88-1465 + WMIT� - CIY�/ CLERK CO�I�IC1I �]� - ��65 •
-� Plf�{K - FINANCE GITY OF SAINT �ALTL �
CANARV - PEPARTMENT
BLUE - MAVOR File NO• ����
�
Co cil Res lution ;, ag
Presented By
�
Referr To _Committee: Date
Out of Committee By Date
RESOLUTION MAKING CERTAIN DETERMINATIONS AND FINDINGS
NECESSARY FOR ACQUISITION OF PROPERTIES UNDER THE URBAN
REVITALIZATION ACTION PROGRAM FOR NORTH END PARTNERSHIP,
NORTH END DISTRICT 6
WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota has established, and allocated funds for the
Urban Revitalization Action Program (URAP) to promote physical and economic
redevelopment in neighborhoods of Saint Paul and Minneapolis threatened with
deterioration; and
WHEREAS, on September 11, 1987, the Planning Commission did, by resolution,
recommend to the Mayor and City Council program guidelines entitled Saint Paul
Urban Revitalization Action Program Guidelines as the statement of policy and
process to guide the development and implementation of the revitalization
program for Saint Paul neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Saint Paul did approve on September 23,
1987, by Resolution 87-1395, guidelines for implementation of the City of
Saint Paul Urban Revitalization Action Program (URAP) ; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Capital Improvement Budget Committee, the Saint Paul
Planning Commission, affected neighborhood District Councils, neighborhood
non-profit organizations and City staff participated in a review process of
URAP proposal submissions in accordance with approved URAP guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Saint Paul did approve on March 17, 1988,
by Resolution 88-387 certain activities and financing in the North End
Partnership (URAP) proposal which includes clearance of blighted housing,
construction of new housing for low/moderate income families and
rehabilitation; and
COUNCILMEN Requested by Department of:
Yeas Nays
Planning and onomic Development
[n Favor
Against B
Form Appro by City Attorne
Adopted by Council: Date
/
. i �
Certified Passed by Counci( Secretary BY
By
A►pproved by Nlavor: Date Approv by Mayor for Submission ou cil
By
` ` r_ ��-iy�
WHEREAS, the City of Saint Paul will receive approximately $1.9 million in
1988 and 1989 from the State for UR.AP program activities which will be matched
� by an equal amount of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds currently
financed in the City's 1988 Ca�ital Improvement Budget and approved by City
Council Resolution 88-387; and
WHEREAS, on September 6, 1988, the City Council conducted a Public Hearing on
the proposed acquisition, in order that the property owners may attend and
indicate their opposition or support for this proposed acquisition.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Saint Paul, in
view of the foregoing hereby adopted as findings that the public acquisition
by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Saint Paul (HRA) of
the properties identified as
91 Sycamore St. West 63 Sycamore St. West
89 Sycamore St. West 59 Sycamore St. West
87 Sycamore St. West 57 Sycamore St. West
85 Sycamore St. West 43 Sycamore St. West
83 Sycamore St. West 41 Sycamore St. West
81 Sycamore St. West 39 Sycamore St. West
77 Sycamore St. West 37 Sycamore St. West
75 Sycamore St. West 35 Sycamore St. West
71 Sycamore St. West 33 Sycamore St. West
67 Sycamore St. West
65 Sycamore St. West
All of Lots 21 through 42 inclusive, Block 4, Lyton's Addition
to Saint Paul.
in the North End Partnership Urban Revitalization Action Program Area, North
End District 6 is hereby approved in accordance with these additional
findings.
` WHIT� - CITV CLERK r CQUflCll �O�I�V� ` '
PIOIK - FINANC�E CITY OF SAINT PAUL
CANARV�-DEPARTMENT
BLUE - MAVOR File NO•
,
�
Council Resolution
Presented By
Referr d To Committee: Date
Out of Committee By Date
1. That the North End Partnership Pro�ect Area under the URAP Program which
includes acquisition and clearance of housing considered to be a
blighting influence on the surrounding neighborhood due to its degree of
obsolescence, overcrowding would not be undertaken or made available for
redevelopment, nor would the provision of new housing and including
housing for low/moderate income families be accomplished without the
financial aid sought and to be provided under the URAP Program.
2. That the Urban Revitalization Action Program which includes the North
End Partnership Program area will afford maximum opportunity, consistent
with the sound needs of the community as a whole, for the provision of
new housing by redevelopment of the housing URAP area by private
enterprise.
3. That in accordance with the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974 and Minnesota Statute 117.52 all acquisitions undertaken by an
acquiring Authority, which Authority shall provide all relocation
assistance, services, payments and benefits for the URAP Program areas
in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Act of 1970 (24 CFR 42 and 570.1 GDBG regulations contained
in HUD Handbook 1377, effective May 1, 1986) .
4. That, upon approval and acceptance of the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority of the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota (HRA) acquisition of the
properties herein described may be acquired by direct purchase or
exercise the power of eminent domain.
COUNCILMEN
Yeas DimOnd Nays Requested by Department of:
Goswitz Plannin and E nomic Deve n
Long
In Favor
Rettman � Against BY
Scheibel
Sonnen
wilson $EP —6 1�(18 Form Approved b 'ty Attor ey
Adopted by Council: Date
�✓ f
Certified Pas ouncil Sec eta BY
By
Approve Mav • D e T— `�CP � 7 Appr d by Mayor for Submissi to ouncil
c
B
p�l.iS�EB S�P 17 1988
`41 a,{�i�„$ i�nd F.onnnmi� llavwl Anmpnt �pA��N7 ����`,� ��i �so�,I
Sheri Femherton � �^�C(�TaCt �
3358 p};prJE
August 30, 1988 n.♦c ������ �
ii�ri ir.�+�+.r+.�..�� i �M11 G • � .
ASSI6N NUI�BER f�R RQUTIMB OR R Cli All Locatfons for St nature :
,,,�,i,,, Depart�en# Dtrector _ Oirector of �na�rtt/Na �I�
finance and Manageme Services Director � � City C1erk �
,i, 6YdgEt Dt1"lCt,p1" 4 City Council - Councilperson Rettman
���r� - .. i +`+.r�.r
...? City AL�Ol� 5 Council Preaident Schei�iel '"
�
NHAT MILL BE ACHi€YEO BY T_AKIlIG ACTI�THE ATTACN�D MATERIALS? (Purpose/
Rationalej:
SEE ATTACIiMENT RECE�IVED
� AU G �3 � 1988�
' MAYOR'S pFfl�
COSTJ/BENEFIT, BtiD6fTARY AND PERSONHEL IMPACTS ANTTCiRItTEO:
.__,�.,�
The budget has already been adopted for these activities and are covered under the
1988-1989 State URAP of $1.9 million and 1988-i989 Capital Improvement Budget utilizing
CDBG funds as matching funds.
FINAr1�ING SQI��E AND BUDGET ACTIYITY Nt�BER CNARGED �t CREpITEO: (Mayor's �igna-
�,ttre �ot re-
Totai Aaw�t..af Transection: , quired if �nder
. ������
Funding Sou�+ce: Urban Revitalization Action Program
Coimnunity Development Block Grant Funds
Activity Nua�ber: .
AITACNMEI�TS (List a N�c�ber A�11 AttacM�e_nts) :
1. Saint Pau1 Urban Revitalization Act�on Progratn approved application.
2. Council Resolution making f�ndings frnm Public Hearing for North End
acquisition on activities under approved URAP.
OEPAR'CI�NT �EYIEM � CITr ATTORNEY �iEYIEM
,lres __,No Oounctl Reso3utlon Requfred? ' R+esolt�tion l�equlred? � Xes No
„Yes _,,,No iASUrant�e Required? I�wranre Sttffic�ent? �Yes ,,,,,,_No
_,_ Yes �,�„No Insurance Attached:
(SEE •REYERSE SI� FOR INSTRUC'fIONSj
R�vised 12/84
. �
�f�''/��/�S
WHAT WILL BE ACHIEVED BY TAKING ACTION ON THE ATTACHED MATERIALS�
In 1987 the Minnesota Legislature adopted and funded the Urban Revitalization
Action Program. In September, 1987, by Council Resolution 87-1395, the City
adopted the "Saint Paul Urban Revitalization Action Program" guidelines for
implementation of the URAP Program. On March 17, 1988, by Council Resolution
88-387, the City approved certain redevelopment activities and financing for
inclusion in the URAP Program. The URAP legislation required the City to match
the State funds put into the URAP, which the City approved CDBG funds under
Resolution 88-387. The acceptance and adoption of the URAP activities which
approved acquisition activities authorized but did not list the specific
properties use of CDBG for matching funds.
In order to proceed with acquisition, a Public Hearing must be held for City
Council to allow residents whose properties are to be acquired to speak in
favor or against. The URAP activities were selected by the neighborhoods and
fully supported.
C�F �`�-/yGs
� y�
•O�•
CITY OF SAINT PAUL RECEIVED
INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
AUG 2 51988
DATE: august zs, i9ss CITY CLERK
TO: Albert Olson
FROM: Sheri Pemberton �
RE: City Council Public Hearing for September 6, 1988
Attached are copies of a Public Hearing and City Displacement Policy
covering URAP areas, which are being published in the St. Paul Pioneer
Press and Dispatch and Legal Ledger on Wednesday, August 24, 1988.
Please place this Public Hearing on the City Council Agenda for Tuesday,
September 6, 1988. A City Council Resolution will be forwarded to you
by the City Attorney's Office, prior to the City Council Meeting. Also,
there will be a Resolution covering the Displacement Policy.
If you have any questions, please call me at 3358.
Attachments
cc: Jim Hart
Vicki Murray
A1 Carlson
Bob Hammer
� y�-��e �
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING UPON PROPOSED PROPERTY
ACQUISITION OF PARCELS OR TRACTS OF LAND IN THE
NORTH END DISTRICT 6 URBAN REVITALIZATION ACTION
P�tOGRAM SAINT PAUL MINNESOTA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of a Public Hearing before the COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAINT PAUL, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 15 West Kellogg Boulevard�
Saint Paul, Minnesota on Tuesday, September 6, 1988, at 10:00 a.m. Central
Daylight Time� upon the proposal of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of
the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota, to acquire by purchase or exercise the
power of eminent domain, on parcels or tracts of land on Sycamore Street West
between Park Street and Sylvan Street as identified below, under the
provisions of the approved Urban Revitalization Action�Program North End
Partnership District 6 North End Area Revitalization Project:
Upon said Public Hearing, the Council shall consider whether the acquisition
of the properties identified by street address and legal description as
follows:
91 Sycamore St. West 63 Sycamore St. West
89 Sycamore St. West 59 Sycamore St. West
87 Sycamore St. West 57 Sycamore St. West
85 Sycamore St. West 43 Sycamore St. West
83 Sycamore St. West 41 Sycamore St. West
81 Sycamore St. West 39 Sycamore St. West
77 Sycamore St. West 37 Sycamore St. West
75 Sycamore St. West 35 Sycamore St. West
71 Sycamore St. West 33 Sycamore St. West
67 Sycamore St. West
65 Sycamore St. West
All of Lots 21 through 42 inclusive, Block 4, Lyton's Addition
to Saint Paul.
is necessary or desirable in order to carry out the objectives of the North
End Partnership District 6 North End Area Revitalization Pro,ject and whether
there is a feasible method for relocation of individuals or families as a
result of this acquisition. At said Public Hearing all interested persons may
appear before and will be heard by the Council upon the proposed acquisition
of these identified properties,
Dated this 22nd day of August, ,1988.
