Loading...
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