90-2283 • _ � Council File / "� J
0 R I G I �I A t� I U� .� Green Sheet # /D
RESOLUTIO��'
CITY OF SA : T PAUL, NNESOTA
Pr wnttd By
•lorrad To Committee: DatQ /�� d7-��
Capital Allocation Policy
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Saint Paul is responsible for
providing policy guidance in the annual preparation of the
Capital Improvement Budget; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the policies
adopted as part of the 1990-1994 Saint Paul Capital Allocation
Policy, and has revised them; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission released the revised Capital
Allocation Policy for public review and held a public hearing on
the document on October 5 and October 19, 1990; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approves and recommends adoption
of the policies entitled Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policy:
1992-1996 for use in the Unified Capital Improvements Program and
Budget Proce�s;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of
� Saint Paul h�reby adopts the Saint Paul Capital Allocation
Policy: 199�-1996 for use in the Unified Capital Improvements
Program and Budget Process; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council directs transmittal
to the Neighl�orhood Contact List, the Long Range Capital
Improvement Budget Committee and its task, forces, the Saint Paul
Planning Com�nission and appropriate City staff persons.
��a Nava Absent Requested by Department of:
n
o �— � Planning & Economic Development
�—
ee _�
e man �- .
�— /
vne v
i son � BY� � ��
Adopted by Counc3l: �ate M�� 5 �� Form Appro ed by City Attorn
Adoptio Certified by Council Secretary gy.
BY� � Appro ed by May for Submission to
Approved by Mayor: Date � q�MAR � �� �ggFoun i
4
a
r
gy; �aG,�✓ �i���/';
Sy: � �_
PUBUSNEO MAR 16'91
70 '���3 �
DEPARTMENT/OFFICE/COUNCIL OATE INITIATED N� _ 10 2 2 9
P.E.D. 11/3�/90 GREEN SHEET .
CONTACT PERSON&PHONE INITIi U TE - INITIAUDATE
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR �j �CfTY COUNCIL
Mark Vander Sch af JJ'� ASSIGN ITYATfORNEY �CITYCLERK
MUST BE ON COUNCIL AGENDA Y(DATE) ROUTING FOR gUDGET DIRECTOR �FI T.SERVICES DIR.
December 30� �9 � ' ORDER �MAYOR(OR ASSISTANT) eggy Reiche
TOTAL#OF SIGNATUR PAGE 3 (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt 1990-1999 Prog am for Capital Improvements and 1992-1996 Capital Allocation Policy.
RECOMMENDATIONS:Approve(A)or Reject( ) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING GUESTIONS:
A PWNNING COMMISSION _ CI IL SERVICE COMMISSION �• Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department?
_CIB COMMITTEE YES NO
2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee?
_STAFF
- YES NO
_DISTRICT COUR7 _ 3. Does this ersonHirm
p possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee?
SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJ CTIVE7 YES NO
All Explaln all yes answers on separate aheet and attach to green sheet
INITIATING PROBLEM,ISSUE,O PORTUNI (Who,What,When,Where,Why): �. r �
. 1976 Metropol'tan and Planning Act requires the: City to prepare and upda�� '��5�
for Capital I prov ments. , _,
. City Council 's re ponsible for providing policy guidance (via the Capi�l � ..:���n
Policy) in th ann al preparation af the Capital Improvement Budget. - - �
ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED:
. Will provide ound guidance to citizens, City departments, the CIB Committee and the
City Council n pr paring, evaluating and adopting proposals for financing via the
City's capita bud et.
R��E'V�D
DEC 1 1 199�
DISNOneAGES IF APPROVED: vo��Och�^�
I
�,'��� '� �
� �
�'�
DISADVANTAGES IF NOTAPPROV D:
. Lack of sound guid nce to citizens, City departments, the CIB Committee and �he City
Council in pr pari g, evaluating and adopting proposals for financing via the City's
capital budge . Counci! Research Center
Ut� � � 19�U
TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSA TION S COST/REVENUE BUDGETEp(CIRCLE ONE) YES NO
FUNDING SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMBER
FINANCIAL INFORMATION:(EXPLA N) +�
a
NOTE: COMPLETE DIRECTIONS ARE INCLUDED IN THE GREEN SHEET INSTRUCTIONAL
MANUAL AVAILABLE IN THE PURCHASING OFFICE(PHONE NO.298-4225).
ROUTING ORDER:
Below are correct routings for the five most frequent rypes of documents:
CONTRACTS(assumes authorized budget exists) COUNCIL RESOLUTION(Amend Budgets/Accept. Grants)
1. Outside Agency 1. Department Director
2. Department Director 2. City Attomey
3. City Attorney 3. Budget Director '
4. Mayor(for contracts over$15,000) 4. MayoNAssistant
5. Human Rights(for contracts over$50,000) 5. City Councii
6. Finance and Management Services Director 6. Chief Accountant, Finance and Management Services
7. Finance Accounting
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS(Budget Revision) COUNCIL RESOLUTION (all others,and Ordinances)
1. Activity Manager 1. Department Director
2. Department Accountant 2. City Attorney
3. Department Director 3. Mayor Assistant
4. Budget Director 4. Ciry Council
5. City Clerk
6. Chief Accountant, Finance and Management Services
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS(all others)
1. Department Director
2. Ciry Attorney
3. Finance and Management Services Director
4. City Clerk
TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNATURE PAGES
Indicate the#of pages on which signatures are required and paperclip or flag
each ot these pages.
ACTION RE(2UESTED
Describe what the projecUrequest seeks to accomplish in either chronologi-
oal order or order of importance,whichever is most appropriate for the
issue. Do not write corr+plete sentences. Begin each item in your list with
a verb.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Complete if the issue in question has been presented before any body,public
or private.
SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE?
Indicate which Council objective(s)your projecVrequest supports by listing
the key word(s)(HOUSING, RECREATION, NEIGHBORHOODS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
BUDGET,SEWER SEPARATION). (SEE COMPLETE LIST IN INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL.)
PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS:
This information will be used to determine the citys liability for workers compensation claim8,taxes and proper civil service hiring rules.
INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE,OPPORTUNITY
Explain the situation or conditions that created a need for your project
or request.
ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED
Indicate whether this is simply an annual budget procedure required by law/
charter or whether there are specific ways in which the City of Saint Paul
and its citizens will benefit from this projecVaction.
DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED
What negative effects or major changes to existing or past processes might
this project/request produce if it is passed(e.g.,traffic delays,noise,
tax increases or assessments)?To Whom?When? For how long?
DISADVANTAGES IF NO�APPROVED
What will be the negative consequences if the promised action is not
approved?Inability to deliver service?Continued high traffic, noise,
accident rate?Loss of revenue?
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Although you must tailor the information you provide here to the issue you
are addressing,in general you must answer two questions: How much is it
going to cost?Who is going to pay?
� �y����
r
�
�
SAINT PAUL CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICY
� 1992-1996
�
�
�
�
1
�� '��
�
�
� Adopted by the Saint Paul Planning Commission:
November',2, 1990
�
�
�
� PLANN�NG DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
� C1TY HAE,L ANNEX
25 WEST FOURTH STREET
SAIN'T PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102
�
� ��y°_aa�3
�
TABLE OF CONTEN'TS
�
1.0 Intrpductioa 1
� 1.1 Purpose of Saint Paul's Capital Improvement 1
Budgcting Process
� 1.2 Stages of Saint Paul's Capital Improvement 1
Budgeting Process
1.3 Components of the Capital Allocation Policy 6
1.4 Why Havc a Policy for Capital Allocation? 6
� l.5 How is the Capital Allocation Policy Used? 6
1.6 Organization of This Document 7
� 2.0 Strategic Goals 8
� 2.1 What Are Stratcgic Goals? 8
2.2 Why Have Strategic Goals? 8
2.3.0 Types of Strategic Goals 9
� 2.3.1 Plannin Goals 9
S
� G-1 Basic Services 10
G-2 Neighborhood Management and Housing 10
G-3 Business and Jobs 10
�
2.3.2 Fiscal Goals 11
�; ' G-4 FiscalIntegrity II
� 3.0 Policies for Capital Allocation 12
� 3.1 Project Policies l2
P-1 Comprehensive Plan 12
P-2 Ncw Facilities l2
� P-3 Skyways 12
P-4 Handicapped Accessibility 13
P•S Program Aliocations 14
� P•6 Extraordinary Capital Maintenance 15
P-7 Redevelopment Activities 16
P-8 Residential Street Paving 16
� P-9 Rain Leader Disconnection in City Facilities 16
P-10 Finaneing for Preliminary Studies 17
P-11 Duplication of Services 17
P-12 Assessment Policy 17
�
�
�
3.2.0 Evaluation Policies 18
�
3.2.1 Planning Evaluation Policies 18 �
E-1 Levcl of Scrvice 18 �
E-2 Program for Capital Improvements (PC1) 19
E-3 Departmental Evaluation 20
E-4 Environment 20 �
E-S Public Arts Considcrations 20
E-6 Systcm Intcgrity 20
E-7 District Plan 21
E-8 District Council Ranking 21 �
E-9 Small Area Plan -- Residential Component 21
E-10 Priority Redevclopment Area 2l
E-I1 Housing 21 �
E-12 Historic Prescrvation 21
E-13 Small Area Plan -- Commcrcial Component 22 "
E-14 Job Creation 22 �
E-15 Business Investment 22
3.2.2 Fiscal Evaluation Policies 23 �
E-16 Impact on Operating Budget 23
E-17 Impact on City Revenues 23 �
E-18 Grants 23
E-19 Private Investment 23
E-20 Acquisition 24 �
E-21 Joint Use / Consolidation of Facilities 24
E-22 Continuation Projects 25
E•23 Programming and Phasing 25
E-24 Use 25 �
E-25 Fiscal Impact Analysis 26
3.3 Financial Policies 26 �
F-1 Financing Sources 26 ,�
F-2 Community Developmcnt Biock Grant 27
(CDBG) Program
F-3 Bond Financing 27
F-4 Tax Incremcnt Financing 28 �
F-5 HRA General Fund 28
F-6 HRA Development Fund 28
F-7 Rehabilitation Loan Funds 29
F-8 Sale/Leaseback 29 �
F-9 Tax Abatement 29
F-10 Priorities and Procedures for Disbursing 29
Capital Improvement Project Financing �
F-ll Reappropriation of Delayed Capital Project 30
Financing
F-12 Projcct Phasing 31 �
F-13 Out-of-Cycle Appropriations for New Projects 31
F•I4 Increased Costs for Projects 31
F-15 Multi-Year Projection of Capital 32 �
Financing Sourccs
� ��y°'���3
� 4.0 Guidelines for Capital Programming 33
� PCI•1 Years 1992-1993 of the 1992-2001 PCI 33
PCI-2 Years 1994-1996 of the PCI: Relationship 33
to Adopted Plans and Policies
PCI-3 Years 1994-1996 of the PCI: Tentative Commitments 33
� PCI•4 Years 1994-1996 of the PCI: Programming of 33
Projects Other than Tentative Commitments
PCI-S Years 1994-1996 of the PCI: Match Between 34
� Programmed Projects and Eapected Available
Financing
PCI•6 Years 1994•1996 of the PCI: Distribution of 34
Capital Improvement Bond and Community
�' Development Block Grant Rcsources
PCI-7 Years 1994-1996 of the PCI: Unknown Financing 35
Sources
� PCI-8 Years 1997-2001 of the PCI: Distribution of 35
Expected Availablc Financing
PCI•9 Years 1997-2001 of the PCI: Unknown Financing 35
� ' Sources
� S.0 Fut�re Dircctions for the Capital Improvement 36
Budgcting Process
A-1 Monitoring of Past Programs, Budgets and 36
� Expenditures
A-2 Assessment of Future Capital Needs 36
1 6.0 , Definitions 38
� Appendix A: City of Saint Paul Mission Statement 41
Appendix B: Plans and Policics Relevant for 42
' Capital Budgeting
� Appendia �: Overall Budget Goals 44
Appcndix D: Capital Function Strategies 47
Appendix E: Public Improvement Assessment Policy 56
� Appendix F: Estimated Financing Sources for Saint Paul's 61
Capital I mprovements: 1992-1996
�
�
�
�
�
� ����-a��.J
� .
1.0 INTRODUCTION
�
---------------------------------------------
1.1 PURPOSE OF SAINT PAUL'S CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
� BUDGETING PROCESS
The purpose of Saint Paul's capital improvement budgeting process is to
� plan, program and finance capital improvements in a way that is both
fiscally responsible and accountable to the citizens of the city. As such, this
process contributes to the fulfillment of Saint Paul's mission, expressed in a
� statement adopted by thc City Council (see Appendix A).
1"o ensure that the purposc of the process is fulfilled, two citizen advisory
� bodies work to develop a recommended capital improvement budget:
1) Planning Commission. An important responsibility of the Planning
Commission is to determine what kinds of capital systems are needed
� to maximize Saint Paul's potential as a place to live and do business.
The city's Comprchensive Plan, developed by the Planning
Commission, provides considerable guidance concerning desirable
� future capital investment for Saint Paul. In the capital improvement
budgeting process, the Planning Commission translates the
Comprehensive Plan into focused policies to guide the city's choice
� and timing of capital improvement projects. Appendix B is a list of
the elements of Saint Paul's Comprehensive Plan.
2) Long-Range Capital Improvement Budget Committee (CIB
� Comimittee). Along with its task forces, this citizen's committee
evaluates and prioritizes capital improvement budget proposals. The
priorities assigned by the CIB Committee are the basis for the capital
imp�ovement budget whieh the Mayor recommends to the City
� Council for it to adopt.
In addition to these advisory bodies, Saint Paul's 17 Citizen Participation
� Districts provide important input into the capital improvement budgeting
process. The CIB Committee and task forces have one representative from
each Citizen Participation District. Moreover, District Council ratings are a
� ' criterion far evaluating and prioritizing proposed projects.
,� 1.2 STAiGES OF SAINT PAUL'S CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
BUDGETING PROCESS
� Saint Paul's capital improvement budgeting process has three stages:
1) Capttal Allocation Policy (CAP). The CAP is a set of policy
� statements to guide capital improvement budget proposals and their
evaluation. The CAP is related both to the city's Comprehensive
Plan and to the city's Budget Goals and Policies. The Comprehensive
� Plan identifies the systems and development patterns needed to
maximize thc city's potential as a place to live and work; the Budgct
Goals and Policies outline principles of financial prudence to
prioritize city service delivery activities. (See Appendix C for a
� 1
�
summary of Saint Paul's 1991 Budget Goals and Policies.) By �
articulating city objectives for capital investment, the CAP functions
as a bridge between the Comprehensive Plan and the Budget Goals
and Policies. �
The Planning Commission prepares thc CAP in consultation with thc
Mayor's Office and city departments. Following a period of public
review, the Planning Commission adopts the CAP and transmits it to �
thc Mayor aho reviews the CAP and transmits it to the City Council
for their approval. The adoptcd CAP has a five-year time horizon
but is revised every two years, prior to the adoption of a capital �
improvement budget.
2) Capital Improvement Budget. City departments, District Councils �
and othcr parties submit proposals for capital projects. Thcse
proposals are evaluated and prioritized by the Saint Paul Long-Range
Capital Improvement Budget Committce (CIB Committee) and its task
forces. The primary evaluative tool of the CIB Committee is a rating �
sheet which incorporates material from the CAP as well as from
other sources. The CIB Committee and task forces are composed of
representatives of Saint Paul's 17 Citizen Participation Districts. �
Based on the recommendations of the CIB Committee, the City
Council adopts an annual capital budget.
3) Program for Capltal Improvements (PCI). The ten-year PCI is �
adopted by the Planning Commission, reviewed by thc Mayor and
approved by the City Council shortly after the capital budget is
adopted. The PCI is a list of intended future capital improvements �
which organizes important projects according to years of fund
eapenditure, ostimated cost and expected financing source. The PCI
also prioritizes projects and categorizes them within one of 11 capital �
functions: Streets, Street Lighting, Traffic Engineering, Bridges,
Scwers, Parks and Open Spaccs, Libraries, Housing and Economic
Development, Police, Fire and Safety, and Special Facility Support.
1"he first two ears of the PCI consist of ro'ects alread finaneed �
y p � y
by the capital budget. Years 3-5 include phases of projects which
need to be financed to continue commitments made in the capital �
budget, and other high-priority projects that are affordable relative
to expected available financing. Years 6-10 include projects which
city departments have identified as being important but are not yet � �
covered by financing commitments. The intent of this format is to
match years 1-5 closely to actual or anticipated finances; it is less
necessary for projects in years 6-10 to match expected financing
levels. However, projccts in years 6-10 are categorized according to �
their level of priority.
The PCI is prepared by the Planning Commission in consultation �
with the Mayor's Office and with city dcpartments. The PCI
bccomes part of the Comprehensive Plan upon its adoption.
Although three stages in the capital improvement budgeting process have �
been identified, the process is actually a cycle in which each activities in
each stage rely on activities in preceding stages. For example, the CAP
requires that proposed projects be evaluated concerning their conformance �
with the most recent PCI. Thus, although the CAP is the foundation, it also
2 �
A
�
FIGURE 1
SAINT PAUL'S � �
CAPTfAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGETING PROCESS
�
�
Capital Allocation Policy(CAP) �
Sets 5-ycar policy direction for the capital -
improvement budget proposals and their �
cvaluaton.
Evaluation of PCI in light
of Comprehensive Plan leads
to revision of CAP �
�
Program for Capital Improvements(PCI)
Sets 10-year program by tyi�g capital �
needs to long-range policy of the Evaluation and prioritization
Comprehensive Plan. of proposed capital projects
�
���
CIB becomes first �
2 years of PCI
Capital Impmvement Budget(CIB) �
Appropriates funds for capital pmjccts.
Identifies tentative expenditures
needed within the next five years to complete �
currently approved projects.
�
�
�
4 �
t �=��-���-�
� FIGURE 2
PROCESS OF DEVELOPING THE
CAPTTAL ALLOCATION POLICY
�
�
Bud¢et Staff Plannine Staff
� Proposes:- fiscal goals Proposes:- planning goals
- project policics(fiscal) - project policies(planning)
- fiscal evaluation policies - planning evaluation policies
� - financial policies
1
� CiR Committee '
Recommends:- fiscal goals
- project policies(fiscal)
� - fiscal evaluation policies
- financial policies
�
�
� Plannin�Commission
l. Prepares CAP for public review
2. Holds public hcaring
� 3. Adopts CAP
�
� Re�svYews and recommends
�
� Citv Council
Adopts CAP
�
�' S
�
___________________________________________ �
1.3 COMPONENTS OF THE CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICY
The 1992-1996 CAP consists of a set of Strategic Goals (Planning Goals and
Fiscal Goals) and three sets of policy statements (Project Policies, ,�
Evaluation Policies and Financial Policies). The Strategic Goals function as
the rationale for the policies.
1) Yroject Pollcies. Used to detcrmine if, and under what conditions, a �
proposed project is eligible for capital financing. If the proposed
project does not violatc the limits established by the Project Policies, �
its merits are then evaluated. In practice, most proposals are not
affected by these policics.
2) Evaluation Policies (Plannin� Evaluation Policies; Fiscal Evaluation �
Pollcies). Used to evaluatc the merits of proposed projects which are
eligible for capital financing. The CIB Committee assigns points and �
ranks proposed projccts using a rating sheet which incorporates �
material from the Evaluation Policies. Financing sources are then
sought for the highest ranking proposals.
3) Financial Polictes. Used to determine what sources of financing can �
be used for specific projects. The most narrowly-targeted form of
financing is assigned to each proposal so that financing can be found
for as many good proposals as possible. �
In short, the three types of policies lead to a recommended capital budget
which consists of the highest-ranking eligible projects for which capital �
financing is available.
1.4 WHY HAVE A POLICY FOR CAPITAL ALLOCATION?
---- �
Proposals for capital improvement projects in Saint Paul generally have
costs which excccd the amount of available capital resources. To provide ,�
the greatest bcnefit to the city, the Capital Improvement Budget must
finance thc projects which address the greatest needs. For this reason, it is �
essential to determine the relative priority of proposed projects and allocate
resources accordingly.
The CAP helps ensure that high priority projects meeting city goals are �
funded during the budget biennium. It transforms city goals and priorities
into a sct of policies that guide capital improvcment budgeting decisions.
�
--------------------------------------------
1.5 HOW IS 'THE CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICY USED? �
The primary function of the CAP is to providc guidance to the CIB
Committee and its task forces as they evaluate capital improvement
proposals and recommend a capital improvement budget to the Mayor and �
City Council. To fulfill this function properly, the CAP must accomplish
two tasks. First, it must articulate citywide goals which relate to capital
improvements. Secondly, it must transform thesc goals into policies which �
6 �
� �9a���3
� provide claar guidance concerning priorities for thc upcoming capital
budget. These policies must enable the CIB Committee to evaluate proposed
projects thoughtfully.
� Two other functions stem from the primary function of the CAP. First, the
CAP helps District Councils, city departments and other parties develop
capital improvement proposals. By stating the criteria for evaluating
� proposals, the CAP indicates what types of proposals are most likely to be
evaluated favorably by the CIB Committee and its task forces. Secondly,
the CAP heips the Mayor and City Council coordinate budget decisions for
� capital improvements with long•range operating and maintenance
obligations of the city.