ALBERT B. OLSON
� CITY CLERK
� ��-iy�5
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
DISPLACEMEh'T POLICY
COVERING URBAN REVITALIZATION
. ACTION PROGRAM
The URAP Program was established by the 1987 Minnesota State Legislature, and
provides matching financing for urban revitalization activities in distressed
areas of Saint Paul. The Program will be matched by an equal amount of
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds; currently financed in the
City's 1988 Capital Improvement Budget. In accordance with the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974, the City of Saint Paul hereby states that
several acquisition activities included under the approved Urban
Revitalization Action Program noted in Council File No. 88-387 may result in
displacement of individual(s) . Prior to any displacement activities occurring
the city will develop, adopt and make public a specific statement of policy
for those individuals whom will be displaced as a result.
The Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota,
acting as the Agent for the City of Saint Paul, will proceed to acquire
certain properties under the Urban Revitalization Action Program sub�ect to
securing all appropriate approvals needed from the City of Saint Paul. All
acquisition activities are to occur only in the Urban Revitalization Action
Program areas approved by City Council on March 17, 1988� Council Resolution
88-387 described as follows: �
�roject Title/Activitv Area
North End Partnershi_g Hatch Street to the North; Railroad track
boundary on the South; Jackson Street on
the East; and Rice Street on the West.
Kent-Sherburne Revitalization Minnehaha on the North; University on the
South; St. Albans on the West; Mackubin on
the East down to Charles then continue
along Charles to the East to Western; then
South to University; and West along
University to Mackubin.
Lower Bluff Revitalization Burlington Northern Railroad Tracks on
North; East to Arcade; West to Mounds
Boulevard; South to Third Street.
In accordance with Minnesota Statute 117.52, all acquisitions undertaken by an
acquiring authority, which authority shall provide all relocation assistance,
services, payments and benefits required by the Uniform Relocation Assistance
and Real Property Acquisition Polices Act of 1970, and any regulations adopted •
pursuant thereto by the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development, to all displaced persons.
The City has determined that the displacement is in accordance with the City's
Community Development Block Grant Program. People who will be required to
move are all of low/moderate income and will be provided with the opportuni.ty
to relocate to standard, suitable housing units. These projects will have a
major impact on the most deteriorated portions of the areas by attacking major
blighting influences, and improving the quality of housing and business '
economy.
� ��-��
The City, in developing these Relocation Payments, agrees that payments and
services will be provided in accordance with 24 CFR 42. (Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970) and regulations
contained in HUD Handbook 1377, effective May 1, 1986.
Businesses being displaced under this activity will have Relocation Payments
made in accordance with 24 CFR, 570.1 of the CDBG Regulations, effective
May 1, 1986.
Dated this 23rd day of August, 1988.
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
ALBERT B. OLSON
CITY CLERK
1 ���-��1�-5--
r
SA/NT PAUL URBAN REV/TAL/ZAT/ON
■ ACT/ON PROGRAM
t
� `
� , , . .. .,
,�,�:.���
� �
� ; .
.
r � .
__ .
. : .
� �
.,
. ��.
-�* < � �.+ :
, ��°�'� ,
_ `: w�r'`.�,`� <.`� ��
� ., :.
� /'F�E�
� ��
�kp I� tl
t � (�:'_` �:. y .
I,'i� 'il mA � i. r�j;,�
�: 9 �� 1
�� F3
� �
� �
� �� � ,:.; ... � .. _....,.�'. ' -.
� ,,. ,,,.., ..
'
�
�
�
'
Geo�ge Latimer,Mayor
, Ken Johnson,Direcior
Depar�ment of Planning and Economic Development
April, 1988
�
�
� .
�
� TABLE OF CONTENTS
�
� Section
� �
� int Paul URAP Pro ram
1 Sa g
� .
1� 2 Financing Summary
�
�
3 Certifications
� �
4 Project Summaries �
�
� .
5 Append�ces
�
,
�
��
�
��
� �
�
��
�
��
�
Section 1
� �
� . �
Sa�nt Paul URAP Program
i
��
I
il�
i
r
�- �
1
�.
�
�
�,
� CITY OF SAINT PAUL� MINNESOTA
URBAN REVITALIZATION ACTION PROGRAM
� 1 . PURPOSE/INTENT OF PROGRAM
The Saint Paul Urban Revitalization Action Program (URAP) is a
� new and exciting partnership effort between the City ' s core
neighborhood organizations , the City of Saint Paul , and the State
of Minnesota . Funded through a 1987 state initiative and matched
� by City resources , the program aims to ensure a strong and
improving future for those neighborhoods most threatened by
physical deterioration and lack of economic opportunity .
Specifically , the intent of the Saint Paul URAP program is the
� revitalization of the City ' s most distressed areas through
building , clearance , rebuilding , rehabilitation and economic
� development actions .
Further , realizing that sufficient resources are not available to
accomplish major revitalization in all the URAP eligible
� neighborhoods , it is the intent to target URAP resources within
three areas to create significant , visible , neighborhood impact
within a concentrated time frame .
� 2 . SAINT PAUL' S URAP PROCESS : BACKGROUND
� 2a . Establishment of a URAP Process
Adopted as part of the Laws of Minnesota for 1987 , Chapter 386 ,
Article 6 , the Urban Revitalization Action Program became the
�' first new initiative to assist Saint Paul revitalize its core
neighborhoods in the 1980 ' s . In a June 2 , 1987 letter to
� affected community groups and city departments , Mayor George
Latimer established a process by which the City would proceed in
implementing the URAP program. Using the City ' s nationally
recognized Capital Budgeting Process as a model , the Mayor ' s
directive insured that active participatory roles would be taken
� by all sections of the Saint Paul community , including;
� - the Saint Paul City Council
- the Capital Improvement Budget Committee
- the Saint Paul Planning Commission
- District Councils
� - neighborhood non-profit organizations
- City Departments
� 2b . Development of Program Guidelines
As a result of the City' s on-going commitment to citizen
� participation and empowerment , Saint Paul has spent the past
�
1 - 1
�
,�
eight months developing its URAP program. During July and August ,�
of 1987 , the Saint Paul Planning Commission established a task
force to work with affected area residents and city staff in the �
development of URAP guidelines . Numerous public meetings were
held, and participation by all of the URAP eligible neighborhoods
occurred. The URAP guidelines were then approved by the Planning
Commission and forwarded to the Mayor City Council . On �
September 11 , 1987 , the Mayor and City Council adopted the URAP
guidelines .
2c . Budgeting of Local Matching Funds
�
When Saint Paul became aware that the URAP legislation would �
require a 1 to 1 state/local match , city staff included a URAP
matching proposal for consideration in the City ' s 1988 Capital
Improvement Budgeting process . Subsequently , the proposal was �
reviewed favorably , and financing was included in the City ' s
adopted 1988 Capital Budget . Saint Paul ' s local match to the
State URAP fund will come from its Community Development Block �
Grant (CDBG) Year XIV Program. These funds will be available at
the time the City ' s URAP Program is approved by the State .
In addition to direct matching funds , the City will match the
State allocation through the coordination and targeting of �
existing programs in the slelected URAP project areas . We
anticipate a total matching ratio for this first URAP cycle to be
an additional investment of five dollars for every one dollar of �
state money. For details , please see the individual project
summaries and descriptions .
2d. Development of URAP Proposals �
During the months of September and October , neighborhood
organizations and city staff worked on putting together �
revitalization proposals for inclusion in Saint Paul ' s URAP
program. In all instances , each eligible neighborhood
organization received as much technical assistance from city -
staff as requested to put together a URAP proposal . The result �
of this cooperative effort were many joint neighborhood/city
proposals . These proposals reflected a mix of both neighborhood �
needs and concerns , and provided city staff expertise at �
addressing the problems . Final proposals were received by the
City in November .
2e . Proposal Review �
In November and December of 1987 , citizen organizations and
committees continued their involvement in the URAP process . The �
Saint Paul Capital Improvement Budget Committee , a nineteen
member citizen organization, was charged with primary review and
recommendation responsibility. In addition, the Saint Paul �
Planning Commission, the affected District Councils and City
Departments also reviewed potential proposals . The review
�
1 - 2
�
�
�, process consisted of individual proposal pr.esentations , a review
of compliance with City adopted policy , and individual rating and
� ranking in relationship to all other proposals .
On January 15 , 1988 , the CIB Committee completed its work, and
transmitted URAP funding priorities to the Mayor and Council .
� 2f . Mayor/City Council Review
� The Mayor and City Council spent a considerable length of time
reviewing the CIB Committee funding recommendations . Project
proposals were considered by the City Council ' s Finance ,
Management and Personnel Committee and the Housing and Economic
� Development Committee . A total of four City Council Meetings
and two Public Hearings were held to deliberate the merits of
URAP proposal submissions . Final approval of the pro,jects and
� programs which are included in the Saint Paul URAP Program
occurred on March 17 , 1988 .
� 3 . URAP REVITALIZATION OBJECTIVES
The City of Saint Paul has integrated the goals and objectives of
the URAP legislation with the on-going goals and ob� ectives
contained in the City' s Comprehensive Plan. This approach
insures that the available URAP funds are used in a consistent
� manner to support the needs of the community.
As described in the adopted URAP Guidelines , the joint objectives
of the City of Saint Paul and its the core neighborhoods are to :
��
- Address the problems of major blighting influences , loss of
home-ownership , declining confidence in both residential and
� business areas , housing need, and lack of economic
opportunity ;
- Produce clear and demonstrable improvements for the affected
� neighborhoods in a relatively short period of time ;
- Employ URAP resources effectively in con�unction with
� existing program resources ;
- Address problems in the geographic areas of greatest need;
� - Allow for the concentration of sufficient resources to
projects of sufficient magnitude to create a substantial and
meaningful impact ;
� Saint Paul has followed these objectives throughout the proposal
review and selection process . The result has been the
� recommendation of proposals which most closely tie with the
intent of the URAP legislation.
