89-187 WHI7E - CITV CLERK /-� �
PINK - FINANCE G I TY O F SA I NT PA U L Council
CANARV - DEPARTMENT � ^1 ,.
BLUE - MAVOR 1 �/_ � File N0. �� ,��_
�? • •
� -- �' . Council Res utio ��� �
Presented By ��� ,
,
Referred To Committee: Dat
Out of Com ittee By Dat
WHEREAS , the C ' ty of Saint Paul performs an important service
through owners ip and operation of several regional parks ; and
WHEREAS , these parks serve many people from around the
metropolitan r gion; and
WHEREAS the Ci y of Saint Paul cannot be expected to absorb
all of the cap' tal , operation and maintenance costs of park
facilities tha serve the entir� region;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Saint Paul
support the Me ropolitan Council Capital Improvement Program
legislative re uest for regional park fundings ; and
BE IT FURTHER ESOLVED, that the City of Saint Paul support
the Metropolit n Council legislaitve request for state
operation and aintenance funding ; and
BE IT FURTHER ESOLVED, that the City also supports
alternative fu ding proposals for stable capital funding for
regional parks such as metropolitan-wide , property tax
supported bond issuance .
�
,I
�i
COUNCIL MEMBERS Requested by Department of:
Yeas Nays
Dimond �
�� �J in Favor
Gnswitz
Rettman
Scheibel '� _ A gai n s t By
—6e�enee
Wilson
��g - � ,�9 Form Approved by City Attorney
Adopted by Council: Dat
,�^
Certified Y•s- d y Council Se ry BY J��� ��' � �� `y�S_��
By
Approve b Mavor. Date I �-� _� ���� _ Appr d y Mayor for Submi un�il
g By
F,.��:��� } �. � �989
: �
• � P� ,,IEFING P:�PER: REGTON�I�P:al�is OPERATION ANll
. . • - ------ -- --- P1.4ItiTENAhCE--Ft'^<i�ilvG � !
— - — --- - --- __ ---
BACI�GROU^:D
� g�'
�s part of the partnership bei;ween the Legislature ,
Metropo]_it n Council and regional park implementing agencies ,
Lhe hfetrop litan Cot�ncil has developed a supplemental
operati_on nd maintenance funding pro�ram for regional parl:
agencies . "I'hese statc funds are disi;ribuLed b� Lhe
�tei:ropolii: n Cotincil to im1�lemenLing agencies ori a formula
k�asis.
j�'hile the i,ate has traditionally paid for capital
improvemen s to regional parks , local implementing agencies
such as th City of Saint Paul have borne the majority of
operation nd maintenance e�penses. However, in recent years,
the supple ental operation and maintenance program has
reimbursed the Citv at the rate of approximately 8% of
operation nd maintenance costs for the Regional Parks portion
of the Par -s and Recreation budget. The most visible benefits
of these f nds has been in the areas of cross-country ski
trail main enance, supplemental park ranger programs,
additional maintenance for buildings located in Regional
Parks, and maintenance of Mississippi River Boulevard.
STATUS
The Metrop litan Council draft supplemental operation and
maintenanc requests for the 1989-90 biennium is $7 .0
million. his is a requested increase of $2 . 0 million over
the last b ennium.
THE SAINT AUL POSITION
The City o Saint Paul supports the Metropolitan Council ' s
supplement 1 operation and maintenance funding request for the
1989-90 bi nnium.
' ' 1 BkIFFING PaPER: METROPOLTTAI�' COtiNCIL ' ��
. ' � � ' " PAt�,KS__�tiD OPEN_SPACE C:�PTTAL I?�iP1;.OV��1E1vT PPOGRA�i �
---�- - --- -- g ,
�
BAC}CGROUN
In 19i4 t e Metropolitan Regional Pai-l: and Open Space s�rstem
caas devel ped to meet tYre recreation needs of Lhe seven-county
meLropoli an area. This system is a unique partnership
between Ll�e �tetropoliLan Council and ten implementing agencies
to pr.ovidc� a coordiriat;ed system of recreational facilities .