� --------------------------------------------
1.6 ORGANIZATION OF THIS DOCUMENT
� Chapter 1.0 - Provides a general introduction to this document.
Chapter 2.0 - Presents the Strategic Goals which are the foundation of the
� city's policies for capital allocation. Two types of Strategic Goals are
presented: Alanning Goals and Fiscal Goals.
Chapter 3.0 - Contains a discussion of three types of policics for allocating
� city capital resources: Project Policies, Evaluation Policies (Planning and
Fiscal) and Financial Policies.
� Chapter 4.0 - Contains a discussion of guidelines for capital programming.
These guidelines are used by the Planning Commission and City departments
to prepare the ten-year Program for Capital Improvements (PCI).
� Chapter 5.0 - Discusses future directions for the city's capital improvement
budgeting process.
� Chapter 6.0 - Provides definitions of some important terms.
�
�
�
�
�
�
� �
�
. �
2.0 STRATEGIC GOALS
�
--------------------------------------------
2.1 WHAT ARE STRATEGIC GOALS?
Strategic Goals are statements which provide the direction and framework �
for the three sets of policies which are detailed in Chapter 3.0. Most
notably, Strategic Goals create the categories for the Evaluation Policies �
that are translated into a rating sheet by thc CIB Committec. Thc rating
sheet is then used to evaluate individual proposals. Strategic Goals are
"goals" in that thcy articulate what kind of city Saint Paul should seek to �
bccome. They are "strategic" because they acknowledge the limitations of
thc city's capital resources and provido a sensc of priority for pursuing
certain types of projects over others.
During the upcoming capital budget cycle, the evaluation of individual �
proposals will be bascd on policies which stem from the Strategic Goals of
the CAP. However, capital programming in city departments will continue �
to be structured by "Capital Function Stratcgies" which articulate guidelincs
for the dcvelopmcnt of particular types of capital systems. The Planning
Commission and the CIB Committee have recommended that Capital �
Function Strategies should be incorporatcd into the CAP, be tied more
directly to the city's Strategic Goals, and be used to evaluate individual
proposals. The 1992-1996 CAP implements this recommendation. Capital
Function Strategies were revised in the 1990-1999 Program for Capital �
Improvements to conform to the Strategic Goals of the 1990-1994 CAP.
These revised Capital Function Strategies are included as Appendix D.
The Strategic Goals (Chapter 2.0) and the Policies for Capital Allocation �
(Chapter 3.0) are stated in separate chapters. T'he intent of this structure is
to emphasize that Strategic Goals arc not policy. Instead, they are
guidelines for the development of policy. The policies articulated in �
Chapter 3.0 are the authoritative interpretation of the meaning of the
Strategic Goals. 1"he Capital Function Strategies serve to clarify the intent
of the Strategic Goals and to strengthen the foundation of the Policies for �
Capital Allocation.
-------------------------------------------- �
2.2 WHY HAVE STRATEGIC GOALS?
The main reason why Stratcgic Goals are needed is that the city's capital �
resources are limited. These limitations take sevcral forms. Most of the
city's non-bonding revenue comes from state and federal sources and is
limited by how much aid these governmcnt units make available to Saint ��
Paul, and by limits to uses of various financing sources set by the
government providing the aid. Beyond that, the city is constrained by state
legal limits on municipal bonding and by a more stringent sclf-imposed �
limit on bonding designed to reduce overlapping general obligation debt.
Appendix F displays the estimated financing sources available for capital
projects from 1992 to 1996.
�
8 � � �
1
�yo-�� �3
� In addition to the limits on revenue sources, the city's financial resources
are constrained by past commitments to multi-year projects which have not
been completed. Financially, the most significant of these is the
commitment to separate the city's combined storm and sanitary sewers. In
� 1985, the Minnesota Legislature produced a funding partnership which
allowed this accelerated sewer separation program to be adopted in Saint
Paul. The legislative package commits the city, the metropolitan area, and
� the state to complete separation by 1995 at a cost of $150 million (in 1985
dollars).
� --------------------------------------------
2.3.0 TYPES OF STRATEGIC GOALS
� The Strategic Goals have two complementary foci: Planning and Fiscal. The
Planning Coals (G-1 through G-3) relate to the desirability of projects
without regard to cost or financing. The purpose of these goals is to
� articulate what kind of community Saint Paul should become and what kind
of public activities can help bring about that type of community. In
contrast, Fiscal Goals (G-4) establish principles of prudent financial
. management for the city's capital improvement budget. Both types of goals
� are necessary to ensure that Saint Paul's public investments yield the
maximum benefits.
� The Planning Goals are based on Saint Paul Tomorrow, a study done in the
mid-1980s by the Planning Commission. This study included a statistical
profile of the city (Saint Paul 'Today) and an extensive survey process
1 designed to "listen" to the community in a comprehensive way. Finally, a
series of workshops involving a wide variety of citizens worked to define
issues and identify new directions 4'or the city. 'The Planning Commission
synthesized this work into a final report which it adopted in 1987. Because
� the purposc of the Saint Paul Tomorrow project was to build a foundation
for strategic planning in Saint Paul, this study is the most appropriate
source of Planning Goals for the CAP.
� The Fiscal Goals reflect relevant "General Budget Goals" from the City of
Saint Paul 1991 Budget Goals and Policies, a document adopted by the City
� Council.
� --------------------------------------------
2.3.1 PLANNING GOALS
The recommendations of the Saint Paul Tomorrow report rest on a
� consensus:
Saint Pau! shoc�ld maximize its potential as a place to live and do
, buseness.
This consensus has been articulated in a mission statement for the city
whieh has becn adopted by the City Council. Appendix A contains the
� complete text of Saint Paul's mission statement.
The following three Planning Goals are based on this consensus. These
� goals are intended to be sufficiently general to apply to a wide variety of
city activities, but sufficiently specific to be helpf ul for capital budgeting
deciaions. The goals are stated in order of priority.
� 9
�
G-1 Basic Services �
o Goal: To provide Saint Paul residents and employers with a basic �
level of city services.
o Discussion: This Strategic Goal has three important implicatioas. �
First, it identifies residents and employers as the citizenry which the
city should serve. Secondly, it implies that a "basic" level of service
can be defined and should be provided to all city citizens. Finally,
by speaking of "city services," this goal acknowledges that some �
important services are properly provided by parties other than city
governmcnt. City government should focus on the scrviccs that it
can most eqoitably and efficiently provide. �
In practice, the city operationalizes this goal especially via adopted
city plans and policies which define a basic level of services for the
city's capital functions. Therefore, the Capital Function Strategies �
which guide the preparation of the Program for Capital
Improvements are based on adopted plans and policies and are
rclated to this Strategic Goal. The city's current Capital Function �
Strategies are contained in Appendix D.
G-2 Neighborhood Management and Housing �
o Coal: To support the careful management of Saint Paul
neighborhoods, each according to its own best potential. �
o Discussion: This Stratcgic Goal has several implications. First, it
identifies neighborhoods as the focus of community life in Saint
Paul. Second, it highlights the importance of the city as a residential �
environment. Good neighborhood management should lead to the
provision of attractivt housing opportunities for a broad spcctrum of
the city's population. Third, it suggcsts that �1 areas of Saint '
Paul--outlying areas and downtown--bclong to ncighborhoods.
Fourth, it indicates that conscious neighborhood management is
necessary. Such management shonld involve both neighborhood
self-management and management by city officials. Finally, it '
stresses thc notion of "potential," suggesting that different
neighborhoods have different potentials. Policies and projects which
are appropriate in one neighborhood may not be in another ■
neighborhood. ��
In practice, the city operationalizes this goal especially via District �
Plans, via small area plans that identify priorities for neighborhoods
which anticipate significant changes in the near future, and via
programs which identify various geographic areas as being eligible
for special revitalization projects. '
G-3 Business and Jobs
o Goal: To ensure a supportive environment for businesses and jobs. �
o Discussion: This goal implics that city government should not limit ,
its activities to residential concerns but should also promote economic
dcvelopment. At its best, such promotion should be broad and
10 �
. , /
-- �
� (� ��,�,Z 8.3
r � ��
1
Committee Report �
Finance, Manageme�nt, and Personnel Committee
February 11, 1991
3. Administrativ�e Orders:
D-11049 - Budget revision in Community Services - Parks and Recreation
fund. (Referred from Council 8/23/90)
It was noted that this is being appealed. Specific directives were give
to Parks & Rec. to clarify in tfie job specs. whether it is a full-time or
part-time position. The position should be used for 100% housing issues
and not for grant writing and Southeast Asian initiative as well . It
should also be a classified position.
D-11060 - App.roval to contract temporary services for telephone coverage.
(Re"ferred from Council 9/6/90)
Specific directive was given that certified part-time city list be used
instead of ou�tside temporary services. Administration is to implement
this directive.
4. esolu "n 2283 - adopting the 1992-1996 Capital Allocation Polic .
(Referreld fro Council 12/27/90
Resolution 90r2284 - adopting the 1990-1999 Program for Capital
Improvements. (Referred from Council 12j27/90)
Approved with amendments to the Capital Allocation Policy and Program for
Capital Improaements. Mark Vander Schaaf, PED, is responsible for the
amendments which will be reviewed prior to City Council meeting.
5. Policy discussion on securing a mi ive aw judges for Civil Service �
Commission.
Administrative law judges have never been used for the Civil Service
Commission. fiwo departmerts requested the use of ALJs and both were
denied b;� the Council on a 7-� vote. The only way in which an
administrative law judge should be used is by the department coming to
the Council with a reason for the exception and it must come out of the
department's budget, not contingent reserve. The City Attorney will
prepare a cod�fication on the ways that an ALJ should be used.
6. Policy discussion on compensation and benefit package for non-represented
management personnel .
Resolution brpught in by Mayor freezing salaries of administrative non-
represented personnel was referred to Council without recommendation in
order for Councilmembers to confer with their staff by the third reading.
-2-
� � /� ,o-�.���
v/��
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
`G1TY�O
'�° '� OFFICE O�T+' THE MAYOR
; y�
� IIII,II,II i G
m �
347 CITY HALL
JAMES SCHEIBEL SAINT YAUL, MINNESOTA 55102
MAYOR (612) 288-4323
December 3 , 1990
President William Wilson and
City Councilme�nbers
Seventh Floor City Hall
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Dear President Wilson and Members of the City Council:
I am pleased tio transmit to you two documents which are integral
to Saint Paul's capital budgeting process: the 1990-1999 Program
for Capital I�provements (PCI) and the 1992-1996 Capital
Allocation Pol,icy (CAP) . I urge you to review these documents
and adopt them as city policy. In order to have these documents
available for the 1992-1993 capital budgeting process, they must
be on the Cour�cil Agenda by the end of December, and should be
adopted sometime in January.
Over the past ,twelve years, the PCI and the CAP have incorporated
a solid citywide perspective into the capital budgeting process.
The Planning Commission revises both documents as part of the
two-year capi�al budgeting process, and strives to improve them
with each revi,sion.
Some signific�lnt changes have been made in the capital budgeting
process since 1986. Four years ago, the Planning Commission
committed its�lf to revising the PCI and the CAP in a more
strategic fashion. Consequently, a Joint CIB Committee/Planning
Commission ta�k force was created to consider ways to strengthen
the role pf tY�e Planning Commission in the capital budgeting
process. The recommendations of this task force were adopted by
both the Planr�ing Commission and the CIB Committee, and have been
implemented d�ring the past two years.
Important new� features of the PCI include the followinq:
Time Hor�zon. Now the PCI is created after a one-year
capital budget is adopted by the City Council. The adopted
budget amd the recommended budget for the following year
become t�e first two years of a ten-year PCI. Thus, the PCI
that I a�i transmitting to you is actually the last phase of
the capital budgeting process that began two years ago with
City Council adoption of the 1990-1994 CAP. In the past, a
five-year PCI was adopted before the budget was adopted.
The intent of the new procedure is to distinguish between
probable projects (programmed during the first five years of
the PCI) and long-range departmental and neighborhood needs
(program�ned during the second five years of the PCI) .
Princed on Recycled Paper
as�s
, . � � ��10 -���-�
President Will�iam Wilson and
City Coun�ilmembers
December 3, 19!90
Page Two
Real�stiq Programminq. In the past, the PCI was something
of a "wi5h list, " with the cost of programmed projects far
exceeding� expected available resources, particularly as
regards sicarce Capital Improvement Bond and Community
Developmeint Block Grant moneys. For the new PCI, City
departmer�ts worked diligently with the Planning Commission
to reduc� overprogramming for years 3-5 of the PCI (there is
no overpnogramming in years 1 & 2 because these years
consist af the adopted and recommended budgets) . In the new
PCI (199a-1999) , departmental proposals for CIB and CDBG
funding eixceed expected available resources by only 8.4
percent i;n years 3-5 of the program; in the old PCI
(1988-199i2) , the overprogramming for these two fund sources
was at a level of 33.6 percent during the comparable time
period.
Warn�rfShjepard Road. Because some significant financing
issues ha�ve not yet been resolved concerning this project,
the PCI r�otes that some of the phasing and funding sources
are "to b�e determined" (see pages 37, 45, and 46 of the
PCI) . It may be possible to provide more precise figures at
the �ime the City Council considers the PCI for adoption.
While the enclosed PCI completes the last budget cycle, the
enclosed 1992-�1996 CAP technically begins the next cycle. The
new CAP is not; as dramatically different as is the new PCI,
largely becaus�e the implementation of the task force
recommendatior�s began two years ago with the CAP that was adopted
at that time. However, there are some changes in the CAP which
should be notad.
Important new ��features of the CAP include the followinq:
Eval�atian Policy Regarding "System Integrity" . Policy E-6
on page 210 of the CAP was added as a result of the review of
the draf� CAP by the new Parks Commission. This policy
states that, all things being equal, preference shall be
granted �o projects which create appropriate linkages
between eixisting components of the city's capital systems or
functions�. Similarly, projects which remove important
components from the city's existing capital systems or
functions� shall be penalized.
Guidelin�s for the Use of Bond Financing. Policy F-3 on
page 27 Leaves blank the requested limits on CIB bonding for
1992 and ,1993, in order for City Council to discuss and
request s�uch a limit.
. . . D�9o,,�,��3
President Wil]�iam Wilson and
City Councilme�mbers
December 3, 19!90
Page Three
New �'inar�cial Policies. Four new financial policies (F-11
through F-14 on pages 30-32 of the CAP) were recommended by
the CIB Committee and adopted by the Planning Commission.
These poliicies will insure that capital projects and
programsiare monitored more closely, and reappropriations of
unused mdneys are determined more systematically.
Guid�linqs for Capital Programminq. Section 4.0 on pages
33-35 spalls out nine guidelines for the Planning Commission
to use whien creating the next Program for Capital
Improvements. Now that a concerted effort is being made to
eliminate overprogramming in years 3-5 of the PCI, it is
important� for there to be a fair set of standard procedures
for the Planning Commission and departments to follow to
achieve �his goal. These guidelines grew out of substantial
input which departments provided in evaluating the
procedures used to prepare the 1990-1999 PCI. Note that a
consequer�ce of these guidelines will be that adopted City
plans or policies will be required as the basis for
including any major project in years 3-5 of the PCI in the
future. In practice, this means that special capital plans
will be r�eeded for the Police Department and the Public
Health Di;vision in the near future because they currently
are lacki:ng such plans (see Guideline PCI-2 on page 33 of
the CAP) .
Issues which w�ere raised during the review period for both the
PCI and the CAiP are discussed in detail in two enclosed reports
from the Econdmic Development Committee of the Planning
Commission. The Planning Commission accepted all of the
committee recqmmendations in both reports. Thus, the versions of
the PCI and tY�e CAP which I am transmitting to you has been
revised in acaordance with these recommendations.
The Planning Cjommission believes that much progress has been made
in improving �he PCI and the CAP during the past two years.
Discussions with City departments, the CIB Committee, and the
Parks Commissi;on have indicated that they are also pleased with
the work that 'has been done to strengthen these documents. I
trust that the! PCI and the CAP will be valuable tools as we work
together to datermine the focus of the 1992-1993 budget.
Very/ rul� ou�rs,
,
James Scheibel
Mayor
JS/bp
Attachments
✓
(�ya-a��3
�GiTY o,� � CITY OF SAINT PAUL
�� ' DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
� � x
° " '' DIVISION OF PLANNING
y ����I'�"�� 0 25 West Fourth Street,Saint Paul,Minnesota 55102
41 h
612-228-3270
'e°+ Fax:612-228-3220
JAMES SCHEIBEL
MAYOR
MEMORANDIIM
DATE: February 22, 1991
TO: City Councilmembers
FROM: Mark Vander Schaaf 4�
City Planner
RE: Finance Committee Revisions of the 1992-1996 Capital
Allocation Policy (CAP)
The following memo summarizes the revisions to the 1992-1996
Capital Allocation Policy (CAP) made by the City Council Finance
Committee at its meeting on February il, and states the changes in
the text of the CAP required to reflect those changes. All
references to "old" policies, guidelines and page numbers in this
memo are references to the version of the CAP adopted by the
Planning Commission on November 2, 1990.
1. Adopted Plans or Policies for Larqe Projects
Finance Committee Action
The Finance Committee indicated that the CAP should
require all proposals for large capital projects to
be based on a plan or policy approved by the Mayor
and City Council. The version of the CAP that had
been adopted by the Planning Commission required
that large projects be based on an adopted plan or
policy in order for them to be included in years
3-5 of the Program for Capital Improvements, but
did not indicate that this be a requirement to be
eligible for consideration in the capital budget
process. Moreover, the earlier version of the CAP
had established a three year "grace period" to
enable departments and divisions without relevant
adopted plans or policies to create such plans.
Chanqe in CAP Required to Reflect Finance Committee Action:
1) Revise Project Policy P-1 (page 12) to read as
follows:
�qa -��
City Councilmembers (CAP)
February 22, 1991
Page Two
P-1 Plans and Policies
Proposals for capital projects must be
consistent with approved City plans and
policies.
1. Proposals for projects which clearly
conflict with the city's
Comprehensive Plan will not be
considered for financing. The
Planning Commission shall review all
proposals for capital improvement
financing to determine if they are
consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
2 . Any project with an estimated cost
exceeding $100, 000 (with the
exception of projects which can be
classified as extraordinary capital
maintenance) must be based on a plan
or policy which has been approved by
the Mayor and City Council.
2) Add a new Guideline for Capital Programming PCI-1
(page 33) entitled "Conformance to Project
Policies. " The new policy should state: "All
projects included within the PCI shall conform to
the Project Policies of the 1992-1996 Capital
Allocation Policy. "
3) Delete the old Guideline for Capital Programming
PCI-2 (page 33) .
4) Rephrase the old Guideline for Capital Programming
PCI-6, 2 .b. (page 34) to read as follows: "Upon
approval by the Mayor and City Council of a plan or
policy which supports a project requiring a larger
than normal use of CIB and/or CDBG resources by the
departments of Finance, Fire and Emergency
Services, Police, and/or the Division of Public
Health (Department of Community Services) , the
Planning Commission may allow those departments to
exceed their normal distribution of Capital
Improvement Bond and/or Community Development Block
Grant resources. If this situation occurs, the
Planning Commission shall reduce Capital
Improvement Bond distributions proportionately for
other departments, and shall require other
departments to revise and resubmit proposals as
. Cr- �a--a��
City Councilmembers (CAP)
February 22, 1991
Page Three
necessary to eliminate aggregate overprogramming.
No more than one such project shall be programmed
for any single year. "
2 . swimminq Pools
Financ� Committee Action
The Finance Committee indicated that swimming pools
should not be singled out as being inherently
ineligible for capital budget financing. Instead,
proposals for swimming pool and wading pool
projects should be judged by their merits in the
same way that other proposals are evaluated.
Change in CAP Required to Reflect Finance Committee Action:
Delete reference to swimming pools under old
Project Policy P-2 (on page 12) .
3 . Rainleader Disconnection
Finance Committee Action
The Finance Committee indicated that rainleader
disconnection for City facilities should not be
financed by Capital Improvement Bond moneys, but
rather by sewer fund moneys. Currently, there are
two distinct aspects to the City's "Rainleader
Disconnect Program. " The first involves staff
services to ensure rainleader disconnections for
all types of property throughout Saint Paul. This
first aspect is already financed by the Sewer
Service Fund. The second aspect involves the
actual disconnection of rainleaders in existing
City facilities. In the past, this work has been
financed via Capital Improvement Bond moneys.
Change in CAP Required to Reflect Finance Committee Action:
Revise Project Policy P-9 (on page 16) to read as
follows: "In order to abate storm water overflows
into the Mississippi River, money from the Sewer
Service Fund will be appropriated to disconnect
rainleaders from City buildings and other
facilities, including recreation fields. In 1992
through 1996, up to $200,000 per year may be
appropriated for such rainleader disconnects. "
, . �ya����
City Councilmembers (CAP)
February 22, 1991
Page Four
4. Public Art
Finance Committee Action
The Finance Committee indicated that public art
should not be a preference item for evaluating
proposals. If the City wishes to encourage public
art via the capital budgeting process, it may
create a project policy identifying an amount of
money which could be used to incorporate public art
into some capital projects. Such a policy may be
proposed for the full Council to consider.