�
1 - 3
�
�
4 . IMPLEMENTATION OF REVITALIZATION OBJECTIV�ES �
Saint Paul intends to implement its URAP objectives through a �
variety of programs and processes . Traditional approaches to
revitalization will be combined with non-traditional approaches
to take advantage of the unique opportunities in each of the �
selected neighborhoods . High priority activities will include :
a) Acquisition and clearance of substandard properties - One
of the leading problems identified by both the neighborhoods �
and city staff in the core neighborhoods is vacant and
blighted structures . Unfortunately, and for a myriad of
reasons , many times these structures are past the point of �
rehabilitation. In these cases , housing and commercial
structures will be removed for subsequent compatible re-use
of the sites . If displacement occurs , the city will insure
that ali federal , state and local guidelines are followed. �
The city has a current displacement policy which includes ,
but does not limit , actions to moving and/or rental payments
at levels similar to those required by the Uniform �
Relocation Act ; referrals to agencies who furnish financial
counseling , health and social services ; and where possible
assist in obtaining replacement housing in the same �
neighborhood or geographical location.
We anticipate that within the URAP neighborhoods , there will
be some structures which are sound, but must be moved to �
accommodate a change of land use . Where practical and
feasible , the structures will be relocated in the same
neighborhood or geographic area . �
�
b) Housing and Commercial rehabilitation - The City proposes
to utilize a significant amount of URAP funds to complete �
substantial rehabilitation on structures located within the
selected URAP areas . The city will also utilize its
existing rehabilitation loan and grant programs in �
conjunction with the URAP program,
c) Public Improvements - An integral component to �
neighborhood revitalization and the URAP program is the
upgrading of public infrastructure . The improvement of
streets , lighting and other items through the URAP program �
will supplement and enhance existing city efforts in the
selected neighborhoods .
d) Economic Development - Saint Paul ' s core nei hborhoods �
g
are integrally related to the commercial strips that are
located within them. Clearly, neighborhood and city staff �
believe that significant neighborhood revitalization cannot
�
1 - 4 �
�
� --
occur without positive steps to revitalize both the housing
� and commercial components . URAP funds will be utilized to
fund economic development activities for both current and
new businesses in the selected areas .
�
5. URAP ACTIVITY BENEFIT: LOM AND MODERATE INCONE RESIDENTS
� All of the activities included in Saint Paul ' s URAP program
correspond to the Department of Housing and Urban Development
( HUD) criteria for expenditure of Community Development Block
� Grant ( CDBG) funds . Each of the eligible URAP areas are
considered low/moderate income as defined by HUD.
� Each activiiy included in Saint Paul ' s URAP program will benefit
low and moderate income persons , aid in the prevention or
elimination of slums and blight , or provide economic development
which will result in the creation of jobs. The section entitled
� Project Summaries of this document more clearly defines each
project and the benefit .
� 6. ANTICIPATED RESIILTS SUMMARY
The following is a summary of the results anticipated upon
� completion of the first cycle of Saint Paul ' s URAP program:
— the acquisiLion , rehabilitation , and converison of 30 single
� family and duplex units from rental to owner—occupied units
— the renabilitation of 100 housing units
� — th� r�n�bilitation of 5 cornmercial structures
— tne acquisition and clearance of 30 blighted housing
� structures , and 5 commercial structures
— the construction of one commercial shopping mall '
� — the provision of approximately 2 million in public
improvements
� — crea�cion of 150 to 200 jobs
— a public/private investment resulting in an overall 5 / 1
� match of State URAP funds
In addition to the physical improvements listed above , city staff
� and neighborhood organizations also anticipate a great deal of
less tan�ible , but very real benefits , including :
— A new focus on the issues of tne City ' s core neighborhoods .
�
� 1 — 5
�
- New partnerships and working relationships between �
neighborhood organizations , city staff and elected
officials .
- A sense of self-determination in the neighborhoods �
- A new and/or renewed sense of pride in the affected
neighborhoods �
will continue to develop as a result of the URAP program.
- Increased commitment of city staff technical assistance
For specific anticipated results of individual URAP pro� ects , �
please refer to both the individual pro� ect summaries , and the
full project proposal descriptions in other sections of this �
document .
7 . COMMITMENT AND ERPENDITURE OF STATE URAP FUNDS
Upon approval of the City' s URAP Program by the appropriate State �
of Minnesota agencies , the City will begin to enter into contract
negotaitions with the designated neighborhood agencies . tt is �
anticipated that within 30 days of State approval , the City will
commit all of the State funds for the designated project
activities . Expenditure of these funds will then occur over
approximately a 24 month period from the date of the �
City/Neighborhood Non=Profit Agreements .
8 . USE OF ANTICIPATED STATE URAP INTEREST �
The City of Saint Paul has considered the use of any interest
which will become available as a result of the receipt of the �
State URAP dollars . Staff has estimated the amount of interest
which will be earned over the two year course of the first round
URAP projects at $140 , 000 . 00 .
Interest anticipated to be earned has been included as part of �
the City ' s URAP Program, and listed as contingency items in each
of the three pro� ect financing summaries . Our rationale for this �
decision is based on the following:
1) No contingency items currently exist in any of the proposed
projects , and the anticipated interest earned is less than 3 $ of �
the total State/City URAP identified program. This amount is
less than the typical 5 - 10 � budgeted in major construction
projects . �
2) the City has identified URAP needs in excess of 4 times the
available program resources . �
3) The City has identified matching funds in excess of the
required State match .
�
1 - 6
�
�
�
� 4) to directly program these funds at this time , and subsequently
earn less interest than anticiapted would be to the detrement of
� the program.
5) The City fully intends to utilize any interest earned for the
three selected URAP proposals , and has ceritified as such in this
� application.
Anticiapted State interest to be is included in the URAP
� Financing Summary and in each of the individual pro�ect
summaries .
�
�
�'
� .
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
1 - 7
�
�
� .
�
i
1
�
� �
� Section 2
1 .
Financing Summary
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
URBAN REVITALIZATION ACTION PROGRAM
� FINANCING SUMMARY
� STATE URAP CITY URAP OTHER CITY/
PROJECT TITLE FUNDS FUNDS PRIVATE FUNDS* TOTAL
------------------------- ------------
� ------------ ------------ ------------
North End Revitalization $1,340,000 $1,250,000 $8,742,805 $11,332,805
Kent Sherburne
� Revitalization 170,000 160,000 1,006,100 1,336,100
Lower Bluff
� Revitalization � _____565,000 --___525=000 1,035,000 ___2,125,000
------------ -------
� Financing Totals $2,075,000 $1,935,000 $10,783,905 $14,793,905
Leverage Ratio:
�r State URAP/City URAP: . 1 to 1
� Anticiapted State URAP/
Non State Funds: 6 to 1
* Sources of Other City/Private Funds:
� Included in this cate or are funds identified from the Cit are:
g y y
Commercial Rehab Loan Funds, Single Family Rehab Loan Funds, Rental
� Rehab Loan Funds, UDAG Revolving Loan Funds and Capital Improvement Bonds
Private Sources include : Developer funds, direct bank loans,
� North End Area Revitalization (NEAR) funds, owner's matching funds,
private mortagage financing, Neighborhood Housing Services (NHS)
loan funds ,
�
�
�
�
i
�
2 _ 1
�
� .
�
�
�
�
� .
� Section 3
1 .
�
Certifications
�
�
�
�
!
�
�
� �
�
�
�
J
� CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESO?A
� URBAN REVITALIZATION ACTION P$OGBAMI
PROGRAl1 CERTIFICATIONS
I The City of Saint Paul hereby agrees to perform the responsibilities set
forth by the Laws of Minnesota for 1987, Chapter 386, relating to the
Urban Revitalization Program, including;
� Section 5. Designation of targeted neighborhoods
i Section 6. Targeted Neighborhood Revitalization and Financing Program
( Requirements; �
Section 7. Payment; City Matching Money; Drawdown; Uses of State Money
i
` Section 8. City Powers and Uses of Targeted Neighborhood Money;
� Section 9. Hazardous Building Penalty;
r •
Section 10. Annual Audit and Report
, `
�
�
I
�
1
3 - 1
,
r
�
I
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
URBAN REVITALIZATION ACTION PROGRAM '
CERTIFICATION OF AVAILABILITY OF MATCHING FUNDS
I
To Whom It May Concern: �
I, George Latimer, as Chief Executive Officer of the City of Saint
Paul, Minnesota, hereby certify that Saint Paul will match any and all i
State Funds available to Saint Paul for the Urban Revitalization Action �
Program in accordance with the Laws of Minnesota for 1987� Chapter 386,
Article 6.
I
I further certify that the City required matching funds will be �
available and committed to the Saint Paul Urban Revitalization Action
Program upon approval and execution of the Urban Revitalization Action
Grant Agreements by and between the State of Minnesota and the City of I
Saint Paul. �
�
4/8/88
Geor Latimer Date of Signature �
Mayo
�
I
�
�
�
1
3 - 2 �
� w►�ITE - C�7v ClEwu '� --.'-`.. . ���1� � .
P�~� _ ��~•~�E GITY OF SAINT PAtti. �J-/�/r�
C�N�RY - OEP�qiMEN• �1
SLUE - r.��rOq ' FIIC 1�0•
� _ �°�"'�, D°'�°�"t uncil esolution
��--_ � �. . ,
Presented By �
� Referred To Committee: Date
Out of Committee By Date
�
� IR�ELS. the State of Nianasota has estaDli3hed. and sllocated
tunds for, the tkrDaa 8e�italiz:tion ictioo Ttosr�s (URAP) to prowot�
�t,ysi�ai and eaonoaic redereloprsnt !a etei�lfborhoods of 5eint Mn2 aetd
� Ninaeapolia tlireataned with deterioratioa; stb
YI�E�S. s spccia2 �oeaaittec of the 3aint Taul Planeing Coe�ission
� waa establi�shed to develop 6uide2inea tcr a progras in Saint hul that
vould take advantage of neighborhood aepaDiliLy snd intereat aa v�el2 ss
Lhe city'a axteesive experieace witls rede�elop�eat; u�d
� 1�itiS� Lhe URAP CoomiLtee of the Planning Coe�miasion has
di�tributed ez�eaai�e intorsetion about the pro�rae to represer�tati�ea
af e2igiDle neighbortwods. ip�ited repceaentativea of potential
� aeighborboai applicant groups to aLtend ea�A of ita eeetings. heid tti+o
coa�unitf -eseeLlags for the purpose of obLaining input tro� concernea
� -._ reaidenta ead neighDorhooci organizatioas. and has eoesidered these riewa
� ` and the recoeaiendatioris"�f city sLaff �bers; ae�d
f
' -� Y�S. on SepLesber 11. 1987 the Planning Cae�aission did. ��
reaolution, reeome�end to the Mayor snd Cit�t Council pro6raa SuiQelines
� eatitled Saint ra�1 �baa �eritalisatioa iati� trasraa GoiAelines sa
Lt�e ataLe�ent of policy aad proc�sa to guide the de�elopaent aod
isplementation of a re�ftalizatioa pro`ras for SaiAt Taul neiahbonc��ods;
� aow. ttierefore ba it
tE.lp.1ED, that upoa the recoeaeadatioa of tbe lla�or. xith Ltte
� ad�ic� of Lhe Plaoning Coa�iasion. ttse Counail of the Cit� ot 3�iat Paul
doea hereby aaopt tbe Qxument eatit2ed Salst Mol QrO�ts le�italisatiae
ictiaa h�a�,rs (�ideli�ea tot ux sa the doctncnt to suide 3sieit Penl'a �
i�ple�entation of the tlrDan aeritalizatio� Action Progrss.
