The URL can be used to link to this page

90-487 �� l { � a � � � p , , • Council File # �B'� Green Sheet ,� �D�� RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA ,` �' �, ,� r �ented By eferred To u Committee: Date � �a 9' � , �, WHEREAS, on November �,, 1989, the Saint Paul City Council amended the Downtown Tax Increment Plan and Redevelopment Plan for the purpose of creating additional funding for doamtown capital improvement projects; and WHEREAS, the purposes of such additional expenditures in the Downtown Tax Increment area are to encourage, ensure and facilitate commercial development and redevelopment, to provide aclditional employment opportunities, to improve the tax base of the city and to improve the general economy of the city; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has .developed program guidelines which help evaluate proposed projects and further. the objectives of adopted city policy; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the �aint Paul City Council adopt the attached Downtown and Seventh Place Tax In�rement Expenditure Program - Guidelines; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul Pl��ning Commission rate proposed projects for tax increment funding and make recommendations on funding priorities. Yeas Navs Absent Requested by Department`,of: mon OSTd 2 n — Plannin an conomic � lo ment acca ee e ma une �z son BY• �'� � , \ Form Approved by City A torney `�, Adopted by Council: Date Adoption Certified by Couricil Secretary By: � BY� Approved y Mayor for Submission to Approved by Mayor: Date Council , �-�c�� By: By� �U -��7 D R A F T DOWNTOWN AND SEVENTH PLACE TAX INCREMENT EXPENDITURE PROGRAM Program Guidelines and Project Priorities Saint Paul City Council May 24, 1990 . �� I. PROGRAM PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES ' Significant progress has been made in the last decade toward providing new commercial facilities, new and rehabilitated housing and cultural and recreational opportunities downtown. However, the pace of development has slowed over the past two years, and it is clear that strategic public investments are needed to spark private investments in key areas downtown. To this end, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority Board on November 9, 1989 authorized sale of approximately $18.3 million of Tax Increment Revenue Bonds for the Downtown and Seventh Place Tax Increment District. Now the challenge is to develop a program which helps forward the objectives of City plans and the Downtown and Seventh Place Redevelopment Plan. The following program defines the policy parameters for capital expenditures of the Downtown and Seventh Place Tax Increment Program. In addition, the proposed projects for funding consideration by the City Council are evaluated. II. CITY INVESTMENT POLICY There are several policy documents which contain guidelines, applicable to the Downtown and Seventh Place Tax Increment Expenditure Program. There are policy documents covering capital investments (e.g. Capital Allocation Policy, and Seventh Place Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing Plans) and development policy (e.g. Downtown Framework for Development, District 17 Plan and the Economic Development Strategy draft) . In both the capital investment and development policy areas past plans give some direction. But there is a lack of clear, cogent, long-term direction for capital investments in downtown. What follows is a brief discussion of 10 basic investment principals for this downtown program in two general areas: Development Policy; Capital Budget Policy. A. Development Policy The following three policies are based on research and policy discussion conducted as part of the Economic Development Strategy as well as on past policy documents and discussions with downtown civic organizations and businesses. 1. Support intensified activities within the downtown core. Since the early 1980s there has been a growing belief that the scope of downtown's most intensified development could not fill up the logical boundaries for downtown formed by the river, I-35E corridor, I-94 corridor and the Lafayette Bridge. The Downtown Circulation Study done by the Planning Commission in 1981, the Downtown Parking Plan, 1986, and the Downtown Development Framework, 1986 all recognized the need to focus intensified development in a core area. In these plans the core has generally been defined by Market/St. Peter Streets on the west, Seventh Street on the north, Sibley Street on the east and Kellogg Boulevard on the south. 1 The policy approach of City plans consistently has been to foster intensive private development in the core through strategic public capital investments. And for this area the ` Downtown Development Plan states, among other policy directives, that "New office construction should fill under-used sites within and adjacent to the core area and strengthen the link with the Capitol area by expanding the core to the north." The City's approach to such policies has been to employ a full range of investments from public parking development, skyways, and street resurfacing to direct business assistance and incentives. 2. Attract "lon�?-term" users to downtown. One of the foundations of downtown stability is the "long-term" user--those people who work, live or spend extended visits downtown. The long-term users are most likely to spend their retail and entertainment dollars downtown. In addition, the long-term user is likely to develop an affinity and loyalty to downtown so that other decisions may favor downtown stability. Those decisions could range from an office worker deciding to have Sunday brunch downtown to a corporate decision to expand its business in the downtown area. The 1990 EDS draft recommends that the City should have, as its first priority for downtown, marketing to increase the number of downtown workers, visitors and residents. The emerging concept in EDS discussions seems to be that four sectors, or users, of downtown have the greatest potential impact: Full-time workers Long-term visitors and entertainment patrons Residents Long-term shoppers First, it is vital to retain and attract full-time workers because they establish the economic base for downtown and bring a captive retail market to downtown. For example, the City's history of encouraging state offices to locate and remain in downtown was, in part, an effort to develop a retail market and to help solidify the private office market. That concept was adopted as part of the 1980 EDS and is included in the 1990 EDS draft. The City's ongoing efforts to attract and retain state offices as well as private offices (such as assisting HEMAR's consolidation and expansion in downtown) are good examples of properly focused efforts. Second, attracting long-term visitors and entertainment patrons helps solidify the restaurants, hotels and other hospitality businesses as well as retailers. For example, survey work done by the Downtown Council found that there are over 4 million entertainment patrons each year downtown--downtown's biggest draw. Of these 4 million, one-third eat out as part of their 2 � ' i, .