Recommended Revision of CAP
Delete Evaluation Policy E-5 (page 20) .
cc: Mayor Scheibel
A1 Love j oy
CIB Staff List
�� �v
G1TY �A CITY OF SAI NT PAU L
,��$ , °� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
° " '' DIVISION OF PLANNING
d 1111'II"1 a
,� a 25 West Fourth Street,Saint Paul,Minnesota 55102
� h
612-228-3270
�e a+ Fax:612-228-3220
JAMES SCHEIBEL
MAYOR
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 22, 1991
TO: City Councilmembers
FROM: Mark Vander Schaaf �
City Planner
RE: Finance Committee Revisions of the 1990-1999 Program for
Capital Improvements (PCI)
The following' memo summarizes the revisions to the 1990-1999
Program for Capital Improvements (PCI) made by the City Council
Finance Committee at its meeting on February 11, and states the
changes in the text of the PCI required to reflect those changes.
All recommend8tions for individual projects have been discussed
with staff responsible for the projects in question. All
references to page numbers in this memo are references to the
version of the PCI adopted by the Planning Commission on November
2, 1990.
1. Ayd Mill Road
Financ� Committee Action
The Finance Committee indicated that Ayd Mill Road
, should not be included in the PCI, because the
future of this project is still indefinite. The
Environmental Impact Statement for Ayd Mill Road
should be programmed, however.
Change in PCI Required to Reflect Finance Committee Action
Delete the project entitled "Ayd Mill Road
(Reconstruction, Right of Way) " on page 48 of the
PCI.
2 . selby Avenue Bridqe
Financ� Committee Action
The Finance Committee indicated that the Selby
Avenue Bridge should be included in the PCI, with
the understanding that the specific design and
financing of this project has not yet been
determined.
�yU���
City Councilmembers (PCI)
February 22, 1991
Page Two
Ch�nge in PCI Required to Reflect Finance Committee Action
No change is required in the text of the PCI.
The project entitled "Selby - Bridge over Ayd Mill
Road (Replacement) " currently appears in the PCI as
a project costing $2,834, 000 (in 1990 dollars) for
1992 and 1993 . Art Werthauser of the Department of
Public Works reports that a neighborhood task force
has completed its study of design alternatives for
such a bridge, and is unanimously recommending a
project with comparable cost and phasing. The
details of their recommendation will be reported to
the City Council shortly.
3. Merriam Park Play Area
Financ� Committee Action
The Finance Committee indicated that this project
should be programmed for 1992 rather than 1993 .
Change in PCI Required to Reflect Finance Committee Action
Move the project entitled "Merriam Park - Play Area
(Sitework) " on page 119 of the PCI from 1993 to
1992.
4. Rice Recreation Center
Financ� Committee Action
The Finance Committee indicated that this project
should be scheduled for 1991 since it did not occur
in 1990.
Change in PCI Required to Reflect Finance Committee Action
No change is required in the text of the PCI.
The project entitled "Rice Recreation Center -
Entrance" appears on page 124 as a project for
1990. Although the project did not occur in that
year, money for it actually was budgeted in 1990.
Because the 1990-1994 Capital Allocation Policy
states that years 1990 and 1991 of the 1990-1999
Program for Capital Improvements consists of the
adopted budgets for those years, no change is
required in the PCI.
�---�-aa.P�
City Councilmembers (PCI)
February 22, 1991
Page Three
5. Central Library
Finance Committee Action
The Finance Committee indicated that the new
addition and renovation of the Central Library
should not be included in the PCI, because this
project will not be feasible unless State money
becomes available for it. However, roof repair and
tuckpointing for the Central Library should be
programmed.
Change ' in PCI Required to Reflect Finance Committee Action
Delete the project entitled "Central Library
' (Addition and Renovation) " on page 136 of the PCI.
The project entitled "Central Library
(Tuckpointing) " should remain on page 135 of the
PCI as a 1992 project. Jerry Steenberg, the
Director of the Central Library, has confirmed that
money for Central Library roof repair was already
budgeted in 1989, so it should not appear in the
1990-1999 PCI.
6. Child Care Rehabilitation Loan Proqram
Finance Committee Action
The Finance Committee indicated that the Child Care
Rehabilitation Loan Program should be a permanent
program, not just a program for 1990 and 1991.
Change, in PCI Required to Reflect Finance Committee Action
Revise the project entitled "Child Care
Rehabilitation Loan Program" on pages 146 and 147
of the PCI to indicate $250, 000 in UDAGRF money for
each of the years 1992 through 1999.
Curt Miller of PED's Housing Division, the project
manager of this program, reports that this was not
previously identified as a permanent program
because it was a pilot program. However, based on
the Finance Committee's action, a proposal will be
submitted to continue the program with UDAG
Revolving Fund money at a level of $250, 000 per
year.
��6-a��
City Councilmembers (PCI)
February 22, 1991
Page Four
7. Police Radio System
Financ� Committee Action
The Finance Committee indicated that the Police
Department's proposed 1994 radio system project
should be coordinated with Ramsey County.
Change in PCI Required to Reflect Finance Committee Action
Change the name of the project entitled "Police -
Radio System (Replacement with Trunked System) " on
page 155 of the PCI to "Police - Radio System
(Replacement, Coordinated with Ramsey County) . "
Note also that because of changes which the Finance
Committee indicated for the 1992-1996 Capital
Allocation Policy, the Police Department would need
the Mayor and City Council to approve a plan or
policy for this project before the project could be
considered for 1994 capital budget financing.
8. Public Health Center
Finance Committee Action
The Finance Committee indicated that the
replacement of the Public Health Center should not
be included in the PCI because money will be
unavailable for this project, and because there is
currently no plan or policy approved by the Mayor
and City Council which demonstrates that this
project is needed.
Chancte in PCI Required to Reflect Finance Committee Action
Delete the project entitled "Public Health Center
(Replacement) " on page 169 of the PCI.
Note also that because of changes which the Finance
Committee indicated for the 1992-1996 Capital
Allocation Policy, the Public Health Division would
need the Mayor and City Council to approve a plan
or policy for this project before the project could
be considered for future capital budget financing.
. � yo .�z�3
City Councilmembers (PCI)
February 22, 1991
Page Five
9. Handicapped Accessibility
Financ� Committee Action
The Finance Committee indicated that this program
should be a five-year program, funded at a level of
$200, 000 per year and ending in 1994 .
In 1989, the City Council adopted Resolution
89-2298 which includes a goal of five years to make
all City buildings accessible. A funding level of
$200, 000 per year is needed to achieve this goal in
all buildings except for those scheduled for major
renovations or replacement. In buildings scheduled
for renovation or replacement, the cost of
accessibility improvements will be included as part
of specific project funding.
Mike Michaud of the Department of Community
Services, the project manager for the Handicapped
Accessibility Program, has confirmed that the
identified funding for the program will likely
enable the City to complete the necessary work by
1994. However, he also notes that this program
excludes handicapped accessible elevators. Funding
for the elevators will be sought via a separate
project proposal.
Change in PCI Required to Reflect Finance Committee Action
Delete funding for years 1995 through 1999 for the
project entitled "Handicapped Accessibility - City
Buildings" on page 170 of the PCI.
10. City H311 Anneu
Financ� Committee Action
' The Finance Committee indicated that the renovation
, of the 15th Floor of City Hall Annex should not be
' included in the PCI because there is currently no
plan or policy approved by the Mayor and City
Council which demonstrates that this project is
needed.
Change in PCI Required to Reflect Finance Committee Action
Delete the project entitled "City Hall Annex - 15th
Floor (Renovate) " on page 171 of the PCI.
. �y�'az�
City Councilmembers (PCI)
February 22, 1991
Page Six
Note also that because of changes which the Finance
Committee indicated for the 1992-1996 Capital
Allocation Policy, the Finance Department would
need the Mayor and City Council to approve a plan
or policy for this and/or other large City
Hall/Annex projects before they could be considered
for future capital budget financing.
cc: Mayor Scheibel
A1 Lovejoy
CIB Staff List
. � - �,,�yo�a�.�3
`>6���`��������Rf CITY OF SAINT PAUL
�lTT ��R�r . .
;��r '�.��'''�a PLANNING COMMISSION
fa y aa
',e i111,11"11 '"
'�i.� n g
)ames Christenson, Chair
,.,. _� 2���est Fourth Street,Saint Paui,Minnesota�510�
��'�''� 612-228-32'0
1.�,�1E5�CHEIBEL
�1�YOR
DATE: Octobe� 26, 1990
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Ec�onom�ic Development Committee
RE: Re�comm�nded Revisions of the 1992 - 1996 Capital Allocation
Policy' (CAP)
Introduction '
This report recommends revisions of the 1992 - 1996 Capital
Allocation Policy (CAP) , based on discussions of the major issues
which have been raised during the review of that document, and the
1990 - 1999 Program for Capital Improvements.
There are two sets of recommendations in this report.
Recommendations 1 - 13 (pages 1 - 12) address issues raised by
staff and by �he CIB Committee. Recommendations 14 - 18 (pages 12
- 15) deal with issues raised at the Public Hearing.
Staff anc� CIB�Committee Issues
1. Distribution of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
and Ca�ital Improvement Bond (CIB) Resources in the Proqram
far Capital Improvements (PCI)
Backgrpund
In the' 1990 - 1999 PCI, staff to the Planning Commission
directied that departments limit their 1992 - 1994 Capital
Improvjement Bond (CIB) requests to a distribution based on
hi,stor�c patterns of usage, and Community Development Block
Grant I(CDBG) requests to their share of a preliminary
expres�ion of need for 1992 - 1994. Two departments
expresjsed special concerns regarding CDBG distributions in
patrticiular. The Department of Community Services claimed
that t�is method did not allow for funding comparable to
that wR�ich they received in recent years. The Department
oF Pla�ning and Economic Development, on the other hand,
mainta'ined that all CDBG funds should be distributed to PED
becaus'�e the PED programs funded by CDBG are not eligible
for CI�B money (unlike Community Services projects which are
techniically eligible for both CDBG and CIB funds) . �
Moreovler, PED observed that the method of distributing CIB
funds idid not properly compensate PED for its loss of Urban
Renewa�l Bond funds in recent years (which the City
� . . ��� _ � �'�,O",���3
;
Planning �omm�ssion (CAP)
October 26, 1�90
Page Two
relinq�lished in return for the authority to increase its
CIB bor�ding and use those proceeds for redevelopment
activitties) .
St�ff �omment
Both t1�e Department of Community Services and the
Depart�hent of Planning and Economic Development have
legiti�►ate concerns that can be appropriately accommodated,
up to � point. �
The De�artment of Community Services correctly suggests
that ii�s distribution of CDBG money was less for 1992 -
1994 tl�an for the most recent years of the capital budget.
Howeve�k, it does not highlight the fact that it received
virtua ly no CDBG money in some recent years. In fact, the
actual appropriation of CDBG money by departments has been
consid rably less regular during the last five years than
was th actual appropriation of CIB money. For that
reason Planning Commission staff determined the
distri ution of CDBG money for the 1992 - 1994 years of the
1990 - 1999 PCI based on a preliminary expression of need
by the two departments which typically use CDBG money --
Commun ty Services and PED.
Althou�h staff believes that the distribution method it
used f r 1992 - 1994 CDBG money was appropriate at the
ti�ne, � better method can be devised for the future.
Indeed+ the method used for 1992 - 1994 could easily be
abused� since the competing departments would quickly learn
that t�e higher their original request for Year 3 - 5 CDBG
mo�ey, lthe greater would be their distribution in the PCI.
;
PED al�o is justified in its concern that no account was
taken f Urban Renewal Bonds in determining its
di;stri ution of CIB money for the 1992 - 1994 years of the
PC'I. owever, staff does not agree that all CDBG funds
should be automatically alloeated to PED programs.
Accord�ng to Bob Hammer, the administrator of the City's
CDBG p ogram, federal regulations indicate that housing is
the hi hest priority for CDBG funding, followed by
reiside tially-oriented neighborhood improvements (e.g. ,
park/r creation facilities) , followed by commercial
improv ments. If the City wishes to continue using CDBG
maney or commercial revitalization projects, park and
recrea�ional facilities should also be potential recipients
of theSe funds.
Ar�othe� objection to the use of CDBG money for park and
recreational facilities is that such projects can be
. � Cl�c-y�o.,,,tp��
Planning Commission (CAP)
October 26, 1990
Page Three
financ�d by Capital Improvement Bonds, whereas housing and
econom�c development programs are inherently ineligible for
CIB fumding. Thus, it could be claimed, the effect of
reserving CIB money to be the financinq source of last
resort is to channel CIB money away from low and moderate
income ' neighborhoods and to replace it with CDBG money in
situat�ons where either type of financinq could be used.
It would seem, then, that this would violate the intent of
the CD�G program which is to provide additional resources
to neic�hborhoods which most need them.
Howeve�, there are several features of the City�s Capital
A11oca�kion Policy which neutralize tendencies to
redist�Cibute money away from Saint Paul's low and moderate
income � neighborhoods. First, several evaluation policies
of the ', Capital Allocation Policy tend to give special help
to low', and moderate income neighborhoods -- notably E-9 and
E-13 (�hich give preference to areas covered by an adopted
small �rea plan -- these are frequently in place for
neighb�rhoods which most require redevelopment) , and E-10
(whichlgives preference to projects in priority
redeve�opment areas) . Secondly, the actual process of
rankincg and recommending funding for projects helps to
ensure '� that the best projects are funded. That is, a
high-r�nking CDBG-eligible project can receive CIB funding
if all ! CDBG money is allocated. In short, there are built
in che�ks and balanced in Saint Paul's Capital Allocation
Po�icy 'which make it unnecessary to abandon the City's
long-si�anding policy of using CIB as a financing source of
last r�sort.
St�ff �tecommendation
A guid�line should be created to govern the distribution of
expect�d financial resources in the Program for Capital
Improv�ments (see new guideline PCI-6 in the attached
revise Capital Allocation Policy) . This guideline should
includ� the following features:
- � A distribution of aggreqate CIB and CDBG financing
for each department in years 3 - 5 of the PCI,
', based on actual appropriation of CIB, CDBG and
', Urban Renewal Bond money for the most recent
' five-year period. This would address a concern of
!� the Department of Community Services by accounting
I for past CDBG appropriations, while smoothing out
', the irregularities in those appropriations by
' grouping them with the larger CIB financing source.
It would also address PED's concern that Urban
' Renewal Bonds were not considered when the Planning
�, Commission created the 1990 - 1999 PCI. (However,
�►=� 0.��3
�
Planning Commi�ssion (CAP)
October 26, 1g90
Page Four '
note that Urban Renewal Bonds would no longer be
, relevant for determining the distribution of
', finances in years 3 - 5 of the 1992 - 2001 PCI,
' because the last Urban Renewal Bonds were issued
before 1988. )
- ! Flexibility in assigning CIB financing to projects
originally proposed for CDBG financing, provided
' ! that no CIB overprogramming results from this
', practice. This would enable the Planning
Commission to approximate the process which the CIB
, Committee carries out in its assignment of
i financing to recommended projects.
- A "hold harmless" provision that would not unduly
punish the Department of Community Services for any
large capital project in the Public Health
' Division. Large capital projects are extremely
rare for the Public Health Division of the
Department of Community Services. Yet a remodeling
' or rebuilding of the Public Health Center will be
needed sometime during the 1990s and this project
could require CIB financing. The Department of
Community Services persuasively argues that its
' other capital functions (Parks and Open Spaces,
Libraries) should not bear the entire burden of
i freeing up CIB resources for this project.
2. Ze�o-BaiseB eudqetinq
Backgrqund
This isisue is related to issue #1 in that it challenges the
method iof distributing scarce resources for the purpose of
plannin�g and programming future projects. The current
distribiution method for Capital Improvement Bonds is based
on 'past' usage of this resource. The Department of Planning
and Ecolnomic Development has objected to this practice,
arguingithat past precedent does not guarantee that the
mo5t pr�ssing future needs are addressed strategically. By
implica�tion, PED is advocating a form of "zero-based
budgeti�g" in which proposals for future financing are
baSed splely on demonstrations of genuine future need.
Staff Cpmment
The pre�nise of zero-based budgeting is that all
expenditures must be justified by future need. In a pure
zero-baised budgeting system, no past activities count as a
rationaile for future expenditures.
. � �,���3
�y
Planning �Comm�ssion (CAP)
October 26, 1$90
Page Five
Pure z�ro-based budgeting, even if it were possible, would
not be'. desirable in a capital budget. The construction and
mainteriance of capital facilities requires specialized
staff expertise with a work program that is relatively
consis�ent from one year to the next. For example, it
would �e an inefficient use of staff to construct no
streets one year, and many miles of streets the following
year, simply because the relative "need" for streets
dictated such a program.
Nevertheless, there is a sound principle behind the concept
of zero-based budgeting that merits Planning Commission
consideration. Past activities should not dictate the
future indefinitely. From time to time, it is important to
assessia city's big-picture needs and to determine if
long-term capital investment strategies should be modified
to better meet those needs.
Staff �tecommendation
An. add�tional item should be added in Section 5.0 of the
19:92 -� 1996 Capital Allocation Policy. (See Action A-2 on
p.' 38. ) This item should identify the value of a thorough
as'sess�nent of the City's future, long-term capital needs
which would be prepared by the Planning Commission in
collab�ration with Saint Paul citizens, the Saint Paul
Parks �ommission, and City departments. This needs
assess�ent should be done in concert with the study already
advocated in Action A-1 (Monitoring of Past Programs,
Budget� and Expenditures) , to enable the Planning
Connmission to determine if the City's past capital 5pending
tr�ends are truly in harmony with its future needs. If not,
it may'' be necessary to depart significantly from past
patter�►s of capital investment.
As part of any redirection of capital resources, the
Planning Commission shouid then change its method of
prbgramming projects with Capital Improvement Bond moneys
to, conform with the findings of the recommended study.
(S�ee yvlideline PCI-6, p. 34, in the attached draft 1992 -
19�96 C�pital Allocation Policy. )
3 . Ne�w Ca�ital Resources
Ba�Ckcrr,�und
While �dvocating an adjustment of the method of allocating
tradit�onal sourees of financing, PED also highlights the
larger' problem that resources available for capital
projects in Saint Paul are dwindling. According to PED,
� � ���v��7��3
Planning Commission (CAP)
October 26, 1990
Page Six
the City should be as concerned to generate new resources
for capital investment as it is to allocate traditional
resources effectively.
Staff C�omment
PED has begun working on a resource development strategy
for its own programs. This effort has made it clear that a
so].id r�eeds assessment study is required as a foundation to
justify the components of the strategy. The same will be
true far all City departments, so the study recommended in
Item #3! above will be helpful in this regard as well.
Staff R�ecommendation
The study recommended in Item #2 above should be tailored
to addr�ess the issue of generating new resources for the
City. Similarly, the discussion of potential redirection
of capital resources (also recommended in Item #2) should
be link�ed to the discussion of new resources. For example,
a redirection of existing resources may not be necessary if
significant new resources can be obtained.
4. Exgress�on of Planninq Commission Priorities
Backcrround
Before 1989, the Planning Commission assigned its own
priority rating of high, medium or low to all projects
conside�ed for financing by the CIB Committee. This
priorit� rating was then assigned a small point value and
include in the rating process. Under the reforms
instituted by the joint CIB Committee/Planning Commission
Task Fo�ce, this separate rating has been abandoned in
favor o� a mandate for the Planning Commission to express
its pri�rities in a more global manner by devising more
strateg�cally focused policies for capital allocation.
The Plamning Commission should consider whether this new
approacM is succeeding, and how it can be improved further.
Sta€f C�mment -
On balar�ce, the new method is succeeding. Strategic goals
have been defined and departments are now thinking more
systema�ically about how their individual capital programs
contrib�te to the fulfillment of those goals. However, it
is clear that several more years of work are needed for the
new method to achieve its potential. The studies .
recommended in connection with Items 1 - 3 above will help
to strengthen this method of prioritizing.
� . C��e-���3
Planning Comm�ssion (CAP)
October 26, 1990
Page Seven
The fo�lowing activities will also strengthen this method
over t�me:
o ' Planning Commission insistence on better strategic
focus in each adopted capital function plan or
policy. Adopted plans and policies are fundamental
to operationalizing how each capital function can
best support basic services to ensure the
well-being of Saint Paul residents and businesses.
However, adopted capital function plans and
policies are uneven in the degree to which they
clearly prioritize types of projects to fulfill
Saint Paul's strategic goals. Because the Planning
Commission normally has a major role in developing
each capital function plan or policy, it must
strive to improve the connection between planning
and implementation via the capital budget.
o '; Adoption of regular procedures for updating plans
; or policies on a medium-term basis. Currently,
major capital function plans are revised
, approximately once every ten years. A plan that is
, more than five years old, even if it were initially
' strategically focused, begins to lose its relevance
unless it can be adjusted to changing realities.
