The URL can be used to link to this page

87-111 WMITE - CITV �LERK PINK - FINANCE G I TY O F SA I NT PA U L Council �� _ /,�� CANARV - DEPARTMENT BLUE - MAVOR File NO. . . Co cil Resolution , � � Presented By Referred To �//U/�"��L Committee: Date —� � Out of Committee By Date WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Saint Paul is responsible for providing policy guidance in the annual preparation of the Capital Improvement Budget; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the policies adopted as part of the 1986-1987 Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policy, and has revised them as indicated in the attached copy; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission released the revised Capital Allocation Policy for public review and held a public hearing on the document on December 5 , 1986; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approves and recommends adoption of the policies entitled Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policy: 1988-1989 for use in the Unified Capital Improvements Program and Budget Process; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby adopts the attached Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policy: 1988-1989 for use in the Unified Capital Improvements Program and Budget Process; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council directs transmittal to the Neighborhood Contact List, the Long Range Capital Improvement Budget Committee and its task forces , the Saint Paul Planning Commission and appropriate City staff persons . COUNCILMEN Requested b Department of: Yeas Drew Nays � � � � Ret� [n Favor s�ne�bei � s,,,� __ Against BY Tedeseo w`�� JAN 2 9 1987 Form Approve y City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date Certified Yas• b cil Sec BY By- Approved by �lavor: Date �� l''�� j�' # Appro ed y ayor for Subm' io to Council Bv --��"�� `-�'� � BY ��S�ED ^r? I — �J�� f�J �- /r�/ �6��•��.� CI'1`Y OF SAINT PAUL o � � OFFICE OF THE MAYOR � ti�i i 1��i s' s a�m ,�v +... 347 CITY HALL SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 GEORGE LATIMER (612) 298-4323 MAYOR December 22, 1986 President Victor Tedesco and City Council Members Seventh Floor, City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear President Tedesco and Members of the City Council: I am pleased to transmit to you two documents recently adopted by the Planning Commission: the 1988-1992 Program for Capital Improvements (PCI ) and the 1988-1989 Capital Allocation Policy. In order to have these documents available for the 1988-1989 capital budgeting cycle, you must adopt them by January 22, 1987. The attached letter from Dave Lanegran explains the nature of the PCI and CAP, highlights the changes in the two documents, and lists the issues that arose with their recent revisions. Peggy Lexau of the Planning Division staff will be happy to meet with you to discuss the PCI and CAP in greater detail. She will be calling your offices next week to see if you would be interested in such a meeting. Very truly ours, eor La imer MAYO GL/PL/bp Attachment �.a , • � �7`/�� b CiT! OP '�� ' CITY OF SAINT PAUL 4 7. � ��„�� ; DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT �o �" DIVISION OF PLANNING +as. 25 West Fourth Street,Saint Paui,Minnesota 55102 612-292-1577 GEORGE LATIMER MAYOR December 22, 1986 The Honorable George Latimer 347 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Mayor Latimer: The Planning Commission is pleased to present to you the 1988-1992 Program for Capital Improvements (PCI) and the 1988-1989 Capital Allocation Policy (CAP). As you may recall, the PCI is a plan for capital investment for the five-year period 1988 through 1992, and the CAP is a set of policy statements used to guide budget decision-making for the upcoming biennial budgeting process. We urge you to review the documents, and adopt them as part of the city's Comprehensive Plan. Over the past eight years, the PCI and CAP have served as vehicles for infusing a citywide perspective into the capital budgeting process. The Planning Commission revises them every two years in preparation for the new budget cycle, and strives to improve them with each revision. As the PCI and CAP become more complete and strategic in orientation, they will provide capital budget decision-makers with a more comprehensive, long-range view of what the city's capital spending priorities should be. Both documents have improved greatly from their original versions. The PCI in particular has become more valuable as it has gained in scope from the first version produced in 1980. Originally it encompassed only Public Works and Parks projects; now it includes project estimates from all city departments. For the first time we have a complete five-year overview of all departments' estimated capital needs, and a grasp of how department priorities will have to compete for available capital funding. The CAP has undergone less sweeping changes, but this revision has strengthened the tie between capital and operating budget decision-making. This revision will also clarify the city's assessment policy