� f - , -
� COUNCILMEN Requested by Department oE:
Yeas p�eW Nays �. .
tluffi1A� f�d $C0�0�1G , O�iAt
a tts�.,�� [n Favor ,- �.�
Seheibel B / �/'y � , �. 1. 4,,.� .
� ���,,, ' _ Against Y
.Is�oscc dJ�rt,w
� Wilson .,� •. 7 �t
Jt� - : i��1 Form proyed by City AtSdrney
Adopted by Council: Date ( f
B t i,-' ��;�l� l
''ertified Patised by Council Secretary � _. '
� B5' i � ' �
�EF � ��� Appro�ed b� Mayor for Submission to Coun�l
Approved by ldavor. Date — ..P,__.---^---'-
� - - — ` , -
i
B5� —�3 - 3 By � �
�
�
�
�
�
STATE OF MINNESOTA ) �
County of Ramsey ) ss.
� CITY OF SAINT PAUL ) �
�
I� .. . , . . . . . .. . Albert B:. Olson...�._.�.....City Clerk of the
City of Saint Paul, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have �
88-387 �
compared the attached copy of Couacil File No....................
as adopted by the City Council........... ..�arCh 17.. . ...19.88...
and approved by the Mayor. .............. ...March 21. .. ...1g.88. .. �
with the original thereof on file in my office. �
�
I further certify that said copy is s true and correct copy �
of said original and the whole thereof. '
WITNESS my hand and the seal of the City of Saint Paul, �
Mianesota this . . , , 2sth . . ... day of ... .�'�arch _.._....A.D. 19.88.
�.
.::'.✓1�.�1�..5.1:. �-���:-,�..... ...... .
.. �
City Clerk. ���
. �
�
3 - 4 �
� �•.iTC - C�Tr C�swK �
v� �,~ ~�� Ci I TY O F SA I NT PA U L Council T�Jj/y_//�
:�n�w♦ �O[►�1�Tw[MT ��'i/V /
��uE � �r�row F,j�e N0. F
, .Co cil Resolution , �.
� � � I�{
Presented By
� Re o Committee: Date
Out of Committee By Date
�
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL
� URBAN REVITALIZATION ACTION PROGRAM
� WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Saint Paul did approve on
September 23, 1987, by Resolution 8�-1395, guidelines for implementation
of the City of Saint Paul Urban Revitalizatioa Action Program (URAP);
� and ,
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Capital Improvement Bud et Committee, the
� Saint Paul Planning Commission, affected neighborhood District Councils,
neighborhood non-profit organizations aad city staff have participated
in a review process of URAP proposal submissions in accordance with the
adopted URAP guidelines; now, therefore be it
� RESOLVED, that upon the recommendation of the Housing and Economic
Development Committee, the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby
� recommends the following activities and financing for inclusion in the
Saint Paul Urban Revitalization Action Program:
Pro ect Title Bud et
� North End Partnership � 2,500,000.00 �
Kent/Sherburne Revitalization 320,000.00
� Lower Bluff Revitalization 1,050,000.00
Total ; 3,870,000.00
Mand be it
� .
� COUI`'CIL MEMBERS Requested by Dep�ctment of:
lzas Nays
Dimond
� �"g ' In Favor
cosMits
Rettman
scee�be� Against . BY
Soenen
� Wilson
Form Approved by City Attorney
Adopted by Council: Date
� Certified Passed by Council Secretary By
B�
Approved by Mavor: Date Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
�
By 3 5 By
���TC - c�,• c�aK Council . -
J ~� �'��~�� GITY OF SAINT PAUL ��'�� �
-�N:w. _ o���w�r[wr
��uE - r��r �w File N0.
Council Resolution
_ �
Presented By
Referred To Committee: Date �
Out of Committee By Date
Page 2 of 2 �
FURTAER RESOLVED, that Mayor George Latimer, as Chief Executive Officer
of the City of Saint Paul is hereby authorized and directed to submit
the Saint Paul Urban Revitalization Action Program for review and �
comment to the appropriate State of Minnesota agency; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Maqor o0 his designated representative, �
the Director of Planning and Economic Development is further suthorized
to submit to the State of Minnesota any assuraaces, certifications,
technical changes or additional information that may be required by the ,�
State during their review of the Saint Paul Urban Revftalization Action
Program; and be it �
FINALLY RESOLVED, that upon notification of approval of the Saint �
Paul Urban Revitalization Action Program, the Council does hereby
authorize the proper City officials to execute the grant agreement and
contract between the State of Minnesota and the City of Saint Paul for �
the Urban Revitalization Action Program.
�
�
, �
. �
COUNCIL MEMBERS Requested by Department of:
}cas Nays
Dimond
��g In Favor
coswic��
Rettman
�hh� Against BY
sonoe�s�'
Wilso� �
/tidoa�ed by Council: Date ,-'AR 1 7 »Sv F'orm Approved by City Attorney
Cer!ified Pass b� unc�cr eY
�� J
Appruve v lilavor: Oat'e � � Appcoved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By ._
ey �
3 6
�
� AFF1Dr�►VIT OF PUBLICATIOiV
�
STATE OF M1titiESOTA
� COUNTY OF RAiiSEY
ROSEAZP,RY J FRANK
_ _ _ , being
CITY OF SAINT PAUL,MINNESOTA luly sworn on oath, savs: that he is, and during all
URBAN REVITALIZATION ACTION PROGRAM iines herein stated hasybeen. Clerk of the Northwest
NOTKE OF PUBUC HEARING 'ublications, Inc., publisher of the newspaper known
Notice is heroby qiven thal a public hsorinq will be held by�I�e Sant Paul City Council is the St. Paul Pioneer Press Dispateh, a newspaper
obtain cifizen inpuf on Me Cily's proposed Urban Revitalizalion Aclion Program
�uRAP�«�: �f general circulation within the Cit�� of St. Paul an
THURSDAY,FEBRUARY 25,1987 the County of Ramsey.
9:00 A.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
3RD FLOOR CITY HALL That the Notice hereto attached was cut from the
15 WEST KELLOGG BOULEVARD columns of said newspaper and was printed and pub-
The URAP proqram �:�wbr�,ed by,n� �va��w srob ����.e, «�d lished therein on the following dates:
provides mafchinq financinq for urban revitolizalion acfivilies in disfreued areas of
SoiM Paul and Minneapolis.Saim Poul will receive approximately 1.9 million io 1988
d 1989 hom 1hs Sta1e for this purpose.The proyrom will be ma�ched by an eQuol
amouM of Communily Devebpment BI«k Grwit(CDBG)funds;N..amy h�d� 15 t h F e b r u a r y � 19 8 8
1hs Gfy's 1988 Copifal Improvement Budget,and rocommended for financinq in the day of
1989 Capilal ImprowmsM Budget. Proposals have been previously reviewed by the
Saint Paul Plaminq Commission and the Copital Improvemenf Budqet CommiMee.ihe , 19
acfivitiss recommended ro the CAy Council for�he City of Sainf Paul's fint ryck of the day Of
URAP Proprom are: ,
qecr n►le/�ropo�d ncn�nes �,P„��,� day of . 19
NORTH END PARTNERSHIP 52,000,000.00 dav of . 19
includes:oequisilion 3 clearance of housing; "
residsMid and commercial rohabilitafion;
commercaldwelopme�d dav of . 19
KENT/SHERBURNE REVITALIZATION 320,000.00
includes:xqvisilion,cbarance.housinv (]gV p f . 19
and commsrcial relwbilifalion "
LOVNER blUff REVRAUTATION 1,000.000.00 day of . Ic
includ�s:xqui�ilion,clsorarKe a+d
nhabiClalion of r�sidsnlial and commsrcial
ProP��tiss
SINGIF FAMILY/DUPIEX CONVERSION �
PROGRAM SS0.000.00
Acquisilion 3 nhab'li�alion of housinq; .
financinq fo►rssak to low/mod incoms persons �
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
TOTAI 15T CYCLE URAP fINANCING 53,870,000.00
16th day of February 19 88
For oddilionol i�formalion oo the URAP proqram,plaase comact Mr.RobeA Hamma, '
Communily DsvslopmeM Division. Deparfine�d of Plw�inq and Economic Dersl- �
opm�nt, 1420 G1y Hall Amex,25 West Fourlh Siroe�,SaiM Pwl,Mirw�sso�a,55102,
roe
(bt 2)2923253. /� /,O���f ��,/`/ _ ,�
PRESS DISPATCH,FEBRUARY 15,1988 �,C / �
tiotan Public
� Washington
County, hiinnesota
October 9 93
:�Iv commission expires . 19
�
scs.►�,a,#AAaAA�A�IUAA4�p�:.,c�;,^s,t+er�..a��.r X
<
� � �n .' .. K,�V 1 V;}:�1 c �'
�! + i r
.eq �t�r- 'A ?.
�y �.
�� `�.f� .. .... , . .._ .. . �:,
. ��"/�' � �Vn l ... . . ' _
2L'.r�YO"�c\�V.G'o°7y;t. . :S..., _ .
� 3 - 7 ., ,. ..,. ...
Form 2�6 Ativ.
�
� .
�
�
�
�
�
� Section 4
1
� Project Summaries
�
�
1
�
1
�
1
�
�
i
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
� URBAN REVITALIZATION ACTION PROGRAM
Project Title : Lower Bluff Revitalization
� Organization : Dayton' s Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services
� Address : 806 E . 7th St . , Saint Paul , MN 55106
Contact Person : Suzanne Joseph Phone : 774- 6995
� Pro�ect Location: B & N Railroad Tracks ; east to Arcade - west
to Mounds Blvd. ; south to Third St .
� Census Tract(s) : 331 , 344 , 345
Project Ob�ectives : Acquisition, rehabilitation, and rental
conversion of substandard properties to low/moderate income
� households ; tiousing rehabilitation to low/moderate income
occupied households ; alleviation of blighting conditions through
commercial rehabilitation and public improvements in low/moderate
� income areas .
Commitment of URAP Funds : Funds will be committed within one
month of State approval .
� Project Description : This project is a revitalization/stabilizat-
ion program focused in the 3rd St . area . The project will
� increase the # owner-occupants in the area, improve the quality
of affordable rental & owner-occupied housing , rehabilitate
existing commercial properties , and develop a small park.
� INTENDED OUTCOMES TO BE ACHIEVED
Housing : The acquisition of ten (10) duplexes or single-family
� structures , which will be rehabilitated and sold to their
tenants . The rehabilitation of an additional ten (10) homes .
ICommercial : The rehabilitation of three (3) commercial buildings .
Public Improvements : The development of a small focused park.
