90-398 �
p��
.0 R I G I N A L � � • ' Council File � - d
� , Green Sheet # L� '
RESOLUTION �
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINN A ��
� ,.
Presented By �..% � '� ��
f.'�eferred To /,��l,� �-��!' _ ����-FQu �` ' / � �✓ . L:JCommittee: Date �°�-� ��
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL
1990-1991 NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Saint Paul did approve on December 21,
1989, by Resolution 89-2210, guidelines for the, implementation of the City of
Saint Paul Neighborhood Revitalizatiori Program '(NRP)--an umbrella program
combining the Urban Revitalization'Action`Program (URAP) and the Community
Resource Program (CRP) ; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning 'Commission; the Saint Paul Capital
Improvement Budget Committee, the Human Services Advisory Group, affected
neighborhood District Councils, and City staff have participated in a review
process of NRP proposals submitted"in accordance with the adopted NRP
guidelines;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that upon the recommendation of the Mayor, with
the advice of the Saint Paul Planning Commission, the Council of the City of
Saint Paul hereby recommends the following activities and financing for
inclusion in the Saint Paul 1990-1991 Neighborhood Revitalization Program:
URAP Project Title URAP Budget
Community Stabilization Project (URAP component) $ 242,000
Selby Commons (URAP component) $1,779,000
Lower Bluff Revitalization: Phase II $2,229,000
Wabasha Development Initiative (URAP component) $1,278,000
The Sherburne Initiative (URAP component) $1,350,000
Total URAP Funds $6,878,000 and
. o � � � � NA � - . �� ���
CRP Project Title CRP Budget
Combating Crack in Saint Paul Neighborhoods $ 25,000
Model Cities Therapeutic Child Care $ 100 400
�
Wabasha Development Initiative (CRP component) $ 358,700
Health Care Services for Uninsured & Underinsured $ 145,000
Thomas-Dale Family Resource Center $ 175,000
East Area Resident Unity Project $ 47,000
Volunteer Coordinator $ 16,000
West 7th Living at Home Project $ 40,600
Selby Commons (CRP component) $ 20,000
WorkStart Outreach $ 200,400
Youth in Action $ 400,000
Community Stabilization Project (CRP component) $ 50,000
Southeast Asian Access Program $ 340 000
�
STAR: Services to Assisted Residents $ 168,300
Developing Roots in the Community $ 206,400
Low Income Elderly Outreach & Education $ 3,500
Dayton's Bluff Child Care Subsidy $ 36,800
Neighborhood Connection Youth Development $ 25,000
Sibley Manor Family and Community Enhancement $ 85,000
Home Maintenance and Improvement Education $ 25,000
Vacant Housing Program $ 50,000
Housing Outreach Pilot Program $ 40,000
CRP Program Evaluation $ 127,394
Total CRP Funds $2,685,494 and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that $2,685,494 in financing for the CRP program will
be provided from the 1990 State of Minnesota Community Revitalization Program;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that $6,878,000 in financing for the URAP program will
be provided as follows: $1,889,000 from the 1990 State of Minnesota Urban
Revitalization Action Program; $1,600,000 from the 1990 Community Development
Block Grant Program; $1,889,000 from the 1991 State of Minnesota Urban
Revitalization Action Program; $1,500,000 from the 1991 Community Development
Block Grant Program; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in accordance with the availability of financing
for the Urban Revitalization Action Program, half of the financing for each
proposal will be provided in June of 1990, and the remainder will be provided
in June of 1991; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Mayor James Scheibel, as Chief Executive Officer
of the City of Saint Paul, is hereby authorized and directed to submit the
Saint Paul 1990-1991 Neighborhood Revitalization Program and/or its URAP and
CRP components to the appropriate State of Minnesota agencies; and
.O � IGif� � �.. " . . �o-�g�
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor or his designated representative, the
Director of Planning and Economic Development, is further authorized to submit
to the State of Minnesota any assurances, certifications, technical changes or
additional information that may be required by the State during their review
of the Saint Paul Neighborhood Revitalization Program and/or its URAP and CRP
components; and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that upon notification of approval of the Saint Paul
Neighborhood Revitalization Program, the Council does hereby authorize the
proper City officials to execute the grant agreement(s) and contract(s)
between the State of Minnesota and the City of Saint Paul for the Neighborhood
Revitalization Program and/or its URAP and CRP components.
markv/11/nrp.RS
��$ Navs Absent Requested by Department of:
m n —eT—
T
�on� � Planning and Economic Development
��iacca e�e ��
e ma �
une �
s son T BY�
Adopted by Council: Date MIID 9 *,� 100� Form Approved by City Attorney
—�re �--ra-a�
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary BY:
� !,
By' �'"? �u�'�`-' �`�� ���`r2e�C�C't'"`�`-Z� Approved by Mayor for Submission to
Approved by Mayor: Date j�,�R ? 3 �(��,� Council
� '��' �-��.���
By: �i/?�,'•.,�./�-�'/ By'
lU�i.I�HED �Y�A C v � 19 90
, � ��a-���
' DEPAqTM[NT/OFFlCE/COUNCIL DATE INITIATED
Plannin and Economic oevelo ment 2/26/90 GREEN SHEET NO. $4��
CONTACT PERSON Q PMONE INITIAU DATE I DATE
�DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR �CITV COUNqL
Mark Vander Schaaf 228-3373 ��„ m�An�+� �CITS'CLERK
MUST BE ON OOUNqI AQENDA BY(DAT� ROUTINO �BUOOET DIRECTOR �FIN.d MQT.SERVICES DIR.
�MAYOR(OR ASSISTMIT) �
TOTAL#►OF SIONATURE PAGES 2 (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR 81GNATURE) '
AC710N REWE8TED:
Adopt resolution approving the City of Saint Paul 1990-1991 Neighborhood Revitalization
Program.
r�co��,on�s:�vw�•cN«�(�1 couNdL AEPOR'r
A Puwron�w oa���ssioN �_GVIL SERVI��MMI8310N ANALYBT PNONE NO.
CIB COMMITTEE _
A 8TAFF _ OOMAAENTS:
—a8TRICT OOURT _
auPao�rs w��a+o�,�a�o�c�rn�? Hou s i ng,
iran�nNO�e�M.iesue.oProRruNmr�wno.w�,.c,wns�.wi+.r..wny�:
The City Council adopted guidelines on December 21, 1989 (Resolution 89-2210) for the
implementation of the Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP). The NRP combines two
State-funded proqrams -- the Urban Revitalization Action Program (URAP) for physical
redevelopment and the Community Resource Program (CRP) for human services and housinq.
�v�wr�oES��:
Implementation of 5 physical development projects, 18 human services projects, and 4
housing projects in areas of Saint Paul which have the greatest need for such projects.
DISADVANTMiE3 IF APPROVED:
�Jone.