� —' \ � / �, . , 1 � � � � / / A - � i � • � I � . I ` ; � ` � \ y • ` `� '� .. ``, `• ' • `��.` / .`.,��`.� a`��`�,�� ,�_= -==_--�- x=-�-=�.�. -,_�.� . � �_z, � \ -- . �� \ \ 1 � �1 � '\ \ �\ � __;__. ., �_ �_ � -Z�.;��---�7----��--------; �.-:.._ � �...'+�:.;-�.� _�--��' � � `� \ \1 ` � , ( \ \ j\ � _ _ ----- .-�.��,�:y�,..-;��___:��________, -. : � �� \ �� \ �'- -«�=s�--�'��-.� ------ �'�'�.� :��_ ��--v ,►�� \ `� \�~ ` \' � \ ' , \ ` ��`��. �'� �-<..a1 4�--�J _� . •-�'��__�? - .�_� ; �\`_�t .. � _ \' ` `� \ \ � 1 ' � \ � � � t \ ' 'i ' -��..�,�•��;�`��-��r�:,�__` r__ -- \� � � � \� � � \� ` / i ` �� : , �\ �► __-,\ � . :��:_... \ . �\ � � i � , ` , , \ . _ � � � � , ' _- � � _ ,� �`�, � ./ - evening, but only one-third of those restaurant patrons eat in downtown. Parking availability, pedestrian access within downtown, security and a geographic focus for activities are all ' important to this sector. Third, residents greatly enhance the vitality as well as directly contributing to the economy of downtown. A growing residential market helps support the restaurants, retailers and certain service-providers in off-peak times. This encourages those businesses to locate and stay in downtown. At the same time, the residential community becomes a "guardian" for downtown by being a stable force which raises issues of security, aesthetics and services downtown. Investment focus should be on pedestrian access, parking, security, open space amenities, and a full range of residential-service type businesses. And fourth, half-day or all-day shoppers pour money into restaurants, retail businesses and the service sector downtown. However, this sector is, perhaps, the hardest to attract and hold because of shopping opportunities elsewhere. As such, there are improvements which can be made to attract more shoppers downtown. Projects which will help attract shoppers include improvements to downtown parking and access, pedestrian security and comfort, and promotions. 3. Leverage private investments in, and commitments to, downtown. As stated above , the pace of downtown development has slowed over the past two years. However, the availability of public funds to stimulate development is at a premium. Therefore, the City must be particularly careful to stretch available funds as much as possible. One measurement of the impact of public investment is direct, private financial contribution leveraged by such public investment. Such contribution may include direct participation in project costs (e.g. skyways) as well as committed business investments/reinvestments resulting from a project. Investments which leverage direct private contributions are preferable. The other measurement of impact is the degree to which proposed projects would result in benefits to a business or businesses. For example, the continued viability of a business may be dependent upon direct pedestrian access via skyways or upon safe, accessible parking. Projects should, as clearly as possible, document the link between the public investments and business investments/reinvestments. This may be expressed in terms of attracting private investments, attracting or retaining jobs, which/how many residents or visitors might be attracted to downtown and/or which buildings may be renovated. 4 �'`f�'� , B. Budget Policies The following seven policies are based on the applicable portions of the Capital Allocation Policy. 1988-89 and relevant state statutes governing tax increment financing. The 5 key Capital Allocation Policy, 1988-89 portions are simply listed below. 1. Projects which clearly conflict with the Comprehensive Plan will not be considered for funding. 2. Preference will be given to projects that create income for operation and maintenance of public programs or decrease public operation and maintenance costs. 3. All new projects must be handicapped accessible. Preference will be given to projects that retrofit existing facilities for handicapped accessibility. 4. Preference will be given to projects which demonstrably improve environmental quality (air and water quality, noise levels) . 5. Preference will be given to projects which demonstrate a concern for aesthetics by incorporating quality urban design, and to projects which are sensitive to public use of facilities. An additional policy relates to the appropriateness of projects from a lifecycle perspective: Projects whose useful life is less than 20 years (the term of the bonds) will not be considered for funding. The final policy is one which is required under state statutes for use of tax increment bond proceeds in the downtown area: Projects which cannot be implemented/completed by mid-November, 1992 will not be considered for funding. III. PROJECT EVALUATION METHODOLOGY The evaluation of projects follows the twelve investment policies discussed in the previous section. All projects will be evaluated on the degree to which they fulfill the intent of each of the 10 investment policies. The projects then can be grouped into three categories based upon the criteria: •�'�t, rprojects which can proceed immediately. � �rojects which require some additional study (3-5 months) before commitment of funds. , �rojects which conflict with the criteria. 5 . � This evaluation is a �uide to funding projects. However, there may be other compelling factors not now known which dictate funding priorities. The purpose here is to integrate the basic investment policy into a ' grouping of proposed projects. IV. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS The current funding availability is the product of the amount of bonds sold less the cost of issuance and previous City Council commitments. Those commitments include: 1. Civic Center General Obligation Payment 2. Block L Atrium Extension 3. Design Study for Skyway to Union Depot The net bond proceeds (after cost of the above listed projects) plus the fund balance in the Downtown Tax Increment District is approximately $17,880,000. In addition, a healthy contingency (20$) is warranted for this program for two reasons. First, the scope and number of projects increase the likelihood of a project exceeding estimated costs. And second, even moderate delays in projects could force them to be dropped from the funding list because projects must, by law, be completed by November, 1992. "New" projects added to replace those dropped may be costlier. After contingency there is approximately $14,300,000. Finally, when the bonds were structured and sold, it was in anticipation of the Employment Incentives and Leasehold Program, which requires taxable bonds. Therefore the bond sale included approximately $2,400,000 in taxable bonds. This leaves $11,900,000 in tax exempt bonds for distribution to worthy projects. AVAILABLE FUNDS Net Bond Proceeds� $15,207,789 Fund Balance S 2,675,515 Total Available Funds $17,883,304 Contingencv (20�) S 3,576,661 After Contingency $14,306,643 Taxable Bonds** S 2,427.927 Total Available Tax-Exempt Funds $11,878,716 * Includes cost of issuance, Civic Center G.O. payment, Block L atrium extension, and design study for Skyway to Union Depot ** Employment Incentives and Leasehold Program must be funded from taxable bonds 6 . . �� -�f�'�' (AMENDED APPLICATION FORM 5/24/90) � 1990 DOWNTOWN AND SEVENTH PLACE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PROGRAM PROJECT TITLE PROPOSER (agency or group) CONTACT PERSON PHONE NUMBER LOCATION OF PROPOSAL WITHIN THE TIF DISTRICT BOUNDARY yes no PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION (be specific about the details of the proposal, including dimensions, type of construction, special features, etc.) PROPOSAL JUSTIFICATION (be specific but concise in explaining why the proposed project is needed) COST BREAKDOWN (total) (be as specific as possible) ��_ ��7 1990 DOWNTOWN AND SEVENTH PLACE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PROGRAM - pa�e 2 1. Can be completed in 3 years yes no 2. Clearly inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan yes no 3. Has a useful life of at least 20 years yes no 4. Supports intensified activities in the core Office (explain) Retail (explain) Residential (explain) 5. Attracts long-term users to downtown (predominant users) full time workers (explain) long-term visitors and entertainment patrons (over 4 hours) (explain) residents (explain) long-term shoppers (over 4 hours) (explain) ��,��7 1990 DOWNTOWN AND SEVENTH PLACE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PROGRAM - page 3 . 6. Leverages private investments in, and commitments to downtown. a. What are the direct financial/private contributions to the pro j ect? b. What are the private commitments (if any) to invest/reinvest in downtown? c. Document any indirect benefits to specific businesses as well as to downtown business stability/growth. 7. Eases city operation and maintenance obligations (if yes, explain) yes no 8. Handicapped accessibility a. new facility yes no or b. retrofit yes no . � q�� 1990 DOWNTOWN AND SEVENTH PLACE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PROGRAM - pa�e 4 9. Improves environmental quality (if yes, explain) yes no 10. Improves/Enhances aesthetics by incorporating quality urban design and public use considerations (if yes, explain) yes no . � �=-�� ;� �. � CITY OF SAINT PAUL �iaea�ll��a. ; �g'g �",�` OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY HALL-7th FLOOR-SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 � 612-298-5506 TOM DIMOND _ COUNCILMEMBER Members: Tom Dimond, Chair Paula Maccabee Dave Thune Date: May 23, 1990 COMMITTEE REPORT HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 1. Approval of the Minutes of the Housing and Economic Development Committee: May 1, 1990, and May 9, 1990. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL, 3-_Q________ _______ . 90-487 -- Downtown and 7th Place TIF (Laid Over from the May 9, 1990, Housing � � and Economic Development Committee meeting) . � � COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE GUIDELINES, WITH AMENDMENTS, 3-0. A TENTATIVE SCHEDULE IS RECOMMENDED OF THE SPECIFIC PROPOSALS, INCLUDING A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION ON �' JUNE 21, 1990; ANY SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSALS SHOULD BE SUBMITTED AT THE PUBLIC � HEARING. 3. Sain au Housing Policy for the 1990's. THIS ITEM WILL BE LAID OVER TO THE JUNE 13, 1990, HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING, 3-0 4. Resolution 90-676 -- 3PR Task Force. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL, 3-0 5. Resolution 90-409 -- Resolution adopting the Economic Development Strategy as part of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan (Laid Over in Committee on May 9, 1990) . THIS ITEM WILL BE LAID OVER TO THE JUNE 13, 1990, HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING, 3-0 Chair, Housing and Redevelopment Authority, Committees: Public Works; Housing and Economic Development; Finance. 100%Recycleable �s�o s . . - - -. : � - . . - � - � ,,. ,, _ .. � r , _ , : - : _ _ ;�. , . ; � _ � -:_ '�' S; .: ._. . .-.- :; }�.. _ _t:. � �.,..:�.�-.. �r... �'.:. .-��-:�: -•-'��'�.. -, • . ..:._.,... .,..:��. . ."c. �'' �.-:.r.:.� . :,.�-': ��...�x+ s.�.-� .�.. �a..,:. 5 ,. _ _ �f ... .., .. . .. �.: �:. ,�-_�. :.c ,. ..':. v . .. ..�. ....�� -.. ,' �, _ ; �. _ ...-: .�.- ...�, ��- ...'�7 . • �� .�::. -.� �- - - ..:.. . . . .....� ... • ' � ..�� J .�..�'.'. ''.. ' :..: ..:...:': ' . "'_. . .. . J � : . : _ � • .. . .: .. . ... , -.,. �...�., . - _ .. .. � . .�.. '... ..^. _ ... .. . _.....t. ,. � ..... '... ::� ._ �.� ..s '��. . '.. . �� ' .. ..: 'r.. .'_ ' ' i. . .,. ...... :�. . . ..' � :..... t .,., _ _ y x ' Y. . .. . . , . . .. .�.. .. � - .� : ....� . . , �. . ,.. . . . ... ' .'. , • ' ' , � ��. . ... ._� ' : ... . .. �.�. .� �� ' . . S . _ a _ '. _ _ . . " P r� _ �4 - -- _ - z � � _ . ` :. . ' . , a i � : � � f A _ t f ! _ }: . . � .. . .. .:: . � �:':. -�.. .r.�.'�-_ .- t :'..,- ..�} -�� '�" .... . -. . . :.. .: F . _ _r 1 _ � i,• .:..' :iy: , ,. ., .. . .. .�. ��. , . .- . ..�- - ,., : '. ., .__. r ,.:. <. ;. . . .