and document the guidelines for the new Combined Street and Sewer Program. Despite the progress we have made so far, however, we recognize that there are still many ways to improve the PCI and CAP further. With this last revision, many questions arose regarding the role of the two documents in the capital budgeting process. The Planning Commission, Planning Division staff and staff from other city departments all expressed a number of concerns, as summarized below: -- The cost of the projects listed in the PCI far outweigh estimated resources, thus weakening the document as a planning tool. Some city department staff feel that the PCI should be a place for departments to list all their perceived needs regardless of funding availability, while others feel that it should represent a list of the city's top priority projects, closely tied to available funding. . ' ��//� Honorable George Latimer December 22, 1986 Page Two -- The Planning Commission's perceived role with regard to the PCI is to review the departments' estimated capital needs from a citywide perspective. If estimates far exceed available resources, the Commission should reduce the departments' programs according to city priorities for capital spending. However, the Planning Commission had a difficult time of doing so with this version of the PCI. We feel that before we can pass judgment on specific projects, we need a broad consensus on the city's capital priorities. -- The Capital Allocation Policy is the logical vehicle to state overall city priorities and guide departments in their capital planning. However, the process by which the CAP is revised is currently inadequate to generate a consensus on what the city capital priorities should be. The Planning Commission is committed to approach the next revision of the PCI and CAP in a much more strategic fashion. The Planning Commission will undertake a study early next year to address the above issues and establish a clearer role for the PCI and CAP in the budgeting process. The aim of the study, which should include representatives from the Planning Commission, the CIB Committee, the Budget Office, the planning staff and other city staff, will be to resolve the problems with the PCI and CAP well before the 1990- 1991 capital budget cycle. Although we have concerns about the current PCI and CAP, they represent much thought and discussion between city departments and the Planning Commission. They will be valuable tools in the next budget cycle as you determine the focus of the 1988-1989 capital budgets. Sincerely, (�W�' � � � � � �� David Lanegran Planning Commission Chair ' � ' . �,�-ii/ � city of saint paui planning commission resolution f�e number 86-124 . (�te December 19, 1986 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul is charged with the development and biennial review of the Program for Capital Improvements in accordance with the 1976 Metropolitan Land Planning Act; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and revised the 1986-1990 Program for Capital Improvements as indicated in the attached copy, released the document for public review and held a public hearing on the PCI on November 7th, 1986; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is also charged with responsibility for development and review of policy to guide the Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process (UCIPBP); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the policies adopted as part of the 1986- 1987 Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policy and has revised them as indicated in the attached copy; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission released the revised Capital Allocation Policy for public review and held a public hearing on the document on December Sth, 1986; NOW, 'THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby adopts the 1988-1992 Program for Capital Improvements as a segment of the Comprehensive Plan, and BE IT' FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commiss-ion approves and adopts as part of the Comprehensive Plan the policies entitled Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policy: 1988- 1989, as revised; and . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of both documents be transmitted to the Mayor and City Council of the City of Saint Paul for review and adoption. moved by McDonell �«'�d � Trei chel � Unanimous . in av�or— - _ _ . � _ against— Planning•and Economic Development DEPARTMEN7 . ' �a � /`/ N° _ 0'7 0 5 ,Pa�y;._Lexau CONTACT 3230 PHANE , �� _December 23, 1986 DATE � � �, ASSIGN NUNBER FOR-ROWTING ORDER Cl i Al l Locations �or �Si, nature : , Department Director 4 Director of Management/Mayor � Finance and Management Services Director � 5 City Clerk „^, Budget Director � 1 Peggy Reichert�jt 3 City Attorney ,.._ yHAT WILL BE ACN:IEVED BY TAKING ACTION ON THE ATTACHED MATERIALS? (Purpose/ - . Rationale) : The Planning Commission has adopted revised versions of the Program for Capital Improvements ( .CI) and the Capftal Allocation Policy (CAP). The documents must be transrrritted to tMe City Council �for adoption by January 22, in