periods for the hotel industry. The impact of securing these > conventions directly impacts the pockets of all Minneapolis businesses, > not > just hotels and will generate million of dollars in spending. > > If we had been able to help offset an operational cost of the Barbershop > Convention, an additional $13.7 million would have landed in Minneapolis > during historically slow time, business that would have filled > restaurants, > hotel rooms and generated retail traffic - all elements of our city that > makes it remain a prime city in which to work and live. > > Regarding the issue of parolees entering the hospitality work force. With > such a low unemployment rate in the Twin Cities the GMCVA announced that > it > will EVALUATE all options to assist in finding employees that will help us > serve the visitor. > > One such program suggested was to explore opportunities for using people > just entering the work force - parolees. What was missing in the article > were other options that we will be evaluating such as daycare options to > attract parents to work in the hospitality industry, the expansion of > training programs called Pathways and the Minneapolis Academy of Travel > and > Tourism or the exploration of union training programs. > > We built the convention center and now are expanding it for the purpose - > generating more traffic to Minneapolis resulting in more monies to the > marketplace including taxes brought in from outside Minnesota which allows > our city more dollars to pay for improvements in Minneapolis. The > additional dollars are placed in the General Fund which reduces pressure > on > property tax. The additional 1% we are seeking comes from the tax on > hotels > which goes directly into the General Fund, where ALL our funds come from > and > are dedicated revenues for the visitor industry. > > We need to tell people about our product, that is what the bulk of the > increase will be spent on. Unfortunately that was not mentioned in the > article. > > Thank you! > > Karen Gruenberg > Greater Mpls Convention and Visitors Association > > VISIT MINNEAPOLIS - THE COOLEST PLACE ON EARTH > > --forwarded by David Brauer, List manager, Mpls-issues