- . ,,. �',' " . � . . '_...� . .�, ':>: �-. ^.. .. .- .�.'aa . _ -.:.. „ .. ..., . . . .,: . . ,... .. .� ,.-.r ',��. s''. -,. , .:_. _. � , ,.., t " " ' �. . .,-.,.i�;+a -.. ..r, ;�,: .� , .�_:;�....:. ..� ..�i•1 . .;,� �.*F�a,ct'• o s:<w ��rK T�S+�ryF�sk w .n-:.T� .._r , . c3r ._ !� ee-Y ,4>.. , . ... _. . �2 . . - . . _ � (.�'/�d'� DEPARTMENT/OFFICE/COUNpL � pATE INITIATED PED - Planning �/9/9� G�EEN S ET No. �0�l COMTACT PER30N 8 PNONE �DEPARTMENT DIRECT �' �CITY COUNCIL lNITIMIOATE /�-��v� I�,�V f 0 DC �22� NUI�ER l�OR �CITY ATTORNEV • CITY CLEFiK MUST BE ON COUNCiI A/3ENDA 8Y(DATE) lIONTNiO �BUDpET piRECTOR �FlN.3 MdT.8ER�8�R. �MAVOR(OR ASSISTANn � TOTAL A►OF SIQNATURE PAQES � (C.LIP ALL LOCATIOt�FOR SIONATUR� ncrioN�ouesTfo: Adopt guidelines for expenditure of tax increment district proceeds in dotimtown. �EC�I VEp REOOMMENDA :APWov�(N a R�at(i� CAtlN� REPORT �T�NAL _�PLMININO OOMMISSION _GVIL BERVIC:COMM18810N ��YST PHONE NO O / _CIB WMM4TTEE _ _�,� _ °°MME�B: ITY ATTORNEy _�� _ SUPPOR7S NMICN OOUNdL OBJECTIVE9 INIMTINO PROBLEM.ISSUE.OPPORTUNIfY(Nllw�Whtl.When.NNrn,NRy�: . The tax increment bonds approved and sold �n 1989, will help support redeveloPment activitie � downtown so as to "encourage, ensure and fac�litate cammercial development and redevelopaient to provide additianal employment opportunities, to improve tfie tax base of the City and to improve the general economy of the City." �uv�rrr�s��ra�o- The Planning Commission can then �:evaluate proposed pro�ects to fulfill ob�ectives listed above. RECEIIIE�+ ��,�8�,�a F �A 1.1./1lrr7'O��s✓� None. ! RECE�VED � . '-�' �� CITY CLERK DI8ADVANTAOEB IF NOT APPROVED: The bond proceeds cannot be used to fund downtown pro�ects necessary to fulfill 'stated objectives of the Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Plan for doc�mtown. �ouncr� Research �en�ter MAR 2 �1990 TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSI►CTION � � CMT/REYENUE 01100ETED(CI�I.E ONl1 YES NO NA FUNDING SOURCE NA ACTIVITY NUM�R �1 FlNANdAL INFORMATION:(EXPLAIN) • �-� ' . NOTE: OOMPLETE DIRECTION3 ARE INCLUDED IN THE OREEN 8HEET tN8TRUCTIONAt MANUAL AVAIIABLE IN THE PURCHASiNLii OFFICE(PHONE NO.298-4Y15). Rf)UTIN(i ORDER: � Below are prsfsrred routin�for the ffve rtwst irsqusM typ�s of doaumsnb: (bNTRAGTS (asaun�ee auEhorized COUNqL RE80LUTION (Amend, 6dpbJ budget exiats) Accspt.OraMs) 1. Outaide AqenCy 1. Dsputtrl�M Director 2. Initiatinp DepartmeM 2. Budgst Director 3. Gty 1lttorney 3. CIIY�a�Y 4. Mayor 4. MayorUssiatant 5. Flnancs d�M�rnt Svcs. Director 5. City Council 8. Finance M;oouMiny 6. Chief Axournant. Fln d�Mgmt 3vcs. ADMINISTRATIV�OROER RB�) COUNqL RESOLUTION (�� 1. Acdvity Menaper 1. IMtisUng Department DI►ecta 2. DepertmeM AccouMant 2� �Y� 3. DepaRrnent Diroctor 3. MayodAaistaM 4. Budget DinCtor 4. Gty CalhCil 5. City derk 8. Chbf Accounw�t, Fln&INpmt S�ncs. � AD�AINI8TRATIVE ORDERS (all others) 1. Initieding DspertmsM 2. Gty Attorney 3. Mayod/1sslsteint 4. Gty Gerk TOTAL NUMBER OF SICiNATURE PA(3ES Indicete N�e#�of papst on which�gnatures are requfred and ercli aach of thea��es. ACTION RE�'�UE3TED Ds�c�ibs whet the proJ�cHnquest seeks to accomplish in either chronolopi- ca�order or o►d.r a Impo�r�s,wn�F�ner Is n�t app►op�iate ra nis iseus. Do n�write compl�ts sentences. Begin each item in your liat with a vsrb. ti. RECOAAMENDATIONS Compkts M ths leeue in qu�tion has been preseMed beMrs any body� Publ� • a privat�. 8UPPORTS WHICN COUNCIL OBJECTIVE� I�icet�which Council objectiw(s)I��Prol�ro4u�S�PP�s bY�� the key vroM(s)(FIOU81NCi, RECREATION, NEIOHBORHOOD3,EC�IOMIC DEVELOPMENT, BUDOET, SEVVER SEPARATION).(SEE COMPLETE LI3T IN IN8TRUCTIONAL MANl1AL.) COUNqL COMMfTTEFJRESEARCH REPORT-OPTIONAL A3 REt�UESTED BY OOUNGL INITIAi'1N(3 P�L.�Ilil,'f3SUE,OPPORTUNIIY Facplain the situation cu oonditiorre thet croated a need for your project or reqwetti . RDVANTA(3ES IF APPROVED Indicate wMthsr thla is�mpy an annud budgst procedure rsquirod by law! charter or whsther th�rs are sp�cific w in wF►ich the qty of SetM Peul � 8rM its ckfzens wfll bsnstit from thie p►�UaCtlon. DISADVANTACiES IF APPROVED Whet nspativs effects or mp�r changes to existinq or past processes might this pro)ecUrequsat producs ff it is pw�sd(e.p.,treiflc delsya� noise� Uuc increaeea or a�menb)?To Whom?When4 For how bng? DISADVANTAGE3 IF NOT APPROVED What wil{bs ths npativs consequsncea if the promiaed sction ia not approvsd?Inabiliy to deBver servfce?Continued high trafnc, nase, sccident rete?Loss.of'rev�nue? FlN�►NCIAL IMPAGT AItF�ou�h you must teilor ths iMorrt�tion you provids hera to the issue you are addroesin�,in gsnaral you muet ansvvsr taro qu�tiona: Flow much ia ft �dng to cost7 Who is goinp to pay? � � � , , � � 96-�1 R��l**�.� GITY OF �AINT PAUL a o � OFFICE OF THE MAYOR : {�=im : M� �O 347 CITY HALL �� SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 JAMESSCHEIBEL (612) 298-4323 MAYOR March 19, 1990 Council President William Wilson and Members of the City Council Seventh Floor, City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: Downtown Tax Increment Finance Program - Guidelines Dear Council President William Wilson and Members of the City Council: On Friday, February 9 the Planning Commission adopted the attached guidelines for the Downtown Tax Increment Finance Program. In addition to the guidelines, the Planning Commission generally agreed to the following points: 1. These program guidelines appropriately and accurately reflect existin� development policy for downtown. 2. Downtown development policy should be updated through the Downtown Plan Task Force of the Planning Commission. 3. Swift approval of the guidelines by the City is essential for completing projects by the bond sale-mandated timeline of mid-November, 1992. 4. Not all of the funds need to be allocated immediately. Final decisions on disposition of any residual funds should be made this summer. 5. The program should, therefore, be re-evaluated in two to six months to accommodate recommendations of the Downtown Plan Task Force and to reallocate funds for pro�ects which have not proceeded in a timely manner. The Planning Commission and staff are ready to evaluate proposed projects as soon as program guidelines are adopted. I believe the Planning Commission's guidelines provide a useful policy base for the project evaluations that will soon commence. Because our city's economic development resources are limited, I will be supporting those projects and programs that represent high priority needs and opportunities in our downtown. I urge you to support the attached resolution and guidelines as soon as possible. Since ly, - � 4,��.