The attribute information for this layer includes links to the respective neighborhood associations. If there are questions regrading this data layer, you can either contact the City of Minneapolis Neighborhood & Community Relations office, or Minneapolis GIS.

Race, Ethnicity, Gender - Demographic Indicators (From 2010 Census)Link: https://www2.minneapolismn.gov/census/2010/index.htm Household IncomeLinks:Poverty GuidelinesACS 2019 5 Year Estimates Household Income Disability - One or more people with disability per household vs no people with disabilityLink: ACS 2019 5 Year Estimates Disability by Household Sex and AgeLink: Sex by Age ACS 2019 5 Year Estimates

The MPCA's What's in My Neighborhood contains a wide variety of environmental information about your community. This includes potentially contaminated sites, permits, licenses, registrations, inspections, and closed enforcement activities.

Potentially contaminated sites: Since the early 1980s when major federal and state cleanup programs were created, the MPCA has been aggressively searching for and helping to clean up contaminated properties, from very small to large. This website contains a searchable inventory of those properties, as well as sites that have already been cleaned up and those currently being investigated or cleaned up.

Environmental permits and registrations: This Web application also contains a searchable inventory of businesses that have applied for and received different types of environmental permits and registrations from the MPCA.

Methods for creating site locations have different levels of precision. The most accurate locations use coordinates from GPS (global positioning system). Coordinates are also derived using the site's street address, zip code or public land survey information. Some MPCA sites are not mapped. These are generally activities that are mobile, like ships with ballast water permits.

This file represents a statewide compilation of the boundaries of all independent, common, and special school districts in the state of Minnesota. Minnesota school districts are asked to report any changes to their district boundaries annually. With the exception of consolidations, dissolutions, or other financial cooperation agreements, the reporting is not mandatory. As independent special purpose government organizations, school districts determine their own district & attendance boundaries, working with neighboring districts and county auditors to ensure proper taxation. The Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) plays no role in determining the actual boundaries.

Since 2008, district boundaries have also been reviewed against the school district coding provided in county parcels, where it exists. (Parcel data are supplied by counties to MnGeo, who in turn share that with MDE.) The results are overall increased accuracy, but also increased complexity. Conversations with county GIS coordinators and auditors are ongoing with respect to the complex situations reflected within county parcel data, and whether or not these are accurate representations of school district boundaries. Since school year 2021, many "islands" or other unusual situations have been eliminated or simplified as a result of those conversations.

This file is not intended to represent the "true" boundaries with respect to taxation, but as generalized boundaries focused on ensuring accurate representation in residential areas. As a result, starting in 2021, boundaries have been simplified by removing complex situations in non-residential areas, such as transportation Right-of-Way (ROW), publicly-owned land, tax exempt land, or water. This simplification work is expected to continue each year.

This data is now also available in CSV format. OBJECTID and Shape columns have been removed from that format.

Feature layer generated from running the Buffer Features solution. Input from Minneapolis Neighborhoods - HENNEPIN.GIS.BOUNDARY_MPLS_NEIGHBORHOODS were buffered by [0.01] Feet

This EnviroAtlas dataset shows the boundary of the Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN EnviroAtlas Community. It represents the outside edge of all the block groups included in the EnviroAtlas community. This dataset was produced by the US EPA to support research and online mapping activities related to EnviroAtlas. EnviroAtlas (https://www.epa.gov/enviroatlas) allows the user to interact with a web-based, easy-to-use, mapping application to view and analyze multiple ecosystem services for the contiguous United States. The dataset is available as downloadable data (https://edg.epa.gov/data/Public/ORD/EnviroAtlas) or as an EnviroAtlas map service. Additional descriptive information about each attribute in this dataset can be found in its associated EnviroAtlas Fact Sheet (https://www.epa.gov/enviroatlas/enviroatlas-fact-sheets).

This data set depicts watershed district and watershed management organization boundaries throughout the state of Minnesota.

Watershed districts are local units of government that work to solve and prevent water-related problems. The boundaries of the districts closely follow those of a natural watershed (an area in which all water drains to one point). Minnesota has 46 watershed districts, most of which are named after the primary lake or river within the watershed. Minnesota's watershed districts do not cover the entire state. They are created through a local petition process. Minnesota Statute Chapter 103D governs the formation and operation of watershed districts.

In 1982, the Minnesota Legislature approved the Metropolitan Area Surface Water Management Act (Minnesota Statutes 103B.201 to 255), which requires local units of government in the seven-county Metro Area to prepare and implement comprehensive surface water management plans through membership in a watershed management organization (WMO).A watershed management organization (WMO) is defined as a watershed district wholly within the seven-county, Twin Cities Metropolitan Area or a joint powers entity established wholly or partly in the metropolitan area by special law or agreement to perform some or all of the functions of a watershed district.

NOTES:
- MANY BOUNDARY DISCREPANCIES EXIST WITH THIS DATA SET. See Lineage in Section 2 of this metadata for more details.