', Thus, each plan or policy should also indicate
procedures to ensure that such adjustments do
, occur. Note that this has been occurring recently.
Examples include the implementation procedures
indicated in the Economic Development Strategy and
the Housing Policy, and the establishment of a
' Parks Commission to clarify the role of Saint
', Paul's park and recreational system.
5. Ca�ita� Function Plans/Poiicies
Backqr�und
Curren�ly, most capital functions are associated with
adoptec� City plans or policies which help to define basic
levels of service for each capital function, and help
determiine whether or not a proposed project is valid.
There are two significant exceptions to this situation,
ho�aeve�. Currently, there is no adopted plan for either
police ,services or public health services. In both cases,
large capital projects are contemplated in the mid-1990s.
StBff C�omment
There a�re good reasons why an adopted plan or policy should
be required to validate the inclusion of a project in years
3 - 5 di the Program for Capital Improvements. It would be
i
. � ' ��y��°2�3
Planning Commi;ssion (CAP)
October 26, 19�90
Page Eight
unreasdnable for the Planning Commission to review in
detail every project proposed for the Program for Capital
Improve.�nents. Yet it is important to know that specific
project;s are appropriate in light of established city
prioritiies. Now that the Planning Commission is
endeavolring to eliminate overprogramming, it would be
inappro�priate to allow projects that are not supported by
an adop�ted City plan or poTicy to take the place of
project�s that do have such support.
Staff R�ecommendation
Thei Pla�ning Commission should require that all projects
with a �ost exceeding $100, 000 (except for Extraordinary
Capital Maintenance projects) should be based on adopted
City pl�ns or policies, in order to be included in years 3
- 5 of �he Program for Capital Improvements. (Note that
praject� conflicting with the City's Comprehensive Plan are
alreadyl, ineligible, according to Policy P-1 of the Capital
Allocat�on Policy. ) Such a plan or policy must deal with
capital facilities, but it need not address other issues
unless �hey directly relate to the capital budget. (For
example a comprehensive Police Services plan dealing with
all pol�ce operations may not be necessary -- only a plan
for Pol�ce Department capital facilities. )
A new g�ideline PCI-2 should be included in the Capital
Allocat�on Policy to state this principle (see attached
revised, CAP, p. 33) .
6. Ovezpro�ramminq of Fund Sources Other than Capital
Imp�ove ent Bonds and Community Development Block Grants
Bac�tctro�ind �
The CIBICommittee has observed that the draft PCI seems to
assume �tnrealistically high estimates of the availability
of some 'ifund sources other than CIB and CDBG. In the
current �PCI, no limits were placed on the programming of
other s�urces because each is essentially available only to
a s�ngl� department. It was believed that this would
dis�our�ge overprogramming because departments have no �
inc�nti�e to compete with themselves. However, concerns '
hav� be�n raised that this practice may be leading to a
"bait ar�d switch" situation where departments change their
actual �'unding request to CIB or CDBG after including a
pro�ect 'in the PCI in connection with an alternate
financir�g source.
� _
. . , ��o_�,���
Planning Comm�.ssion (CAP)
October 2�6, 1�90
Page Nine
St�aff �omment
Whenev�r the availability of financing sources can be
foreca�t with reasonable accuracy, it is legitimate to
enforce the "na overprogramming" principle during years
3 - 5 bf the PCI.
St�ff �tecommendation
Add lamguage in guideline PCI-4 (p. 33) to indicate that,
when p�ssible, the Budget Section should provide estimates
of the ' availability of financing sources other than Capital
Improvement Bonds and Community Development Block Grants
for ye�rs 3 - 5 of the PCI. Planning Division staff will
then emforce the "no overprogramming" provision relative to
these �inancing sources as well.
At the time when project proposals are submitted, Planning
Divisiqn staff and the CIB Committee will evaluate
prppos�lls for conformance to the PCI. At that time,
penaltues should be assessed if proposals change their
fi�anci�ng relative to the PCI to request a less restrictive
so�rce � (especially Capital Improvement Bonds and Community
Develo�#ment Block Grants) .
7. overproqramminq in Years 6 - io of the PCI
Backgrqund
A �oncern related to issue b was also raised by the CIB
Commit�ee, which observed that for some financing sources
in particular, estimates of availability jump dramatically
in year 6 of the PCI. The CIB Committee agreed that it is
not neclessary for programming in years 6 - l0 to adhere
closely� to expected available financing, but that some
discret'ion is advisable even in those years.
Staff (�omment ,
Whi�le t�e CIB Committee has a valid concern, it is also
importa�t to preserve the ability of departments to express
their nieeds for years 6 - 10 of the PCI in an unfettered
wa�.
St�ff Rjecommendation
When driafting the PCI, Planning staff should notify
departmiental staff that the Planning Commission will
require, an explanation for any dramatic jump in the
praposekl usage of any financing source in years 6 - 10.
That explanation should then be included in the text of the
PCI (see guideline PCI-8, p. 35) .
� � �y�-�a�3
Planning Comm ssion (CAP)
October 26, 1�90
Page Ten
8. Proqraipminq of Projects with IInknown Financinq sources
Ba�kgrc�,und
In the current draft PCI, staff permitted departments to
in�lud� projects in the PCI even if it is not yet known
what will be the source of financing for those projects.
The CI� Committee acknowledged that this could be
approp�iate for years 6 - i0 of the PCI, but argued that it
should ',not be allowed for years 3 - 5.
Staff �omment
St�ff �ccepts the recommendation of the CIB Committee
regard�ng this issue.
St�ff �ecommendation
Add gu�ldelines PCI-7 and PCI-9 to the CAP (see page 35
attached) .
�
9. Defini�ion of Priority Redevelopment Areas
Ba�kgrc�und
Policy ;E-9 in the original draft CAP states that
"prefe�7ence shall be granted to projects which primarily
benefi� areas which the City has designated as priority
redeveljopment areas. " A more precise definition of
"priori�ty redevelopment areas" is needed to operationalize
this pqlicy.
S�f f omment
It ' is Idvisable to add a more precise definition in the CAP
it�elf (not just when evaluating proposals) in order to
minimi e the likelihood of arbitrariness on the part of
st�ff r decision makers relative to this issue.
St�ff F�ecommendation
Add thej following language to policy E-10 (p. 20) :
"Priorilty redevelopment areas consist of the areas included
in active Redevelopment Plans adopted or updated since
1982, aind existing Urban Revitalization Action Program
project areas. "
_ . ' F��� "�'��3
�
Planning Comm�.ssion (CAP)
October 2'6, 1990
Page Elev�en
10. Arbitr�qe Requirements for Bond Proceeds
Backgr�und
There are now federal arbitrage requirements for bond
proceeds which Saint Paul is expected to meet. The CIB
Co�►mittee indicated a need to strengthen the existing
policy' F-11 (in the draft CAP) to ensure that these
requir�ments are met. .
St;aff �omment
Tamsen', Aichinger, staff to the CIB Committee, has proposed
langua�e for a new policy to address this issue (see
attach�d October 2, 1990 memo from Tamsen Aichinger to Mark
Vander; Schaaf) .
St�aff Recommendation
Replac� the existing proposed policy F-11 with the
re�comm�nded language.
11. Projec� Phasinq
Ba,ckgr�und
Currently, the CAP does not adequately ensure that projects
are re8listically phased.
St;aff �omment
Th�e CI$ Committee has proposed language for a new policy to
addres� this issue. (See attached October 22, 1990 memo
from T�msen Aichinger to Mark Vander Schaaf. )
Staff �tecommendation
Add a �ew policy F-12 with the recommended language.
12. Ou�t-of+Cycle Appropriations for New Projects
Ba�ckgr�und
Currently, there are no policies in the CAP to guide the
pr�oces� for considering out-of-cycle appropriations for new
projec�s.
� ���'�•2�3
Planning Commission (CAP)
October 26, 1990
Page Twelve
St�f f CQmment
The CIB Committee has proposed language for a new policy to
address this issue. (See attached October 22, 1990 memo
from Tamsen Aichinger to Mark Vander Schaaf. )
Staff Recommendation
Add a new policy F-13 with the recommended language.
13. Inareasled Costs for Projects
�
Backgropnd
Currently, the CAP does not specify what is to be done if
estimates or bid costs significantly exceed budgeted and
prorammed project costs.
Staff Cpmment
The CIB', Committee has proposed language for a new policy to
address this issue. (See attached October 22, 1990 memo
from Tarinsen Aichinger to Mark Vander Schaaf. )
Staff Rgcommendation
Add a new policy F-14 with the recommended language.
Issues Rai,sed �t the October 5. 1990 Public Hearing
14. Bikeway,�Transportation system Inteqration
Backgro�Znd
At the public hearing on the draft Capital Allocation
Policy, a representative of the Saint Paul Parks Conunission
recommended that the CAP be revised to integrate bikeways
and trafls into street reconstruction and transportation
planning. :
Staff C�mment
This is an issue which should be addressed on a long-term
basis within the context of the updated Transportation Plan
which tk�e Planning Commission will soon be undertaking.
� � �=Qo-a��3
Planning Comm�.ssion (CAP)
October 26, 1990
Page Thirteen
Staff Recommendation
Add la#�guage to the capital function strategy for streets
to indicate that the City's existing Transportation Plan
will b� updated in 1991, and that the update should
consid�r appropriate ways to integrate bikeways and other
altern�tive methods of transportation into Saint Paul's
evolvir�g transportation system (see page 44 in attached
CAP) . Also add language to the capital function strategy
for Pa�ks and Open Space to indicate the long-range
objectives of the Parks Commission (see page 49 in attached
cAP) .
15. Inteqr�tion of Parks with Housinq and Commercial/Industrial
Development
Ba�kgrqund
At the public hearing on the draft Capital Allocation
Policy,� a representative of the Saint Paul Parks Commission
re�ommeinded that the CAP be revised to integrate parks and
open spaces into housing and commercial/industrial
de�eloplment proj ects.
St�}ff Comment
Proposed policies renumbered E-9 and E-13 were intended to
inalude potential parks projects in "a residential
compone�t of an adopted small area plan" (E-9) or "a
commeresal/industrial component of an adopted small area
plan" (�-13) . Language can be added to clarify that
int'ent. '
Staff R�commendation
Add language in policies E-9 and E-13 to make it clear that
park an�l open space projects could receive preference if
they are part of a residential or commercial/industrial
revitalization strategy, as articulated in an adopted small
are� pl�n.
16. Park Co�►version
Bac�Cgro�nd
At the public hearing on the draft Capital Allocation '
Policy, a representative of the Saint Paul Parks Commission
recommertded that the CAP be revised to prohibit or penalize
pro�ects involving the conversion or sale of parkland.
� � ��jp-,�2�'3
Planning Comm�ssion (CAP)
October 26, 1990
Page Fourteen ',
St�f f Comment
The pr�nciple (preservation of existing parkland) behind
th�s recommendation is valid. However, an outright
prohib�tion of the conversion of parkland could leave the
City w�thout flexibility in situations where the advantages
of redeveloping a portion of a park outweigh the advantages
of retaining the park in its current condition. It would
be app�opriate for the Parks Commission to develop and
recommend a policy dealing with issues such as when
parkla»d conversion is legitimate, what process should be
followed to validate the legitimacy of such conversion, and
what should be done with any money collected by the City as
a resullt of such conversion. This policy could be
considdred by the Planning Commission for inclusion as a
Projecti Policy in the 1994 - 1998 Capital Allocation
Policy.', (Project policies indicate under what conditions a
projec� is eligible to be considered for financing via the
capital; budget. ) In the meantime, an evaluation policy
should be added to penalize projects involving the
inapprc�priate conversion of parkland.
St�ff I�ecommendation
Add a riew evaluation policy E-6 which would discourage the
de�tructtion of components of the City's park system, and
would e�ncourage the creation of appropriate linkages
between components of that system. (See also issue #17
below. )I This policy should be stated in such a way as to
apply to other applicable capital systems and functions as
well. '
17. Limkaqas Between Components of the Park/Parkway/open Space
System 'I
Ba�kgrqund
At thel,public hearing on the draft Capital Allocation
Policy,� a representative of the Saint Paul Parks Commission
reGomme�nded that the CAP be revised to encourage
cornnectjions between components of the City's system of
pa�tks, Iparkways and open spaces.
St�ff qomment
Staff algrees that, all things being equal, projects which
benefi�ially link currently-separate components of an
existinig system are preferable to projects which do not
create such linkages.
; : _ - _
�CQD-.7.2�3
Planning Comm�ssion (CAP)
October 2G, 1�90
Page Fifteen
Staff &ecommendation
(See r�commendation for Issue #16 above. )
18. Revita�ization of Troubled Neiqhborhood Parks
Ba�kgr�und
At thelpublic hearing on the draft Capital Allocation
Policy, a representative of the Saint Paul Parks Commission
recomm�nded that the CAP be revised to encourage the
revitalization of troubled neighborhood parks.
Staff �omment
Staff �grees that some special priority should be assigned
to the ; revitalization of parks within troubled
neighb�rhoods. In order to ensure that such activity is
part o� a comprehensive neighborhood revitalization
st�atec�y, plans for revitalizing troubled neighborhood
parks �hould be incorporated into small area plans, when
po�sib e. The Planning Commission should make it a
pr�oril�y to work with affected citizens and City
depart ents to prepare small area plans for areas
identi�ied by the Parks Commission as having a "troubled
ne�ghb�rhood park. "
St�ff �tecommendation
No add�tional policy revisions are required to implement
the re�ommendation of the Parks Commission, aside from the
revisiqns already recommended in the discussion of issue
#15 ab�ve (revisions to renumbered policies E-9 and E-13) .
��
,'
;
i
�
cc: Da� Co�nejo
Pe�gy �eichert
A1 I Lov�j oy
St�cy $ecker
Tamsen ',Aichinger
� � I�,' _ Qo-.?a�3
�; �
, sO-�
CITY OF SAINT P�1UL
INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEMORI�NDUM
October 2, 1990
TO: Mark' VanderSchaaf
. (/`"
FR. Tams�n A�chinger,�/
RE: REVI5ION$ TO CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICY FI1: REAPPROFRIATION �F '
DELAYED 4�APITAL PROJECT FINANCING
Proposed revisior�s to Capital Allocation Policy F11 follow.
F11: Reportinc�, Review, and Reappropriation Requirements for Capital :
Improvem�nt Projects
The followinc� reporting and review requirements will be used to
monitor all �apital improvement projects to help assure that �
federal �rbi�rage requirements for bond proceeds are met and to
derive maxim�m benefit from capital financing: ;
a. Each dep�rtment shall prepare an annual capital improvement :
project �tatus report and present it to the Saint Pau1 Long
Range Capital Improvement Budget Committee by December 31 of
each cal�ndar year. The report shall indicate the current �
stat�as o each of the department's capital improvement projects i
includin expenditures, encumbrances and outstanding balances {
by finan�ing source.
�
b. Each', dep�rtment shall prepare a quarterly capital improvement
proj�ct tatus report for all capital improvement projects
finamced in whole or in part with proceeds from bonds sold by
the �ity. This report shall be presented to the Saint Paul -
Long ; Ran e Capital Improvement Budget Committee at the first -
meet�.ng ollowing the end of each fiscal quarter. The report
shall in icate the current status of each of the projects
incl�dinc� expenditures, encumbrances and outstanding balances
by financ�ing source.
I
c. Finamcinc� from bond proceeds for capital improvement projects '
or p�ogralms will be subject to reappropriation of the project ,
or prograim has not shown substantial progress toward completion
at the erld of the calendar year in which the bond proceeds were
received.'
�
• �QQ-���.�
Mark VanderSchaa�
October 2, 1990
Page two ,
d. Financinq other than bond proceeds for capital improvement
projects or programs will be subject to reappropriation if the
project l�as not shown substantial progress toward completion at
the end bf the second year after the year in which the
appropri�tion was received.
e. When adequate progress is not being made on a project, the
responsible department or agency must justify continuation of
the proj�ct to the Saint Paul Long Range Capital Improvement
Budget C�mmittee. The CIB Committee will then recommend to the
Mayor an$ City Council appropriate action on a project-by-
project �basis. Such acticn may include allowing additional
time for ! implementation, abandonment of the project and
reapprop�iation of the financing, or rephasing of the project's
finahcin$ and reappropriation of the current financing.
cc: S. Becke�t
S. Davis
D. McDon ll
G. Norst�em
�
�
; -
;i
�
�
,� •� �-yd-a��3
:.0�
CITY Of SAINT P/1UL
INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
October 22, 1990
TO: Mark VanderSchaaf
FROM: Tams�n Aichinger, Budget Analyst
SUBJECT: PropCsed Additions to Capital Allocation Policies
The CIB Commiittee reviewed the following policies at their
October 11 me�ting and recommend them for inclusion in the new
Capital A�loc�tion Policy document. Al1 three would be fiscal
policies. ',
Fxx out-pf-C�cle Appropriations for New Projects
Requjest for out-of-cycle appropriations for new projects
shalY no� be considered individually unless an urgent health
and safeity hazard exists. All request for new projects
shal� be ' held and considered in comparison with each other
and with the next priorities identified during the last
proposal review cycle before any recommendations are made by
the CIB �ommittee. It shall be the responsibility of the
CIB Committee to identify a timeline and procedures for
reviewing such proposals.
Fxx Project �hasinq
Proposal� must b� realistically phased if the conditions of
Policy F11 are to be met. In order to assist departments in
doing so, approved construction projects which are phased
over several years shall not be required to submit more than
one propOsal application for task force review unless tMe
original ; appropriation specifically indicates that the
appropri�tion does not constitute a commitment to future
financing.
Mult;i-ye�r projects will be required, however, to present
estimate� construction costs to the CIB Committee after
design i� complete and before bids are let to have
continua�ion of project financing included in the capital
improvem�nt budget.
'
�jc yo -a�P�'
Mark VanderSchlaaf
October 22, 19!�0
Page two '
Fxx Increased; Costs for Proiects
If detail�ed estimates for a project as proposed exceed the
amount bui3geted and programmed, or if actual bids exceed the
budgeted �ost, no part of the project shall begin until
financing' for the entire project has been budgeted or
programmed.
If detailled estimates or bid costs exceed the budgeted and
programmed project cost by more than 25� or $100, 000,
whicheveriis less, the project must be reevaluated by the
CIB Commilttee in light of all existing priorities. The CIB
Committeeimay recommend that additional financing be
apprqpria�ed for the project, that the scope of the project
be reduce�, and/or that the project be deferred until the
next prop�sal review cycle to determine whether the project
is warran ed given increased costs.
j
,
cc: S. Becker'�
�
I ///�'ga .�z�
l. ..S U /
. ',. j+O� � .
CITY OF S/�INT PAUL
INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
DATE: October, 22, 1990
TO: Mark VahderSchaaf
FROM: Tamsen Aichinger i
Buc�get �,nalyst
SUBJECT: Response to Your Draft CAP Issue Paper
I have reviewed ypur draft staff issue paper and am impressed with the
thought you have �ut into the issues. I do have the following comments
and recommendatio}�s:
1. I strongly recommend that a new section of policies dealing
specifically with guidelines for developing the Program for Capital
Improvements be set up. Proposed policies P2 and F12 would belong
in that section.
It will make the document easier to use because readers can focus '
on the se�ctio� or sections which relate to the specific stage in t
the process (8ctual budget appropriation or recommended future
allocation of resources) . It will also help differentiate between
the purposes of the Program for Capital Improvements and those of
the Capital Improvement Budget, as well as the respective roles of `
the Planning �ommission and the CIB Committee. f
I found mysel� concerned whenever your paper talked about the �
Planning Comm ssion "allocating" resources for a similar reason.
Many people m�y equate "allocate" with "appropriate". It should be r:
clear tha�t th� role of the Planning Commission in preparing the �
Program for C pital Improvements is planning oriented within the .
framework of �inancial constraints and is not budgeting. I have
even found th�t some city department staff are assuming that,
because a pro�ect is in the PCI, it has "approved" financing.
2 . I appreciate �nd agree with your discussion about zero-base �
budgeting. My reaction to your staff recommendation is that review
and revis�ion �f the strategic goals of the Capital Allocation
Policy, cbmbi�ed with capital function strategies, should
accomplish th�.s and should be the focus of the study. It seems to
me that your �ecom- mendations for item 4 also interrelate with the -
general appro�ch. _
�
I '.
. ' �D-yo a��3
Mark VanderSchaaf' �
October 22, 1990
Page two
3 . Policv E2: Sy�tem Integrity: I really don't like to see this in �
the evaluatio� policies for two reasons. First, it does not have
any relationslhip to the vast majority of proposals. As a result,
staff and taslk force time is needlessly used. Secondly, its pretty
general. I r�commend that you use a project policy that addresses '
the issues di�rectly.
4 . Policv P2: Ir�clusion in Program for Capital Improvements `
This is a pol cy that should be moved to a PCI Policy section. I
suggest the f�llowing language:
An ro'e t w th an estimated cost that exceeds 100 000 with the
exce tion of ro'ects which can be classified as extraordinar
ca ital m int nance must be identified in an ado ted Cit lan or
olic be ore it will be included in the third throu h fifth ear
of the Pr ra for Ca ital Im rovements.