�'� James Scheibel Mayor JS:ss Attachment s�46 Pdated on Recycled Paper , . . :o.. ..S C',�c R a -��7 , ,�° CITY OF SAINT PAUL INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM DATE: February 9, 1990 T0: Mayor James Scheibel FROM: Peggy Reichert, Deputy Director for Plannin �- � . RE: Downtown Tax Increment Finance Program - Guidelines On Friday, February 9 the Planning Commission adopted the attached guidelines for the Downtown Tax Increment Finance Program. In addition to the guidelines, the Planning Commission generally agreed to the following points: 1. These program guidelines appropriately and accurately reflect existin�? development policy for downtown. 2. Downtown development policy should be updated through the Downtown Plan Task Force of the Planning Commission. 3. Swift approval of the guidelines by the City is essential for completing projects by the bond sale - mandated timeline of mid-November, 1992. 4. Not all of the funds need be allocated immediately, however, final decisions on disposition of any residual funds should be made this summer. S. The program should, therefore, be re-evaluated in two to six months to accommodate recommendations of the Downtown Plan Task Force and to reallocate funds for projects which have not proceeded in a timely manner. The Planning Commission and staff are ready to evaluate proposed projects as soon as program guidelines are adopted. Attached is a City Council resolution for your consideration and a draft transmittal of letter to the City Council for your consideration/signature. PR:ss Attachment sues/11/downtax � � ' � � �',r' 90 ��7 city of saint paul ; plar�r�g commission resolution f�e number �' date , ; -- ;; � �; ;, :, ;, WHEREAS, on November 9, 1989� the Saint Paul City Council amended the i Downtown Tax Increment Plan and Redevelopment Plan for the purpose of creating � additional funding for downtown capital improvement projects; and � WHEREAS, the purposes of such additional expenditures in the Downtown Tax Increment area are to encourage, ensure and facilitate commercial development and redevelopment, to provide additional employment opportunities, + to improve the tax base of the City and to improve the general economy of the 1 City; and : ' WHEREAS, the Planning Commission was requested to develop program guidelines which help evaluate proposed projects and further the objectives of adopted city policy; and :� WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 8, `' 1989 to receive comments on potential program guidelines; ; ; NOW� THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Saint Paul Planning Commission f recommend the attached Downtown and Seventh Place Tax Increment Expenditure Program - Guidelines to the Mayor and City Council for their consideration. :l �� ,, � ; ;: -.� ;� � �# , j :a '� 3� i � mov�ed by - - s�econded by _ in fav�or______ against— � � � . . . . � � � �qo .��7 DOWNTOWN AND SEVENTH PLACE TAX INCREMENT EXPENDITURE PROGRAM Program Guidelines and Project Priorities ; ; # Saint Paul Planning Commission February 1, 1990 1 . , . . � _ � q� ,��'7 I. PROGRAM PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES Significant progress has been made in the last decade toWard providing new commercial facilities, new and rehabilitated housing and cultural and recreational opportunities downtown. However, the pace of development has slowed over the past two years, and it is clear that strategic public investments are needed to spark private investments in : key areas downtown. To this end, the Housing and Redevelopment . Authority Board on November 9, 1989 authorized sale of approximately $18.3 million of Tax Increment Revenue Bonds for the Downtown and Seventh Place Tax Increment District. Now the challenge is to develop a ' program which helps forward the objectives of City plans and the Downtown and Seventh Place Redevelopment Plan. The following program defines the policy parameters for capital expenditures of the Downtown and Seventh Place Tax Increment Program. In addition, the proposed pro�ects for funding consideration by the City ; Council are evaluated. II. CITY INVESTMENT POLICY There are several policy documents which contain guidelines, applicable to the Downtown and Seventh Place Tax Increment Expenditure Program. There are policy documents covering capital investments (e.g. Capital Allocation Policy, and Seventh Place Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing Plans) and development policy (e.g. Downtown Framework for Development, District 17 Plan and the Economic Development Strategy draft) . In both the capital investment and development policy areas past plans give some direction. But there is a lack of clear, cogent, long-term direction for capital investments in downtown. � What follows is a brief discussion of 11 basic investment principals for this downtown program in two general areas: Development Policy; Capital Budget Policy. ; A. Development PolicX The following four policies are based on research and policy discussion conducted as part of the Economic Development Strategy as ; well as on past policy documents and discussions with downtown civic . organizations and businesses. � 1. Support intensified activities within the downtown core. Since the early 1980s there has been a growing belief that the scope of downtown's most intensified development could not fill up the ! logical boundaries for downtown formed by the river, I-35E corridor, I-94 corridor and the Lafayette Bridge. The Downtown 5 Circulation Study done by the Planning Commission in 1981, the � Downtown Parking Plan, 1986, and the Downtown Development � Framework, 1986 all recognized the need to focus intensified j development in a core area. In these plans the core has generally been defined by Market/St. Peter Streets on the west, ; Seventh Street on the north, Sibley Street on the east and Kellogg Boulevard on the south. � � � � 1 � . . � � � � (� 9� "`�� , The policy approach of City plans consistently has been to foster intensive private development in the core through _ strategic public capital investments. And for this area the , Downtown Development Plan states, among other policy directives, that "New office construction should fill