RECEIVED
II�i141�,90 �
ClTY CLERK
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED:
Loss of major opportunity for neighborhood revitalization. Forfeiture of $3,778,000
in State URAP funds. Forfeiture of $2,685,494 in State CRP funds.
�uur�c�t rcesearcn t;�r�ter
. MAR 0 51990
TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRAN�CTION = C08T/REVENUE�TED(qRC�E WiE) AYE8 NO
FUND�lO S0IJRCE ACTMTY NUMSER
FlNANGILL INFORIMTION:(EXPLAIt�
dw
.. y
NOTE: COMPLETE DIRECTIONS ARE INCLUDED IN THE OREEN 8HEET INSTRUGTIONAL
MANUAL AVAILABLE IN THE PURCHASINCi OFFICE(PHONE NO.298-4225).
ROUTINf3 ORDER:
Below are prsfsrred routings for the five most frequent typea of documents:
CONTRACTS (assum�authorized OOUNCIL RESOLUTION (Amend, Bdgts./
bud�et exists) Acospt.(irants)
1. Outside Agency 1. DepeRment arector
2. Initiatirp Dep�rtment 2. BudpM Diroctor
3. Ctty Attorney 3. City Atta'ney ,
4. Mayor 4. Mayod/lseistent
5. Flnence d�Mpmt Svca. Dirsctor 5. City Council
6. Ffrtance Accounting 8. Chisf AacountaM, Fln&Mgmt Svca.
ADMINI3TRATIVE ORDER R udget) COUNGL RESOLUTION (��)N��
1. Activity Manayer 1. Inftfatinq DspertmeM Director
2. Depertmsnt AccountaM 2. City AttorMy
3. Dsp�RmsM Director 3. MayoNAs�tant
4. 8udpst DI►ector 4. dty CbUncii
5. Gty(�erk
8. (�isf�4COOUntant. Fin 8 Mgmt 3vcs.
ADMINIST'FIATIVE ORDER3 (all othsrs) -
1. inRiating DepeRmsM . - _
2. City/lttorns�t : , .: �-
3. Mayor/Ass�ant
4. Cily qerk
TOTAI NUMBER OF SKiNATURE PAOES
Indicate the�of pagss on which si�atures aro roquired and e�ndi
each of theee ps�ss.
ACTION REGIUE3TED
D�cribe what ths proj�ct/roque�t seMcs�accompUsh[n Nther chronologi-
c�l order or order ot ImpoRance,whichever is moat aqmopriate for ths
, lesue. Do not writa canpl�te ssMencss. Be�in e�h item in your Ifst with
a verb.
RECOIiAMENDATIONS,
Complets if the iasue in question has been prsssrMed bsfore any body,public
or p�ivate.
SUPPORTS WHICH t:OUtdt�l OBJECTIVE4
Indicate which Council objective(s)Y��Prol�►�l��PP�bY����W
the key word(s);EFIQM1J4IMQ,.RECREATION, NEIOHBORHOODS. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
BUDCiET, SEW�R�$EPARATION).(SEE CO�APLETE U3T IN INSTRUCTIONAL AAANUAL.)
OOUNCIL C�MMI�'"FEE/RB8�IRCH REPORT-OPTIONAL AS REOUESTED 8Y COUNCIL
INITIATINC3 PROBLEM,IS$UE,OPPORTl1NITY
Explain the sftuetiori'o►condit�ns thst cxee�ted a need for your project
or request.
ADVANTA(�ES IF APPROVED
Indicate whether this is aimpy an ennwl bud�et procedure requind by law/ '
chartsr or wheth�r thero aro apeciflc wa in which the(Yty oi SaIM Paut
and fts citizens will bsnsflt from this pro�sc.M/action.
DISADVANTA(iES IF APPROVED
What neqative efMcta or major chen�ss to existing or past procsssea might
this Pro)ecUre9wst Produw if it is poas�d(e.g.,traiHc dslays, nofee,
tax increases or aa�ssrt�snb)?To Whom?When? For how bng?
• DISADVANTAGE3 IF NOT APPROVED
What will be ths ne�►tNs oonaequences H ths promised ection fa not
approved?InabiNty to deliver tervice?ConUnued high trafNc, nofee,
accident rate?Losa of rsvenus?
FlNANCIAL IMPACT
Althaigh you muat teilor the infortnation you provida hsre to the issue�rou
are addressinp, In 9ensral you must ansrrsr two queadons: How much is it
going to cost?Who is�Oinp to PaY�
��'o -���'
+,�t**�.� GITY OF �AINT PAUL
e '; OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
: {�'i :
.� ,�o
+...
347 CITY HALL
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102
JAMESSCFIEIBEL (612) 298-4323
MAYOR
March 1, 1990
Council President William Wilson and
Members of the Saint Paul City Council
716 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Dear Council President Wilson and Members:
Sub�ect: Neighborhood Revitalization Action Program
I am indeed pleased to transmit my funding recommendations for the
City's Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP) . This program which
combines the Urban Revitalization Action Program (URAP) funding with the
new Community Resources Program (CRP) monies from the State Legislature
is an exciting opportunity to both rehabilitate targeted areas of
greatest need and help the people who live in those neighborhoods.
There are many, many needs and too few dollars have been available to
help with the problems.
The Neighborhood Sub-Committee of the Planning Commission and a special
task force of representatives from the targeted neighborhoods worked
many hours to prepare guidelines for this program. The melding of a
human service initiative with "bricks and mortar" revitalization created
a complex process that required a variety of input. The Capital
Improvement Budget Committee reviewed the URAP proposals. The Planning
Commission appointed a Human Services Advisory Group made up of people
used to evaluating human service pro�ects to review the applications for
CRP money. Both groups forwarded their recommendations to the Planning
Commission.
I have received the funding recommendations from the Planning Commission
and have reviewed them. I am forwarding them to you with the
recommendation that the projects be funded in the order and at the level
the Commission has indicated. The Planning Commission is recommending
that all of the funds for the bienniwn be allocated this year.
The NRP recommendations total $9,563,494. The 1989 legislation
allocated $2,685,494 on a one-year basis for CRP funding. No financial
match is required from the city. We have $6,878,000 to allocate for
UR.AP projects including the required matching funds. Half the money is
available in each biennium year. The 1990 Capital Improvement Budget
has allocated $1,600,000 in Community Development Block Grant Year XVI
funds for the URAP program as the first year match. The tentative 1991
s�4e
Ptiated on Recycled Psper
(��o-�Q�
Council President William Wilson and
Members of the City Council
Page 2
March 1, 1990
Capital Improvement Budget recommends $1,500,000 CDBG Year XVII money as
the second year matching source. The remaining raatch required by the
State will come from our existing programs.