STATUS
Each bienr�ium the Metropolitan Council prepares a legislative
package r questing funding for its Capital Improvements
Program ( IP) for the entire regional parks system. The draft
CIP for t e upcoming biennium includes the following
Saint Paull projecLs:
* Como ark Conservatory ( rehabilitation and construction of
resou ce center) $2 . 5 million
* Como Park (picnic pavillion construction, parking deck,
amusement rides relocation, road realignment, etc . ) $7 .0
millicn
* Burlin�ton-Northern Trail Corridor Acquisition (pending
approv�l by Metropolitan Council ) $2 . 0 million
Total = $1 . 5 million
This const ' tutes more than 50% of Saint Paul' s park
, improvemen funds.
THE SAINT AUL POSITION
Due to the importance of the Metropolitan Council Capital
Improvemen Program financing to Saint Paul , the City of
Saint Paul supports the Metropolitan Council CIP legislative
request fo 1989 . The City also supports other proposals for
stable reg onal park funding such as metropolitan-wide,
property t x-supported bond issuance for regional park capital
improvemen s.
.
II
I
. � � � - � �� , ,�s7
�
g�
WHEREAS , �he CitS• of Saint Paul performs an important service
through o nership and operation of several regional parks; and
WHEREAS , �{Ihese parks serve many people from around the
metropolit�an region; and
WHEREAS tY�e City of Saint Paul cannot be expected to absortr
all of thel capital , operation and maintenance costs of park
facilitiesl that serve the entire region;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Saint Paul
support the Metropolitan Council Capital Improvement Program
legislativie request for regional park fundings; and
BE IT FURT ER RESOLVED, that the City of Saint Paul support
the Metrop litan Council legislaitve request for state
operation nd maintenance funding; and
~ BE IT FURT ER RESOLVED, that the City also supports
alternativ funding proposals for stable capital funding for
regional p rks such as metropolitan-wide , property tax
suppori;ed pond issuance.
�
I
.
�
I
. � � � �� i �, ���-
� �
�
HOW SHOULD REGIONAL PARKS BE FINANCEO?
BACKGROUND
In 1974, he Minnesota State Legislature passed the Metropolitan Parks
Act which esta lished a regional recreation open space system in the Twin
Cities Metropo itan Area. The legislation provided funds to acquire,
preserve, prot ct, and develop regional recreation open space. Since then,
the Metropolit n Council , through the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space
Commission (MP SC) has coordinated the planning and financing of the
regional parks system in partnership with ten regional park implementing
agencies.
The existing regional park system encompasses approximately 45,000
acres of parkl nd and includes 29 parks, 10 park reserves and four regional
trail corridors. The 10 implementating agencies responsible for managing
these parklands are the Cities of Bloomington, Minneapolis and St. Paul ,:
and AnoKa, Car er, Dakota, Hennipen, Ramsey, Scott and Washington Counties.
The 1974 M tropolitan Parks Act recognized a need and authorized the
Metropolitan Co ncil to sell up to $40 million in General Obligation Bonds
on a bie�nial b sis for regional park acquisition and development. While
visionary at th t time, this action did not take into consideration
inflation or co t-of-living increases, both of which have since reduced the
purchasing powe of this funding by over 50 percent. That year the Council
actually sold $ 9.3 million in bonds, callable in 1989, with debt service
to be paid thro gh a
metropolitan pr perty tax Figure 1 - BIENNIAL
of up to .5 mil The state REGIONAL PARK BONDING -
, legislature lat r elected .