under-used sites within and adjacent to the core area and strengthen the link with the Capitol area by expanding the core to the north. " The City's approach to such policies has been to employ a full range of investments from public parking development and street : resurfacing to direct business assistance and incentives. ; 2. Attract "long-term" users to downtown. One of the foundations a of downtown stability is the "long-term" user--those people who work, live or spend extended visits downtown. The long-term users are most likely to spend their retail and entertainment dollars downtown. In addition, the long-term user is likely to develop an affinity and loyalty to downtown so that other decisions may favor downtown stability. Those decisions could range from an office worker deciding to have Sunday brunch downtown to a corporate decision to expand its business in the ` downtown area. The 1990 EDS draft recommends that "The City � should have, as its first priority for downtown, marketing to � increase the level of occupancy in existing downtown buildings ; and to increase the number of downtown workers, visitors and ` residents." The emerging concept in EDS discussions seems to be that four sectors, or users, of downtown have the greatest potential impact: � First, full-time office workers Second, long-term visitors and entertainment patrons Third, residents Fourth, long-term shoppers � First, it is vital to retain and attract the office workers � because they establish the economic base for downtown and bring a captive retail market to downtown. For example, the City's history of encouraging state offices to locate and remain in ' downtown was, in part, an effort to develop a retail market and to help solidify the private office market. That concept was adopted as part of the 1980 EDS and is included in the 1990 EDS draft. The City's ongoing efforts to attract and retain state offices as well as private offices (such as assisting HEMAR's consolidation and expansion in downtown) are good examples of properly focused efforts. � Second, attracting long-term visitors and entertainment patrons � helps solidify the restaurants, hotels and other hospitality businesses as well as retailers. For example, survey work done by the Downtown Council found that there are over 4 million entertainment patrons each year downtown--downtown's biggest � 2 � � \\ ' � K�� , � I / , , . , . � � � � i � / ; , � � � � . , . I �� . ` �, ` �• .. � • . � � � . � ..� ,`;�\.��_ �� \ ' �ti � 1 \ \� � � � �\ � . \ �-��.��.___. ,____��_______-� , , �� 1 � \ .\ \ \ _ _ __.__ .�.,�-�, ,1�___:��.___..___-, \ \`� �� . � �� _------- '^�'aI==.Y.'F1.i �_ ` �� 1 � � :, � �\ ,\ \ •�c��__�� ` r�_`_` ` \� � �� \ � \ \ � I `� ��.•�,��..; .`��.; `,�__` r__-- -- �� \ `� �� ` / i �� ,, : i �� . ; � � � � � , � , : , � - � � � ' � s :.. . , _ _ , , ► � � . � . . , . . . . � . �a .��7 draw. Of these 4 million, one-third eat out as part of their evening, but only one-third of those restaurant patrons eat in ; downtown. Parking availability, pedestrian access within downtown, security and a geographic focus for activities are all important to this sector. Third, residents greatly enhance the vitality as well as directly contributing to the economy of downtown. A growing _ residential market helps support the restaurants, retailers and ' certain service-providers in off-peak times. This encourages those businesses to locate and stay in downtown. At the same � time, the residential community becomes a "guardian" for downtown by being a stable force which raises issues of security, aesthetics and services downtown. Investment focus should be on pedestrian access, parking, security, open space amenities, and a full range of residential-service type businesses. ` And fourth, half-day or all-day shoppers pour money into � restaurants, retail businesses and the service sector downtown. However, this sector is, perhaps, the hardest to attract and hold because of shopping opportunities elsewhere. As such, ; there are some marginal improvements which can be made to i attract more shoppers downtown, but they are not as likely to ; make big downtown impacts as promotion of the other three areas. : Projects which will help attract shoppers include improvements j to downtown parking and access, pedestrian security and comfort, and promotions. i R 3. Improve accessibility to the core. The 1990 EDS draft recommends that the City ". . .install public improvements in the downtown in order to enhance and economically reinforce existing investments. These public improvements include open space amenities, entryways, streetscapes, skyways and other pedestrian ' connections and parking." General accessibility into downtown has been a mainstay of downtown development strategies since ' Operation '85's efforts to bolster the downtown economy. � Parking and pedestrian access have received most of the public � dollars. But at the same time, transit ridership has dropped i with no ma�or incentives or amenities for bus patrons, van , � poolers or car poolers. Needs of transit users must be better accommodated by the City's public investments. , 4. Respond to demonstrated current need rather than speculative need. For years the City has pushed market forces by being an i active participant in major development projects downtown. The = EDS draft allows for continued real estate development ; � assistance downtown but limits it to " . . .unique uses that have � special building requirements and which have strong growth � potential." Today's market suggests a more conservative approach which emphasizes filling existing office buildings and � better marketing current downtown assets. 1 ; ;� � 4 `i � i , -1 . � . . - . . � � � ��6 -�� B. Budget Policies The following seven policies are based on the applicable portions of the Capital Allocation Policy. 1988-89 and relevant state statutes governing tax increment financing. The 5 key Capital Allocation � Policy. 1988-89 portions are simply listed below, 1. Pro�ects which clearly conflict with the Comprehensive Plan will not be considered for funding. 2. Preference will be given to projects that create income for i operation and maintenance of public programs or decrease public i operation and maintenance costs. 