5. Policy F12
As I indiCate , I would establish a new section for PCI policies.
Then I wo�ld plit this into a bunch of individual policies in that
new section. I would also get rid of all the references to a. l)
etc. Its con using. For example, a.3) could read "If the
tentative co�itments contained in the adopted capital improvement
budget do not 'exceed the estimated level of financing available, -
departmen�s m�y identify additional projects to be included in the
1994-1996 peri�od of the Program for Capital Improvements". -
I 'm not sure the word "proposals" is appropriate. It implies
something akir�� to the CIB process and may be misleading. ,
�
I don't unders�and a.4) . What goes in the PCI can't exceed the �
guidelines? W�at each department submits can't exceed the �:
guidelines? Are you doing zero-base type stuff to determine :
departmen�al 1'imits? I believe breaking this up into individual �
policies in a �separate section will help clarify the rules of the
game. �
I am sending �he n�w fiscal policies which we discussed last week under
separate cover. L�t me know if you have any questions.
. ,..i � p>..
r,
f.t
F.
f ,
�.,:_
i.�:
3-,:
, � . 5;.��:,
j_'-
Y•.
� Z:`:
E -
. � . . �::'�+
. � �--�.:'�
�':
�c�jo-,2��3
city of saint p�ul
P��9 �m�nission resolution
f�e nurr�er �90-96
�te November ?�, 1990
WHEREAS, the Rlanning Commission is charged with responsibility
for developmer�t and review of policy to guide the Unified Capital
Improvement P�ogram and Budget Process (UCIPBP) ; and
WHEREAS, the �?lanning Commission has reviewed the policies
adopted a� pa�t of the 1990-1994 Saint Paul Capital Allocation
Policy and ha� revised them; and
WHEREAS, the $lanning Commission released the revised Capital
Allocation Policy for public review and held a public hearing on
the document �n October 5 and October 19, 1990; and
WHEREAS, disc�ssions held during the period of public review have
resulted in additional revisions to the Capital Allocation
Policy; !
NOW, THER�FOR�, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission
hereby ap�roves and adopts the policies entitled Saint Paul �
Capital Allocation Policy: 1992-1996, as revised; and
BE IT FU�THER; RESOLVED, that copies of the document be
transmitted tp the Mayor and City Council of the City of Saint
Paul for reviiew and adoption.
m�Ved ��/ TREICHEL
J
�a'1�J�d ['�/ WENCL
...,>
in favor U� ous
against�
� �ya-���3
� gcneral. That is, the city should be most intcrested in crcating a
"supportive environment" for economic development. Aid for
parti�ular kinds of businesses or for individual businesses must be
� , guided by this broader framework. This goal also acknowledges that
businesses are not cnds in thcrosclves, but are integrally connected to
" jobs and to othcr public amenities. The best economic development
' will be that which does the most to enhance Saint Paul as a place for
� everyone--for businesses and also for city residents.
As with G-2, the city operationalizcs this goal especially via District
� Plans, via small area plans that identify priorities for neighborhoods
which anticipatc significant changes in the near future, and via
programs which identify various geographic areas as being eligible
� for special revitalization projccts.
� --------------------------------------------
2.3.2 FISCAL GOALS
G-4: Fiscal Integrity
� o Goal: To help preserve the fiscal integrity of the city's operating,
debt service and capital improvement budgets by engaging in careful
� and thorough analysis of each capital improvement proposal
including the long-range impact on operating costs and revenuc
generation.
� o Discussion: This fiscal goal reflects those general city goals for
budgeting from City Council adopted "1991 Budget Goals and Policy"
which impact upon the evaluation of specific proposals for capital
� improvements. The complete list of general goals from that
document is included as Appendix C. This goal recognizes two basic
factors. First, proposals for capital improvements must be evaluated
� agaiast basic criteria which measure the fiscal responsibility of the
project as proposed. Secondly, proposals for capital improvements
must bc evaluated against criteria which measure their impact on the
city's operating and debt service budgets. It is essential to recognize
' the close tie between the city's operating and capital improvement
budgets. New or expanded facilities financed through the capital
improvement budget may increase the need for operating budget
� resources. Conversely, appropriate capital investments can decrease
operating expenses. But operating budget decisions can also affect
the capital budget. For example, deferral of maintenance or other
operating costs may result in increased capital improvement
� expenditures as facilities deteriorate prematurely.
�
i
i
1 �1
,
3.0 POLICIES FOR CAPITAL ALLOCATION �
— ------------------------ �
-- ---------------
3.1 PROJECT POLICIES
Project Policics consist of statements which limit or prohibit certain types �
of projects. 'These policies are used to determine if, and undcr what
conditions, a proposed project is eligible for capital financing. �
P 1 Comprehensive Plan
Proposals for projects which clearly conflict with the city's �
Comprehensive Plan will � be considered for financing. The
Planning Commission shall review all proposals for capital
improvement financing to determine if they are consistent with the �
Comprehensive Plan.
P-2 New Facilities
Proposals for certain types of new facilities will � be considered �
for financing in 1992-1993. Thcse facilities are:
1. Swimming pools. �
2. Facilities to house programs or services which are not �
provided by the city.
3. New library or recreational service facilities which will
increase operating and maintenance expenses. Expanded, �
rehabilitated or replacement of existing inadequate library or
recreational facilities which will require an increase in staff
wiil be considered i� the improvement is consistent with a plan �
approved by the City Council which identifies the need for the
improvement.
4. Multi-service centers, nu less the following conditions are met: �
a. Community need has been demonstrated through a
feasibility study; �
b. All , conditions of the multi•service center plan,
including identification of tenants, have been met; and �
c. There will be no requirement for city financing of
operating or maintenance costs at the facility. �
P-3 Skyways
In I987, the City Council adopted the following policies concerning �
the financing of skyways:
1. The City may participate in the financing of skyway bridges �
�f such bridges support City priorities for downtown
development.
12 �
t �ya-���3
� 2. The City may participate in the financing of appropriate
projects to retrofit existing skyways with automatic doors and
to install electronic security equipment in the skyways.
� 3. A City reserve fund may finanee the City's portion of major
skyway enhancement or replacement of existing skyways
� connecting buildings which thc City owns or leases.
4. The City will not participate in the financing of skyway
approaches and concoursc corridors.
� In addition, thc following policy from the city's 1991 Budget Goals
and Policies is relevant:
� S. T'he annual costs of operations, maintenance (both current
and preventive) and roof replacements for skyways should be
assessed or charged to the property owners of the buildings
� linked by the system. Additionally, a capital replacement
reserve will be established and an appropriate amount charged
to the property owners.
� P-4 Handicapped Accessibitlty
� In 1990, the City Council adopted the following suggestions,
recommendations and goals regarding the priorities, processes and
financing for handicapped accessibility of city buildings:
1 1. The city should set a goal of five years to make all of its
buildings accessible. The CIB Committee should recommend a
financing plan to implement this goal.
� 2. Dcsigns for all new construction and rehabilitation of city
buildings should be evaluated in light of the accessibility
standards of American National Standards Institute, the
�! Uniform Federal Accessibility Standard, and the Minnestoa
State Building Code and the highest standard contained in these
documents should be used in city owned buildings.
� 3. A two-tier approach should be used to determine priorities
for use of handicapped accessibility program money. First, a
� path model should be applied. That is, higher priority should
be given to attaining a basic level of accessibility at each
" building rather than 100 percent compliance with adopted
standards at one site before beginning work at another site.
� Secondly, within the path approach buildings should be
prioritized as follows:
� a. First priority should be to make safe and usable those
buildings whtre people requiring special accessibility
features are employed or are using services;
� b. Second priority should be those buildings which have
the broadest impact in terms of delivery of services to the
� general public;
� 13
'
c. Third priority should be those buildings which offer �
. the greatest number of employment opportunities; and
d. Fourth priority should be those buildings which have
the greatest potential for modification at the least cost. �
4. Priorities for use of accessibility program resources should be
developed by City staff based on the adoptcd priority �
framework and submitted to the Mayor•s Advisory Committee
for People with Disabilitics for their review and
recommendations before being submited to the CIB Committee.
S. Accessibility improvements to buildings identified in the �
Program for Capital Improvements for substantial renovation or
rcconstruction within thc next five years should be deferred �
until the major project is financed.
6. Whenever all or part of a city-owned building is scheduled �
for capital improvements, the proposal for capital improvement
dollars should include sufficient money to make the entire
building and access to it accessible unless strong justification
can be given for deferring the accessibility improvements. �
Whenver site work is proposed for exterior areas only, the
proposal should include sufficient money to address parking,
walkway and other exterior accessibility features unless strong �
justification can be given for deferring the accessibility
improvements.
7. The survey of city-owned buildings should be reviewed �
carefully and guidelines established to identify what
improvements should be financed as capital improvements
through the Capital Improvement Budget. �
P-5 Program Allocations
A program allocation is a lump sum amount given to fund a series of �
capital projects which are consistent in nature and implcmcnted
sequentially until an identified objective is reached. An example of �
a program allocation is the combined street and sewer program.
All requests for capital improvement financing of program
allocations must be accompanied by: �
I. Program guidelines which arc consistent with applicable city
plans and capital allocation policies. These guidelines should �
be adopted if thc program has been financed in prior years.
2. 1"he number of years the program is expected to continue to
operate, or an identification of the conditions which would �
result in the termination of the program.
3. A list of thc specific activities that were completed with �
program money during the two years preceeding the application
year, including the cost of each activity.
�
l4 ,
1 ��90 a��3
� 4. A list of all transfers, whether by resolution or
administrative order, out of the program to other projects or
programs during each of the two years prior to the year of the
� current request.
$. A l�st of all outstand�ng balances, by year including the
current budget year, if the program has becn financed
� previously.
6. Identification of the amount of money which is required
� each year for program activities.
P-6 Extraordinary Capltal Maintenince
� An objective of the city is to protect its capital investment through
regular, scheduled preventive maintenance of its capital facilities,
financed throngh the operating budget. However, because preventive
� maintenance activities have not becn fully financed in past years,
some capital facilities require extraordinary capital maintenance. To
address such extraordinary capital needs, the city wiil consider
� budgeting up to 5350,000 per year in I992 and 1993 for
extraordinary capital maintenance. Adequately financed programs
for regular preventive maintenance would, in time, reduce the need
for an extraordinary capital maintenance program. It is hoped that
� • preventivo maintenance--both ordinary and extraordinary--will
become a high city priority. In the long run, deferred maintenance
is not a cost-effective way of managing scarce financial resources.
� Extraordinary capital maintenance is defined as the repair,
replacement, renovation, remodeling and/or retrofitting of the
structural parts and/or service system components of a building, and
1 the man-made components of an improved site.
1. Structural parts include footings and foundations; beams,
� joists, columns; load bearing walls, exterior walls and facade
(excluding glass); stairs, floors, decks, ramps, ceilings; roofs and
roofing.
� 2. Service system components include plumbing, electrical,
communications, heating, ventilating, air conditioning, security
systems and elevators; utility mains.
, 3. Site components include retaining walls, lighting, stairs,
ramps, sidewalks, railings, fencing, drainage structures, and
erosion control. Priority consideration will be given to those
� site components whose condition affects building components
identified abovt.
�, Any work financed through the extraordinary capital maintenance
program must have a life cxpectancy that cxceeds the terms of the
bonds used to finance it, or must be financed with non-bonded fund
, sources. Ongoing maintenance and routine preventive care and
upkcep of facilities shall be financed through the city's operating
budget.
'
, �S
�
Except in cases of emergency, work projects financed through the �
extraordinary capital maintcnance program must have costs which
exceed 53,000 and are less than 575,000. Smallcr work projects shall
normally be financed through the city's operating budget. Larger
work projects shall normally be financed through the regular CIB �
process.
Guidelines have been developed for administering the extraordinary �
capital maintenance program. The guidelines for this program
include the following eligibility criteria:
1. The project must conform to the definition of extraordinary �
capital maintenance.
2. The facility must be City owned, or leased to the City on a �
long-term basis. At least ten years must remain on the leasc
and the lease must require the City to be responsible for capital
maintenance. �
3. Thc project must have a uscful life expcctancy greater than
10 years. �
4. Any property with repairs financed will not be in jeopardy
of closing within the next five ycars.
P-7 Redevelopment Activlties �
In the future, the City wj�, use Capital Improvement Bonds to �
finance redevelopment project activities as defined in Minnesota
Statutes, section 469.002, subdivision 14, in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes, section 469.041, clause (6). In the past, these
activities were financed with urban renewal bonds. Saint Paul's �
authorization to issue urban renewal bonds has been repealed in
exchange for an equivalcnt increase in the city's Capital
Improvement Bond authorization and the authority to use a portion �
of this authorization for redcvclopment activitics. (Section Chapter
513 of the Laws of Minnesota, 1988.) The maximum amount of
Capital Improvement Bond financing available is $655,000 in 1992; �
and $690,000 in 1993.
P-8 Residential Street PavinQ
Residential street paving projects will only be financed in �
conjunction with the 20-year Oiled Street Repaving Program, except
in situations where a project is required to prevent hazardous �
conditions that threaten life, health or safety. 'Through 1995, the
streets chosen for repaving will be done in the vicinity of sewer
separation projects. �
P-9 Rsin Leader Disconnection tn City Facilities
1n order to abate storm water overflows into the Mississippi River, �
capital improvement money will be appropriated to disconnect
rainleaders from City buildings and other facilities, including
recreation fields. In 1992 through 1996, up to 5200,000 may be �
appropriated for rainleader disconnects.
16 `
� ��yo-���3
P-10 Financing for Prel[minary Studies
, The City mav finance studics such as environmental impact
statements or engineering studies which examine alternative designs
� for a specific project � the specific capital improvement has been
approved for inclusion in the Tentative Program of Commitments.
Needs assessments are p� appropriate capital improvement budget
expenditures. Studies which examine alternative uses for specific
� sites or capital facilities are not appropriate capital improvement
budget expenditures unless they are necessary components of a major
citywide project to which the city has made a virtual commitment.
� Such a project shall be included in the 1"entative Program of
Commitments only upon the recommcndation of both the Planning
Commission and the CIB Committee. The Planning Commission's
1 recommendation shall be based on a preliminary study, performed by
the Planning Commission, which indicates the need for a more
detailed study of alternatives. Long-term debt should not be used to
� finance studies for such projects.
P-11 Duplication of Services
� Projects which duplicate existing public or private services that are
available to the same population within the given geographic area
shall not be funded.
� P-12 Assessment Policy
A summary of thc city's public improvement assessment policy is
, contained in Appendix E.
�
�
�
�
�
�
,
�
� 17
�
. '
-------------------------------------------
3.2.0 EVALUATION POLICIES
If a proposed project is eligible for capital financing, its merits must be �
evaluated. The CIB Committee evaluates thc mcrits of proposals using a
rating sheet which assigns points based on the Evaluation Policies of the �
CAP.
The Evaluation Policics are closely linked to the CAP's Strategic Goals �
(Chapter 2.0). In essence, the Evaluation Policies define indicators which
enable the CIB Committee to determine how well a proposed projcct fulfills
the Strategic Goals.
As was true with the Stratcgic Goals, there are two typcs of Evaluation ,
Policies. The first type (Planning) stem from the Planning Goals (G-1
through G-3 in Chapter 2.3.1); the second type (Fiscai) derive from the �
Fiscal Goals (G-4 in Chapter 2.3.2). Planning Evaluation Policies and Fiscal
Evaluation Policies shall receive equivalent emphasis.
�
--------------------------------------------
3.2.1 PLANNING EVALUATION POLICIES
The Planning Evaluation Polieies are organized according to which of the r
Planning Goals (G-1 through G-3 in Chapter 2.3.1) they most closely support.
E-1 through E-S: Policies Relating to G-1: To Provide Saint Paul residents and '
employers with a basic leve! oJ city services.
E-1 Level of Servlce �
In evaluating proposcd capital improvemcnt projects, the following
priorities shall be observed: �
1. First Priority: Prevent Hazardous Conditions
T'his category includes projects which address immediate threats !
to life, health, or safety. 1t also includes projects that prevent
or correct hazardous situations and/or critical breakdowns, and
limit the City's exposure to liability. Most of the capital �
improvemcnts in this category are required to prevent
emergencies.
2. Second Priority: Maintain Existing Basic Services �
For each of Saint Paul's capital functions, a "standard" or �
"basic" level of services is defined in relevant City plans or
policies. This level of service goes beyond immediate threats to
life, health, and safety to a level of service that promotes the
general welfare of Saint Paul residents. 1"his level of service is �
summarized in the Capital Function Strategies (Appendix D).
Projects which systematicaily repair or replace existing
physically deteriorated or functionaily obsolete facilities which �
18 �
� �y�-�a�3
provide basic services are classified within this category.
' Projects that increase energy efficiency in existing facilities are
also included in this category.
� 3. Third Priority: Expand Services to a Basic Level
'I'his category pertains to the construction of new facilities or
� additions to existing capital facilities that bring an area up to a
"standard" or "basic" level, as defined in relevant City plans and
policies (and summarized in the Capital Function Strategies in
Appendix D). Some areas of tht city are not prescntly served
� at the basic level for all capital functions. Projects that make
an existing facility handicapped accessible are also included in
this category.
� 4. Fourth Priority: Maintain Support System Jor Basic Services
Maintaining quality basic services requires an adequate support
� system and/or set of backup facilities, such as administrative
offices and facilities for communication, storage, training and
education, and repair and maintenance. Capital improvements
� in this category should directly support the ability of City
government to provide services efficiently and effectively.
� 5. Fifth Priority: Provide Above-Standard Services
The last category pertains to the construction of new facilities
or additions to existing capital facilities that result in a level
1 of service which exceeds that which has been defined as
"standard" for capital functions in an adopted city plan or
policy. Such expansion of services may be advisable in order to
' support targeted neighborhood revitalization. It may also be
allowed if the beneficiaries of the project pay for the
additional service costs through special assessments. An
� example of a project in this priority category could be extra
decorative street lights in a commercial area.
E-2 Pro�ram for Capital Improvements (PCI)
� In evaluating proposals for capital projects, the following priorities
shall be observed:
� l. First Priority: Projects which closely conform to the PCI in
terms of scope, timing, cost and/or financing.
' 2. Second Priority: Projects which are included in the PCI but
i significantly differ from the PCI in terms of scope, timing,
cost, and/or financing.
� 3. Third Priority: Projects which are not included in the PCI.
�
'
� 19
�
E-3 Departmental Evaluation
In evaluating proposals for capital projects, thc following priorities �
shall be observed:
1. First Priority: Projects which departments identify as critical �
to the fulfillment of their mission during the upcoming capital
budget cycle. The relevant department must expiain why it �
regards the proposed project as critical.
2. Second Priority: Projects which dcpartments identify as high
priorities, although not critical to the fulfillment of their �
mission during the upcoming capital budget cycle.
3. Third Priority: Projects which departments identify as low �
priorities.
4. Fourth Priority: Projects which departments identify as being
of questionable validity. The relevant department must eaplain �
why it regards the proposal as having questionable validity.
E-4: Environment �
In evaluating proposals for capital projccts, preference shall bc
granted to projects which demonstrably contribute to the �
improvement of environmental quality (air and water quality, noise
levels): Projects which demonstrably conflict with this objective
shali be pcnalized. Projects which have a neutral or indeterminate
impact relative to this objective shall neither be penalized nor given �
preference.
E-S Public Art Considerations ,
In evaluating proposals for capitai projects, preference shall be
granted to projects which incorporate public art considerations as a �
significant component in the planning and design phases of the
project.
E-6: System Integrity �
In evaluating proposals for capital projects, preference shall be
granted to projects which contribute to the intcgrity of capital �
systems or functions by creating appropriate linkages between their
cxisting components. An example of such a projcct could be a
bicycle trail between two parks. Projects which damage the integrity �
of capital systems or funetions by removing important components
from them shall be penalized An example of such a project could be
thc conversion of an important piece of parkland to another use.
'
�
'
20 �
� ���-����
' E-7 through E-ll: Policies Relating to G-2: To support the careJul management
oJ Saint Pau! neighborhoods, each according to its own best potential.
� E-7 District Plan
In evaluating proposals for capital projects, prefercnce shall be
granted to projects which demonstrably contribute to fulfilling the
� objectives of relevant District Plans (as adopted by District
Couneils). Projects which demonstrably conflict with District Plans
shall be penalized. Projects which have a neutral or indeterminate
' impac�t relative to this objective shall neither be penalized nor given
preference.
� E-8 District Council Rankin�
The priorities of District Councils shall be included in evaluating
propasals for capital projects.
� E-9 Small Area Plan -- Residential Component
� In evaluating proposals for capital projects, preference shall be
granted to projects which demonstrably implement a residential
component of an adopted small area plan. Such projects could
include a variety of activities (such as park rehabilitation) which
' contribute in a coordinated way to achievc the goal of revitalizing
an idientified residcntial neighborhood.
� E-]0 Priority Redevelopment Areas
In evaluating proposals for capital projects, preference shall be
, granted to projects which are intcgral to the fulfiliment of objectives
in areas which the City has designated as priority redevelopment
areas. Priority redevelopment areas consist of the areas included in
active Redevelopment Plans, and existing Urban Revitalization
� Actipn Program project areas.