� to pay most of he debt 35.0
service with St te
appropriations.
qe0��at 8o�ds
29.8
From 1977 I o the 30 � State sooe•
Present, State onds have 27JD
been the fundin source •
for regional Pa k acquisi-
tion and develo ment. w
From 1974 throu h 1980, q so
the average app opriatiun o "'�
was 527.4 mil l i n each ° ,s.5
biennium. From 1981 M 12,� �2�
through 1987 ho ever, the s
average was red ced to � �o
$14.5 million. (See
figure 1, "Bien ial -
Regional Park B nding"
Metropol i tan Co nci 1 .)1 `:: 2z 2e z.3
In 1987, t e Metro- . � '��� ���� ����
pol i tan CoUnCi 1 a�d Avthoriz�tbn Y�. 197! 1075-76 1977 �9�0 �oe� 1983 19e5 �oe�
implementing ag �iCle$ Exp���+Y�. �76 76-77 �s-roeo-a�e2-eae4-eses-e�ea-ao
sought S31 million in
Bien�tal Ave�aye:S2T.�m(Ilbo from 1974-80
I s14.S mOpon hom 1981-87
I -1
,
- � � � � " I ,� Y�'
C�
S�
capital improv ment funding despite actual needs of over $50 million.
Unfortunately, the State Legislature authorized o�ly $9.5 million for
capital improv ments. A� additional $6 million was allocated for the
acquisition of the new Lake Minnetonka Regional Park.
Because o these dismal results, the City of St. Paul approached the
1988 Legislatu e with a $15 million request for Como Park. In addition,
the Metropolit n Council also requested $10.5 million (or the balance of
what was reque ted during the 1987 Legislative Session) . Both requests
were unsuccess ul . However, the Legislature forgave $24 million in sewer
separation loa s contingent .upon the City of St. Paul 's agreement to sell
$10 million in local bonds ($5 million for Como Conservatory Restoration
and $5 million for the Shepard Road Improvement Project) . Because this was
part of a larg r bill , this money is now threatened by the lawsuit from
Lake Minnetonk residents and St. Paul may well lose the authority to sell
these bonds. sn't it time to pursue a stable source of funding for our
regional park ystem rather than be content to rely on a funding source :
that might or ight not be available?
In 1975, he reg ional park system contained 30,930 acres. During the
first six year the focus of the program was on acquisition, and from 1975
to 1980 approx mately $66.1 million was invested to acquire 14,000
additional acr s. Since 1981, less than 1,000 acres have been acquired and
park developme t has become the major focus with $51.4 million spent on
park developme t. This trend is projected to continue. According to the
Metropolitan C uncil , from 1988 to the year 2000, approximately $133
million will b needed for development versus $57 million for acquisition.
(See figu�e 2, Acquisition vs Developme�t Expenditures, Metropolitan
Council .) � �
` Figure 2 - ACQ ISITION VS DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURES
. �
140 133.1
Acqutsttton
�2O � Development
.
� �
a 100 I
a .
—
0 80 �
o ' ss.t
p 57.4
co 6� II 51.4
� 4 o I� �
25.1 2g.p .
20 � .
:,
o -- .
I 19T4-80 1981-8T 1988-2000 � �
P�ojected In
1987 dollars .
II
-2-
�
I
: . . II Q�
ilU
� ��
�
PROBLEM STATEM NT
Today cap tal improvement needs for our regional parks total over 5190
million. For xafiple the cost to complete improvements at Como Park for
the zoo (55.7 illionj , conservatory (S7 million) and park redevelopment
(519.3 million) is estimated to be approximately S32 million, and that's
only one regio al park. Also needed is 31.5 million to separate paths in
Phalen Reg ional Park, t2.0 million to complete the Mississi ppi Gorge
Regional Park (where we have already invested nearly 55 million in local
funds), S6 million to develop Hidden Falls/Crosby Park and S33 million for
the Lilydale-H rriet Island Regional Park. And that doesn't include
funding needed to acquire and develoP the Burlington Northern Trail . At
the present fu ding rate, it will take nearly 20 years to complete the
improvements a Como Park alone.
The Metro olitan Council estimates that 3190.5 million in 1987 dollars
is needed to complete acquisition (10,800 acres) and development of the .
entire reg ional park system by the year 2000. For the Metropolitan Council
to meet this goal , the State must apPropriate over �27 million dollars in
• each bien�ium t rough 1997. Recent history indicates this will not happen,
and in fact, as demonstrated in Figure 1, we have moved in the opposite
direction. For the past six years, we have seen a decline in bonding
authorization om the State and the region's capital improvement program
is -therefore su fering.
In additio , it seems like we have lost sight of the fact that parks
are one of the ey elements that make our Metropolitan area unique. I�
1974, parks wer a high priority for the Metropolitan Council , local
government and he State Legislature so they received additional attention
and funding. A housing for the homeless, dru� education, aids, airport
� noise, and regi nal transit became top priorities, park development and
acquisition hav been shuffled to the rear.
The reason for this are many and varied. They range from a complete
lack of interes on the part of some Metro Council members to the fact that
there are simpl �ot enough state dollars to fund all of the requests for
programs and se vices. Isn't it time to refocus attention on the regional
park system?
Of course, not only is the capital improvement program in trouble, but
the existing re ional park system as well . Several of our parks are
becoming overcr wded, and use trends indicate that this condition will
continue. The etropolitan Council has estimated that in 1988 the regional
park system wil have 13,154,600 park visitors. That total is up 10
percent from 19 7. On the average, park use increased 7 percent annually
between 1974 a� 1987. From 1982 to 1988 annual visits in the re�ional
parks increased by over 4 million visitors. In 1982 the Metropolitan
Council estimat d that re�ia�al parks had 8,3J�9,900 million visitors. This
is a 57 percent increase in the past 6 years.
Many of ou fully developed regional parks are located in densely
populated areas a�d therefore receive extremely high use when compared to
other regional arks in the metropolitan area. To complicate matters, we
also have sever 1 undeveloped regional parks which remain unavailable to
-3-
�
_
, .
_ , � I
I �1'�$�
� .� g
relieve those crowded conditio�s in fully developed are�as. This also helps
to create an inequitable access to our regional parks.
Compou�ding rthis situation is the fact that core cities are becoming
Qoor. As financially able families leave the cities for the suburbs a
'population excha�ge" is occurring (affluent to the suburbs - Poor to the
cities) . This trend will create a greater need for public park systems
because the po r are not as mobile. They have less resources available for
traveling to v rious sites, nor will they be able to afford private
recreation activities. Creating an urban public park system which will
meet the needs of all our residents, whether affluent or poor, must become
a top priority. The high level of regional park use and the need to
provide qualit recreationai experiences for all residents justifies
increased acqu"sition, development, and operation expenditures for parks
and park users.
Yet the c rrent capital expenditures for regional parks do not allow.
us to meet the recreational demand of the system. Using the current -
average of 14. million per biennium and disre arding inflation (which
would push our estimated timeline back further}�, it will take 25 years or
until 2013 to omplete the system. We cannot wait that �long!_ Our children
should not hav to wait that lon to en o uo r u�bltc arks!
ALTERNATIVES
In the fa 1 of 1987, the Metropolita� Council and the Metropolitan
Parks and Open Space Commission hosted a forum on the future of regional
parks. Key de ision makers throughout the metropolitan area participated
�; in several str tegic planning sessions. Discussions centered around the
various option for fi�ancing the regional park system.
After mucf� discussion, the Metropolitan Council ag reed to recommend a
combination of�lstate and regional bonds for �financing future regional park
improvements. Elements of the approach included the following:
* Financilq regional park improvements by using state bonds for park
acquisi�ion and development projects in the metro area which provide
benefit to the entire state.
* Issuingllregional bonds under the 1974 Metropolitan Parks Act to
finance park acquisition and development serving the Metropolitan
area.
* Continuing to have the State pay the regional bond debt service
through appropriations or use the metropolitan-wide property tax as
a back p.