The NRP program could not be successful without the continuing
dedication and effort of many individuals and organizations. The
Planning Commission, Capital Improvement Budget Committee, District
Councils, Human Service Advisory Group, neighborhood non-profit
organizations and city staff have played significant roles in the
establishment of Saint Paul's NRP program. We are indeed fortunate and
indebted to all those who have taken a pro-active role in this process.
All of these citizens have spent many hours to insure a fair and open
process for allocation of funds. I know that we, as elected officials,
have a respect for this process and will insure that it goes forward.
My financing recommendations for the NRP Program are attached. The
report from the Planning Commission to me is also included for your
information. PED staff will deliver to your office a complete set of
all the proposals submitted.
The quality of the 45 proposals is a tribute to all of the persons and
organizations who have participated. Many new partnerships between
agencies and neighborhood groups have formed during this process. The
availability of limited resources has made the review and recommendation
process extremely difficult. The funding recommendations have indicated
the importance of targeting available resources both to represent the
comprehensive revitalization efforts envisioned in the State URAP
legislation and to meet the four ob�ectives outlined in the CRP
legislation.
Given the funding crisis at the State level, I am sure you will
recognize the urgency of our being able to forward Saint Paul's URAP and
CRP funding proposals to the respective state agencies as soon as
possible.
This new initiative to address human service needs along with urban
rehabilitation enhances the opportunity for the building of community
that I am emphasizing in my administration. I look forward to
discussing my recommendations with you.
Very truly yours,
�����.�
James Scheibel
Mayor
Attachments (2)
��y��9�
I�IGMlORNO� REVITAIiZAT10M PROGRAM: 1990-1991
Vtanninp Cawission f�sdtr� r�caw�erd�tions for
f6,878,000 in av�ilabl• tNtAP funds;
f2,bd5,�9� in av�ilabl• CRP f�nds.
��fudir� � fundirp �(
►rioritp �Vroj�ct M�wb�� Proj�ct Na�e ��R�qu�at�d � R�eawMnd�d ��
msa�.saseua..s :aaas:�ssssa:assa::::sss:ssam:::::::::s::::ssrass:s: I)
URAP PRO.IECts �( ( ��
1 � Td•31-N' Cawtnity Stabilization Project (� f2SS,000 � =2�►2.000 ��
t � a-io-�r s�ia► co..«,� I I u.000.000 I s�.rr�.000 II
3 � �►-03-U lower etuff Revitalizatian: Phase il (� t2.Si9.200 � f2.229.000 ��
� � 3-45-11• Y�sha Developaront Initiative (� f1,717,000 ( :1.273.000 �)
S � 7-14-N The Sherburne lnitistive (� f2,6a1,900 � =1,350,000 �)
-----------------------------•---------•-----------------------------•--------------....-----••-----•-._....._.-�)
URAP TOTAL s6,a78,000 ��
■sssssssssssasaassxsasss:ssnxzssazs=ssszax=za=csxz==cz=es=sssssszsxs=ss=axsssasszsszss as"
REGUTAR CRP PROJECTS (I I II
1 � 7a/(13)-O�►-C Ca�betin� Crack in St. Peul Neighborhoods �) f25.000 � f25.000 ��
2 � 78-25•C Model Cities Therspeutic Child Care �� t111,600 � f100,L00 (�
3 � 3-f5-N• Yab�sha Developnent Initiative �� fL22,000 � f3S8,700 ��
4 � 66-17-C Ne�lth Car� Services: Uninsured, Underinsured �� t1S2,600 ( t1iS,000 ��
S � 678-22•C Tha�ss-Dale FMily Resaurce Center (� f175,000 � t175,000 (�-
6 � 2-16-C Eest A�ea Resident Unity Project (� l55,300 � f4T,000 �� -
7 � 6-07-C Volunteer Coordinator �� t16,000 � s16,000 (�
8 � 9-11-C Yest �th Livirg at Hame Project �� fi0.600 � Si0.600 ��
9 � 8-20-N* Selby Cammons ��, f20.000 � f20.000 ��
10 � T8-39-C YorkStart Outreach �� f222.700 � t200.�►00 ��
» � 3-�i-c r«nn �� �ti«, I I �.� I ��.� II
�z � �s-3�-N' Ca�anity Stsbilizstion Project II �.� I �.� il
13 ( 66-36-C Southeast Asian Access Project �� f400,000 � f3i0,000 ��
14 � 2367/17-60-C Services to Assisted Residents (STAR) (� f19d,000 � t168,300 II
15 � 45-30•C Developing Roots in the Cam�mity �) f2�i2,a00 � f206,i00 (�
16 � 15-OS-C la+ Incane Elderly Outreach d Education �� f3,500 � t3,500 ��
17 � 4-62-C Dayton's Bluff Child Care Subsidy �� t36,app � t36.S00 �)
18 � (13)-02-C Nei�borhood Conxction Touth Devela�ent Program �� f25,000 � t25,000 ��
- - - - - - - - - • - - - • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ��
CRP LOH-INCOME NOUSING PROJECTS �� ( II
1 � 15-43-C Sibtey Manor Family and Camanity Enhanceaient �� 5125.000 � 585.000 (� .
2 � 55-32-C Naee Maintenance and lmprovement Education �� f25.000 � i�.000 ��
3 � 55-23•N Yacant Housing Program �� t50,000 � f50,000 �)
4 � 4521-2T-C Nausing Outreach Pitot Program �) f110,000 � f40,000 ��
- • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • - - - - - - ��
CRP PROGRAM EVALUATION (mandated in guidelines) �� � ��
�� su�,� � su�,s� ��
- - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • - - - - - • - • - - - - - - - - - • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ��
CRP TOTAL u.�.�►� (I
sssssasszsssxasxss=sa=assmz-_=ss=saa�xrxsse====—=e==:e-==_=s==e=a==vss==�=era==xa===szssssszassss�sz=ssssszaa
NOTES: * = Ftndinp reeamrcnded for both ca�onents of joint CRP/URAP project.
Projects are listed in rank order within cach categoryr; projects not reca�mended for f�sdinp are not listed.
r
. G,��0-°�9
. �,., ,, CITY OF SAINT PAUL
3•'` % PLANNING COMMISSION
.
�. . .
. , �
�: '_� :,�
%�� �° �R1eS�1(IS�ER150fi,�if
,��� - 2 i WPSt Fourth SveeL Saint Paul,Minnesob SS 102
612-22&3270
MAYOR
DATE: February 26, 1990
T0: Mayor James Scheibel
City Councilmembers
FROM: James Christenson, Chair v
Saint Paul Planning Commi s on
RE: Recommendations for Neighborhood Revitalization Program Funding
Zntroduction
This memo reports on the Planning Commission recommendations for NRP funding.