E-ll Housing
' In evaluating proposals for capital projects, preference shall be
granted to projects which demonstrably support the maintenance and
� upgrading of the city's existing sound housing stock, while seeking to
improve deficient housing and to generate construction of new,
affordable housing choices in character with the neighborhoods
surrounding them. Projects which demonstrably conflict with this
� objective shall be penalized. Projects which have a neutral or
indeterminate impact relative to this objective shall neither be
penalized nor given preference.
� E-12 Historic Preservation
� 1n evaluating proposals for capital projects, prefercnce shall be
granted to projects which demonstrably contribute to hi�'toric
preservation. Projects which demonstrably conflict with this
objective shall be penalized. Projects which have a neutral or
� indeterminate impact relative to this objective shall neither be
penalized nor given preference.
, 21
�
E'-13 through E-IS: Policies Relating to G-3: To ensure a supportive environment ,
Jor businesses and jobs.
E-13 Small Area Plan -- Commercia!/Industrial Component t
In evaluating proposals for eapital projects, preference shall be
granted to projects which demonstrably implement a commcrcial �
and/or industrial component of an adopted small area plan. Such
projects could include a varicty of activities (such as park
rehabilitation) which contribute in a coordinated way to achieve the '
goal of revitalizing an identified commercial/industrial area.
E-14 Job Creation �
In evaluating proposals for capital projects, preference shall be
granted to projects which demonstrably snpport thc creation or
retention of a substantial number of new jobs in Saint Paul or job �
opportunitics for Saint Paul residents. Projects which demonstrably
conflict with this objective shall be pcnalized. Projects which have a
neutral or indeterminate impact relative to this objective shall �
neither bc penalized nor given preference.
E-15 Business Investment
In evaluating proposals for capital projects, preference shall be �
granted to projects which demonstrably stimulate substantial new
business investment in Saint Paul. Projccts which demonstrably �
conflict with this objective shall be penalized. Projects which have a
neutral or indeterminate impact relative to this objective shall
neithcr be penalized nor given preference. �
r
�
�
�
�
i
1
22 �
_ .�-� - _ ____ _ _ . _ _
' �y0-��a�3
� -------------------------------------------
3.2.2 FISCAL EVALUATION POLICIES
� E-16 Impact on Operatin� Bud�et
In evaluating the merits of each proposal:
� l. Projects which will result in a decrease in city operating and
maintenance expenses will be given special consideration.
� 2. Projects which will result in an increase in city operating
and maintenance costs will be penalized.
' 3. Projects which have a neutral or indeterminate impact
relative to this objective shall neither be penalized nor given
preference.
� E-17 Tmpact on City Revenues
In evaluating the merits of each proposal:
� 1. Projects that increase revenue to the city will be given
special eonsideration.
, 2. Projects that reduce revenue to the city will be penalized.
' 3. Projects which have a neutral or indeterminato impact
relative to this objective shail neither be penalized nor given
preference.
, E-18 Grants
The city shall actively seek grants from other units of government or
� the private sector to finance projects which are consistent with
adopted city plans and policies and the priorities of the city. Special
consideration shall be given to capital improvement requests that will
' be used as a match for such grants if the project does not result in
an increase in city operating and maintcnance costs and if the
project does not reduce revenue to thc city.
� E-19 Private Investment
Capital improvement proposals that leverage committed private
' investment will be given special consideration. Projccts designed
specifically as incentives to private development or redevclopment
should meet the following criteria:
� 1. Levera�c Quidelines: Minimum leveraging is 1:6 (each public
dollar should leverage at least 6 private dollars). This ratio
may be as low as 1:3 if the project:
� a. is directly associated with neighborhood/city
partnership efforts;
' b. creates permanent jobs for city residents;
' 23
,
c. is directly related to development of low and moderate �
income housing;
d. is directly related to conscrvation of nonrenewable ,
encrgy resources or devclopment of energy alternatives; or
e. inciudes adequate space for a licensed child care center
as part of the project. �
2. Return on investment: A project associated with a numbered
eaception to the leverage policy is subject to the following �
minimal return policies:
a. The return in terms of taa revenues cannot bc less than
the cost of additional services required by the project; �
SAd
b. Additional tax revenues generated from the project �
must be sufficient to repay the city's investment over the
lifetime of the asset provided.
E-20 Acquisition '
A project that involves acquisition may be given the same priority as
a project which does not if: �
l. 1"he acquisition is related to public development or reuse and:
a. Right-of-way of easements are necessary; ,
b. 'The parcel(s) have been previously identified for �
conversion to park use if they become available; or
c. 1"hc parcel(s) have tax exempt status and a use which is
consistent with city plans, policies and priorities has been �
clearly identified.
2. The acquisition is related to private development or reuse �
and:
a. The proposed reuse is consistcnt with city plans,
policies and priorities and: �
1) There is a reasonable expectation that
development will occur in the immediate future; or ,
2) Thcre is an economic advantage to the city to
acquire the property and the city can dispose of it �
within the reasonably foresceable future. .
E-21 Joint Use / Consolidation o! Facilities
Proposals that consolidate existing city facilities and proposals for �
tacilities that will be financed and operated by the city and another
agency, or by more than one operating department or division within '
the city, will be given speciai consideration if the proposed facility:
24 ,
1 U"�� a� �3
� 1. is consistcnt with city plans, policies and priorities;
2. can be constructed and operated more efficiently and
, effectively at less cost to the city than separate facilities;
3. does not result in an increase in city operating or
maintenance costs or reduce revenuc to the city; and
� 4. will result in shared operating and maintenance support of
the facility is jointly used.
, E-22 Continuation Projects
' The funding needs of a capital improvement project that received a
priot budget appropristion for construction plans or a construction
phase normally have priority over a new project or program
allocation. Feasibility studics are not prior commitments.
� Acquisition and preliminary design do not constitute prior
commitments unless financing for construction plans has been
approved and included in the CIB Committee's schedule of tentative
� futurc commitments. Annual programs are not considered
continuation projects.
, E-23 ProgramminQ and Phasin�
A proposed project should be adequately programmed and phased.
This means that:
' 1. A proposal which is justified by city plans, policies and
priorities and is coordinated with other improvements at a cost
' saving to the city will be encouraged:
2. A project must be timed with other improvements planned
for the area within the next five years.
' 3. Only the amount which can reasonably be expected to be
expended in the budget year will be budgeted. Money required
' to complete the project will be identified in the schedule and
will constitute a tentative commitment subject to City Council
adoption of a budget appropriation for each year of the project.
� E-24 Use
The extent to which a project will be used will be taken into
, conaideration. Also, efforts shall be made to ensure that projects
meet the needs of the economically disadvantaged. This means that:
� 1. The greater number of people served by a project, the greater
the consideration that should be given to a project.
Administrative units shall be considered separately from
� neighborhood facilities.
2. Projccts used year-round will be given greater consideration
than projects used primarily on a seasonal basis.
'
' 25
. '
E-25 Fiscal Impact Analysis �
Proposals which involve a new service or expanded level of service
must inciudc as part of the proposal an analysis of the impacts of the �
project on the city's operating costs and revenues.
3.3 FINANCIAL POLICIES
--------------------- — �
Financial Policies are uscd to determine what source of financing should be `
used for particular projects. Numerous financing sources for capital
projects are availablc to the city. However, many of them arc earmarked to
be used only for certain types of projects. By assigning the most narrowly ,
targeted financing sources to the best projects, the CIB Committee is able to
recommend financing of the optimal package of projects.
F-1 Financing Sources �
Determination of which financing source is most appropriate for �
each of the city's capital improvement budget priorities will be made
as follows:
1. Recommended capital improvements which are subject to '
assessment will be so assessed under the city's Special
Assessment Policy. The policies currently in effect were
adopted on December 23, 1976 as Council File No. 268302 and �
amended June 17, 1980 by Council File No. 275110; May 17,
1984 by Council File No. 84-632; and February 11, 1986 by
Council File No. 86-162. �
2. Recommendcd capital improvements located on Municipal
State Aid, County Aid or Minnesota Trunk Highway routes and
eligiblc for one or more of these financing sources will be '
financed to the extent allowable with money allocated to the
city specifically for these routes.
3. Recommended capital improvements which are eligible for ,
metropolitan, state or federal programs or private grants should
be so financed. If appropriate, CDBG or CIB money may be �
used to provide local matching funds.
4. Recommended capital improvements which can be financed
with specific bonding authority may be so recommended if City '
Councii has indicated its intention to use such authority.
Recommended capital improvements which can be financed
with revenue bonds or revcnue from an existing Tax Increment �
District should be so financed.
S. Recommended capital improvements or portions thereof and
programs eligible for CDBG financing should be so financed. �
6. Recommended capital improvements which cannot be
financed with money governed by paragraphs I, through S. will '
be considered for Capital Improvement Bond Financing.
26 '
1 �-�����3
' F-2 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) ProQram
Projects proposed for financing through thc CDBG Program must
meet the federal guidelines issued by the U.S. Department of Housing
, and Urban Development. This means that:
1. Projccts must be included in the list of eligible activities
' contained in the federal regulations.
2. Projects must either principally bcnefit low and moderate
income persons, eliminate slums and blight, or meet a
, eommunity necd having a particular urgency.
3. Of the total CDBG dollars which are allocated to projects,
' most should principally bencfit low and moderate income
persons or be located in areas which meet the Department of
Housing and Urban Development's definition of low and
� moderate income. The remainder of the money may address
slums and blight or community needs having a particular
urgency.
� F-3 Bond Fiaancing
Guidelines for the use of bond financing are as follows:
' 1. The 1989 Joint Debt Advisory Committee 1990 Status Report
projects the sale of up to $14,500,000 in Capital Improvement
, Bonds in 1992 and $15,200,000 in 1993. The CIB Committee
and Mayor are requested to recommend capital budgets limiting
C1B bonding to $ in 1992 and
$ in 1993, in order to stabilize the city's
' annual debt service cost.
2. The city will issue special street assessment revenue bonds as
' required to finance the assessable portion of street paving.
Debt service on the bonds will be paid by benefitted property
owncrs. Thc cxact amount of bonding will bc dctcrmincd by
� the specific projects scheduled and will be contingent on the
amount of fcderal, statc and city construction money available
for sewer separation.
' 3. The city may issue Municipal State Aid revenue bonds in
order to finance Warner and Shepard Road reconstruction � a
financing plan for completion of these roads is approved by the
, Mayor and City Council.
4. The use of revenue bonds to finance public improvement
commitments for economic development projects is preferred
' over other financing sources. The city may consider using tax
increment, taxable bonds, or tax-exempt revenue bonds for the
following projects:
� a. Riverfront developmont;
� b. Downtown parking proposals;
' 27
,
c. Other project-specific public redcvelopment costs '
which ltverage significant private, state or federal
investment.
Such bond issues may be general obligation bonds if there is ,
dedicated revenue sufficient to cover the interest and principal
payments and if there is additional financing other than
property tax rcvenues to secure the payment of debt service. ,
F-4 T�x Increment Ftnancing
Guidelines for the use of tax increment financing are as follows: '
l. Revenue projections by coasultant: revenue projections
prepared by City staff and bond underwriters for all taa ,
increment proposals should be analyzed by the City's fiscal
adviser in order to determine reasonablencss.
2. Debt service from bond sale proceeds: capitalized interest ,
will be used for the payment of debt service for tax increment
financing bonds only when tax increment revenues are �
insufficient. Capitalized interest for bond•financed tax
increment projects will be limited to no more than the first
three years after the sale of bonds.
3. Other costs funded from bond sale proceeds: all other costs '
relating to any tax incremcnt proposal may be financed with
bond proceeds and included in the justification of each �
proposal. These costs include, but are not limited to: design,
acquisition and relocation, construction, bond counsel fees,
fiscal adviser fees, credit enhancement costs, reserve funds, ,
other costs of issurance, and staff time.
F-5 HRA General Fund
'The HRA Ge�cral Fund wiil be used for redevelopment of blighted ,
areas as designated in city plans. Projects funded through the HRA
General Fund must be physical improvements which will result in �
the revitalization of the community.
The use of the HRA General Fund is governed by the state
municipal housing and redevelopment law (Minn. Statutes, Chapter '
469). Uscs of the fund include acquisition, clearance, relocation,
rehabilitation and public improvements.
F-6 HRA Development Fund ,
Like the HRA General Fund, the purpose of the HRA Development '
Fund is to redevelop blighted areas as designated in city plans.
Projects funded through the HRA Development Fund must be
physical improvements which will result in the revitalization of the
community. However, at least 5096 of the HRA Development Fund �
must be used for redcvelopmcnt activities within the boundaries of
the 7th Place Redevelopment Area and Tax Increment District
(roughly bounded by St. Peter and Market St. to the west, llth St. �
and 9th St. to the north, Robert St. and Jackson St. to the east, and
Sth St. and 4th St. to the south).
28 '
� ��--yaa��3
' The HRA Development Fund was established in 1983 in the
resolution authorizing the sale/leaseback of the Civic Center (HRA
Resolution 83-10/13-2). Like the HRA General Fund, it is used for
� acquisition, clearance, relocation, rehabilitation, public
improvements, and project loans.
' F-7 Rehabilitation Loan Funds
City bond money used to provide residential and commercial
' rehabilitation loans shall be recycled for additional loans as the
original loans are repaid according to the guidelines adopted by the
Saint Paul City Council. CDBG money used to provide residential
and Commcrcial rchabilitation loans, which return to the CDBG
' program as program income, shall be appropriated from the program
income line item to provide new loans as the original loans are
repaid.
' F-8 Sale/Leaseback
Before any sale/leaseback agreements will be approved by City
� Council resolution, the following conditions must be met:
I. The feasibility of the proposal must be analyzed by an
' independent fiscal consultant chosen by the city. Costs for
such analysis must be borne by thc initiator of the project if
other than a city agency.
, 2. The advice of the Long Range Capital Improvement Budget
Committee must be obtained.
� 3. If the repurchase of the facility is part of the proposal, the
package should be structured to minimize repurchase costs and
financing must be feasible.
' F-9 Tax Abatement
� The city will not consider tax abatement as a development/
redevelopment tool unless so determined by the Mayor, and by City
Council resolution, and with the exception of tax abatement
assistance for low income rental housing development. (Couneil File
, No. 276807).
F-10 Priorities and Procedures for Disbursing Capital Improvement Project
' Finaocing
In order to maximize allowable interest earnings on cash investments,
' fund and activity managers and the departmental accountants will
conform with the following when paying bills for capital projects:
1. An interdcpartmental invoice for transfer of money
' between funds will accompany each pay voucher which equals
or exceeds $50,000;
� 2. An interdepartmental invoice for transfer of money
between funds will be completed at the end of each month to
covcr ail pay vouchers which totalled less than 550,000;
, 29
,
3. If a capital project has multiple sources of financing ,
�available, spending will be charged against funds in the
following order, subject to thc qualifications listed below:
a. Reimbursable grant funds--these funds should be �
spent first with prompt requcst for reimbursement;
b. Bond fuads sold in 1987 or after; ,
c. Cash grants which have interest limitations;
d. Bond funds sold prior to 1987; ,
e. Cash grants which do not have interest limitations. '
Thc following qualifications should also be applied:
-- Grants with time restrictions should be spent within ,
the allowable period.
-- If the budget for a project exceeds the project's �
final cost, cash grants should be used to ihe full
extent allowable, leaving other financing sources
available for reappropriation. '
F-11 Reporting, Review and Reappropristion Requirements for Capital
Improvemeat Projects
The following reporting and review requirements will be used to '
monitor all capital improvement projects to help ensure that federal
arbitrage requirements for bond proceeds are met and to derive �
maximum benefit from capital financing:
1. Each department shall prepare an annual capital improvement �
project status report and present it to the Saint Paul Long
Range Capital Improvement Budget Committee by December 31
of each calendar year. The report shall indicate the current
status of each of thc department's capital improvement projects �
including expenditures, encumbrances and outstanding balances
by financing source.
2. Each dcpartment shall prepare a quartcrly capital improvement '
project status report for all capital improvement projects
financed in whole or in part with proceeds from bonds sold by
the City. This report shall be presented to the Saint Paul Long '
Range Capital Improvement Budget Committee at the first
meeting following the end of each fiscal quarter. The report
shall indicatc the current status of each of the projects �
including expenditures, encumbrances and outstanding balances
by financing source.
3. Financing from bond proceeds for capital improvement projects '
or programs will be subject to reappropriation if the project or
program has not shown substantial progress toward completion
at the end of thc calendar year in which the bond proceeds �
were received.
30 '
1 �y�aa�3
' 4. Financing other than bond procecds for capital improvement
projects or programs will be subject to reappropriation if the
project has not shown substantial progress toward completion at
, thc end of the second year after the year in which the
appropriation was received.
' S. When adequatc progress is not being made on a project, the
responsible department or agency must justify continuation of
the project to the Saint Paul Long Range Capital Improvement
Budget Committee. The CIB Committee will then recommcnd to
, the Mayor and City Council appropriate action on a project-by-
project basis. Such action may include allowing additional time
for implementation, abandonment of the project and
t reappropriation of the financing, or rephasing of the projecYs
financing and reappropriation of the current financing.
� F-12 Project Phasing
Proposals must be realistieally phased if the conditions of Policy
F-I1 are to be met. In order to assist departments in their phasing,
' approved construction projects which are phased over several years
shali not be required to submit more than one proposal application
for task force review unless the original appropriation specifically
� indicates that the appropriation does not constitute a commitment to
future financing.
Multi-year projects will be required, however, to present estimated
, construction costs to the CIB Committee after design is complete and
before bids are let to have continuation of project financing
incl�ded in the capital improvement budget.
� F-13 Out-of-Cycle Appropriations for New Projects
� Requests for out-of-cycle appropriations for new projects shall not be
considered individually unless an urgent health and safety hazard
exists. All requests for new projects shall be held and considered in
comparison with each other, and with the next priorities identified
' during the last proposal review cycle before any recommendations
are made by the CIB Committee. It shall be the responsibility of the
CIB Committee to identify a timeline and procedures for reviewing
� such proposals.
F-14 Increased Costs !or Projects
, If detailed estimates for a project as proposed exceed the amount
budgeted and programmed, or if actual bids exceed the budgeted
cost� no part of the project shall begin until financing for the entire
' project has been budgeted or programmed.
If detailed estimates or bid costs exceed the budgeted and
, programmed project cost by more than 25 percent or 5100,000,
whichever is less, the project must be reevaluated by the CIB
Committee in light of all existing priorities. The CIB Committee
� may recommend that additional financing be appropriated for the
, 31
,
project, that the scope of the project be reduced, and/or that the
project be deferred until the next proposal review cycle to determine ,
whether the project is warranted, given increased costs.
F-15 Multi-Year Projection of Capital Financing Sources ,
Appendix F is a projection of all capital improvement financing
sourccs for the years 1992 through 1996. The five-year tentative '
program includcd in the biennial capital budget shall not exceed
these funding projections.
�
r
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
i
�
�
�
32 ,
' o.���3
' ��
' 4.0 GUIDELINES FOR CAPITAL PROGRAMMING
,
---------------------------------------------
Guidelines for Capital Programming are used to determine what types of
� projects are to be included in the ten-year Program for Capital
Improvemcnts (PCI). The PCI is the City's detailed plan for future capital
investmcnt. The guidelines that govern the PCI are not, strictly speaking,
, "capital allocation policies" becausc thc actual allocation of capital resourees
is reeommended by the CIB Committee and adopted by the City Council.
Although conformance with the PCI is an important criterion for
determining the actual allocation of capital, it is not the only one.
1 The intent of the following guidelines is to ensure that the PCI rcflects a
reasonable and prudent initial assessment of the City's capital priorities
, over the next tcn years.
PCI-1 Yeats 1992-1993 of the 1992-2001 PCI
, Year 1992 of the PCI shall consist of budgeted projects; Year 1993 of
the PCI shall consist of projects recommended by the CIB Committee
for financing in 1993.
' PCI-2 Years 1994-1996 of the PCI: Relationship to Adopted Plans and
Policies
, Any project with an estimated cost exceeding �100,000 (with the
exception of projects which can be classified as extraordinary capital
maintenance) must be based on an adopted City plan or policy in
� order to be included in the third through fifth years of the PCI. For
the 1992 - 2001 PCI, exceptions may be made for the Police
Department and/or the Public Health Division, provided that each
' demonstrates substantial progress toward preparing a capital plan or
policy for City Council adoption prior to 1994.
� PCI-3 Years 1994-1996 of the PCI: Tentative Commitments
Projects which are listed as tentative commitments for years
1994-1996 in the adopted 1992 capital budget shall be included in the
' PCI at the indicated level of financing.
PCI-4 Years 1994-1996 of the PCI: Programming of Projects Other than
� Tentative Commitments
The Mayor's Office, Budget Section shall provide estimates of the
, amount of money expected to be available from Capitai Improvement
Bonds, Community Development Block Grants, and other resources
which can be estimated accurately for years 1994-1996 of the PCI. If
the tentative commitments for years 1994-1996 do not exceed the
� amount of available resources estimated by the Mayor's Office,
Budget Seetion, departments may identify new projects to be
included in years 1994-1996 of the PCI.