After con acting the boards of many iinplementi�g agencies, the
Metropolitan C uncil discovered that the financing option most preferred by
these board me bers is the State bonding program. At this time that
option does no look promising. In St. Paul , a recent financia� analysis
suggests that he level of bonded indebtedness per capita is substantially
higher than th national average.3 Several local legislators have
-4-
i
_ � � � � ,�g�
C�'
�
announced that they will not support a 1989 state bonding program. If that
becomes a reality then even the Metropolitan Council 's recomme�dation will
not be conside ed this year.
If anythin is going to happen, someone must take the lead. I believe
it is time for the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission including
the 10 implementing agencies, to take an aggressive stance on this issue.
The demand for park and leisure services continues to grow. Acquiring a
stable secure nding source for park acquisitio� a�d development must
become a priority. Citizens who live in the metropolitan area must accept
the responsibility for our park and ieisure �eeds. While it is attractive
to let others attempt to solve our financial woes, past practices have
shown that this does not happen and the coming session does not look any
better. It is ime to face the facts and acce t the res onsibilit for
solvin our own roblems.
SOLUTION
The City of St. Paul , Division of Parks and Recreation recommends that
the method by hich we finance reg ional parks should be changed. Park
acquisition and development must be considered a basic service and simply
stated, a basi service deserves a basic fundin source - like our ro ert
tax. .
We are proposing a �250 million dollar program over a ten year period.
This includes 5190.5 million wh�ch the Metropolitan Council estimates is
needed to compl te the regional park system, plus an additional 554.5
million to offset inflation and cost of living increases. Under this
option the Metr polita� Council will need to request Legislative approval
to levy an aver ge of �25 million dollars per year from 1990 to 2000�. This
is a a -as- ou- o proaosal and will eliminate interest costs on debt.
According to the Department of Revenue, the metropolitan area has an
estimated tax caPacity of t2,260,000,000. In order to ge�erate S25 million
per year, we will need to use a tax capacity rate of .111. For example a
home valued at 68,000 in 1990 will have a tax capacity of 5680. If we
apply the 111 tax capacity rate to that home, we will have a gross tax of
�7.54. A home alued at �100,000 in 1990 will have a tax capacity of
51,480. By applying the .111 tax capacity rate, that home will have a
gross tax of 516.42.
If we pro eed with a metropolita�-wide property tax dedicated to park
acquisition and development in the metro area beginn�n� in 1990, a
Metropolitan h eowner with a home valued at 568,000 w�ll pay an additional
57.54 in prope ty taxes, while a home valued at 5100,000 will cost an
" additional E16.42. That is less than the cost of dinner for a family of
four at McDonal s. .
In additi n, we must continue to keep the state involved in helping to
fund regional parks. However, rather than asking the legislature to fund
both capital a d operational costs, under this proposal , we would ask the
state to only und o�erational and maintenance costs.
-5-
_ '` ' � �' p�
� �
At the pre ent time, all implementing agencies, receive reimbursement
for 8% of total expenditures for the operation and maintenance of reg ional
parks. For exa ple, in 1988, St. Paul spent approximately 54,542,000 and
received 5370,2 7 in reimbursement. Our proposal would be to expand from 8
to 40 percent o er the 10 year period. Under this proposal , in 1988 St.
Paul would have received $1,816,800 rather than the 5370,000.
This propo al would provide a stable funding source for capital
improvements wh'le at the same time provide a sharing of operational
expenses, there y encouraging the implementing agencies to expand the
system.
CHALLENGES
1. The te implementing agencies, plus all metropolitan area
munici alities and counties must support a metropolitan-wide -
proper y tax for this option to work.
2. Three ears ago, "The President's Commission on Americans
Outdoo s", commissioned a nationally-known survey firm to test
voter illingness to pay for suPport of parks and recreation
progra s. The survey results showed consistently that people were
willin to pay for quality park and recreation facilities by
increa ed taxes. Surveys done by the Metro Council i� the early
1980's support this finding for the Twin Cities.