� ANTICIPATED TWO YEAR TIMELINE
� Home Ownership � Rehabilitation � Park � Commercial
� � Conversion � Program � Development � Rehab .
� - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - � - - - - - - - - - - - � - - - - - - - - - -
lst Quarter � Identify prop . � Prioritize � Acquire � Identify
� � for purchase � target prop . � properties � need
2nd Quarter � Begin acquis . � Iraplement � Finalize �Arran e
g
� Identify buyer � rehabilitation � acq . , Design � Financing
� � � � �
3rd Quarter � Complete acq . � Continue Rehab � Demolition � Continue
� Begin rehab . � � & Const . � same
� � � � �
4th Quarter � Complete rehab � Same � Dedicate � Same
� Marketing � � Park �
� 4 - 1
�
� Home Ownership � Rehabilitation � Park � Commercial �
� Conversion � Program � Development � Rehab .
� - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � - - - - - - - - - - - � - - - - - - - - - -
Sth Quarter � Screen buyers � Same � � Continue �
� Sales � � � until
� � � � complete .
6th Quarter � Same � Same � � �
I I I I
7th Quarter � Same � Same � I
I I I I
8th Quarter � Same � Same � I �
PROJECT FINANCING �
URAP FUNDS OTHER FUNDS
� State Citv City Private Total
Acquisition : 296 , 000 296 , 000 592 , 000 �
Demolition: 12 , 500 12 , 500 25 , 000
Public �
Improvements : 4 , 000 4 , 000 8 , 000
Relocation: 75 , OOQ 75 , 000 150 , 000 �
Housing
Rehabilitation: 125 , 000 125 , 000 145 , 000 100 , 000 495 , 000 �
Commercial
Rehabilitation : 75 , 000 75 , 000 150 , 000 �
Direct Salaries : 12 , 500 12 , 500 40 , 000 65 , 000
Contingency: 40 , 000 40 , 000 �
Other : Mortgage 600 , 000 600 , 000
- - - - - -Financing- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - �
Total Budget : 565 , 000 525 , 000 220 , 000 815 , 000 2 , 125 , 000 '
1) Other City funds include the single family rehab , multi-family �
rehab , and commercial rehab programs .
2 ) Private funds include Dayton' s Bluff Neighborhood Housing !
Service funds and mortgage financing .
3) The contingency funds are matched by the City rehab funds . �
4 - 2 �
�
�
�
� �
�
LOWER BLUFI'S
� R�VITAI,I7.ATION
�
� I U� O' ,l (L� N l, iD Ol � 1 �l ; l7 �� � ,1
�, I o ro I � n � � o (f lo� -� i --� rn o
�n In la u I�o � � c � o� lo� �
N 7 7 fD 11 n N ID 7�" '1 U > > �
, i� �r rp ♦ r. �n S 3 n �n
1 {Y N �
i �D �1
�b
1 �
� E. 7th
� ����� Ross
- - --- - ---�`—i�a�J�J��� Dush
� --�LJ C- -- -J L.__���J�I._—J 1�-- �--J L—J H�aneY
_-�n - ��l�� -��___������ _.
Minnehaha
(�� ,
� ti\!, �l -"��__�� _��L-1��� � Oeeth
: `'�(1�_�° o — �-�C_:_.1�J C—�C�f�C� v ►�rqa rc t
� .. �� r � � JI------��- - _�L_ �L���UI__�C� . E. b�n
--`s)�� � � � -�1 C-J C---J 1--1 l�C- �C=1 L—J `
� � ���i \ - -- -- – r--I�--\ `— E. Sth
r, � ��. " l�_��__��__.Jl.�1l.���\. ._��� E. 4th
�� � ,- �.-���' ��� .J��.�L—J �� V� Fremont
1 :-� ,��� �,- �---�� 1 �.` �
�� —
_ _. _�J��`��� E. 3rG
., ` �-��j > � _ l. -�_ _IC-1L.. ��o -
��� � --J __- �--- co�wd
� �`� ---- - _ . ---_=_-=� --
� , � .�``�` ,.,C� ���----��.- -���� _. �.� �;, E��, ;;
��� � �` `� �.�-��!-iL --��--� '��
, J Wi�lson
,, ,'� ��'/ � --- - / � d�
���,;� • , \ �• � � �-��:- �f Wakef Icld
� j,. ��i,\�/�-- ---�� ..J�
V :�"� � --- --- L ��---= Iludson
(Q�,.
. ,��:,
`.d> .��� � ----� "_�-_. �� -- Pectflt
� O OL7l_ __1�1—]��L�
��� �.'�• v __ Mclean
�°' 't �� O�l� � �� r�
'`�� /�`•� ��I___J
i, � _ __��-- Burns
� �:a`�.� ��/ l , , - - — — --ii--
� -` >' '�/ � ✓ (%
�,���' ���.I�J U�� �,
� �v /�� /�` . � � \vVL� � ' Thorn
� �.�\ �r `,�'�.--:� �o y,
„ r Moundi
J` • � L -�1 < J
�. ��' .�.'�+ �, � n
a ,�y 'v,.�rv r J' I'
� \� '
.y
i 4 – 3
,
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA �
URBAN REVITALIZATION ACTION PROGRAM
Pro�ect Title : North End Partnership �
Organization: Dist . 6 Planning Coun. , No . End Area Revitalization �
Address : 1021 Marion, 926 Rice St . , Saint Paul , MN 55117
Contact Person: Sharon Voyda , Mike Temali Phone : 488-4485 , 488 - 1039 �
Pro3ect Location: Hatch St . to the north, RR tracks to the south,
Jackson St . to the east , Rice St . to the west . �
Census Tract(s) : 305 , 308 , 313 , 314
Pro�ect Objectives : Clearance of blighted housing , construction �
of new housing for low/moderate income families , housing
acquisition, rehabilitation for low/moderate income occupied
structures , rehabilitation and resale of rental properties to �
low/moderate income families , alleviation of blighting conditions
by creating two blocks of open space and two blocks of light
industry , the creation of new jobs with the addition of a new �
convenience mall , renovation and an addition to existing
commercial structures in low/moderate inccome areas .
Commitment of URAP Funds : Funds will be committed within one �
month of State approval .
Pro�ect Description: This pro� ect will have a major impact on the �
most deteriorated portions of the lower North End area by
attacking major blighting influences , strengthening the Rice St .
business area , and improving the quality of the housing.
INTENDED OUTCOMES TO BE ACHIEVED �
Housing : Clearance of four (4) blocks of blighted housing , the �
addition of two (2) blocks of new housing, fifty (50)
substantially rehabilitated units , rehabilitation of two (2) ,
vacant homes , and fifteen (15) rental properties rehabilitated
and converted to owner-occupied. �
Commercial : The addition of two (2) blocks of new light industry,
development of a new convenience mall , renovation of the Ritter �
Beauty School building, construction of a 10 , 000 sq . ft .
commercial building, expansion of the Appliance Parts store ,
development of fifty (50) parking spaces , and the creation of an �
estimated 150 to 200 � obs .
Public Improvements : The creation of two blocks of open space/
stormwater retention to serve as a buffer between the light �
industry and residential areas , tree planting, and street lights .
. �
4 - 4 �
�
i �
� ANTICIPATED TWO YEAR TIMELINE
� � � Public
� Housing � Commercial � Improvements
� � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
lst Quarter � Begin rehab . � Continue work on �
� � mall , parking, �
� � � Ritter & App . Parts �
� � �
2nd Quarter � Continue rehab , � Continue as above , �
� Begin acq . , owner- � Begin design theme �
� � ship conversion. � �
� � �
3rd Quarter � Continue rehab , � Continue work on �
� � acq . & demolition, � mall , parking , �
� ownership conv. , � Ritter , App . Parts �
� Begin new con- � & Design theme . �
� struction. � �
� � � �
4th Quarter � Continue all of � Complete mall , �
� the above projects � parking , Ritter & �
' � � App . Parts . Con- �
� � tinue design. �
� � �
� 5th Quarter � Continue all � Complete design � Begin acquisit-
� projects . � theme , begin in- � ion of land for
� � dustrial exp . � open space .
� � �
� 6th Quarter � Complete homeowner � Continue indus - � Continue acq . ,
� conversion, � trial expansion. �begin const . of
� continue other � � open space/
� � projects . � � storm water
� � � retention.
� � �
7th Quarter � Continue rehab , � Continue indus- � Continue open
� � acq . & demolition, � trial expansion. � space work,
� & new construction � � tree planting & ,
� � � street lighting
� � � �
8th Quarter � Complete rehab , � Continue indus - � Complete open
� acquisition, and � trial expansion. � space work,
� new construction. � � tree planting
� � � � and street
� � � lighting .
�
�
�
� 4 - 5
i
�
�
PROJECT FINANCING
URAP FUNDS OTHER FUNDS �
State Citv Citv Private Total
Acquisition : 663 , 000 663 , 000 2 , 354 , 000 3 , 680 , 000 �
Demolition: 86 , 750 86 , 750 20 , 000 190 , OQ0 383 , 500
Public Imp . : 18 , 500 18 , 500 1 , 910 , 000 1 , 947 , 000 �
Relocation: 182 , 500 182 , 500 386 , 000 751 , 000
Construction : 144 , 250 144 , 250 181 , 200 2 , 056 , 300 2 , 526 , 000 �
Commercial
Rehabilitation : 60 , 000 60 , 000 90 , 000 72 , 790 282 , 790 �
Housing
Rehabilitation : 1 , 000 , 000 1 , 000 , 000 �
Site Improv. : 10 , 000 10 , 000 6 , 000 14 , 000 40 , 000
Dev. Financing : 82 , 072 82 , 072 �
Contingency: 90 , 000 90 , 000
Direct Salaries : 73 , 000 73 , 000 �
Other_ _Parking_ -85 =000 _ _ _85 =000 - _ 307 , 443 477 , 443 �
Total Budget : 1 , 340 , 000 1 , 250 , 000 3 , 207 , 200 5 , 535 , 605 11 , 332 , 805
1) Other City funds include the single family , multi-family, and �
commercial rehabilitation programs , UDAG loans , and CIB finds .
2) Private funds include developer funds , North End Area �
Revitalization funds , and bank loans .
3) The contingency funds are matched by the City rehab funds .
�
,
4 - 6 �
�
�
� ,, ,
� �.
�� � u • • • • • a �� • � • •
• �i � �
� � �
� � �� �
� o Ci �� • • • • � •� � • � s • • • • • • •
� � . . � ,, a
� a� �n� �
�.� �
i
� � e � • . . . . . . • . . . r.'• . . .. . .
• -
�� �i. �-'�- .
. c� �� • '
.
� � ,� �� • � • • • • • � • • �, � • • y
� ,. � ��i � ���:�����: . • V� � • • • � �
. : /,� oca � . o. �
�� � ►��I� � ai��� � • •
��+�Q .L'1�►?►� � ' � �.'� •
o Ol�q��� �� C��dd�7�]
0 ° I
oo � . o � . . . . . . . . . . .�
s� � �� � • • • �C~� �
� e
t��� G . � � . .
t��_
t���� :, d� i • • • � •� • • • • • • • u • • •
�,�-��on � ' a o
� o • o . . .