order to be used for the next capital budgeting process. The Planning Cotr�ission summarizes the major issues that arose with tMe revision of these two documents in an attached letter from the Planning Commission Chair to the Mayor and City Counci .. A draft transmittal letter from the Mayor to City Council and draft City Council resolution are aC��T��F��; BUDGETARY AND PERSOI�NEL IMPACTS �4NTICIPATED: RECE4�� DF(' 2 9 1q�� . _ C�TY AT� ��rr;��LY FINANCING SOURCE AND BUDGET ACTIVITY NUMBER CHARGED OR CREDITED: (Mayor's signa- � ture not re- Tota1 Amount of "Transaction: quired if under . . � �10,00Q) Fund:�ng Source: � - Activity Number: RTTACHMENTS (List and Number All Attachments) : 1. Transmittal letter from Mayor to City Council (for Mayor's signature) 2. Letters from Planning Commission Chair to Mayor and �ity Council � 3. Dr.aft City ,Council Resolutiora� 4. Ten copies each of the Program for Capital. Improvements and the Capital Allocation Policy. : DEPARTMENT REVIEW CITY ATTORhEY REYIEW �Yes No Cnuncil Resolution Required? ' Resolution Required? X Yes No � Yes No Insurance Required? Insurance Sufficient? Yes�-- No � Yes No Insurance Attached: , : . , (SEE •REVERSE SIDE FOR I,NSTRUCTIONS) Revised 12/84 . �� _ ��i �°``1 T o'', � ,� CITY OF SAINT PAUL � ��;��,�� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT +, ,.� DIVISION OF PLANNING +.s. 2S Wat fourth Street,Sainl Paul,Minnesota 55102 6�2-29z-�sn GEORGE UTIMER MAYOR December 22, 1986 President Victor Tedesco and the Honorable Members of the City Council Seventh Floor City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear President Tedesco and City Councilmembers: The Planning Commission is pleased to present to you the 1988-1992 Program for Capital Improvements (PCI) and the 1988-1989 Capital Allocation Policy (CAP). As you may recall, the PCI is a plan for capital investment for the five-year period 1988 through 1992, and the CAP is a set of policy statements used to guide budget decision-making for the upcoming biennial budgeting process. We urge you to review the documents, and adopt them as part of the city's Comprehensive Plan. Over the past eight years, the PCI and CAP have served as vehicles for infusing a citywide perspective into the capital budgeting process. The Planning Commission revises them every two years in preparation for the new budget cycle, and strives to improve them with each revision. As the PCI and CAP become more complete and strategic in orientation, they will provide capital budget decision-makers with a more comprehensive, long-range view of what the city's capital spending priorities should be. Both documents have improved greatly from their original versions. The PCI in particular has become more valuable as it has gained in scope from the first version produced in 1980. Originally it encompassed only Public Works and Parks projects; now it includes project estimates from all city departments. For the first time we have a complete five-year overview of all departments' estimated capital needs, and a grasp of how department priorities will have to compete for available capital funding. The CAP has undergone less sweeping changes, but this revision has strengthened the tie between capital and operating budget decision-making. This revision will also clarify the city's assessment policy and document the guidelines for the new Combined Street and Sewer Program. Despite the progress we have made so far, however, we recognize that there are still many ways to improve the PCI and CAP further. With this last revision, many questions arose regarding the role of the two documents in the capital budgeting process. The Planning Commission, Planning Division staff and staff from other city departments all expressed a number of concerns, as summarized below: -- The cost of the projects listed in the PCI far outweigh estimated resources, thus weakening the document as a planning tool. Some city department staff feel that the PCI should be a place for departments to list all their perceived - needs regardless of funding availability, while others feel that it should represent a list of the city's top priority projects, closely tied to available funding. . �„- �� President Tedesco and Honorable Members of the City Council December 22, 1986 Page Two -- The Planning Commission's perceived role with regard to the PCI is to review the departments' estimated capital needs from a citywide perspective. If estimates far exceed available resources, the Commission should reduce the departments' programs according to city priorities for capital spending. However, the Planning Commission had a difficult time of doing so with this version. of the PCI. We feel that before we can pass judgment on specific projects, we need a broad consensus on the city's capital priorities. -- The Capital Allocation Policy is the logical vehicle to state overall city priorities and guide departments in their capital planning. However, the process by which the CAP is revised is currently inadequate to generate a consensus on what the city capital priorities should be. The Planning Commission is committed to