We nee to marshal] support for our position. Citizens,
local overnmental officials, the Metropolitan Council , the
County Oelegations and all support groups must be made aware of
the im ortance of this issue. We must believe that providing
financ al support for our park system is important even if it
means axing ourselves. . -
3. Becaus propert� taxes are already high in Minnesota and the
moveme t to halt the rise of property taxes is well underway,
legisl tors may be hesitant to support a metropolitan-wide
� propery tax. A key selling point may be that currently, 90`Y of
reg�on l park users live in the metropolitan area.
4. As wit any acquisition and development program operation a�d
mainte ance needs are real and must be addressed. It will also be
critic 1 to point out that while the property tax will meet park
acquis tion and development needs, state funding will still be
needed for operations and maintenance. This is another way of
conced ng the importance of state involvement and solving some
potent al problems with local legislators.
1 Fi gures 1 a' d 2 were taken from Metropolitan Council 's report titled
"The Future�of the Regional Parks System in the Twin Cities Area" and
published i September 1987.
-6-
, ,
. . -� . ''p�
, ^� �� 0
i
lJ�
2 All visito use estimates were taken from a Metropolitan Council memo
directed t the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission by Grant
Scholen co c�rning the 1988 Annual Use Estimates Monitoring Pro�ect.
3 Statement aken from "Plan for Parks", a background report compiled by
the Planni g Collaborative, Inc. , for the City of St. Paul and County
of Ramsey arks Task Force, November, 1988.
12/20/88
REGPKFIN.TWO
�
-7-
. .. .
.���
COMMITTEE REPORT - City Council Legislation Committee r�� �
Page Two V'
January 23, 1989
/
i
Recommen�ations of the Governor's Commission on Affordable Housing �
COMMITTE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL
Interest Reduction Program
COMMITTE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL
Mortgage Registry and Deed Tax
COMMITTE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL
Fiscal D sparities
COMMITTE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL
Category: vironment and Qualit of Life
R�g�onal ark Operation and Maintenance Funding
COMMI RECOpII�IENDED APPROVAL
�ck C�apita� I�provQment<��tndaa4$
•6iiM@iI�E ' 1tEC0�NDEfl°`�PROVAL
CSO Fundi g
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL
Solid Waste
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL
Water Rat s
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL
Category: Tr ns ortation
Airport L nd-Banking
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL, AS AMENDED
Transport tion, Transit and Light Rail Transit Funding
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL, AS AMENDED (4-1 vote)
Category: Mi cellaneous
Saint Pau School Board
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL
Comparabl Worth
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDEb APPROVAL
Fingerpri ting of Firefighters
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL
THE FOLLOWING MAT ERS LISTED FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE MEETING WERE LAID OVER
AND WILL BE DISCU SED AT THE FEBRUARY 6, 1989, MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE:
` .
,9�s���j� , GITY OF �AINT PAUL
��s� �t� . ,
OFFICF. OF TAF. CITY COIINCIL
James Scheibel, Chair
Committee—of—the—Whole
JAMES SCHEIBEL
Council President
Date: January 23, 1989
COMMITTEE REPORT
To: SAINT PAUL CITY COUNCIL
From: CITY COUNCIL LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
l. "A" Priority Issue
Fire Protection Sprinklers
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED NO ACTION BE TAKEN
2. Support Issues
Category: Health and Human Services
Community Health Services Funding
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL
Community Residential Facilities
COMMITTEE RECO1�IlrIENDED APPROVAL
Child Care
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL
Alternate Test Site Funding (AIDS)
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL
Minnesota Health Care Access
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL
Maternal Child Health Funding
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL
Category: Economic Development and Housing
Arts High School Funding
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL
CTTY HALL SEVENTH FLOOR SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 l�12/298-5679
e�>4c