� �o� � . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . �� ,�
�� �t•� �� . �� ■■ u
t�� ��� �
� � � � �� . . . . . Y. . . . . . . . .
v � � �� �a��� �
�.,
�_ �
o�
o �rv�� _v ►,
Q ��o � � � . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
s �
���
��� e
:, �.
i� iiii i « « + • � • e i
�� Y�iYY�� ' �' .:
� � ,c•�..i.. .r.� . �
O . � ' � � • •
�� � • �
� � t•� � .
� �. � a �d ..�eo
. .
�i i i� [�� ��ca A�� w���A .. w
• �� •, e. � i� ��������r�����
' � � •ir.Z•e�
o � " � ��� . IIA�� • ...�.������.���
.
�v • � . . .
: �
� � � �
a � �
► � �
. .�,
.
:
�
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA �
URBAN REVITALI2ATION ACTION .PROGRAM
Pro3ect Title : Kent-Sherburne Revitalization Program
Organization : District 7 Planning Council �
Address : 379 University Ave . , Saint Paul , MN 55102 �
Contact Person: Dawn Goldschmitz Phone : 298-5068
Pro�ect Location : Kent St . between Minnehaha & Sherburne , �
Sherburne Ave , between Dale & Western.
Census Tract(s) : 326 �
Project Ob�ectives : Alleviation of blighting conditions through
demolition of substandard properties and an intensive cleanup �
program, housing rehabilitation for low/moderate income families ,
renter to owner conversion program for low/moderate income
families , and revitalization to low/moderate income commercial
area through relocation and site preparation. �
Commitment of URAP Funds : Funds will be committed within one
month of State approval . �
Pro�ect Description : This project will improve the quality of the
housing stock in the target area, increase the number of
homeowners , improve the appearance of properties , and relocate �
commercial businesses .
INTENDED OUTCOMES TO BE ACHIEVED �
Housing : Approximately 30- SO residential units will be
rehabilitated, five (5) substandard residential buildings will be �
demolished, five (5) buildings will be converted from renter to
owner-occupied, and sixty (60) problem properties will
participate in the intensive cleanup program.
Commercial : Two (2) businesses will be relocated from the east to �
the west side of Dale St . , and one (1) commercial site will be
prepared for a business relocation. �
ANTICIPATED 18 MONTH TIMELINE
� Residential � Neighborhood �Acquisition & �
� Rehabilitation � Cleanup � Demolition
� - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
lst Quarter � Identify problem � Organize block � Identify problem �
� properties , Start � teams , Remove � properties & begin
� rehabilitation � litter & growth � acquisition
2nd QuarterlContinue ident- I I �
� � Remove litter , � Complete acquis .
� ification & rehab � growth, cars � & demolition
� � �
3rd Quarter � Same � Remove litter � �
� � �
�
4 - 8
�
� � Residential � Neighborhood • �Acquisition &
� Rehabilitation ( Cleanup � Demolition
� � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
4th Quarter � Same � Remove litter , �
� � j unked cars �
� � (
, 5th Quarter � Same � Remove growth, �
� � cars , litter �
� ( �
� 6th Quarter � Complete � Complete �
� Rehabilitation � Cleanup �
� PROJECT FINANCING
� � URAP FUNDS OTHER FUNDS
State Citv City Private Total
Acquisition: 37 , 000 37 , 000 74 , 000
� Demolition : 9 , 000 9 , 000 18 , 000
Relocation : 20 , 500 20 , 500 41 , 000
� Housing
Rehabilitation : 705 , 000 300 , 000 1 , 005 , 000
� Direct Salaries : 12 , 500 12 , 500 1 , 100 26 , 100
Contingency : 10 , 000 10 , 000
� Other : Flexible 81 , 000 81 , 000 162 , 000
Fund, Cleanup ,
� Marketing- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total Budget : 170 , 000 160 , 000 705 , 000 301 , 100 1 , 336 , 100
M1) Other City funds include single family and multi-family ,
rehabilitation funds .
� 2) Private funds include owner ' s matching funds and volunteer
time .
� 3) The contingency funds are matched by the City rehabilitation
funds .
�
�
� 4 - 9
�
• • : • �
�
�
v
T— -__. . ._-- — :>� ��� �!� ��
�� " _ s . � �' �IIIINI I1,1��� 7� T., �
{ �� � '' �
� �se�� �w � _ � ��
, ,
'' �� ` ' i�
-� ,� . t � . . ,. ._
- -� �� �
�^ ��`� �d �. � � � � N ',I,■ 'c� � 1 I ~
.� � �
� �"��'� �1 � � � � �� � �
�� .,. ��i
j:ir-r-�. ... � .:� ������f �
t {'_ :�M x �-:=� � � � �` �` � , y ,
� .� �i� � �.f, �. ��
# �
1-•�T F� �`Q�,,,r,,.�..r,,.,N,a..�.�w.o.... -o.o o�.vooaac. ....�.�........} wr.
����� �_"c��F����a�����:%����f f �$��i�$���e�$��� v�■■a.�aoi�. w
� ;���������a�� ����������g$�������������� ���#����������� . , �� �
� �
E�IriYli �������� ����:��#������a'�� ���������� ������������� �. Il�;l"�_U�1��i�. � �
�11f�Wll IM�1111W1 ■IMIIIIAl111 '!'Dlllll�fl ��11lrlllllll � iN� �INl�it
�L�irl ' �m�n�t����� Vaai� �Illw°�Na� �
��iuuu ,�'_�, � - ,_ ,: �i1111�111111111 illl IIII�{I� 6r1�1 � L 1��1 �I��! :`i� M
��
� -' ��- �' u �� ��,�����.N�U.. - � �
��-��i� ,� �..� �r.� � � 1�1 !. ,
.� - ��� �',� u1R': �I �
�+i ���� �1������ ._�, �_�
1 , ��I ���� � 1 ����,�� 1111!! �il(I�1
:: � ' = � =�,u'� �i� �trd�
. •d
�
,
i '
�
�
�
�
�
�
Section 5
��
�
Appendices
e
�
�
� ,
1�
1
1
1
�
1
,
i .
�
1
, SAINT PAUL
' URBAN REVITALIZATION ACTION.PROGRAM
� G U I D E L I N E S
�
,
�
�
,
�
� �M�! t1e1�1bOt�lOOdS
�
Developed by the URAP Committee of the Planning Commission
, Recommended by the Planning Commission, September 11, 1987
�
,
,
'
� .
�
� TABLE OF CONTENTS
'
I. PROGRAM PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES 2
, II. THE SAINT PAUL URAP APPROACH 3
, III. DEFINITIONS 3
IV. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 4
� URAP Eligible Area
Targeted Neighborhood
Funding
Ineligible Activities
� Eligible Applicants
Ineligible Applicants
Elig:ble Implementing Groups
� Eligible Area Map 5
� V. URAP POLICIES 7
Ne�ghborhood Implementation
Loans and Grants
� Low and Moderate Income Bencl'it
Displacement
Geographic Targeting
, Scale of Programs
Priority Needs
Program Mix ,
Use of the URAP Soft Area
, Excluded Areas
Program Activities
Employment Requirements
� VI. SELECTION CRITERIA 9
� VII. PROGRAM APPLICATION, SELECTION, FUNDING,
AND IMPLEMENTATION ROLES 10
VII1. PROGRAM AND PROJECT EVALUATION 14
'
, 1
�
'
. �
i
t
�
I. PROGRAM PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES ,
The Saint Paul Urban Revitalization Action Program (URAP) is a partnership effort of �
core neighborhoods, the City of Saint Paul, and the State of Minnesota. Funded through a
new state legislative appropriation matched with City resources, the program aims to �
ensure a strong and improving future for those neighborhoods in the city most threatened
by physical deterioration and lack of economic opportunity. Specifically its purpose is the
building, clearance, rebuilding, rehabilitation and other physical and economic
development actions that will contribute most to continuing viability for these �
neighborhoods and the households that live in them.
It is the intention of the City and the core neighborhoods that 1988/1989 URAP activity �
will:
— Address problems of major blighting influences, loss of home- ownership, declining �
confidence in both residential and business areas, housing need, and lack of economic
opportunity;
— Produce clear and demonstrable improvements for the neighborhoods affected in a �
short period of time;
— Contribute to a comprehensive attack on problems that can be expected to have �
lasting impact;
— Employ URAP resources effectively in conjunction with existing program resources;
— Address problems in geographic areas of greatest need, yet allow for concentration of �
resources on projects of sufficient magnitude for meaningful impact on serious
problems; and �
— Further effective neighborhood/city cooperation in the maintenance and growth of
_ neighborhoods; and �
Create expanded opportunities for employment within the targeted URAP area,
either by the creation of new jobs or through the retention of existing jobs in the
community. ,
2 �
�
,
, II. THE SAINT PAUL URAP APPROACH
, New revitalization activity in Saint Paul must take maximum advantage of:
� — The extensive problem-solving capability that has developed at the local
neighborhood level and the neighborhood initiative that has been the impetus for
many accomplishments in recent years;
' — The capability that exists in the Department of Planning and Economic Development
and other public entities such as the Port Authority for planning, redevelopment,
housing development, rehabilitation, economic development and job creation and
' training;
— Proven effectiveness of private/public partnership; and
' — Program resources already in existence.
While taking advantage of developed neighborhood capability, the program also must avoid
' giving all the advantage to neighborhoods already well organized for such program activity
at the expense of areas that are not.
� Quick action to move toward implementation of program activities is necessary to meet the
objective of early tangible results. Nevertheless, a careful but open process for program
development and selection is required to ensure that the most promising and appropriate
activities consistent with the best potential of each neighborhood are identified.
� The Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) Committee has been selected to evaluate program
proposals and recommend an appropriate revitalization program to the Mayor and City
� Council. Both appropriate neighborhood groups and city departments, particularly the
Department of Planning and Economic Development (PED), are encouraged to develop
proposals for URAP program activity.
' In order to avoid competition between neighborhoods and PED, early communication on
proposals is required, and neighborhood/PED consensus on priorities will be the aim.
Variation in capability at the neighborhood level should be reflected in the assignment of
� PED staff assistance to neighborhood groups.
, III. DEFINITIONS
' Urban Revitalizatiort Actio�i Program (URAP)
The program authorized and funded by thc State of Minnesota (Chapter 386, Laws of
Minnesota for 1987) providing for the revitalization of distressed neighborhoods in the
� cities of Saint Paul and Minneapolis.
Comprehensive Revrtalization and Finaricing Program
, The overall URAP program, including specific neighborhood programs and projects, that
the City must prepare in accordance with the URAP bill in order to receive State funds.
i 3
1
'
URAP Eligible Area • �
All of the census tracts in which the expenditure of URAP funds is allowable according to
the eligibility criteria in the legislation. '
URAP SoJt Area
The area within four blocks (approximately 2600 feet) of the eligible area in which URAP '
funds can be used at the City's discretion.