The sections of the memo are as follows:
° Proposal Evaluation Process: p. 1
° URAP Projects--Funding Recommended: p. 3
° URAP Projects--Funding Not Recommended: p. S
° CRP Projects (Regular)--Funding Recommended: p. 6
° CRP Projects (Low Income Housing)--Funding Recommended: p. 11
° CRP Projects--Funding Not Recommended: p. 13
° Program Comments and Recommendations: p. 15
Proposal Evaluation Process
Saint Paul's Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP) combines two component
programs--the Urban Revitalization Action Pro.gram (URAP) for physical
development, and the Community Resource Program (CRP) for human service
projects. The adopted NRP guidelines invite neighborhood/agency partnerships
to submit proposals for funding, and outline a process for evaluating those
proposals. The following is a summary of proposals received:
URAP Proposals:
Proposals Received: 9 (including 5 joint i1RAP/CRP proposals)
Funding Requested: $13,783,100
Funding Available: $ 6,878,000
CRP Proposals:
Proposals Received: 41 (including 5 joint URAP/CRP proposals)
Funding Requested: $ 6,203,294
Funding Available: $ 2,685,494
` �y�=��' �
, Mayor Scheibel & City Councilmembers
February 26, 1990
Page 1�ao
The NRP guidelines direct the Planning Commission to evaluate all proposals and
recommend a city revitalization program to the Mayor and City Council. The
guidelines further direct that the Planning Commission's evaluation consider
the recommendations of all applicants, district councils, the CIB Committee, a
special Human Services Advisory Group, and the Department of Planning and
Economic Development.
This report contains the Planning Commission's program recommendations. The
recommendations are the end product of an evaluation process involving the
parties mentioned in the guidelines. Specifically, the Planning Commission
received the following input:
° Eligibility Screening: PED staff analyzed all proposals to ensure
conformance with the eligibility criteria outlined in the program
guidelines. The criteria involve the eligibility of proposed project areas,
applicants, and activities (including budget line items) . This screening
also considered the consistency of proposals with the City's Comprehensive
Plan and with District Plans and adopted small area plans.
° District Council Evaluation: Each District Council was invited to evaluate
proposals which could affect its citizen participation district. District
Councils were asked to rate all proposals according to whether the proposals
met district goals strongly, moderately, somewhat, or not at all. Also,
District councils were asked to rank each geographically-focused proposal
affecting their district (1 = highest priority, 2 = second highest priority,
etc.) . Finally, District Councils were invited to submit comments on any
proposal.
° Evaluation of Proposals for IIRAP Funding: A two-stage process was used to
evaluate all proposals for URAP funding. PED staff reviewed URAP proposals
and provided a preliminary report on its recommended priorities to the CIB
Committee. The CIB Committee ranked URAP proposals and reported its
recommendations to the Planning Commission. A final version of the PED
report was also provided to the Planning Commission.
° Evaluation of Proposals for CRP Funding: An analogous two-stage process was
used to evaluate all proposals for CRP funding. PED staff contracted with a
panel of human services professionals to study and rate all CRP proposals.
The findings of the panel were then reported to a special Human Services
Advisory Group whose members were appointed by the Planning Commission. The
Human Services Advisory Group ranked CRP proposals and reported its
recommendations to the Planning Commission, along with the comments of the
professional rating panel.
° Applicant Presentations: Members of the Planning Commission's NRP
Subcommittee met from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m, on Saturday, January 27 and from 4
p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Tuesday, January 30 to hear presentations and discuss
proposals with applicants.
� �-y�-���
- Mayor Scheibel & City Councilmembers
February 26, 1990
Page Three
The following recommendations are based on the above inputs. The Planning
Commission recommends that some pro�ects be funded at a level less than that requested
program guidelines) . Recommended budget cuts are based on several variables,
including discussions with applicants, comments by evaluators that some budgets
could reasonably be reduced, and the belief of the Planning Commission that
some project components are of a higher priority than others. Smaller cuts are
typically recommended for less expensive projects and for higher-priority
projects. In all cases, it is recommended that project implementers determine
for themselves how best to adjust for reductions in their proposed budgets.
IIRAP Projects--Funding Recommended
The Planning Commission recommends funding the following URAP proposals (listed
in order of priority) . The Planning Commission believes that all five projects
address important needs in ways that are basically appropriate. In order to
ensure that all five projects are funded significantly, budget reductions are
advised for each project. The smallest cuts are recommended for the projects
with the highest priority.
1. Community Stabilization Pro�ect--URAP Component (Log Number 78-31-N)
URAP Funding Requested: $ 255,000
URAP Funding Reco�ended: $ 242,000
The URAP component of this project addresses housing deterioration in
Districts 7 and 8. A key element of the project involves the targeting
of selected deteriorating rental housing structures which will be
rehabilitated under the care of a court appointed property administrator.
The primary partners in the project are the Saint Paul Tenants Union, thz
Summit University Planning Council, the District Seven Community Council
and the Saint Paul Urban League. This is an innovative and potentially
cost-effective approach to a significant problem which deserves to be
funded as a pilot project. The Planning Commission also recommends
funding the companion CRP component of the proposal (see page 10) .
CIB Committee Ranking: 1 (of 6 ranked)
2. Selby Commons--URAP Component (Log Number 8-20-N)
URAP Funding Requested: $2,000,000
URAP Funding Recommended: $1,779,000
The focus of this project is on Selby Avenue between Grotto and
Chatsworth. The proposal provides for housing, commercial redevelopment
and parking lots in this area. Partners in the project are the Selby
Area Community Development Corporation (a new organization) , the Inner
City Youth League, and the Twin Cities Housing Development Corporation.
This projects merits funding because it addresses creatively (and in
_ ���o ��
� Mayor Scheibel & City Councilmembers
February 26, 1990
Page Four
harmony which the Selby Avenue Land Use Plan) the last significant
segment of Selby Avenue which is in need of redevelopment. A successful
pro,ject in this area would help to complete the turnaround of this
important commercial street. An additional plus for this project is the
capacity-building which would occur for the new Community Development
Corporation in the partnership. The Planning Commission also recommends
funding the companion CRP component of the proposal (see page 9) .
CIB Committee Ranking; 2 (of 6 ranked)
3. Lower Bluff Revitalization: Phase II (Log Number 4-03-II)
URAP Funding Requested: $2,549,200
URAP Funding Recommended: $2,229,000
This is a continuation of a previously-funded URAP project in the East
Third Street gateway area. The proposal involves the elimination of
blight and under-utilized commercial space, land assembly, off-street
parking and streetscape improvements. The specific activities in the
proposal are recommended in a small area plan which is currently being
considered by the Planning Commission. Dayton's Bluff Neighborliood
Housing Services would implement the project. This project should be
funded to continue the orderly phasing of redevelopment in an area of
identified need.