This layer represents BWSR's most current information on watershed districts and WMOs in the State of MN. The dataset is NOT error free, and boundaries are frequently being updated and changed, so these should be used for reference only.

Water planning is either the responsibility of a watershed district or a water management org. If neither of these exist, then responsibility falls onto the county. For a more precise boundary determination, check with the appropriate local government unit.

This is a polygon dataset for county boundaries as well as for city, township and unorganized territory (CTU) boundaries in the Twin Cities 7-county metropolitan area. The linework for this dataset comes from individual counties and is assembled by the Metropolitan Council for the MetroGIS community. This is a MetroGIS Regionally Endorsed dataset https://metrogis.org/.

The County CTU Lookup Table here https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/us-mn-state-metc-bdry-counties-and-ctus-lookup
is also included in this dataset and contains various data related to cities, townships, unorganized territories (CTUs) and any divisions created by county boundaries splitting them is also included in the dataset.

This dataset is updated quarterly. This dataset is composed of three shape files and one dbf table.
- Counties.shp = county boundaries
- CTUs.shp = city, township and unorganized territory boundaries
- CountiesAndCTUs.shp = combined county and CTU boundaries
- CountyCTULookupTable.dbf = various data related to CTUs and any divisions created by county boundaries splitting them is also included in the dataset, described here: https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/us-mn-state-metc-bdry-counties-and-ctus-lookup

NOTES:

- On 3/17/2011 it was discovered that the CTU ID used for the City of Lake St. Croix Beach was incorrect. It was changed from 2394379 to 2395599 to match GNIS.

- On 3/17/2011 it was discovered that the CTU ID used for the City of Lilydale was incorrect. It was changed from 2394457 to 2395708 to match GNIS.

- On 11/9/2010 it was discovered that the CTU ID used for the City of Crystal was incorrect. It was changed from 2393541 to 2393683 to match GNIS.

- Effective April 2008, a change was made in GNIS to match the FIPS place codes to the "civil" feature for each city instead of the "populated place" feature. Both cities and townships are now "civil" features within GNIS. This means that the official GNIS unique ID for every city in Minnesota has changed.

- The five digit CTU codes in this dataset are identical to the Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) ''Place'' codes. They are also used by the Census Bureau and many other organizations and are proposed as a MN state data coding standard.

- Cities and townships have also been referred to as ''MCDs'' (a census term), however this term technically refers to the part of each city or township within a single county. Thus, a few cities in the metro area that are split by county boundaries are actually comprised of two different MCDs. This was part of the impetus for a proposed MN state data standard that uses the ''CTU'' terminology for clarity.

- The boundary line data for this dataset comes from each county.

- A variety of civil divisions of the land exist within the United States. In Minnesota, only three types exist - cities, townships and unorganized territories. All three of these exist within the Twin Cities seven county area. The only unorganized territory is Fort Snelling (a large portion of which is occupied by the MSP International Airport).

- Some cities are split between two counties. Only those parts of cities within the 7-county area are included.

- Prior to the 2000 census, the FIPS Place code for the City of Greenwood in Hennepin County was changed from 25928 to 25918. This dataset reflects that change.

Feature layer generated from running the Enrich layer solution. Minneapolis_Neighborhoods were enriched

Feature layer generated from running the Summarize Within solution. MinneapolisCoffeeShops_Address were summarized within Minneapolis_Neighborhoods

This layer defines the district boundaries for the Metropolitan Council members.

NOTES:
- The Metropolitan Council Districts were enacted on May 19, 2023, using plan MC2023-2.
- Council member names and spellings are taken directly from the Metropolitan Council web site and press releases.
- Hanover, New Prague, Northfield, and Rockford have been removed from the district boundaries.
- Cities of Minneapolis, St. Paul, Edina, Maplewood and Woodbury have populations split into more than one Council District.
- The actual descriptions of Metropolitan Council District boundaries were taken from Minnesota Statutes 2022, 473.123 http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/473/123.html
- The 2023 plan files, details and components passed by the 2023 MN Legislature can be found at https://www.gis.lcc.mn.gov/redist2020/MetCouncil/mc2023_2/.
- For the map and data available from the Metropolitan Council, district boundaries were adjusted to conform to existing geography employed by the Metropolitan Council.
- Adjustments for district boundaries that fall on city/township boundaries are updated on a quarterly basis with data from counties.
- Met Council Districts are defined every 10 years.

Feature layer generated from running the Summarize Within solution. MinneapolisCoffeeShops_Address were summarized within Minneapolis_Neighborhoods

This dataset delineates the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) districts as provided in Minnesota Rules, part 6106.0100, subp. 9.

The MRCCA is a land corridor along the Mississippi River in the seven-county metro area in which special land use regulations guide development activity. The corridor extends 72 miles along the Mississippi River from the cities of Ramsey and Dayton in the north to the City of Hastings and Ravenna Township in the south. It includes 54,000 acres of land along both sides of the river. The State of Minnesota created the corridor and land use regulations in 1976. Local governments administer the regulations through their local plans and zoning ordinances.