Targeted Neighborhood Area
The area designated by the City for the implementation of URAP program activities. It ,
may include any or all of the eligible census tracts plus some portion of the URAP soft
area.
Program Area �
A specific identified smaller area of a targeted neighborhood area that is to be improved as
part of a neighborhood revitalization program. '
Neighborhood Revitalization Program (Neighborhood Program)
The group of activities funded for revitalization of a defined neighborhood area. A
neighborhood program may include one or more projects. All URAP neighborhood ,
revitalization programs are part of the city's URAP program.
Project �
A specific activity to be undertaken as part of a neighborhood revitalization program.
Low and Moderate Income �
Those households with incomes less than 8096 of the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area
median income, with adjustments for family size based on federal government guidelines.
�
IV. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
URAP ELIGIBLE AREA �
The following census tracts in Saint Paul meet the eligibility criteria established for URAP �
activities: 313, 314, 315, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 336, 337, 339, 340, 353, 359, 360,
361. Location is shown on the map on page S. Census tract 353 does not meet the �
eligibility criteria for Community Development Grants, which the City intends to use as�its ,
URAP matching funds.
Under provisions of the legislation establishing URAP, area outside these census tracts but
within four blocks of their boundaries may be eligible for URAP activity. This area is �
referred to in these guidelines as the URAP sojt area. The four block distance is defined
by the city according to the east-west dimension of the common residential block and is
approximately 2,600 feet. ,
,
4 1
�
,
���������������������u•..s���������������m��■ •���m�r�ms��R�mn��������tm��t�rr�t�sn��*
� � I '
E ° E �
o � ^ I
E � �_— �_� - ; o
' o �� '
.� N o � � N
�' ` �� � � °
C _,,�:.,.. I � ,....�. � � T �
' c`') V .� � � M
_, N �
� 0 � � :� L �0,.• ��
� � ' •
� C� ('7 �i .i� •..��. .
( � � � i j �
' �f'� ` �� • �n�
; �•�u.�•.t.\u�u�j� ••�.��•. O : ���
v
r - •
� �,' i� � i ��ll� :•.-
� ' ' / �, 5 �M ..� i.� ', �:: .��'�� N
C') �I �� • W
, �� � � � ` ;:� �..�
� N ^+ .. . �
� O ::}: � / '\ ::::�::�:::::titititir::::�:•::•::•:' �'�
::J Q
' 0 � �T:•:::: ::::;p'�.� � �:;:��::::::;���::::�::•:�:�:•:::::;�� W Z
� : M �.: :•�?:�:•� % :" • � o a
E � ° ::;�; _ � c:�.,�,�.::::�:::::::�;' w u
• � ��� �:��: " ;',� °z � a .n
_ �.-�.; :;'�'x�'�''c' .:��:::'•��•�• �c�:�::; � c..� Q a"o
�:• :�„y. ;f:':'!�o;GC,� :.,,�.,,�,.;:' � o W ..,
� _ o rn {� ;:;�',.,,.� .' r� m � a�
O i� O ...::���:�• •' _ F— N ��,,, '�
(� '. :.tV•.Y."..•* � � („) h--1 �.
•��r���A►1��w*f ..j.�.�� :• �•� ..e.• _ � 4 c C7 �
� t .•. ::•::: .. � �.z
�; �'i�° � N • ^� F— C7 a R!
�A :viti •:�i}�y,t�,� � i �;� ("') � N � W �J
E o c;�''r';: :��':� '� ::;; : :;�. �%�-y N Z a C7
� 'F�� ti,r••,�,: �:�. �:::•:::::::••• O , W J �" A
.• � ^ U d �
>' :��:�:��'•:::: (") V
�';• � �
� .Y: .Y.•:.• .•��•�•.� ■ �
�':. .:�•:'. :.4.':.':.:•:. ...i � �
• (� �:�`;�:��� f'•���' ��•�''�'�'• , • :::� .
*.:�••:: . ' •:•��:�::�:�::::.�'�::;; �
E � ' � :::,c�,;::: :;:�: • .,,s: ' ..s�:�::��::�:::::�::•.�' ;;� .
` o o .�;;; •;�!!!�; �'it�� ':s:. � �
, M • � �'�'� .., ,. 's�: C ....
� E�: �����:�':� ! . .+.• ..•. , + , .
C �n ; t°0 '� .rn.� �:� :
� \,� �:; :���: ::�:: �:�::.. ;c�-1 ,� � � � :� .
' .. _......,...� ;: ..., � -
. , t :�:�: ; . ,•.
� � ` ;�.• ..E{ ':_. .;{h?t—+� � .•o,s. .
: ' ,� � : ::� i � � �� � v��w
� � �� � e � t��• •{� � , • �y i � � � (") ��
('�7 ��r : `i (`� ,E � �;:�:� ('7 47 i t�A I � � �i�� ' � � "`
, � ' •` �'� _�;:; � ("); ('� �� f� I � � ��•
d (") � • � •
�y r � I • M ��' ,
• ��� �� �� I , i. � ��sa��uu�u���u������•
—��rs r� • � :�:ti�•:. � N� ..�� � �
, O � � ' •••••••••��•;•••••��v•• • �
T N � � ;: �'�'�;.`��.,.*.�:��:;;' : cD %
� o � : .: —�—-r
('7 N � . . .. •
M r ('7 I • i N•• i� I '� N
� � i� i� �
I 'r-� . . � �
•-.::�:�• � N � .�. ,. 1 �•
� • l � ��r� ;'� • � tn � f")
.• '� �/\
• �
' • - �,� — i� (j Y/
� �I • �. , p � ,� '�
• �: j M . � •
i N� �� � l'7 � �_J
. ;� r�: r •
� ' i/ `� . ,. � ' o
� � : r�i � � � � •,
' ............... ....�•. a �v , ,
o �. � :..•,
Y �
•
i N
•
, �
O � � •• �(`')
f'7 N i � � • b
e T • '�y,�
.
. -
.
:.•' S
� ...
'
�
TARGETED NEIGHBORHOOD AREA(S)
Targeted Neighborhood Area is the area designated by the city for the implementation of '
URAP program activities. It may include any or all of the URAP eligible census tracts
plus some portion of the URAP soft area. The Targeted Neighborhood Area or Areas will
be designated by the City Council after program selection has been completed, at the time ,
the revitalization and financing program is approved.
FUNDING ,
— There are no prescribed limits to the cost of a neighborhood revitalization program, '
except the limit of the appropriation of State funds and city match. The 1987-1989
biennial URAP funds (including matching dollars) are approximately $7,800,000.
— State funds are made available in two equal fiscal year appropriations. Depending on �
the initial program selection, additional funding cycles may be announced during the
biennium.
— URAP funds made available as loans may be recycled within a funded project for up �
to two years. After that period, loan rcpayments must be returned to the City. A
URAP revolving fund will be created in the City for the purpose of reinvesting
URAP funds in eligible neighborhoods with these loans. �
— Given the limited amount of URAP funding and the need to do programs of a scale
that will yield visible results, it is expected that from one to four major �
comprehensive neighborhood revitalization programs will be funded. Larger-scale
programs that cannot be approached with other resources are encouraged. The
minimum funding level for URAP programs will be $250,000.
— Non-profit agencies may include necessary and appropriate administrative costs '
directly attributable to program implementation. In order to maximize the use of
URAP funds as direct program expenditures, these administrative costs for any given ,
program may not exceed $25,000.
INELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES ,
— Funds may not be used to provide a service or exercise a function that is ordinarily
provided throughout the city, unless an increased level of the service is to be � '
provided in a targeted neighborhood.
— Funds may not be used in a manner that would displace current funding for �
activities by non-profit and neighborhood groups. Funds may be used for new
programs and to expand existing programs in eligible neighborhood areas.
— URAP funds are intended for physical and economic improvements and wiil not be ,
used for human service programs.
,
6 �
,
,
, ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS �
' District Councils.
Residential block club organizations.
Business Associations and Commercial Clubs.
' Non-profit organizations whose service area is primarily St. Paul neighborhoods and/or
clientele are St. Paul residents.
City departments and agencies.
� INELIGIBLE APPLICANTS
� Individuals.
Single businesses.
For-profit corporations.
' Political parties and related political interest groups.
Churches and religious organizations.
Public and private educational institutions.
Special interest groups.
� Note: It is anticipated that many entities not eligible as program applicants will be active
participants in revitalization programs in a partnership role with other organizations.
,
ELIGIBLE IMPLEMENTING GROUPS
� Eligible implementing groups include City departments, public agencies, and SOIC(3) non-
profit organizations which have demonstratcd the capacity and experience to perform the
tasks or activities identified. The specific implementation roles of non-profits will be
, developed with PED prior to final program application.
, V. URAP POLICIES
� Neighborhood Implementation. Overall administration of URAP program activities will be
the responsibility of the Department of Planning and Economic Development. It is
anticipated that PED will contract for implementation with some entities including non-. �
' profit organizations active in city neighborhoods. URAP funds will not be used to
duplicate staff capability that already exists in PED, City departments or agencies, or
neighborhood organizations.
, Loans and Grants. Where resources are made available for private improvement activity,
they should take the form of loans rather than grants wherever possible so that URAP
dollars can be reinvested. Grant-making program proposals should be funded only if it is
' clear that 1) no approach which recycles funds is appropriate for the situation and 2) the
problem addressed is a particularly high priority in the neighborhood.
'
� 7
,
'
Low and Moderate Income Benefit. The aim of revitalization is both better livin and �
S
working opportunity for the residents of the core neighborhoods, and improved
neighborhood confidence. Low and moderate income households should benefit from ,
improved housing, shopping, and employment opportunities. In addition to low income
housing need, in certain areas market-rate housing development may be needed. This
housing shall be developed to meet objectives of increased ownership, economic soundness, '
and the market potential most reasonable for the neighborhood.
Displacement. Residential and commercial displacement should be minimal, but it is ,
recognized that some displacement may be required to meet some revitalization objectives.
Any displacement necessary for completion of any URAP proposals must be clearly
identified and the costs budgeted for. Displacement and relocation assistance will be
governed by all applicable federal and state laws and local policies. �
Geographic Targeting. URAP funds should address the most serious physical and
emp!oyment defic.iencies and obstacles to sound neighborhood environments in the eligible '
areas, so far as this can be done within the constraints of time, money, and need for
measurable results. City and neighborhood experience with improvement efforts has
demonstrated the value of geographic concentration. Proposals should identify with
boundaries the geographic area addressed, and there should be a clear relationship between �
the needs of the area and the components of the program proposed.