CIB Co�ittee Ranking: 3 (of 6 ranked)
4. Wabasha Development Initiative--IIRAP Component (Log Number 3-45-N)
URAP Funding Requested: $1,717,000
URAP Funding Recommended: $1,278,000
The URAP component of this project involves new housing, blight removal,
and residential and commercial rehabilitation at a key West Side
transportation node. Project implementers are the West Side Neighborhood
Housing Service and a new organization, the Neighborhood Development
Alliance. A plus for this° project is the demonstrated interest of a
developer in building housing and providing commercial rehabilitation.
The Planning Commission also recommends funding of the companion CRP
component of this project (see page 7) .
CIB Committee Ranking: 4 (of 6 ranked)
5. The Sherburne Initiative--URAP Component (Log Number 7-14-N)
URAP Funding Requested: $2,681,900
URAP Funding Recommended: $1,350,000
. �ya'���
• Mayor Scheibel � City Councilmembers
February 26, 1990
Page Five
The URAP component of this project continues a previously-funded small
URAP project which mainly provided rehabilitation loans for housing in
the Kent-Sherburne area. The present proposal continues the
rehabilitation loan program, but also requests funding for the removal of
blighted housing and the development of new housing on the north side of
Sherburne Avenue east of Dale Street. The District 7 Planning Council is
the applicant but much of the implementation will be carried out by the
Department of Planning and Economic Development.
The URAP component of this project merits funding because it involves
appropriate and timely activity in a target area of critical need.
However, a significant budget reduction is recommended for three reasons.
First, the CIB Committee and the Planning Commission regard this project
as a lower priority than the other four proposals recommended for URAP
funding; higher priorities merit higher levels of funding. Second, it
appears that the proposed site preparation (at two separate locations)
could reasonably be phased over a longer period of time with a reduced
budget for the 1990-1991 period. Finally, the recommended budget is
judged to be more appropriate in light of the budget of the previous URAP
pro�ect in the area ($320,000) . The Planning Commission recommends
against funding the companion CRP component of this project (see page 14)
but believes that the URAP activity can succeed without the CRP activity.
CIB Committee Ranking: 5 (of 6 ranked)
URAP Projects--Funding Not Recommended
The CIB Committee recommended considering the following proposal for funding,
if money were available. No money remained to be applied to this project:
° North End Industrial Development (Log Number 6-44-U)
URAP Funding Requested: $1,000,000
CIB Committee Ranking: 6 (of 6 ranked)
Both the CIB Committee and the Planning Commission recommend against using UR.AP
funds for the following proposal. The Planning Commission recommends that the
CRP funding requested for this project be approved, however, (see page 12) .
° Vacant Housing Program--URAP Component (Log Number 55-23-N)
URAP Fund�ng Requested: $ 100,000
CIB Committee Ranking: Unranked
� � �o.3Q�
� Mayor Scheibel � City Councilmembers
February 26, 1990
Page Six '
I
I
Both the CIB Committee and the Planning Commission recommend against funding
the following proposals. (These proposals are unranked and therefore are
listed in order of log number--middle number is identifying number for
proposal. )
° Walnut Street Flats (Log Number 9-19-U)
URAP Funding Requested: $3,140,000
° East Seventh Street Economic Revitalization (Log Number 4-29-U)
URAP Funding Requested: $ 340,000
[Note: The applicant has withdrawn this proposal from consideration for
URAP funding. ]
CRP Projects (Regular) : Funding Recommended
Most CRP projects are "regular" projects. The projects that are not "regular"
are tY►ose which address low-income housing needs citywide (discussed on pages
12 and 13 below) . The Planning Commission recommends funding the following
regular CRP proposals (listed in order of priority) :
1. Combating Crack in Saint Paul Neighborhoods (Log Nuiaber 78/(13)-04-C)
CRP Funding Requested: $ 25,000
CRP Funding Recommended: $ 25,000
This project would expand the community effort of the Saint Paul
Anti-Crack Coalition to address the multiple societal problems associated
with crack/cocaine trafficking, particularly in the Summit-University,
Thomas-Dale (Frogtown) , and Snelling-Hamline neighborhoods. The project
emphasizes education and block organizing, legislative monitoring, and
• the development of a closer relationship with the police. The proposed
project is a modest but well-directed approach to a crucial problem. If
successful, it could be expanded to additional areas of the city.
Human Services Advisory Group Ranking: 1 (of 19 ranked)
2. Model Cities Therapeutic Child Care (Log Number 78-25-C)
CRP Funding Requested: $ 111,600
CRP Funding Recommended: $ 100,400
This proposal would bring together the Model Cities Health Center and the
Wilder Foundation to establish a therapeutic day treatment program
targeted to children at risk for developmental delays due to prenatal
drug exposure. The project would include direct services to children,
� ��� ���
- Mayor Scheibel � City Councilmembers
February 26, 1990
Page Seven
parents, and families. This proposal merits funding because it creates
the possibility of early and successful treatment of children which, left
untreated, would have a high risk of life-long medical, psychological and
social problems.
Xuman Services Advisory Group Ranking: 2 (of 19 ranked)
3. Wabasha Development Initiative--CRP Component (Log Number 3-45-N)
CRP Funding Requested: $ 422,000
CRP Funding Reco�ended: $ 358,700
The CRP component of this project provides for on-site services (such as
child care, counseling, referral, parenting classes, and home ownership
and tenant training) targeted to lower-income families in the
Wabasha/Concord area. This project involves a very broad partnership,
including Saint Matthew Child Care, Chicanos Latinos Unidos En Servicio,
the Wilder Foundation, and the Center for Youth Employment and Training.
The pro�ect could contribute significantly to the comprehensive
revitalization of the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission
also recommends funding of the URAP component of this project (see page
4) .
Human Services Advisory Group Ranking: 2 (of 19 ranked)
4. Health Care Services for the IIninsured and IInderinsured (Log Number
66-17-C)
CRP Funding Requested: $ 152,600
CRP Funding Recommended: $ 145,000
The objective of this proposal is to provide comprehensive health care
services to uninsured and underinsured low-income residents living in the
NRP core and discretionary areas, through a coordinated network of
community health centers. The Saint Paul Community Clinic Network would
implement this project in partnership with the Saint Paul Division of
Public Health. The project would focus on high-risk persons who have
limited access to the traditional health care system because of finances,
language or cultural barriers. This project would be a good experiment
in providing universal access to the health care system.
Human Services Advisory Group Ranking: 4 (of 19 ranked)
5. Thomas-Dale Family Resource Center (Log Number 678-22-C�
CRP Funding Requested: $ 175,000
CRP Funding Recommended: $ 175,000
This proposal would establish a Family Resource Center in the Thomas-Dale
neighborhood to improve access to health and family education services
that support and assist parents in meeting the health and developmental
needs of young children. The project would involve a partnership of the
��� �gy
• Mayor Scheibel & City Councilmembers
February 26, 1990
Page Eight
Community Education Department of the Saint Paul Public Schools, the
Model Cities Health Center, the Ramsey County Public Health Nursing
Service, the Saint Paul-Ramsey Nutrition Program, and the North End
Medical Center. A similar program on the East Side is working
effectively.