approach the next revision of the PCI and CAP in a much more strategic fashion. The Planning Commission will undertake a study early next year to address the above issues and establish a clearer role for the PCI and CAP in the budgeting process. The aim of the study, which should include representatives from the Planning Commission, the CIB Committee, the Budget Office, the planning staff and other city staff, will be to resolve the problems with the PCI and CAP well before the 1990- 1991 capital budget cycle. Although we have concerns about the current PCI and CAP, they represent much thought and discussion between city departments and the Planning Commission. They will be valuable tools in the next budget cycle as you determine the focus of the 1988-1989 capital budgets. Sincerely, ' \ ,,/// �i�`��" C�r ��'�i '1 c:- David Lanegran � Planning Commission Chair . � ` ��l�/ city of saint paul planning commission resolution f ile number 86-124 . (�te December 19, 1986 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul is charged with the development and biennial review of the Program for Capital Improvements in accordance with the 1976 Metropolitan Land Planning Act; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and revised the 1986-1990 Program for Capital Improvements as indicated in the attached copy, released the document for public review and held a public hearing on the PCI on November 7th, 1986; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is also charged with responsibility for development and review of policy to guide the Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process (UCIPBP); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the policies adopted as part of the 1986- 1987 Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policy and has revised them as indicated in the attached copy; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission released the revised Capital Allocation Policy for public review and held a public hearing on the document on December Sth, 1986; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby adopts the 1988-1992 Program for Capital Improvements as a segment of the Comprehensive Plan, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves and adopts as part of the Comprehensive Plan the policies entitled Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policy: 1988- 1989, as revised; and . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of both documents be transmitted to the Mayor and City Council of the City of Saint Paul for review and adoption. moved by McDonell c�(;«'�d � Trei chel in fav�or ��-5 . _ _ against- ` �S^ � 7�- ,,� 0�� O`'�'� Q�� p� . �f'c'` O�c,� � �O S�INT �AUL C APITAL ALLO�AT'I�N �'OLIC:Y 198� s �� CITY OF SAINT PAUL DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPME{�!T DIVISION OF PLANNING i � �� TABLE OF CONTENTS lA Introduction 1 1.1 What is the Capital Allocation Policy? 1 1.2 Why have a Policy for Capital Fund 1 Allocation? 1.3 How is the Capital Allocation Policy 1 Used? 1.4 Organization of This Document 2 2.0 Context of the Capital Allocation Policy 3 2.1 Comprehensive Plan Objectives 3 2.2 Operating Budget Goals 3 2.3 Constraints 5 2.4 Goals for The Capital Improvement 5 Budget 3.0 The Policies 7 3.1 Strategy Policies 7 S1: Achievements of Comprehensive 9 Plan Objectives S2: Geographic Distribution 9 S3: Program for Capital Improvements 9 S4: Reporting 9 3.2 Evaluation Policies 11 E1: Infrastructure Maintenance and 13 Improvement � E2: Impact on Operating Budget 13 E3: Impact on City Revenues l3 E4: Grants 14 E5: Private Investment 14 E6: Streamlining City Operations 15 E7: Acquisition 15 E8: Duplication of Services 16 E9: Joint Use 16 E10: Continuation Projects 16 E11: Programming and Phasing 17 E12: Use 17 E13: Economic Development 17 E14: Housing Alternatives 18 E15: Neighborhood Betterment 18 E16: Energy Efficiency 18 E17: Sources of Input 18 E18: Conformance with City Plans 18 � � �� E19: Conformance with Program for 19 Capital Improvements E20: Public Environment and Historic 19 Preservation 3.3 Project Policies 21 P1: City Funding of Skyways 23 P2: New Facilities 23 P3: Program Allocations 24 P4: Extraordinary Capital Maintenance 24 P5: Urban Renewal Bond Redevelopment 25 P6: Combined Street and Sewer Program 26 3.4 Budget Policies 29 B1: Financing Sources 31 B2: CDBG Program 31 B3: Bond Financing 32 B4: Tax Increment Financing 33 B5: HRA General Fund 33 B6: HRA Development Fund 33 B7: Rehabilitation Loan Funds 34 B8: Sale/Leaseback 34 B9: UDAG Reinvestment 34 B10: Tax Abatement 35 B11: Assessment Policy 35 B12: Multi-Year Projection of Capital Finance Sources 35 4.0 Policy Implementation 36 S.0 Definitions 3? . �- �7��r 1.0 INTRODUCTION ------------------------------=------------ 1.1 WHAT IS THE CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICY? The 1988-1989 Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policy (CAP) is a set of policy statements used to guide the ge�eF��-di�-ec��o$--�€-�x�i�t#�a�-ea��a�____ f�p�ov$�e�4-�x��xdrE�eg��i��-�ko-upoe�tr�g-��e��rra�-�c�ge�i�g-pFOee�s�s:------- budr�et decision-makinQ for vrenarinQ the citv's Canital Imnrovement Budr�et �nd Tentantive Five-Year Pro�ram. The nolicv statements nrovide useful �lirection durinQ •the uncomina biennial budQetina nrocess to nersons reauiestin� nroiect fundina. the citv staff who onerate and maintain �mnrovements and the citizens of the CIB Committee and Task Forces who evaluate reauiests and recommend financina nriorities to the Mavor and Citv uncil. The 1988-1989 Capital Allocation Policy represents the ninth update of this � document. It was prepared by the Planning Commission with the assistance of an Ad Hoc Citizen Advisory Committee, which is charged with the responsibility of reviewing and revising the policies to reflect current city goals and priorities. Each biennium, the recommendations of the Planning Commission are transmitted to the Mayor and City Council for subsequent review and adoption by the City Council. ------------------------------------------- 1.2 WHY HAVE A POLICY FOR CAPITAL FUNDS ALLOCATION? Reauests for financing capital improvement �eodg projects in the City of Saint Paul �enerallv exceed the amount of available capital resources. To provide the greatest benefit to the city, the Capital Improvement Budget must �eet-finance the nroiects which address the most serious needs. For this reason, it is essential to determine the relative priority of proposed projects and allocate resources accordingly. The CAP works to insure that high priority projects that meet city goals are funded during the budget biennium. It transforms city goals and priorities , into a set of policies that provide guidance for capital budgeting decisions. -------------------------------------------- 1.3 HOW IS THE CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICY USED? The policies in the CAP are used during the Unified Capital Improvement Programming and Budgeting Process (UCIPBP) to: 1) help guide the development of capital improvement budget proposals; �} g�i�e-t�h��reev�ew-o€-p�eijese�s:--- � heln �uide the analvsis of individual nronosals: � heln auide the financine nriorities of the CIB Task Forces and Committee 1 � �,- �-�-�� heln the Mavor and Citv Council focus on the need to closelv � coordinate budget decisions for canital imorovments with lon� ran�e �neratinQ and maintenance obli�ations of the citv. The CAP is the first part of a two part document. The second part, the Program for Capital Improvements (PCI), lists the proposed capital projects of all of the city's departments for the next five years. Projects listed in the PCI reflect the priorities defined in the CAP. Neighborhood organizations, District Councils, city operating departments, the Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) Committee and its Task Forces, the Planning Commission, the Mayor and City Council all use the CAP and the � PCI to prepare and evaluate capital improvement proposals. -------------------------------------------- 1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THIS DOCUMENT Chapter 1.0 - Provides a general introduction to this document. Chapter 2.0 - Presents the underlying rationale for the policies. It includes a discussion of goals, current issues and other supportive information regarding the policies. Chapter 3.0 - Contains the policies, which are divided into four sections: Strategy, Implementation, Project and Budget. Straterv Policies - look at the budget as a whole and measure whether funds are being allocated in a representative and responsive way. ��rt�eit�e�ts��o�r-�o-�re-i�es---£valuation Policies - provide specific measures for evaluating individual projects. Proiect Policies - provide guidance for specific projects or fund sources that are not a permanent part of the budget process. Budget Policies - describe the fund sources and how they may be used. Chapter 4.0 - Assigns responsibilities for monitoring and implementing the :_ policies. While the City Council has final responsibility for adopting the Capital Improvement Budget, the Planning Commission, CIB Committee, and Mayor's Office Budget Section share responsibility for monitoring and : implementation of the policies during the proposal review and budget preparation process. Chapter 5.0 - Provides definitions of some important terms. 2 ` � �� 2.0 CONTEXT OF THE CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICY: GOALS AND CONSTRAINTS -------------------------------------------- --- Capital improvement budgeting takes place within the context of city goals and constraints. Neighborhoods, city departments, civic organizations and individuals all have goals for the city. Many of these groups develop capital proposals to help achieve their goals. Capital resources, however, are not sufficient to fully implement all capital proposals. In addition, shortages of information and time may result in proposals that do not achieve the intended result. The constraints of funding, imperfect information and time impedes the ability of groups to achieve their goals. -------------------------------------------- 2.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OBJECTIVES Through the adopted Comprehensive Plan, Saint Paul has a set of objectives that should form the basis for capital improvement decision making. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes that the city does not have the resources to fully satisfy the many wants and needs in the city. Therefore, it proposes that the city must focus its resources on the following four key objectives. 1. Infrastructure - Maintain city investments, particularly sewer and water lines, streets, lighting, sidewalks, bridges, public buildings and existing parks, through repair and replacement as needed. 2. �gbs - Maintain existing jobs in Saint Paul while seeking to expand available employment opportunities. 3. HousinQ - Maintain and upgrade the city's existing housing stock and generate construction of new, affordable housing choices in character with the neighborhoods surrounding them. 4. Enerav - Achieve greater energy efficiency by maintaining and rehabilitating existing structures while encouraging energy conservation and innovation. Each of these objectives is reflected in the policies that follow this section. -------------------------------------------- 2.2 OPERATING BUDGET GOALS The Mayor's Office has also developed goals for the General, Special Funds and Debt Service budgets. Because spending in capital expenditures strongly affects these budgets, it is important to be aware of these budget goals. 1986 general goals for these budgets are: I. Maintain the fiscal integrity of the city's operating, debt service and capital improvement budgets which provide services, maintain public infrastructure, and promote the expansion of the private tax base. 3 ' � ��-i�r 2. Improve the capability of city managers and elected officials to make annual budget decisions based on a longer term strategic planning perspective. 3. Prepare and annually refine written goals and policies to guide the preparation of the city budget. 4. Prepare performance plans that are useful to decision makers in adopting the city's annual financing and spending plans. 5. Obtain and maintain an "AAA" bond rating to lower long-term interest expense. ¢; Coordinate decision-makinQ for the onerating bud�et with the canital imnrovement bud�et to make effective use of the citv's limited �r�sources for oneratinQ and maintainin� facilities. 7 Incarnorate self-reliance in the citv's financin�, s�endina and nerformance nlans. A self-reliant citv makes ureater use of its own resources takes care of its own and creates its own onnortunities for a better life. More soecificallv the nlans should: --involve and enaar�e evervone. --foster economic develovment in neiQhborhoods and downtwon to exnand the tax base and retain and create iobs, esneciallv for dislocated workers and the disadvantaaed. --siren¢then our neighborhoods throuah service deliverv and �ooneration with neiahborhood arouns, and --stren�then citv aovernment as an or�anization dedicated to servina the neonle of Saint Paul. � Emplov aood manaaement nractices in formulation and imnlementation of the citv's financinQ. s�endin� and nerformance nlans bv includin�: --nroductivitv onnortunities such as office automation and comnuter annlications that increase nroductivitv. --eauinment modernization. --work-flow simnlification. --�llowance for risk manas�ement. --nreventive maintenance, and --energv conservation. It is essential to recognize the close tie between the oneratina and canital im�rovement budaets. New facilities funded in the canital imnrovement budnet mav increase necessarv ooeratin� costs. Converselv, deferral of maint�nance, or oneratinr� costs. mav result in increased caoital im�rovement exnenditures as facilities deteriorate and reauire renlacement. This close inter-relationshin reauires that canital imnrovement and oneratin� activities be coordinated to insure the most efficient and effective use of citv resources. In recoQnition of these needs, the canital imnrovement budaet �oals should reflect the nolicies of these narallel budaets. 4 ' � ��r -------------------------------------------- 2.3 CONSTRAINTS The City of Saint Paul operates under certain budget constraints. i 1 dollars from all sources are limited: Annendix A disnlavs estimated financinQ available for canital imnrovements from 1988 to 1992. For the capital improvement budget, an important constraint is the self-imposed limit on bonding designed to reduce overlapping general obligation debt. This limit applies to general obligation bonds, including Capital Improvement Bonds, Water Pollution Abatement Bonds, Urban Renewal Bonds, Tax Increment . Bonds. and S�ecial Assessment Bonds for street navin¢. Another major constraint is Saint Paul's commitment to separating its combined storm and sanitary sewers, and to paving streets in conjunction with that effort. In 1985, the Minnesota State Legislature produced a funding partnership which allowed this accelerated sewer separation program to be adopted in Saint Paul. The legislative package commits the city, the metropolitan area and the state to complete separation in 10 years at a cost of $150 million. The commitment does not end with sewer separation, however. The city has also decided to take this