�
' 33
,
PCI-S Years 1994-1996 of the PCI: Match Between Programmed Projects
and Expected Availsble FinancinQ ,
For each of the financing sources identifiod by the Mayor's Office,
Budget Section in accordance with PCI-4 above, the total amount of '
moncy needed to finance tentative commitmcnts and new projects
shall not exceed expected available financing.
PCI-6 Yeart 1994-1996 of the PCI: Distribution of Capital Improvement '
Bond and Community Development Block Grant Resources
The following guidelines shall apply to the use of Capital '
Improvement Bond and Community Developmcnt Block Grant
resources:
l. Except as noted in 2. below, the total percentage distribution '
of Capital Improvement Bonds + Community Development
Block Grants for each department in 1994 - 1996 shall be
determined in one of the following ways: '
a. Past Usage: Distribution equal to the total departmental
percentage of Capital Improvement Bonds + Community '
Development Block Grants for 1988 • 1992.
b. Future Nced: Thc Planning Commission may modify the '
percentage allocations described in l.a. above if it
determines that future needs for the 1994 - 1996 period
differ signi}'icantly frora past usage. The Planning
Commission shall present findings to justify such '
modifications.
2. Thc Planning Commission shall consider eaceptions to l. �
above under the following conditions:
a. If tentative commitments for any given department in ,
1994 - 1996 already exceed the distribution calculated via
the methods described in 1. above. In this situation,
tentativc commitments shall bc honorcd and the Planning
Commission shall reduce Capital Improvement Bond ,
distributions proportionately for other departments, and
shall require othcr departments to rtvisc and resubmit
proposals as aecessary to eliminate aggregate '
overprogramming.
b. Because their normal usc of Capital Improvement Bond �
and Community Development Block Grant resources is
relatively small, the departments of Finance, Fire and
Emcrgency Services, and Police, and the division of
Public Health (Department of Community Services) may ,
be allowed to exceed their normal distribution of Capital
tmprovement Bond and/or Community Development Block
Grant resources � such ovcrprogramming stems from a '
single large project which is identified as an important
priority in an adopted City plan or policy. If this
situation occurs, the Planning Commission shall reduce �
Capital Improvement Bond distributions proportionately
for other departments, and shall require other
34 �
- ---_ _ _ i . _ __----- -
��-�0-�ad'3
1
, departments to revise and resubmit proposals as necessary
to eliminate aggrcgate overprogramming. No more than
one such project shall be programmed for any single year.
' PCI-7 Years 1994-1996 0! the PCI: Unlcnown Financing Sources
The Planning Commission shall not include projects with unknown
' financing sources in the Program for Capital Improvcments for the
1994 - 1996 period.
' PCI-8 Years 1997-2001 of the PCI: Diatribution of Expected Availxble
Financing
The Planning Commission shall not placc limits on the amount of
' financing or number of projects indicated as needs by departments
for the 1997 - 2001 period. However, the Mayor's Office, Budget
Section shall review preliminary departmental submissions for the
� 1997 - 2001 period and shall note situations where the total level of
propos¢d financing will likely be unavailable. In these situations,
the Planning Commission may direct the responsible departments to
' provide justification for their proposals, and may include such
justification in the text of the 1992 - 2001 Program for Capital
Improvements.
, PCI-9 Years 1997-2001 of the PCI: Unknown FinancinS Sources
The Planning Commission may allow projects with unknown
, financing sources to be included in the Program for Capital
Improv�ements for the 1997 - 2001 period. If this occurs, the text of
the Program for Capital Improvements should include an explanation
� of why the source of financing is unknown.
'
'
,
r
�
�
�
' 35
'
S.0 FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT �
BUDGETING PROCESS
'
---------------------------------------------
The 1992 - 1996 CAP represents the continuation of a process to implement �
the capital budgeting reforms which were recommended by the 1988 Joint
CIB Committee/Planning Commission Task Force. (The first two stagcs of
this process were thc 1990 - 1994 CAP and the 1990 - 1999 PCI.) Although ,
most of these recommendations have now been implemented, there is still
work to be done to adapt the CAP to the continually-changing environment
within which it functions. The following section highlights the actions that
should be pursucd during coming years. ,
A-I Monitoring of Past Programs, Budgets and Expenditures
Action: The Planning Commission should prepare a study which �
analyzes past PCI's, recommended capital budgets, and actual capital
expenditures, using the priority categories established in the 1992 -
1996 CAP. This study should also analyze the past interaction '
between the capital and operating budgets.
Time jrame: 1991 �
Discussion: In the past, the Planning Commission has monitored
changes in the composition of the capital budget over time. '
However, past monitoring has been incomplete in that it has dealt
with budgeting trends but has not considered the relationship
between recommended budgets, actual budgets, and actual '
eapenditures. Also, past monitoring has not studied how capital and
operating expenditures interact in Saint Paul. Such a study will be
needed to fulfill the recommendation of the 1988 Planning
Commission/CIB Committec task force which callcd for the Planning ,
Commission and the CIB Committee to provide more comprehensive
evaluation criteria for capital projects regarding their impact on the
operating budget. ,
A-2 Assessment of Future Capital Needs
Action: The Planning Commission should prepare a study which '
considers whether past and currcnt capital priorities are
appropriately addressing expected future needs in Saint Paul.
TimeJrame: 1991 • 1993 (Departments should begin working to ,
prcpare thcir own capital needs assessments as early as 1991; the
study of overall needs should bc completed by 1993.) '
Discussion: Several issues have been raised which would make it
beneficial for the Planning Commission to assess Saint Paul's future
capital needs, and to ask whether past investment trends need to be '
modified to address these needs more appropriately. The declining
availability of Community Development Block Grant money makes it
increasingly difficult for the capital budget to address housing and �
economic developmcnt needs adequately. There is a growing demand
for Capital Improvement Bond money, but the City's currcnt policy
36 '
1 �'�°-a.��3
of paving streets and installing street lights in con junction with
� sewer separation ensures that a substantial percentage of capital
improvement bond funds will be used for transportation, at least
until the sewer separation project is completed is 1995. Finally, some
� city administrators have commented that the current CAP does not
adequately funetion as a decision framework for the city to address
social service needs. 1993 would be a good timc for an assessment of
' future capital needs, because it could be based on the 1991
monitoring study (see A-1 above), on data available from the 1990
Census, and on relatively recent plans for thc City's major capitai
systems and functions. (New Economic Developmcnt and Housing
� plans were adopted in I990; work on new Transportation and Park
plans is expected in 1991 and 1992). Moreover, a study in 1993
would allow the Planning Commission to address the issue of whether
' the residential street paving and lighting program should continue at
the same accelerated rate after sewer separation ends in 1995.
�
'
'
,
'
' •
'
1
'
'
,
'
, 37
'
6.0 DEFINITIONS �
-- -- -- -------- ---- -- �
------ --- -- -- ---- -- -----
Capital Expenditure - A one time expense requircd to upgrade or add to the
physical assets (land and buildings) of the city. In addition, capital ,
expenditures include incentives to the private sector to develop or
re•develop assets not owned by the city.
Capital Function - A set of capital facilities and/or programs that together �
provide a basic type of service. Saint Paul currently categorizes capital
expenditures according to eleven capital functions: Streets, Street Lighting,
1"raffic Engineering, Bridges, Sewers, Parks and Open Space, Libraries, '
Housing and Economic Devclopment, Police, Fire and Safety, and Special
Facility Support.
Capital System • A set of capital functions that are necessarily coordinated �
in order to ensure that the services which each providcs are effectively
achieved. Saint Paul currently has one capital system - Transportation -
composed of four capital functions: Streets, Street Lighting, Traffic �
Engineering, and Bridges.
Capital Improvement Budget - The annual capital improvemcnt budget shall '
include appropriations for all projects to be funded during the budget year
which have an estimated useful life in excess of three years, other than the
acquisition of office or mechanical equipment, vehicles or mobile '
equipment, and minor remodeling or repairs of existing structures. The
annual capital improvement budget shall include the proceeds of general
obligation or revenue bonds of the city authorized by law, all aids, grants,
and special revenues received by the city for funding capital improvements, ,
all monies appropriated by the City Council in the General Fund and
Special Fund budgets for capital projects, and all special financing methods
such as tax increment financing, long-term lease agreements, and '
• sale•leaseback financing. A five year program whieh identifies the future
costs associated with multi-year capital projects and any additional capital
projects that are scheduled for implementation during the time of the ,
program shall accompany each annual capital improvement budget.
Extraordinary Capital A4aintenance - The replacement, renovation,
remodeling and/or retrofitting of the structurai parts and/or service system '
components of a building, and thc man-made components of an improved
site. Structural parts include footings and foundations; beams, joists,
columns; load bearing walls, exterior walls and facade (excluding glass); '
stairs, floors, decks, ramps, ceilings; roofs and roofing. Service system
components include plumbing, electrical, communications, heating,
ventilating, air conditioning, security systems and elevators; utility mains. '
Site components include retaining walls, lighting, stairs, ramps, sidewalks,
railings, fencing, drainage structures, and erosion control. For maintenance
purposes, the most important site components are those whose condition
affects the identified structural parts or service system components. '
Operating Budget - The annual operating budget is a 12-month financial
plan which provides for delivery of city services; support and planning for '
scrvice delivery; routine maintenance; minor remodeling and repairs of
existing structures; acquisit;on of vehicles, mobile, mechanical, and office
38 '
' ���'���3
equipment; and other activities having an estimated useful life of less than
� three years. Primary financing sources for thc operating budget are
property taxes, federal and state aids, dedicated revenues, user charges, and
grants.
� Program Ailocation - A program allocation is a lump sum amount given to
fund a series of capital projects which are consistcnt in nature and are
' implemented sequentially in time until an identified objective is reached.
An example of a program allocation is the combined street and sewer
program.
, Subsidy Allocation - A subsidy allocation is assistance that the city gives to
the private sector as incentive for development or redevelopment of
physical assets now owned or operated by the city. Subsidy allocations
' include loans, grants, matching funds, or acquisition and clearance.
Tentative Program of Commitments - A section of the Capital Improvement
' Budget which estimates future annual appropriations needed to complete
projects which have been initiated.
'
� '
1
'
'
,
'
1
'
'
'
t39
;
� G�9a a��3
� APPENDIX A
� CITY OF SAINT PAUL MISSION STATEMENT
(FROM THE "CITY OF SAINT PAUL
1991 BUDGET GOALS AND POLICIES")
�
--------------------------------------------
Ensure the provision of high quality scrvices, which meet the people's
� priority needs and which enhance the long tcrm common good of the
community within the constraints of available financing sources and
reasonablc taxing policies.
� City services must:
� bc re�ponsive to citizen needs and requests;
produce effective results that are measurable and quantified;
' be d¢livered efficiently, in a manner which is both timely, courteous,
and �ost effective;
be in conformance with applicable laws;
�� '
be ddlivered within the context of high moral and ethical standards;
� fostcr neighborhood livability, assist in job training, job creation,
and job retention; and
involve citizens in the decision making process.
�
Service delivery includes those which provide public safety, health and
� general welfare. Services are to strengthen all the neighborhoods as places
to live, work, play, be educated, and raise families.
City employees are essential to the delivery of quality services. Thc City is
� committed to providing a quality work place and quality scrvices to the
citizens, business community, and employees of Saint Paul.
�
r
�
�
�
, 41
�
APPENDIX B '
PLANS AND POLICIES RELEVANT FOR CAPITAL BUDGETING
--------------------------------------------
�
GENERAL ELEMEN'1'S OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
o Ovcrview of the Plan �
o A Plan for Land Use
0 1'he Implementation Strategy �
--------------------------------------------
CAPITAL FUNCTION PLANS AND POLICIES �
o A Plan for Streets and Highways
o Transit Plan �
o A Plan for Bicycles
o Saint Paul Street Lighting Policy
o Comprehensive Sewer Plan
o A Plan for Parks and Rccreation �
o A Plan for Multi-Service Centers
o A Plan for Libraries
o Saint Paul Housing Policy for the 1990s �
o Economic Development Strategy �
o Plan for Fire and Emergency Medical Services
o Program for Capital Improvements (1990-1999) �
-------------------------------------------- �
DISTRICT PLANS
o District 1 Plan
o District 2 Plan �
o District 3 Plan �
o District 4 Plan
o District 5 Plan
o District 6 Plan �
o District 6 Land Use Amendment
o District 7 Plan
o District 7 Plan Updatc �
o District 8 Plan
o District 9 Plan
o District 10 Plan �
o District 11 Plan
o YOUniversity Avenue Plan (District 11 & 13)
o District 12 Plan �
o District 13 Plan
o District 14 Plan
o Grand Avcnue West Parking and Zoning Report (District 14)
o Grand Avenue Design Guidelines Amendment (District 14 & 16) �
o District l5 Plan
o Highiand Village Plan Amendment (District l5)
o District 16 Plan �
o Grand Avcnue East Design Guidelines Amcndment (District 16)
o Downtown Development Plan (District 17)
42 �
� ���-a��3
o Downtown Development Plan--Miller Hospital Site Land Use
� Amendment (District 17)
o Status of District Plans as Part of Comprehensive Plan
� ------------------------------
--------------
SMALL AREA PLANS
� o River Corridor Plan
o Downtown Framcwork
o Sum�nit Avenue Plan
� o Smith Avenue Plan
o Selby Avenue Plan
o Lowcr Cathcdral Hill Plan
� o Lower Dayton's Bluff Plan
o University Avenue Corridor Study
o Highwood Plan
� o Near East Side Neighborhood Dcvelopment Strategy
o Fort Road Design Guidelines
�
�
�
�
�
'
�
'
�
�
�
� 43
�
APPENDIX C
OVERALL BUDGET GOALS �
(FROM THE "CITY OF SAINT PAUL
1991 BUDGET GOALS AND POLICIES") �
------------------------------------------- �
GENERAL BUDGET GOALS
GG1 Maintain the fiscal integrity of the City's operating, debt service and
capital improvement budgets in order to provide services and to �
construct and maintain public facilities, streets and utilities.
GG2 Maintain a responsible and pradent fiscal condition and high bond
rating in order to minimize long-term interest eapense when �
financing capital improvements with an ongoing systematic bonding
program which spreads the cost of the improvements to benefitting
citizens. �
GG3 Preparc and annually rcfine written goals and policies to guide the
preparation of financing, spending and performance plans for the �
City budget.
GG4 Coordinatc decision making for the capital improvements budget �
with the operating budget to make effective use of the City's limited
resources for operating and maintaining facilities. Require
departments, divisions, and offices to prepare life-cycle maintenance
plans as part of operating budget. �
GGS Present budget data to citizens, City managers, and elected officials
in a form that will facilitate annual budget decisions based on a �
multi-year strategic planning perspective.
GG6 Prepare and evaluate activity performance plans that relate to
financing and spending plans in the City budget. �
GG7 Encourage citizen involvement in the budget decision-making process
through public hearings. '
-------------------------------------------- �
SERVICE LEVEL GOALS
SGl Budget decisions to increase a service level or add a new program ,
will be financed with either a new revenue source or tax increase, or
by a deliberate reduction in, or elimination of existing scrvices.
Base decisions to reduce service levels or eliminate programs on �
citywide priorities and ne�ds if revenue sources are inadequate to
maintain existing services at current program levels.
Maintain programming flexibility to address priority user nccds �
based on historical usage and demographic trends within service
areas if a service is provided at many facilities throughout the city �
and a service level reduction is necessary.
44 �
i
, �;c9o"���3
� SG2 Incorporate self reliance in both the day to day operations of the
city and the development of its long range plans.
SG3 Avoid duplication of services and foster cooperation with other units
� of government. Seek joint usc opportunities for public facilities with
both governmental units and non-profit organizations when effcctive
scrvicc dclivery can be providcd at less cost to the City to enhance
� aervices.
SG4 Recognize that City employees are City government's most valnable
asset, and, as such, their eoncerns, participation, and morale are
� crucial to delivering high quality, efficient services to the residents
and taxpayers of Saint Paul.
� SGS Emp10y good managcment practices when planning for service
delivcry by including in budget requests money to pursue activities,
such as:
� o office sutomation and computer applications that increasc
productivity;
� o equipment modernization;
o work-flow simplification;
� o risk management/employee safety, and wellness;
� o preventive maintenance;
o energy conservation;
� o life cycle costing and purchasing of equipment;
o lcase-purchasc options for high cost equipment purchases which
� reducc operating expenses;
o performance planning, reporting and evaluation;
' o employee training;
o employec well being;
� o employee child care; and
� o competitive bidding for certain services.
SG6 Modernize the physical and organizational structure of City
� departments and offices to facilitate better management of resources.
Create an environment which encourages innovative problem solving
and ' pursuit of opportunities to improve service delivery within
existing budgets.
� SG7 Provide adequate budgct resourccs to address the long-term program
needs for essentiai human service delivery coordination, better
� neighborhoods and economic development.
� 45
�
-------------------------------------------- �
FINANCING GOALS
FG1 Finance essential city services or public services under contract
which have a citywide benefit in the budget with revenue sources �
which are generated from a broad base, i.e. property taxes, state and
federal aids, annual service charges and franchise fees. Finance
responsive scrvices (where the individual served controls the usc of �
the service) with dedicated revenue and user fees which directly
rclate to the level of service provided. Minimize Gcneral Fund
financing assistance to those responsive serviee activities which have �
a common good community bencfit but cannot totally financc
expenses with user fees.
FG2 Minimize the impact and use of property taa financing by �
controlling costs snd by seeking slternative financing for city
services which focus on user fees for responsive services and by the
upgrading and/or enhancement of the property taa base and �
aggressive application for state, federal, and othcr funds as approved
by the Mayor and City Council.
FG3 Refine existing asscssment financing formulas and user fee rate �
structures to more accurately charge the costs of service provided to
the benefitting property owners and customers served, while being
sensitive to the needs of low income people. �
FG4 Support federal and state legislation that provides property taa relief
and direct aid to cities, without reliance on regressive forms of �
taxation. Strive to eliminate local funding of regional and state
responsibilities. Opposc legislation which imposes local scrvice
mandates without federal, state, or regional funding.
FGS Seek reform of Minnesota property taa laws to target property tax �
relief to cities to reduce tax base disparities, and to more fairly
reduce the tax burden disparity among the different classes of �
property.
,
�
�
�
�
�
46 �
, �"��°���'3
� APPENDIX D
� CAPITAL FUNCTION STRATEGIES
, --------------------------------------------
CFS1 STRE�ETS
The capital program for streets primarily contains strcet overlay or
, reconstructian projects. Traffic signai work and street lighting are included
whcn specified.
� The basic strvice level for Saint Paul streets is defined in 'A Plan for
Streets and 'Highways" (1979), one of three components of the City's
Transportation Plan. (The other two transportation components deal with
bicycles and mass transit.)
, The overall goal of Saint Paul's Transportation Plan is to provide for
adequatc, convenient mobility in transporting goods and pcople, while
� conserving e�ergy and protecting the environment. The basic strategy for
accomplishi�g this goal is to use existing streets and highways as effectively
as possible, ; minimizing new roadway construction and putting greater
' empha&is on itransit and paratransit.
1"he City relies on a standard functional classification of streets as principal
arterials, intiermediate arterials, minor arterials (A & B), collectors and local
istreets. De�ign standards are established on a system basis, i.e., trunk
highways are subject to standards set by the Minnesota Department of
1"ransportation and streets on the state aid system are subject to state aid
� standards. Most of the remaining streets ar� residential. The standard
residential �treet width is 32 feet, although this width is modified by
available right-of-way, the policy for trees, and other physical features.
� Three princi;pal criteria are used to determint if a street is functioning well:
� 1. Does the roadway adequately handle the volume of traffic expected
to usc it?
2. How does the traffic flow affect adjaeent land uses?
' 3. How does the "streetscape" look? Is it a pleasant place to walk or
drive?
, Because of a strategic emphasis on the beauty of the strcetscape, trees are
also an impqrtant component of City street work. Funds for boulevard tree
planting may be included in project proposals, both for reconstruction
� projects and for overlay projects.
Parkway projects are included under this capital function, slthough they
� are also governed by the principles stated in CFS6 (page 45).
The City's ezisting Transportation Pian is scheduled to be updated in 1991.
� The process for updating the plan will consider appropriate ways to
integrate light rail, bikeways, and other alternative methods of
transportation into Saint Paul's evolving transportation system.
� 47
�
The street program contributes to the City's fiscal integrity by making '
maximnm use of the existing street system, providing adequate maintenance
and making minor changes. New routes are to be added when necessary and
with as little disruption as possible. In practicc, most City street work �
currently occurs in four situations:
1. Strect reconstruction in conjunction with federal, state and county
road projects. ,
2. Street reconstruction in conjunction with the City's ten-ycar sewer
separation program. �
3. Street rehabilitation (overlay) resulting from the D�partment of
Public Works' street condition analysis system. This system involves �
the monitoring of arterial streets on a two-year cycle and the
scheduling of rehabilitation before complete street failure occurs.