Human Services Advisory Group Ranking: 4 (of 19 ranked)
6. East Area Resident Unity Pro�ect (Log Number 2-16-C)
CRP Funding Requested: $ 55,300
CRP Funding Recommended: $ 47,000
This project focuses on Roosevelt Homes Public Housing, and the
surrounding low-income rental housing. The partners for the project
include the District 2 Community Council, the Roosevelt Resident Council,
the East Side Apartment Managers' Association, the Public Housing Agency
of the City of Saint Paul, and the Lao Family Community. The project
would empower residents in a specific geographic area of
highly-concentrated low income rental housing, and would enable them
through organization and intercultural awareness to deal more effectively
with problems facing their community.
Human Services Advisory Group Ranking: 6 (of 19 ranked)
7. Volunteer Coordinator (Log Nwnber 6-07-C)
CRP Funding Requested: $ 16,000
CRP Funding Recommended: $ 16,000
The North End - South Como Block Nurse Program proposes to hire a
volunteer coordinator to recruit, train, support and maintain volunteers.
Funding would also be provided to hire a Hmong interpreter to assist with
planning and outreach to the Hmong senior population in the area. This
project has the potential to provide strong benefits very
cost-effectively.
Human Services Advisory Group Ranking: 6 (of 19 ranked)
8. West Seventh Living at Home Project (Log Number 9-11-C)
CRP Funding Requested: $ 40,600
CRP Funding Recommended: $ 40,600
This pro�ect is a comprehensive, community-based effort to help seniors
remain independent in their homes. The project would be implemented by
the West Seventh Community Center, West Seventh Community Education, and
the Ramsey County Nursing Service.
Xuman Services Advisory Group Ranking: 7 (out of 19 ranked)
� � yo-���
� Mayor Scheibel & City Councilmembers
February 26, 1990
Page Nine
9. Selby Commons--CRP Component (Log Number 8-20-N)
CRP Funding Requested: $ 20,000
CRP Funding Recommended: $ 20,000
The CRP component of this project would focus on capacity building by
providing training and consultant assistance to the new Selby Avenue
Community Development Corporation in its commercial and economic
development activity. The Planning Commission also recommends fundir.g
the companion URAP component of the proposal (see pages 3 and 4) .
Human Services Advisory Group Ranking: 7 (out of 19 ranked)
10. Workstart Outreach (Log Number 78-39-C)
CRP Funding Requested: $ 222,700
CRP Funding Recommended: $ 200,400
The purpose of this project is to strengthen families in District 7 and
8, and enable those at greatest risk of long-term welfare dependencv to
become self-sufficient and independent of the welfare system. The
project would be implemented by a partnership of the City of Saint Paul's
Office of Job Creation and Training, the Wilder Foundation (STRIDE
Support Services) , the Model Cities Health Center, and Ramsey Countv
Human Services.
Xuman Services Advisory Group Ranking: 11 (out of 19 ranked)
11. Youth in Action (Log Number 3-12-C)
CRP Funding Requested: $ 466,900
CRP Funding Recommended: $ 400,000
This project focuses on the West Side and provides a comprehensive
partnership to affect positively teen-agers' interactions with school,
family, and peers; availability of job training and readiness; improved
quality of family life; and improved ability to°function in the
community. Partners include the Neighborhood House Association, the
Saint Paul Office of Job Creation and Training, the West Side Citize:�s
Organization, the Prevention Alliance, the Boys and Girls Club, the
Guadalupe Area Project, Hispanos en Minnesota, the Girl Scout Counc�l of
the St. Croix Valley, Torre de San Miguel, Humboldt High School, and the
Saint Paul School District.
Xuman Services Advisory Group Ranking: 12 (out of 19 ranked)
12. Community Stabilization Project--CRP Component (Log Number 78-31-N)
CRP Funding Requested: $ 50 000
,
CRP Funding Recommended: $ 50,000
. l�yo-���
° Mayor Scheibel & City Councilmembers
February 26, 1990
Page Ten
The CRP component of this proposal would finance administrative support
for the URAP-funded activities. The Planning Commission also recommends
funding the companion CRP component of the proposal (see page 3) .
Xuman Services Advisory Group Ranking: 12 (out of 19 ranked)
13. Southeast Asian Access Project (Log Number 66-36-C)
CRP Funding Requested: $ 400,000
CRP Funding Reco�ended: $ 340,000
The focus of this project is on Southeast Asians throughout the NRP core
and discretionary areas. Project activities include the placement of
bilingual workers, the establishment of a Southeast Asian Advisory Group,
cultural awareness training, and the awarding of "mini-grants" to enhance
access to community services. Partners in this effort include the Saint
Paul Department of Community Services, the North End Community Health
Clinic, Capitol Community Services, Merrick Community Services, Saint
Paul Public Schools, the Saint Paul Public Housing Authority, and Ramsey
County. The Planning Commission advises that it should be a priority for
the NRP to fund appropriate services for the city's Southeast Asian
population. This project represents the most comprehensive NRP proposal
to provide such services.
Human Services Advisory Group Ranking: 14 (out of 19 ranked)
14. STAR: Services to Assisted Residents (Log Number 2367/17-40-C)
CRP Funding Requested: $ 198,000
CRP Funding Recommended: $ 168,300
CRP funds would be used to establish a program to identify specific
needs, provide case management, develop service plans, and access
services for low-income residents of eight assisted housing developments
in Saint Paul. The partnership for this project would involve the
Westminster Corporation and the Public Housing Agency of the City of
Saint Paul. °
Xuman Services Advisory Group Ranking: 14 (out of 19 ranked)
15. Developing Roots in the Community (I.og Number 45-30-C)
CRP Furtding Requested: $ 242,800
CRP Funding Recommended: $ 206,400
This broad-based partnership would focus on Districts 4 and 5 to identify
and propose remedies for the conditions that tend to create excessive
transiency within these areas. The neighborhoods in question have
identifies transiency as a significant problem that undermines community
life and children's school performance.
. � �° ��� �
• Mayor Scheibel & City Councilmembers
February 26, 1990
Page Eleven
Human Services Advisory Group Ranking: Unranked
16. Low Income Elderly Outreach and Education (Log Number 15-08-C)
CRP Funding Requested: $ 3,500
CRP Funding Recommended: $ 3,500
The Highland Block Nurse Program would implement this project to identify
the health needs of low income elderly people, and to educate them on the
community resources available through the Highland Block Nurse Program.