3. All new projects must be handicapped accessible. Preference ' will be given to projects that retrofit existing facilities for � handicapped accessibility. i 4. Preference will be given to pro�ects which demonstrably improve ; environmental quality (air and water quality, noise levels) . ; 5. Preference will be given to projects which demonstrate a concern for aesthetics by incorporating public art considerations. ; An additional policy relates to the appropriateness of projects from a lifecycle perspective: f i Projects whose useful life is less than 20 years (the term of the bonds) will not be considered for funding. � The final policy is one which is required under state statutes for '" use of tax increment bond proceeds in the downtown area: ; t Projects which cannot be implemented/completed by mid-November, � 1992 will not be considered for funding. i � III. PROJECT EVALUATION METHODOIAGY R � The evaluation of projects follows the ten investment policies discussed in the previous section. The projects are grouped into four categories based upon the criteria: 1 First, high priority pro�ects which can proceed immediately. i � Second, high priority projects which require some additional study � (3-5 months) before commitment of funds. � � Third, medium priority projects which do not fit the criteria as ! well but may be considered for funding. , � Fourth, low priority projects which conflict with the criteria. s This evaluation is a ug ide to funding projects. However, there may be other compelling factors not now known which dictate funding priorities. The purpose here is to integrate the basic investment policy into a grouping of proposed projects. � 5 ; � . . . . . � � ' �y6-�� IV. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS The current funding availability is the product of the amount of bonds sold less the cost of issuance and previous City Council commitments . Those commitments include: 1. Civic Center General Obligation Payment ; 2. Block L Atrium Extension i _ ___..._ . � 3. Design Study for Skyway to Union Depot The net bond proceeds (after cost of the above listed projects) plus the : fund balance in the Downtown Tax Increment District is approximately $17,880,000. ' In addition, a healthy contingency (20�) is warranted for this program + for two reasons. First, the scope and number of projects increase the likelihood of a project exceeding estimated costs. And second, even moderate delays in projects could force them to be dropped from the funding list because pro�ects must, by law, be completed by November, 1992. "New" projects added to replace those dropped may be costlier. After contingency there is approximately $14,300,000. Finally, when the bonds were structured and sold, it was in anticipation � of the Employment Incentives and Leasehold Program, which requires � taxable bonds. Therefore the bond sale included approximately � $2,400,000 in taxable bonds. This leaves $11,900,000 in tax exempt � bonds for distribution to worthy projects. AVAILABLE FUNDS Net Bond Proceeds* $15,207,789 Fund Balance $ 2,675,515 i � Total Available Funds $17,883,304 � Contingencv (20$) ,� 3,576,661 ; 1 After Contingency $14,306,643 � Taxable Bonds** � 2,427,927 : Total Available Tax-Exempt Funds $11,878,716 ; * Includes cost of issuance, Civic Center G.O. payment, Block L atrium � extension, and design study for Skyway to Union Depot . i � • ** Employment Incentives and Leasehold Program must be funded from � taxable bonds 6 � . . . _ . . , � � � � �o ��2 V. DOWNTOWN TIF PROGRAM PROJECT LIST as of 12/8/89 Proposer Pro ect Public Cost CCA* Overhead skyway from Amhoist $2,800,000 to 0'Shaughnessy Plaza PED/CCA Rehab of underground Civic- - $ 200,000 Center concourse PED/CCA Rehab of at-grade concourse $ 400,000 PED/CCA Roy Wilkins rehabilitation $ 300,000 PED/CCA Additional restrooms $ 250,000 PED/CCA Arena exterior $ 200 000 ' , CCA State-of-the-Art scoreboard $ 375,000 CCA New entrance to Wilkins $ 250,000 Auditorium ! CCA Replace worn arena seating $ 500,000 1 � °• CCA Furnishing/lighting for meeting $ 200,000 � rooms CCA Outdoor perimeter lighting $ 200,000 CCA Skyway: Radisson to City Hall $ 365,000 Ramsey County Skyway: Post Office to American $ 160,000 Center PED/McDonald Tunnels: under Rice Park � St. Paul Hotel to Civic $2,585,000 Center � Connection to Library $ 445,000 PED 0'Shaughnessy Plaza glass $2,200,000 enclosure PED/SCO Block 19 parking ramp $5,700,000 PED/SCO Skyway: Block 19 to Metro $ 450,000 ; Square � PED Employment Incentive and $2,000,000 Leasehold Program*** SCO Entertainment attraction**** ** 7 � Y f -� ' - .� �-ya��7 Proposer Project Public Cost SCO Carousel $ 400,000 , PED/SCO Block L atrium $ 425,000 i ' PED/SCO Skyway: Block L to Depot $ 600,000 SCO Acquisition/rehab south half $2,300�,000 of Block 25 SCO Shuttle system $ 900,000 PED Skyway: HEMAR to St. Paul $ 250,000 Center PED Skyway: Commerce Building to $1,515,000 Victory Ramp to Lowry Building � PED Streetscape, street furnishings, $ 750,000 entryway ' PED Transit improvements $ 500,000 ; PED Arts endowment $2,000,000�*-�k* PED Downtown Affordable Housing $1,000,000**k*� i ; PED Science Museum Skyway Connection $3,000,000 ; PED Skyway Access to Rice Park at �* � St. Paul Hotel ! * CCA - Civic Center Authority; SCO - Seven Civic Organizations; ( PED - Planning and Economic Development � � � ** No cost estimates F � *** Taxable bond proceed portion i � **** Unspecified activity ; ! ****� To be funded from HRA Development Fund with $2.4 million in ; projects currently programmed in the HRA Development Fund to be � funded by TIF � i � � ; � � 8 i { � s • �. , �~ � � C��..(,��1 . � � HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT -- MAY 9, 1990 PAGE TWO � Public Art Fund (Referred from HRA 4-24-90) . THIS ITEM WAS LAID OVER INDEFINITELY, 3-0 7. Authorization of Funds to Build a Child Care Center (Referred from HRA 4-24- 90) . THIS ITEM WAS DISCUSSED AND APPROVED AT THE APRIL 25, 1990, HUMAN SERVICES, REGULATED INDUSTRIES AND RULES AND POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING ----__ 8. Resolution 90-487 -- Downtown and 7th Place TIF. --� NO COMMITTEE ACTION REQUIRED�,��'�°,,.� �-a-� �� , �,c'`�rr�� hr __--_...---=- �/�9lRa /�ta,y�Y � T'� �s ��'' s� � �k _ �� w�� 1 ax I n c�� " , � ('�q b�,2c� i S��, J `p �.e _c,c�-�.� -�-�e. �a S� `�a�5�a� � y Jw� �a n,$Y��C� / t (�� ,�'� 5'� y��- � � f ��m�� . �� . � � �S) ��- v� � n�� YQ� ��'`� � `� �/G�N`C1� I n S'/!