Scale of Programs. URAP programs should be of a sufficient scale within the targeted �
area to allow for confidence that a significant and lasting impact can be realized over a
short period of time. They should provide a comprehensive approach to area problems and
should draw on additional resources and supporting programs to ensure that related
problems or opportunities are addressed. �
Priority Needs. URAP program activities should be those which will contribute the most to
positive and lasting change in a neighborhood: the actions most necessary to arrest a trend �
of deterioration or to encourage adequate continuing investment.
Program Mix. The total city program (not necessarily each neighborhood program) should '
include a mix of housing and economic development activities reflecting the needs and
priorities of the URAP eligible neighborhoods.
Use of the URAP Soft Area. Because of tl�c dcsire to concentrate activities for maximum �
impact, proposals for program activity in URAP Soft Area are discouraged. URAP funded
activity may be proposed for portions of the URAP Soft Area when the Soft Area proposed �
for inclusion is a natural but minor portion of a program area that is primarily within the '
URAP Elig'ible Area. Soft Area inclusion should be necessary for successful completion of
the activities proposed.
Cases include the side of a boundary street outside the URAP Eligible Area where program �
activity (such as residential and commercial revitalization) must include block fronts on
both sides of the street or where conditions targeted for improvement within an eligible
tract clearly extend into the adjacent Soft Area to a natural or existing boundary. ,
Excluded Areas. The development and redevelopment areas established in the river
corridor by the Riverfront Pre-Development Plan and the capitol mall area, though within �
URAP eligible census tracts, are identified as inappropriate for URAP activity. The
capitol mall area is bounded by University Avenue on the north, Robert Street on the east,
Interstate 94 on the south, and Rice Street on the west.
8 �
'
,
1 .
Program Activities. Specific activities might include, but are not limited to, the following:
� — The preparation of development sites (acquisition of properties, land assembly,
correcting soil problems, vacating public right-of-way, etc.).
' — The removal or rehabilitation of substandard, vacant, hazardous, and blighted
buildings.
' — The rehabilitation of existing commercial and industrial properties through rehab
f inancing programs and business incentives.
— New commercial development
, — Housing development and rehabilitation to provide a mix of housing types at various
price ranges within the neighborhoods for both home-buyers and renters.
' — Home-ownership financing programs.
— The relocation of displaced occupants.
, — Neighborhood environment improvement including on-going clean-up and code
enforcement.
' — The installation of new public improvements in residential and commercial areas.
� — Business expansion and job creation/retention programs.
Employment Requirements. Where appropriate, projects will be expected to demonstrate
commitment to the creation of employment opportunities by developing a First Source
' Agreement in conjunction with PED staff. Applicable state and federal labor standards
will be followed in any program construction activity.
'
, VI. SELECTION CRITERIA
The CIB Committee will be guided by the following criteria in recommending proposals to
' the Mayor and City Council for funding:
— The extent to which proposals address a documented priority need and the expected
' _ long-term benefit to the revitalization of the area.
The extent to which multiple resources, including existing programs and private
sector participation, are brought together to address the problems of a specified area.
, — The extent to which a proposal represents, or is a part of, a comprehensive approach
to the problems of a given area.
, — The potential for highly visible or measurable results over a short period of time.
' 9
�
�
— v iv m h h will o determine �ro ram and ro'ect '
The e aluat e et ods t at be used t p g p �
effectiveness, including the ways in which data will be collected and analyzed for
this purpose. �
— The extent to which existing jobs are retained and new jobs are created in the URAP
eligible neighborhoods and/or for thc residents of those areas. (Coordination with �
the First Source Agreement process will be expected.)
— The increase in new home-ownership opportunities and affordable rental �
opportunities for low and moderate income residents.
— The extent to which a proposal will allow for recycling and reinvestment of URAP
funds, except that special consideration may be needed where no form of recycling is ,
appropriate or possible with respect to a given critical need.
— The extent�to which land use patterns and relationships are improved. �
— The potential increase in neighborhood property values.
— The recommendations of District Councils and the ways in which programs foster '
neighborhood participation.
— The extent to which a proposal represents appropriate neighborhood/PED '
cooperation.
— The Planning Commission's rating of program compliance with the City's Capital �
Allocation Plan and Comprehensive Plan.
'
VII. PROGRAAZ APPLICATION, SELECTION, FUNDING,
AND IMPLEMENTATION ROLES �
PROGRAM APPLICATION ,
Applicants will submit a one-page pre-application form for each proposal to the
Community Development Division, Department of Planning and Economic Development.� '
With all proposals identified, PED representatives will meet with neighborhood
representatives for each planning district to review all activity proposed for the area.
Staff assistance will be assigned where appropriate for complete proposal development. '
Final applications will be due for the CIB Committee review process approximately two
months after the preliminary application date. They should be sent or delivered to the
Community Development Division, City Hall Annex room 1420, Saint Paul, MN 55102. ,
'
10 ,
'
,
�
Applicant
, 1. ldcntify rcvitalization nccds/problcros within the area.
2. Proposc improvcmcnt activitics which arc consistcnt with district plans and city plans
� and policics.
3. Notify PED of possiblc intcrest in program.
4. Rcqucst tcchnical assistance from PED if dcsired.
5. Kccp thc appropriatc District Council informed of the proposal and clicit their
' support.
6. Submit prc-application and formal application to PED.
' Distric[ Council
l. Providc ncccssary communication among applicants within district.
?. Rcvicw all applications from within a district and forward to PED.
, 3. Maintain contact with applicant and PED regarding program proposals.
PED
, 1. Notify District Councils and neighborhood organizations of funding cycles and
application schcdulc.
' 2. Disscminatc program information through news media.
3. Respond to spccific requcsts for information dealing with application development.
4. Submit all applications to appropriate District Councils for review.
5. PED staff will:
� - Advise the district council and applicant organizations on the feasibility and
implications of proposals and on compliance and funding regulations.
' - Provide technical assistance on program proposals.
- Present and discuss citywide goals, policies and considerations which may affect
the application.
- Communicate with city departments and agencies in order to find out about plans,
, programs, and other considerations which may affect application proposals.
- Act as a clearinghouse for all program proposals and provide information on
proposals back to District Councils.
� - Act as a clearinghouse for tracking new jobs created and/or retained and provide
the First Sourcc Agreement process as a means for doing this.
- Work wiih neighborhood groups in identifying those instances where funding
' sources other than URAP are available and appropriate to address the
problem.
'
,
'
'
11
'
'
. �
PROGRAM SELECTION
The Saint Paul Long Range Capital Improvements Budget (CIB) Committee will evaluate all '
program proposals and recommend a city revitalization program to the Mayor and City
Council. In their evaluation the CIB Committee will consider the recommendations of all
applicants, district councils, the Planning Commission, and the Department of Planning and �
Economic Development. Upon receipt of recommendations from the CIB Committee, the
Mayor will forward the recommended program to the City Council with his own
recommendations. The City Council, following a public hearing, will make the final '
determination of all program activities to be included in the City's draft revitalization
program to be submitted to the State for review.
Applicant '
1. Provide program representatives who can explain the application to the CIB
Committec. ,
2. Maintain communication within district and area about the selection process.
District Council '
1. Evaluate applications and establish neighborhood priorities.
2. Forward recommendations and priorities to PED and CIB Committee.
PED !
1. Evaluate applications for implementation feasibility and general appropriateness. ,
2. Forward recommendations and priorities to the Planning Commission and CIB
Committee.
Planning Commission '
1. Rate proposals for conformance with Capital Allocation Plan and Comprehensive
Plan. '
2. Review proposals for conformance with URAP guidelines.
CIB Committee
1. Review and rate proposals according to established selection criteria, URAP , �
objectives and guidelines, applicable city policies, and recommendations made by.
the Planning Commission and District Councils. '
2. Submit a recommended city URAP program to Mayor and City Council.
Mayor '
1. Review recommendations from CIB Committee.
2. Forward CIB Committee and Mayor's recommendations and his recommendations to
City Council.
City Council '
1. Review Mayor's recommendations. '
2. Approve programs for funding.
12 '
,
'
'
PROGRAM SUBMISSION AND FUNDING
, The City will complete a draft revitalization and financing program according to the
specifications of Chapter 386, Laws of Minnesota for 1987, and submit the draft program
to the commissioner of trade and economic development and the Minnesota Housing
' Finance Agency for review. Following review by the state agencies, the City Council will
adopt the final Comprehensive Revitalization and Financing Plan for submission to the
State for funding. The State funds and City matching funds will be designated as targeted
' neighborhood money for use by the City in accordance with the adopted program.
City Council
' 1. Designate targeted neighborhoods following census tract eligibility and selected
extensions allowed by URAP legislation.
2. Submit a draft Comprehensive Revitalization and Financing Program for state
' agency review.
3. Respond to state agency comments before adoption of the program.
4. Hold a public hearing on the Comprehensive Revitalization and Financing Program.
' S. Adopt final program and provide a copies to the commissioner of energy and
economic development and the Minnesota housing finance agency.
, PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
All agencies with program implementation responsibilities will work with the Department
� of Planning and Economic Development to refine work programs and
complete contract specifications. PED will clarify monitoring and evaluation
responsibilities for all program activities.
' Selected URAP applicant/implementor
1. Define work program and time schedule necessary to implementation.
, 2. Non-City implementing organizations will enter into an implementation agreement
with the City of St. Paul.
3. Provide quarterly program progress reports to PED and to District Councils.
, 4. Complete annual evaluations of programs and an evaluation and audit at completion.
District Council ,
, 1. May assist applicant in program implementation if requested.
2. Provide for necessary communication within the district regarding the status of the
area activities.
, PED
, 1. For non-City implemented programs, assign a PED staff person to each selected
program to assist.in the development and implementation of the program. Specific
responsibilities include assisting in:
- Establishing program responsibilities
' - Developing a program schedule
- Finalizing program costs
- Drafting the final program
' - Securing necessary approvals for implementation of any supplementary programs.
13
'
1
- Enter into an agreement with the project implementing organization. ,
- Monitoring program progress
- Communicating with other city departments or agencies '
2. Regularly (every 6 months) inform the Planning Commission of the status of the
URAP program.
3. Maintain on-going contact with the chairpersons of the Saint Paul Senate and House ,
delegations.
VIII. PROGRAM AND PROJECT EVALUATION '
Programs will be monitored on a quarterly basis to allow for timely adjustment where '
necessary. They will be evaluated for success according to original objectives.
PED will be responsible for the overall evaluation of the URAP program. Continued '
funding of URAP depends on the measurable success of initially funded programs.
Programs and projects will be evaluated at the end of calendar years with particular
attention to reporting requirements included in state URAP enabling legislation. These '
include:
— The number of housing units created or lost as a result of the program and the level '
of rent of the units and the income of the households affected.
— The number and type of commercial establishments created or lost.
— The number of jobs created by job category and the salary or wage levels of both new �
and expanded jobs in affected commercial establishments.
— The increase in the assessed valuation for the city as a result of commercial and '
housing assistance.
— The amount of private investment th�t is a result of the use of public money in a '
targeted neighborhood.
. '
�
'
�
'
14 '
,