Human Services Advisory Group Ranking: Unranked
17. Daqton's Bluff Child Care Subsidy (Log Number 4-42-C)
CRP Funding Requested: $ 36,800
CRP Funding Recommended: $ 36,800
This project would provide a sliding-fee subsidy for school-age childcare
for income-eligible families in District 4 who are on a subsidy waiting
list with the county. The project would fill a critical need in a time
of crisis for the county's child care subsidy program.
Human Services Advisorp Group Ranlcing: Unranked
18. Neighborhood Connection Youth Development Program (Log Number (13)-02-C)
CRP Funding Requested: $ 25,000
CRP Funding Recommended: $ 25 000
,
This project would be implemented by the Lexington-Hamline Community
Council to provide neighborhood youth with the opportunity to work on
issues and projects in which they have a direct self-interest. The
project aims to increase the overall participation level of neighborhood
youth in organized activities through the existing Neighborhood
Connection Youth Program.
Human Services Advisory Group Ranking: Unranked
CRP Proiects (Low Income Housing)--Funding Recommended
The NRP program guidelines allow the City to use up to $200,000 to address low
income housing needs citywide. The Planning Commission recommends funding the
following CRP proposals for this purpose (projects listed in order of
priority) :
1. Sibley Manor Family and Community Enhancement (Log Number 15-43-C)
CRP Funding Requested: $ 125,000
CRP Funding Recommended: $ 85,000
. l�`" yG,°,� fC �
• Mayor Scheibel & City Councilmembers
February 26, 1990
Page Twelve
This project is designed to offer residents of a community of low-income
apartment dwellers access to basic support and assistance while they
develop the knowledge and skills necessary to become more
self-sufficient. The implementers for the pro�ect will be the West
Seventh Community Center and the Family and Consumer Education program of
the Saint Paul Public Schools. A special strength of this project is its
emphasis on empowering residents to address their own needs.
Auman Services Advisory Group Ranking: 7 (of 19 ranked)
2. Home Maintenance and Improvement Education (Log Number 55-32-C)
CRP Funding Requested: $ 25,000
CRP Funding Recommended: $ 25,000
On a citywide basis, this project would involve hiring a coordinator to
develop home maintenance classes and neighborhood seminars through the
Saint Paul Community Education system. This is a low-cost proposal which
could be very cost-effective.
Human Services Advisory Group Ranking: 17 (out of 19 ranked)
3. Vacant Housing Program--CRP Component (Log Number 55-23-N)
CRP Furtding Requested: $ 50,000 (for use outside of core area)
CRP Funding Recommended: $ 50,000 (for use citywide)
This proposal would provide additional funds to a PED program designed to
enable neighborhood nonprofit organizations to acquire, rehabilitate and
resell vacant properties. The Planning Commission recommends against
funding the requested URAP portion of this proposal (see page 5) .
Instead, the CRP portion should be used anywhere in the city--not just
outside of the core and discretionary area (as originally proposed) .
Human Services Advisory Group Ranking: 18 (out of 19 ranked)
• 4. Housing Outreach Pilot Program (Log Number 4521-27-C)
CRP Funding Requested: $ 110,000
CRP Funding Recommended: $ 40,000
This proposal is to hire three housing outreach workers to assist in
marketing City and private home improvement programs on the East Side.
The housing outreach workers will provide direct services to targeted
low-income households in completing program applications. Several
planning documents have identified a need for this type of activity.
Human Services Advisory Group Ranking: 19 (out of 19 ranked)
. �9a����
� Mayor Scheibel � City Councilmembers
February 26, 1990
Page Thirteen
CRP Proiects: Funding Not Recommended
The Human Services Advisory Group recommended considering the following
proposal for funding, if money were available. No money remained to be applied
to this project:
° Youth Tutoring Youth (Log Nwnber 55-26-C)
Kuman Services Advisory Group Ranking: 14 (out of 19 ranked)
CRP Funding Requested: $ 99,615
Both the Human Services Advisory Group and the Planning Commission recommend
against funding the following proposals. (These proposals are unranked and
therefore are listed in order of log number--middle number is identifying
number for proposal.)
° ACOP: Asian Community Outreach Program (Log Number 67-01-C)
CRP Funding Requested: $ 499,300
° Neighborhood Intervention Project: District 5 (Log Number S-OS-C)
CRP Funding Requested: $ 26,000
° Neighborhood Intervention Project: District 8 (Log Number 8-06-C)
CRP Funding Requested: $ 26,000
° Chemical Prevention and Self-Esteem Affirmation for Adolescents (Log
Number 9-09-C)
CRP Funding Requested: $ 13,985
° West Seventh Family Project (Log Number 9-10-C)
CRP Funding Requested: $ 154,309
° Targeted Comprehensive Case Management (Log Nwnber 8/13/14/16-13-C)
CRP Funding Requested: $ 140,000
��o ���
- Mayor Scheibel � City Councilmembers
February 26, 1990
Page Fourteen
° The Sherburne Initiative--CRP Component (Log Number 7-14-N)
CRP Funding Requested: $ 35,000
° Youth Empowerment Service (Log Number 8/13-15-C)
CRP Funding Requested: $ 270,850
° Lifelong Learning Center (Log Number 66-18-C)
CRP Funding Requested: $ 800,000
° Social Change Through Cultural Sharing (Log Number 8-21-C)
CRP Funding Requested: $ 51,500
° District Council Information System (Log Number 66-24-C)
CRP Funding Requested: $ 111,572
° l�iobile Mind Learning Opportunities Center (Log Number 68-28-C)
CRP Funding Requested: $ 310,194
° North End Job Beadiness Program (Log Number 67-33-C)
CRP Funding Requested: $ 418,803
° Hmong Enrichment Program (Log Number 467-34-C)
CRP Funding Requested: $ 27,291
° PGS: Project Good Start (Log Number 6-35-C)
CRP Funding Requested: $ 24,750
° Monroe Community Paideia School (Log Number 9-37-C)
CRP Funding Requested: $ 65,000
.
� y�-�y�
' Mayor Scheibel & City Councilmembers
February 26, 1990
Page Fifteen
° Preteen Support, Children of Recovering/Chemical Abusing Parents (Log
Number 4-38-C)
CRP Funding Requested: $ 1,500
° Jackson Child Care Subsidy Program (Log Number 7-41-C)
CRP Funding Requested: $ 23,080
Pro¢ram Comments and Recommendations
l. The recommended URAP projects will require the entire two-year URAP
allocation for Saint Paul. Money for URAP projects will become available
in two, approximately equal annual installments. Therefore, it will be
necessary for the City to negotiate with URAP implementers to determine
the allocation of funds for 1990 and 1991.
2. In accordance with the NRP guidelines, $127,494 should be set aside to
finance a coordinated evaluation of all CRP projects. This amount is
less than 5 percent of the total CRP budget (the maximum allowable amount
which can be allocated to evaluation, according to the guidelines) .