(�' C�n�'/rian(A U �vi �t �� 9 U( . �l�( ' u , �� . . pa�.7 ` CITY OF SAIle1T PAUL �j��i�nd�� 4 • ata� A� OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY HALL-7th FLOOR-SAINT PAUL,MINNESOTA 55102 612—298—5506 TOM DIMOND COUNCILMEMBER Members: Tom Dimond, Chair Paula Maccabee Dave Thune Date: May 9, �990 RECEIVED COMMITTEE REPORT �Y1 �g��V HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE GI7Y CLERK 1. Approval of the Minutes of the April 25, 1990, Housing and Economic Development Committee meeting. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPR01lAL,-3-0 2. Resolution 90-344 -- Resolution Accepting the University Avenue Corridor Study as City Policy (Referred to HED 3-6-90; Laid Over in Committee 4-25- 90) . MMENDED APPROVAL 3-0 3. Saint Paul Housing Policy for the 1990s. THIS ITEM WAS LAID OVER TO THE MAY 23, 1990, HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOMMITTEE MEETING 4. Housing and Economic Development Committee's consideration of the Economic Development Strategy, part 2 of 3. Review of Locations and Linkages Strategy; Business/Government Relations Strategy; Quality of Life Strategy; and Implementation. � THIS ITEM WAS LAID OVER TO THE MAY 23, 1990, HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING 5. Authorization of designate Expo Graphics, Inc. , tentative developer of HRA Parcels 125-C (Northeast Corner of Selby/Dale) and 141-E (Southwest Corner of Selby/Dale), Summit-University Planning Council , District 8. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL, 3-0 Chair, Housing and Redevelopment Authority, Committees: Public Works; Housing and Economic Development; Finance. 100%Recycleabie �e�s - U / � �! � � ;_ �_ ._ �._ �.b�� .� �_�G' ��.. _ .• '2nd lst �^ ._ C� v Adopted `� '� �� ' 3rd '7� . Nays 'i Yeas DIMOND �- y0 O II � i GOSYIITZ �� :, � �l LONG . ' MACCABEE. REZ"r�'� 'SHUNE , �. PRESIDENT r .YIILSON F O �� F� , � , Council File �` qd'��6 d � `� � � _ " `�� Ordinance #� / 7. Green sheet � ��D 7 ORDINANCE ;--" CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA i� - n �� Presented B -� `�� / eferred To .�-��=�-�r,� �V �(�i ommittee: Date .3'��-� y� An Ordinance amending Chapter 60 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to zoning for the City of Saint Paul and the zoning maps thereof. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has made a survey of the St. Thomas College neighborhoods in Planning Districts 13 and 14 for the purpose of considering amendments to the zoning ordinances of the city, and has determined that the number of real estate descriptions being affected by the praposed changes would render obtaining written consent to be impractical; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, following public hearings held for that purpose, has recommended that the zoning code be amended, and the City Council, having considered the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission, and having conducted a public hearing on the proposed zoning code amendments, does hereby amend the Zoning Code pursuant to the authority granted by and in accordance with the procedures set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section .462.357. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. That the Council of the City. of Saint Paul does hereby amend the Saint Paul Zoning Ordinances by amending the zoning classifications for the following properties on the zoning maps of the City of Saint Paul, Sheet No. 17, as incorporated by reference in Section 60.301 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code: Rezone from OS-1 to RM-2: a. 2117 Grand Avenue - Groveland Addition; South 60 feet of Lot 16, Block 1. b. 2115 Grand Avenue - Groveland Addition; South 60 feet of Lot 17 and of west one-half of Lot 18, Block 1. c. 2109 Grand Avenue - Groveland Addition; east one-half of Lot 18 and all of Lot 19, Block 1. d. 2091 Grand Avenue - Groveland Addition; Lot 23, Block 1. � ��a�� ±�:� �" � ; �� " °�`- 9° ''�� ' . �, �. � /�73� z58'�07� Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty days from and after its passage, approval, and publication. Yeas Navs Absent Requested by Department of: smon 'T— oswitz � on � Planning and Economic Development acca ee � ettman � une � i son BY' u Adopted by Council: Date MRY i 0 1990 Form Appr ed by Cit Atto ney Adoption ertified by Council Secretary gy: � , � BY� Approv d y Mayo for Submission to Approved by Mayor: ate s/0 D MAY � Q �990 counci ' n sy: fI/�/,,�/��'� By: � - �t1S�iED M AY 1 � 1990 � ,� ;. . ' . �fi.i��w�"'�t�� "�� _. � �� + r�-' �;t � *" •�t � � � � , � a � a� � � � �� . rn � � . rn � � . � � � � . w ' � ° C � O � � . U N • � I� � � � ` ,i F�-- � � ,�1 � Q .,� ' O y �-' �� w � ' �- W � i N °' � m � ' � � o � o ,� � . � � ; � � � �� . � U [ � N � .� � � O ' N N ' Ct� ! � � � � . � d' � � � ' � d' ' � � = O .� a � � �� J O Y F- S � Q1 .p � � � i a E . � U O �-�+ E f V ,' 2 U � • rt3 N F- F- lo Z �1-� C r-� r--� 00 � O U U M � � C�' G. . ' � � � . . ��'0'79 � � RECORDCD ON MAR 7 1991 � ,`°.+ c7�—�rr`�: � ;,:� � rn y�»'-rt�`> �,,Y�,,,, � C L� ,M. O �.:. ""��3- � ` .,,�� t�t � � �C rn.,�n�. �J � � �� C �p G L1� • { C3 fYt � r'10 c f Tt O : ��i ':�.' C�� R1""�� r {�+ � x � o"�a� STATE OF MINNESOTA ) � ��°" � ��, County of Ramsey ) ss. � CITY OF SAINT PAUL ) I . Albert B: Olson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. .City Clerk of the � City of Saint Paul, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have 90-488 compared the attached copy of Council File No.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . as adopted by the City Council. . . . . . MaX 10.. . . . . . . . . . .. . . 19 90 . . . and approved by the Mayor. . . . . . . . . . . �� 10.. . .. . . . . . . . . . . 19 90 , . . with the original thereof on file in my office. I further certify that said copy is a true and correct copy . of said original and the whole thereof. WITNESS my hand and the seal of the City of Saint Paul,. Minnesota this . . . . ,?6th. , . , , day of . . , ,February , , , , ,A.D. 19 91. . ....,. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �. . . . . . . . .. . .. �,'.'i".�` C+ ��'�. City Clerk. � � '�:�� `e��s�o�ey „ r�- . . _� . � s ri . ,� ! as0 ,,� � s i . . , �v '•��amurev. � .r)�w . � � • �Y'�'i ./ R ..�, ._...� � � �. ' 1--w � �:• � .. ._...��, .. �. � t ' F' ; �. .� _M° ��,� . • � � "' ,,._�..., y.� � �� . .. ; , � �` ��kf z;„;��.�� ` � .. . � . ._ � ��\ `.�. ( _. ,.: , _, `� .x,.�,,.,�s 1 ,!� .. , �b. �'� . . . .-, „��- _ ., ,.. . :._ . . . _ , .. , r,�� , ,.. �� . ..?a_, �