The MRCCA is home to a full range of residential neighborhoods and parks, as well as river-related commerce, industry, and transportation. Though the MRCCA has been extensively developed, many intact and remnant natural areas remain, including bluffs, islands, floodplains, wetlands, riparian zones, and native aquatic and terrestrial flora and fauna.

Rules regulating the MRCCA became effective January 4, 2017. The rules establish six districts, each with dimensional standards for river and bluff setbacks, and building height.

The Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation Supervisor District Maps for Dakota County, Minnesota. These maps provide public points of interest locations in the context of Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation Supervisor Districts. Note:Maps represent new districts approved in 2022.

This resouce contains two spatial datasets.

MPCA Environmental Justice Areas
MPCA Census Tribal Areas

These data represent areas of consideration for MPCA environmental justice efforts. Our goal is to highlight regions where community members are disproportionately impacted by environmental issues. The data fields in this layer are a mix of American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates and calculations performed by MPCA staff. Margins of error are not considered when determining potential areas of consideration.

As an attempt to highlight environmental justice areas of concern, we show census tracts where the estimated percentage of the population that identify as people of color is 40% or greater, the estimated percentage of economically disadvantaged community members is 35% or greater, as well as the estimated percentage of the population that has limited English proficiency is 40% or greater. We also include language information for each census tract and highlight the top three estimated languages spoken by those who report that they do not speak English well.

Income Threshold:
The federal government defines poverty thresholds on an annual basis (https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-poverty-thresholds.html). For MPCA use, we show an income threshold at 2 times the federal poverty threshold.

2022:
2 x $13,590 = $27,180 (individual)
2 x $27,750 = $55,500 (family of four)

This resource also contains Tribal Areas. These areas are derived by taking the maximum extent of two spatial datasets: the U.S. Census Bureau's 2022 TIGER/Line Shapefiles, Current American Indian/Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Areas for United States; and Minnesota Department of Transportation's Tribal Government in Minnesota.

Feature layer generated from running the Enrich layer solution. Minneapolis_Neighborhoods were enriched

In 1934, the Federal Housing Administration created a financial mortgage system that rated mortgage risks for properties based on various criteria but was centered on race and ethnicity. This rating system propagated racial segregation that in many ways persists today.

The FHA Underwriting Handbook incorporated color-coded real estate investment maps that classified neighborhoods based on assumptions about a community, primarily their racial and ethnic composition, and not on the financial ability of the residents to satisfy the obligations of a mortgage loan. These maps, created by the Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) were used to determine where mortgages could or could not be issued.

The neighborhoods were categoriezed into four types:
Type A : Best - newer or areas stil in demand
Type B : Still Desirable - areas expected to remain stable for many years
Type C : Definitely Declining - areas in transition
Type D : Hazardous - older areas considered risky

Neighborhoods shaded red were deemed too hazardous for federally-back loans. These "red-lined" neighborhoods were where most African American residents lived.

Many have argued tha the HOLC maps institutionalized discriminating lending practices which not only perpetuated racial segregation but also led to neighborhood disinvestment. Today, neighborhoods classified as Type C and Type D in 2934 make up the majority of neighborhoods in 2016 that are Areas of Concentrated Poverty where 50% or More are People of Color.

The Commissioner District Maps for Dakota County, Minnesota. These maps provide public points of interest locations in the context of Dakota County Commissioner Districts. Note:Maps represent new districts approved in 2022.

This layer defines the district boundaries for the Metropolitan Council members.

NOTES:
- The current Metropolitan Council Districts were enacted in 2013.
- Council member names and spellings are taken directly from the Metropolitan Council web site and press releases.
- Hanover, New Prague, Northfield, and Rockford have been removed from the district boundaries.
- Only the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul have significant populations split into more than one Council District. Chanhassen, Hastings and Spring Lake Park have small areas accross county boundaries in another Council district.
- The actual descriptions of Metropolitan Council District boundaries were taken from Minnesota Statutes 2012, 473.123 http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/473/123.html
- Adjustments for district boundaries that fall on city/township boundaries are updated on a quarterly basis with data from counties.
-The 2013 plan files, details and components passed by the 2013 MN Legislature can be found at http://www.gis.leg.mn/html/redistricting.html
-For the map and data available from the Metropolitan Council, district boundaries were adjusted to conform to existing geography employed by the Metropolitan Council.

About this itemThis story map explores the relationship between community gardening and gentrification in Minneapolis, MN. We use maps and qualitative data from interviews to highlight the complicated connections between gardening, neighborhood identity, community, culture, and gentrification. We hope that this story map is a resource for gardeners to think about how their community gardens can be a positive asset to their neighbors and conclude with best practices or strategies that gardeners might consider adopting to make their gardens more inclusive. Author/ContributorRebecca Walker and Kelsey PoljacikOrganizationMapping Unequal Environments, Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of MinnesotaOrg Websitearcg.is/1miei0