This saves money for the City because rehabilitation is much less
expensive than total rcconstruction. �
4. Warner and Shepard Roads.
�
--------------------------------------------
CFS2 STREET LIGHTING
The capital program for street lighting is comprised of individual lighting �
projects and citywide street lighting improvement programs.
The basic serrice levei for Saint Paul street lights is defined in the "Saint i
Paul Street Lighting Policy" (1989).
Standard street lighting systems consist of high-pressure sodium fixtures, �
spaced to meet the Public Works Department lighting standards for traffic
safety (based on the standards of thc National Illuminating Engineering
Society). For reasons of aesthetics, Single Redesigned Lantern Systems are �
standard throughout most of Saint Paul. Bent Straw fixtures are defined as
standard in the downtown/riverfront area, and on expressways and streets
more than SO feet wide. Above-standard lighting systems may be installed �
if the requesting property owners are willing to pay the extra costs to
install and operate these systems.
The street lighting program contributes to the City's fiscal integrity in that '
lighting systems are normally installed in conjunction with street paving
projects (and thus, normally in conjunction with sewer separation). Such
coordination reduces costs significantly and minimizes the disruption '
associated with the project. If needed for safety purposes, less expensive
"wood pole" lighting may be installed in needed areas on a temporary basis.
Energy efficient fixtures are used for all new projects, and to preserve or �
improve the quality of existing infrastructure.
�
�
48 �
1
, �y�-a��3
� ___________________________________________
CFS3 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
The capital program for trafCie engincering includes projects such as traffic
� signals, traffic ehannelization, and street signage. 'The program includes
financing for projects that are created through the traffic engineering
section, and also for projects that are done by other agencies where the City
is required to participate in the costs. Whcn traffic enginecring work is
� required as part of a street reconstruction or sewer project, the financing is
normally incJuded with the larger projcct.
� Thc basic se�vlce level for Saint Paul traffic engincering projects is defined
by the Minnesota Manual on Uniform 1"raffic Control Dcvices. Based on
this manual, the Department of Public Works implements projects to help
� improve tho safo and afficient movement of pcdestrian and vehicular
traffic through the city, and to maintain the integrity of the existing
traffic control systems.
� Thc traffic engincering program contributes to the City's liscxl integrity in
that appropriate traffic engineering projects can extend the life of other
components of the City's infrastructure.
�
-----------------------------------------
� CFS4 BRID�ES
The capital program for bridgcs includcs replacement and rehabilitation
projects for bridges in the city which require such projects. The Public
� Works Bridge Bureau is responsible for inspecting and maintaining
approximately 300 bridges in Saint Paul to protect the safety and welfare of
the traveling public. In addition, the Bridge Bureau is responsible for
1 inspecting and maintaining all retaining walls, fences, stairways and guard
rails in the City's street right-of-way. The primary goal of the Bridgc
Bureau is to eliminate all structural and geometric deficiencies in bridges
and structures in Saint Paul, whether they be City, State, Railroad, or
� privately owned. 'The Bridge Bureau designs new bridges and works with
relevant agencies and owners to coordinate maintenance and reconstructions
tfforts.
� The 6asic service level for Saint Paul bridgcs is established by statc and
federai regulations.
� Minnesota state law requires all municipalities to inspect and rate all public
bridgcs annually. The Bridge Bureau staff inspects and prepares a Bridge
Inspection Report and a Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)
� Structure Invcntory Sheet for each bridge in the city. Thesc reports are
submittcd to the MnDOT Bridge Engincer for MnDOT's inventory and to
determine the sufficiency rating. 1"he sufficiency rating is a number from
' 0 to 100 which is based on a formula incorporating the structure conditions,
deck geometry, underclearances, safe load capacity, and approach alignment.
This rating is uscd to priorities bridges in the state for Federal Bridge
� Replacemcnt and Rehabilitation Funds. A bridge with a rating under SO is
eligible for replacement funds and a bridge with a rating under 80 is
eligible for rehabilitation funds. A requirement of the use of these funds is
that the pr�ject rid the bridge of all structural and geometric deficiencies.
'
� 49
,
The annual allotment of federai funds is limited so that even though a
bridge is eligible for funding it may not receive funding allocation for �
several years.
The bridge program contributes to the City's iiical inteQrity in that the �
timely repair or replacement of bridges can extend the life of other
components of thc City's infrastructure. (If a bridge must be closed, traffic
must be rerouted onto strects which werc not intcnded to reccivc such �
traffic.)
---------------------------------------- �
CFSS SEWERS
'Thc capital program for sewers ineludes sanitary sewer, storm sewer and '
ponding projects.
T'he basic service level for Saint Paul sewers is defincd in the City's �
"Comprehensive Sewer Plan" (Part I: Stormwater Management Plan-•1984;
Part II: Sanitary Sewer Plan--1985), and in a detailed amendment to the
Stormwater Management Plan (1986). Also a aew Small Area Plan
[HighwoodJ addresses important scwer issues. �
Based on thcse plans, there are three major service-level objectives relating
to sewer projects in Saint Paul: �
1. To maintain and replace components of the existing sewer system,
therby ensuring reliabie service. �
To fulfill this objective, the Sewer Division operates a comprehensive
scwer inspection program involving walk-through inspections of large
sewers, and television inspections of small sewers. Minor problems '
fonnd during these inspcctions are handled by City crews while
major problems are developed as projects and put out to contract.
2. To separate sanitary and storm sewers, thcreby meeting state and �
federal water quality requirements for the Mississippi River.
The City is currently in the midst of an accelerated ten-year program �
for sewer separation, scheduled for completion in 1995. The ten-year
project list for this program is contained in the 1986 amendment to
the Cit�y's Stormwater Management Plan. This project list reflects the �
objectives of achieving maximum impact in a minimum amount of
time, and of coordinating sewer separation with other construction
projects. �
3. To provide new scwer service to devcloping areas of the eity.
This objective applies primarily to the Highwood area of the city. A �
recent Small Area Plan for this neighborhood details piaces where
scwer projects are most necded. This plan is currently being
considered by the Planning Commission and will eventually be �
presented to the City Council for adoption.
The sewer program contributes to the City's fiscal integrity through a �
concerted effort to reduce the cost of sewer service in Saint Paul. An
important component of this effort is a recently-implemented program to
SO ,
I Z��
1 ���°"�
determine tho numerous sources of extraneous flows into the City's sanitary
� sewer system. These surface and groundwater flows cause sewer capacity
problems and excessive treatment charges to the City from the Regional
Wastewater Treatment Facility. Projects are being recommended to reduce
' or eliminate thcse flows.
' CFS6 PARKS�i AND OPEN SPACES
The capital program for parks and open spaces includes parks, playgrounds,
, recreation centers, capital maintenance, and tree planting. Parkway projects
are guided by principlcs which apply to parks and open spaces, although
they are categorized under the "Streets" capital function (see CFS1, pages 47,
, 48).
Thc basic service lerel for Saint Paul parks and open spaces is addressed in
"A Plaa for Parks and Recreation" (1985). This plan states that, as resources
� become available, the City will pursue the following development priorities:
o Regional Parks
� - Renovation of Como Park, Zoo and Conservatory
� - Riverfront parks
- Trails in regional parks
� o City-wide Recreation
- Renovation of Como Pool
� - Additional municipal athletic ballfields
, - Renovation of Highland Park (not emphasized in the 1985 plan,
but subsequently added as a priority)
o Neighborhood Recreation and Open Space
� - Recreation facilities as required to impiement the three-tier
systcm
' - Whcre feasible, acquisition of passive park land to fill critical
gaps
� This plan also addresses ways in which the program for parks and
recreation eontributes to the City's liscai integrity. Thrce generai policy
themcs are presented which are relevant to thc fiscal dimensions of capital
' budgeting:
1. Additional land or facilities will be acquired and/or built only if it
' can be demonstrated that a significant need exists which cannot be
met by othcr city, school, or private facilities.
2. Acq�aisition, construction or renovation of facilities should only be
� undertaken when the commitment of funding needed for
programming and maintenance operations is available.
, Sl
,
3. Efforts to make efficient use of all eaisting resources should be
continued. �
In 1990, the Saint Paul Parks Commission was created. It will bc working to
focus and update priorities for the Parks and Open Space capital function. '
The long-range goals of the Parks Commission are to implement riverfront
park and trail development, to reclaim troubled neighborhood parks, and to
secure dcdicated and stable revenuc sources for the park system. ,
--------------------------------------- --
CFS7 LIBRARIES
1"he capital program for libraries inciudes projects to rehabilitate and '
renovate the buildings in Saint Paul's library system.
The basic :ervice lerel for Saint Paul librarics is dcfined in "A Plan for '
Libraries" (1984).
This plan defines two features of a basic level of library service which �
relate to capital budgeting. However, the plan recommends that the basic
level of services be financcd primarily by the City's annual General Fund •
Budget allocation: �
1. A strong Central Library and four area libraries (Highland Park,
Leaington, Hayden Hcights, Sun Ray) which servc as the core of the �
library system.
2. Basic maintenance of library facilities. 1"his may include ma jor
repairs of those buildings in which libraries are eacpected to remain �
for the foreseeable future.
A second set of features is provided to define activities which will �
substantially enhance and improve the quality of library service delivered
in Saint Paul. This set includes the following items which are relevant to
the capital budget: '
l. An automated circulation system which has been installed in
coordination with region•wide implementation of the Metropolitan
Library Scrvice Agency (MELSA) libraries. �
2. Rehabilitation and renovation of existing library facilities.
Thc capital program for libraries contributes to thc City's fiscal inteErfty by '
addressing rehabilitation and renovation needs before they become so
serious as to require new construetion. ,
-------------------------------------------- �
CFS8 HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
The capital program for housing and economic developmcnt includes
housing activities consisting of rehabilitation incentives, construction ,
subsidies, partnerships to improve housing conditions, and homestead
assistance. Economic development activities in this program include
infrastructure improvements in commercial areas, financing programs and �
52 '
i
� �C���a��3
1
� rehabilitation inccntives. Thc overall program also includes the Urban
Revitalization Action Program which focuses on blight removal and
redevelopment in areas of the city which most need revitalization.
, Two plans define the basic service level for Saint Paul's housing and
economic development capital functions: "Saint Paul Housing Policy for thc
1990s" (1990) and the "Economic Development Strategy" (1990).
, Thc housing pian recommends the following actions which could require
financial resaurccs from Saint Paul's capital budgot:
, 1. Program measures to expand home ownership and support owner
occupancy.
� 2. Efforts to support improved rental property management.
3. Creativc reuse of obsolete structures and clearance where
� appropriste.
4. Forms of assistance that incrcase the ability of households to secure
, adequate housing in the private market.
S. Interim uses for vacant land.
� The economic plan recommends the following actions which could requirc
financial resourccs from Saint Paul's capital budget:
� I. Financing mechanisms for the redevelopment of arcas targeted
through the land use plan.
� 2. Support for neighborhood-based development agencies and
partnerships with those agencies to carry out development.
3. Incorporation of dcsign, aesthetic and environmental considerations
� into commercial and industrial development to ensure compatibility
with residential neighborhoods.
' 4. Continuation and strengthening of downtown urban design efforts.
5. Investmcnt in publ�c �nfrastructure necessary to fulf�ll the objcctives
of the plan for Saint Paul's riverfront.
' 6. Installation of public improvements in the downtown to enhance and
econpmically reinforce existing investment.
' The capital program for housing and economic development contributes to
the City's liscal inte�rity by strengthening the housing and commercial
' stock that forms most of the City's property tax base.
--------------------------------------------
� CFS9 POLICE
The capital program for police services is derived from the Saint Paul
Police Department's internal ten-year plan for capital improvements. T'he
� program is centered on improving and maintaining its present buiidings, on
purchasing the department's third team site, and on upgrading departmental
communications equipment and expanding its canine facilities.
' S3
'
The proposal to purchase the third team site stcros from thc fact that thc �
prescnt lease for this site will expire sometime between 1995 and 2000.
The proposal to replace the police radio communications system is �
necessitated by the prohibitive cost to maintain present equipment and the
increasingly inadequate radio frequencics that are part of the present
system. Inadequate radio frequencies result in increased access timc (the ,
time an officer must wait to eommunicatc a messagc) and thus crcate a
potentially dangerous aituation during emergcncy radio communication
exchanges.
The proposal to expand the canine facility is a result of expanding the '
canine unit from 10 officers and dogs to 21 of each, and a strong
commitment to maintain a 24-hour force with citywidc coverage. The �
ability of the canine unit would be enhanced by expanding its training and
housing eenter.
Therc is currently no adopted City plan or policy that defines the basic �
level of police services relative to capital budgeting.
--------------------------------------------
�
CFS10 FIRE AND SAFETY
The capital program for fire services consists of building renovation and �
construction projects.
The basic aervice levet for fire services is defined in "A Plan for Fire ,
Services" (1976). This plan was recently updated as the "Plan for Fire and
Emergency Medical Services" which was recommended to the City Council
for adoption by the Planning Commission in June, 1990. �
The new plan makes the following recommendations relative to capital
needs: �
1. Conduct a cost and feasibility study of constructing a new
administrative facility, including officcs, training center and ,
building maintenance division, in time for submission for the
1992-1993 capital improvement budget.
2. Budget for the following improvements: '
a. Renovate Station 20 (2179 University Avenue) with a new
addition on the west side of the building and installation of �
two overhead doors on the north side of the building to allow
fire apparatus to enter from that side.
b. Install a new roof on Station 6 (33 Concord). ,
c. Renovate the training tower during the next five years.
d. Install ventilation equipment for apparatus exhausts in the '
stations which need them.
�
54 ,
: ! ��q�"���3
�
c. Equip station apparatus bay doors with door closing
� pre-emption devices which would revcrse their travel should a
vehicle or person enter the doorway as the door is closing.
, f. Adapt sleeping and restroom facilities in all stations to
aecommodate female fire fightcrs.
, g. Install monitoring devices on underground fuel tanks.
3. Develop an incremental five-ycar capital improvement plan to begin
with the 1992-1993 CIB planning process.
' The capital program for fire services contributes to the City's fiscal
inte�rity by addressing rehabilitation and renovation needs before thcy
' bocome so serious as to require new construction, and by proposing new
construction only when it is absolutely necessary.
� --------------------------------------------
CFS11 SPECIAL FACILITY SUPPORT
' The capital program for "Special Facility Support" consists of two types of
projects:
� 1. Projects that are too specialized to fit into one of the other capital
functions. Example of this type are the remodeling of the City Hall,
and the rebuilding of the Public Health Center.
' 2. Projects that are too general to fit into one of the other capital
functions. An example of this type is the Extraordinary Capital
Maintenance Program administered by the Department of Community
' Services--a program potentially applying both to a wide variety of
capital functions.
' There is currently no adopted City plan or policy that defines thc basic
level of scrvices for this capital function.
'
,
'
'
,
'
, SS
'
APPENDIX E �
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENT POLICY '
The following policies apply where assessment is feasible and appropriate.
SIDEWALKS
---- --- — -------- '
New Construction �
Residential, Commercial, Industrial (all property uses)
10096 of cost to be asscssed with long side subsidy for �
residential properties to be the only eaception. (Long side
subsidy is defined later in this report.) �
Residential property on aid street - 5096 of cost assessed.
Reconstruction ,
Commercial, Industrial, Multi-Family, etc.
10096 of cost to be assessed. i
Residential '
5096 of costs for frontage to be assessed. (Long side aid
applies to residential property.)
Subject to City Council Discretion: 10096 for all ,
construction wider than 5 feet; 10096 of all additional
costs for special treatment, surfaces, etc. ,
When commercial type sidewalks are reconstructed or
constructed on commercial streets, residential properties '
located on thcse streets will be asscssed at current
residentiai rates.
--------------------------------------------
'
STREET GRADING AND PAVING
LOCAL OR NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS ,
New Construction '
Residential, Commercial, Industrial (all property uses)
10096 of cost to be assessed. '
(Long side aid to be considered for residential properties
only.) ,
56 �
, �.-,�'�_a��-3
� Reconstruction (when done as part of the city-wide street
improvement program such as the Combined Sewer Separation and
Street Reconstruction Program)
tResidential and Commercial
2596 of total cost to be assesscd (1986 rates were 519.00
, per assessable foot -- not including street lights).
ARTERIAL STREETS
' New Construction
Variable percentage of cost to be assessed taking into account
, the special benefits received by the abutting properties as well
as the general benefit received by the city at large.
, Reconstruction
Arterial streets meeting certain criteria are to be reconstructed
� with no assessments being Ievied against abutting propertics.
The criteria that must be satisfied is:
1. The street must be a street eligible for and receive its
� ma jor funding from either County Aid, Municipal State
Aid, or other funding not originating in the City of Saint
Paul.
, 2. The street must bc a street serving as an arterial street
providing capacity for through traffic and thus providing
' a substantial benefit to the general public.
EXTRAORDINARY MAINTENANCE
' All extraordinary maintcnancc and major repair items that, in the
discretion of the Director of Public Works does not constitute
reconstruction will be funded from the Street Maintenance Fund and
' will not bc assessed to specific properties. Asphalt overlays are to be
considered as extraordinary maintenance.
' ----------------------------------------------
SEWERS - SANITARY
, New Construction
10096 of cost to be asscssed, except for city aid because of long
' side subsidy or other design constraints.
Reconstruction
' Sewer repair and maintenance is currently financed through
the sewer service fund and therefore not assessed. The
Department of Public Works reports that there is no urgency in
' the foresceable future for major replacement of sanitary
' S7
'
sewers. The Comprehensive Sewer Plan, adopted by the City
Council recommcnds ultimately asscssing 2596 of thc costs of �
major reconstruction.
-----------------
--------------------------- '
SEWERS - STORM RELIEF
(COMBINED SEWER SEPARATION PROGRAM) '
New Construction
Continuc present policy of assessing a portion of the cost �
against benefitted properties. Approximately 2096 of the cost
for storm relief systems is recovcred by assessment. The
current rate is 3 cents per squarc foot for residential properties '
and 7 1/2 cents per square foot for commcrcial and industrial
properties. This rate is reviewed annually.
'
--------------------------------------------
STREET LIGHTING
New Construction r
10096 of cost to be assessed for all lighting construction costs ,
associated eithcr with thc construction of a standard or
above-standard lighting system or the upgrading of an existing
wood pole system to a standard or above-standard system, '
eacept when done in connection with a City Street
Improvement Program such as the Combined Sewer Separation
and Street Reconstruction Program, in which case the
assessment rate will be based on the following: �
Residential and Commercial
3096 of total cost of a standard system (residential ,
equivalent) to be assessed: 1990 rates were 53.50
per assessable foot for redesigned historic lanterns;
52.40 per assessable foot for bent straw. �
-------------------------------------------- '
ALLEY - GRADING AND PAVING
New Construction and Reconstruction '
I0096 of cost to be assessed against benefitted properties.
--------------------------------------------
,
CURB AND GU'I'TER
Ncw Construction and Reconstruction '
'
58 '
�yo�a��3
�
10096 of cost to be assessed against benefitted properties whcn
� constructed on a separate basis. Long side aid applics to
residcntial properties. When the entire street is bcing
reconstructed, curbs and gutters are includcd in the overall
' paving cost.
��� ������������������������
������� ����������
LOCAL DRAINAGE PROBLEMS
' New Construction and Reconstruction
' 10096 of cost to be assesscd against bencfitted properties.
, WATER MAIh1S ----------------------------------
New Constrnctioa
' 10096 of cost to be assessed against bencfitted properties.
' Reconstruction
Wariable percentage of cost to be assessed taking into account
' the special benefits received by the abutting properties. An
�aampie would be the need to increase the size of a street main
Co provide more water for fire protection.
' ---------------------
-----------------------
UTILITY SERVICE CONNEC?IONS
' 1"he utility service connection referred to in this report is that portion of
the service connection running from the street main to the property line.
The portion running from the property line to the building is the eaclusive
' responsibility of the property owner.
New Construction
' ;10096 of cost to be assessed against benefitted properties.
Replacement
'
�'The cost for replacing water or sewer service connections to be
'the responsibility of the affected property owner. '
'
---------------------------------------------
, LONG SIDE SUBSIDY FORMULA
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES
' New Construction and Reconstruction of Surface Improvements
(street, grading, sidewalk, etc.)
' Use full narrow street frontage plus 5096 of thc long side
frontage.
' S9
,
New Construction and Reconstruction of Underground Improvements �
(sewers, water mains)
Use full narrow frontagc, plus 10 feet for the first 125 feet of '
' long side frontage plus full frontage for depths beyond 125
Feet.
COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES '
New Construction and Reconstruction of Surface Improvements '
Use full narrow frontage plus full long side frontage.
(No long side subsidy.)
Ncw Construction and Reconstruction of Underground Improvements '
Use full narrow frontage, plus 10 feet for the first 100 feet of ,
long side frontage plus full frontage for depths beyond 100
fect.
'
1
'
'
'
,
'
'
'
'
,
60 ,
� �-�0_���3
tAPPENDIX F
ESTIMATED FINANCING SOURCES FOR
, SAINT PAUL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS: 1992-1996
'
,
'
, [Will be provided by Mayor's Budget Section
prior to City Council adoption of CAP.]
,
'
,
'
'
I
' I
�I
, '
' '
'
,
�
' 61