3. Contracts with project implementers should specify clearly the allowable
project area for each project (in accordance with the program guidelines
and the state legislation) . Particularly with human service projects,
reasonable steps should be taken to ensure that services are limited to
eligible clientele.
JC:ss
markv/llJnrp.ml8
, � qo
-39�
:�'
_
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
INTEROEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 27, 1990
T0: Mayor James Scheib 1
FROM: Warren Hanson /�
Acting Directo for Planning and Economic Development
�;�:.:,Ei v�D
RE: Neighborhood Revitalization Program Funding Recommendations
�I,.',.I114� 1 ��r��
The attached Green Sheet material transmits the Planning Commission
Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP) funding recommendations from �����`� a������
Planning Commission to you, and includes a draft transmittal letter from you to
the City Council indicating your support for the Planning Commission actions.
PED staff supports the Planning Commission recommendations and urges their
speedy adoption to minimize the chances that the Legislature will take back
funds currently allocated to the NRP in order to reduce the budget shortfall
which the State is anticipating.
Last week, PED staff and Karl Neid (the chairman of the Planning Commission's
NRP Subcommittee) met with Tom Welna and Molly 0'Rourke to discuss these
recommendations and the process to be used to bring them to the City Council.
On the basis of that meeting, PED staff understands that it will not be
necessary for them to meet with you about these recommendations, unless you
request such a meeting. After your recommendations have been made to the City
Council, PED staff will call City Councilmembers to arrange to brief them on
the NRP process and recommendations.
As required by State law, the City Council must hold a public hearing on the
City's proposed Neighborhood Revitalization Program before adopting it. After
the program is adopted, its Urban Revitalization Action Program (URAP)
components must be approved by the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic
Development, and its Community Resource Program (CRP) components by the State
Planning Agency. Current law also directs that a special URAP Review Board be
appointed to review Saint Paul's proposed program before it can be approved.
(This requirement applies only to Saint Paul--not to the other cities receiving
URAP funds.) However, Saint Paul's legislative delegation has indicated that
it will ensure that this provision is removed from State law during the current
legislative session.
If you have questions about the NRP recommendations, or wish to meet with PED
staff to discuss them, please contact Ann Copeland at 228-3218, or Mark Vander
Schaaf at 228-3373.
cc: Bill Patton
Peggy Reichert
Mary Tingerthal
markv/11/nrp.ml9
� �-po-�� �
�
city of saint paul
P��9 �mission resolution
f� �r�' 90-16
�te February 23, 1990
,
WHEREAS� the State of Minnesota has established, and allocated funds for, the
Urban Revitalization Action Program (URAP) to promote physical and economic
' redevelopment� and the Community Resource Program (CRP) to promote the
provision of human services in neighborhoods of Saint Paul, Minneapolis, and
Duluth threatened with deterioration; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Saint Paul did approve on December 21,
' 1989, by Resolution 89-2210, program guidelines which combined the URAP and
CRP programs into a single umbrella program, the Neighborhood Revitalization
� Program (NRP); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the adopted NRP program guidelines, 9 proposals for URAP
funding and 41 proposals for CRP funding have been submitted; and
WHEREAS, the guidelines specify that the Planning Commission will rate
proposals for conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the guidelines specify that the Planning Commission will review and
� rate proposals according to established selection criteria; NRP objectives and
guidelines; applicable City policies; and recommendations made by the CIB
• Committee� a special Human Services Advisory Group appointed by the Planning
Commission, and District Planning Councils; and will recommend the city NRP
program to the Mayor and City Council; and
WHEREAS, the NRP Subcommittee of the Neighborhood and Housing Co�ittee of the
Commission has carefully reviewed each of the proposals submitted, along with
recommendations made by the CIB Committee, the Human Services Advisory Group,
' and District Planning Councils, and has made recommendations to the Commission
concerning each of the proposals submitted;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of
Saint Paul finds the proposals submitted to be consistent with the City's°
Comprehensive Plan; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul
makes the recommendations described in the report attached concerning each of
the proposals submitted; and
mO� t'�/ NEID
...>
5econded by . �EISSFR
in fav�or Una°i_°us
S�It'1St._
�;`yo -���
�
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul
recommends that available URAP funds be allocated as follows:
Project Title gudget
Community Stabilization Pro,ject (URAP component) $ 242,000
Selby Commons (URAP component) $1,779.000
Lower Bluff Revitalization: Phase II $2,229�000
Wabasha Development Initiative (URAP component) $1,278,000
The Sherburne Initiative (URAP coaponent) $1,350,000
�
$6,878,000 and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul
recommends that available CRP funds be allocated as follows:
Project Title Budget
Combating Crack in Saint Paul Neighborhoods $ 25,000
Model Cities Therapeutic Child Care $ 100,400
Wabasha Development Initiative (CRP component) $ 358,700
Health Care Services for Uninsured � Underinsured $ 145,000
Thomas-Dale Family Resource Center $ 175,000
East Area Resident Unity Project $ 47,000
Volunteer Coordinator $ 16,000
West 7th Living at Home Project $ 40,600
Selby Commons (CRP component) $ 20,000
WorkStart Outreach $ 200,400
Youth in Action $ 400,000
Community Stabilization Project (CRP component) $ 50,000
Southeast Asian Access Program $ 340,000
STAR: Services to Assisted Residents $ 168,300
Developing Roots in the Community $ 206,400
Low Income Elderly Outreach � Education $ 3,500
Dayton's Bluff Child Care Subsidy $ 36,800
Neighborhood Connection Youth Development $ 25,000
Sibley Manor Family and Community Enhancement $ 85,000
Home Maintenance and Inprovement Education $ 25,000
Vacant Housing Prograu $ 50,000
Housing Outreach Pilot Program $ 40,000
CRP Program Evaluation ' $ 127,394
$2,685,494 and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that these recommendations be transmitted to the i•fa•:or
and City Council. �
�
� � y�o -�9Y
GITY OF SAIN PAUL
"' �"�4 OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Members:
Human Services:
Paula Maccabee, Chair
PAULA MACCABEE Bob Long
Councilperson Janice Rettman
SUSAN ODE Neiqhborhood Services:
Legislative Aide Dave Thune, Chai r
Janice Rettman
Roger Goswitz
Date: March 21, 1990
COMMITTEE REPORT
JOINT HUMAN SERVICES, REGULATED INDUSTRIES, AND RULES AND POLICY
COMMITTEE AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES COMMITTEE
1. Resolution 90-398 -- Public Hearing on the Review of the Program applications and
Planning Commission Funding Recommendations for Neighborhood Revitalization
Program (for discussion and action) .
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL, 5-0
CTTY HALL SEVENTH FLOOR SAINT PAUL,MINNESOTA 55102 612/298-5378
S�48
Printed on Recyded Paper