opportunity to pave streets in the vicinity of the sewer projects--both those directly over new sewers and those within the separated drainage areas. While much of the money needed for street paving will come from assessments and from storm sewer charges, a large portion must come from the city's Capital Improvement Bonding authorization. -------------------------------------------- 2.4 GOALS FOR THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET With these considerations as a framework, the capital improvement budget goals are: 1) TO MAINTAIN THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF CITY RESIDENTS THROUGH THE PRESERVATION E�-��-,4B�E�P�B�£-- ��E-��£�---P��--��£---�-D£A�T��-0#;---�E P A I R. REPLACEMENT. OR CONSOLIDATION OF VIABLE PUBLIC FACILITIES WHICH PROVIDE EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE SERVICE DELIVERY. E�F-E�BSO�&�=Fr�A�£��&--- This goal emphasizes the need to allocate funds according to the needs of � people, not places. It also recognizes that project proposals are based both on wants and needs. There will always be a gap between what the city would ' like to fund and what can actually be funded. Projects with the highest priority should be those based on needs, those that preserve health, welfare and safety. 2) TO HELP RESERVE THE FISCAL INTEGRITY OF THE CITY BY ENGAGING IN CAREFUL AND THOROUGH ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL PROPOSALS INCLUDING THEIR LONG-RANGE IMPACT ON OPERA'TING COSTS AND REVENUE GENERATION. 5 � Cdr— ��> Project proposals should, as accurately as possible, outline impacts on operating budgets and energy costs and identify the advantage over other alternatives that may serve the same purpose. 3) TO PROMOTE THE ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OBJECTIVES OF INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTENANCE, JOBS MAINTENANCE AND CREATION, HOUSING MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT, AND ENERGY CONSERVATION TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE. 4) TO IMPROVE THE DECISION MAKING ABILITIES OF BOTH THE PROPOSERS AND EVALUATORS OF CAPITAL PROJECTS BY CLARIFYING AND SPECIFYING CRITERIA USED TO EVALUATE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROPOSALS. 6 . �, � �, . 3.0 THE POLICIES -------------------------------------------- 3.1 STRATEGY POLICIES The strategy policies provide for monitoring the capital budget as a whole. These policies help the city determine the effectiveness of capital spending in achieving city goals. These policies are not prescriptive, rather they are designed as evaluative devices. Analysis of the information yielded through monitoring should allow the city to continue to appraise and amend policies as needed to keep this document current and effective. The strategy policies are implemented by the Planning Commission through biennial reporting procedure. 7 , �-�y-<�r S1: Achievement of Comnrehensive Plan Obiectives The biennial capital improvement budget should be evaluated to assure that the discretionary portion of the capital improvement � budget is addressing identified objectives. These objectives are: a) Infrastructure Maintenance b) Job Maintenance and Expansion c) Housing Maintenance and Improvement d) Energy Efficiency Because the relative importance of these objectives will shift from . year to year, no desirable proportion of discretionary capital improvement dollars to be spent on each objective is identified. , However, the report should include a rationale for the proportion of funds spent on each objective. S2: Geo�ranhic Distribution The proportion of capital improvement money spent in each citizen participation district should be evaluated over time. This information may help identify areas of the city that are being underserved or where maintenance deferral will cause future problems. Because the geographic distribution of capital improvement spending may vary greatly from year to year, monitoring of this policy should include each of the past five budget years. Special grants, costs borne by other units of government or private sector and assessments for the particular project will be excluded from this calculation. S3: Pror�ram for Canital Imnrovements Because the city's capital improvement dollars are limited, it is desirable that city departments and citizen groups are thoughtful and systematic in preparing capital improvement proposals. For city departments, one indication of this is whether the proposal is found in the Program for Capital Improvements (PCI). To evaluate the use of the PCI and the proportion of projects actually funded in the PCI should be monitored over time. S4: Re�ortina The capital improvement budget will be monitored as described in these policies. .Results of this effort will be provided in a biennial report. 9 . �-�7 r�� -------------------------------------------- 3.2- ��R�F.�EN'�'A�IO��E?��5-�VALUATTON POLICIES The Implementation Policies identify criteria that are important in evaluating specific capital improvement projects. The criteria are grouped according to the goals for the capital improvement budget. The CIB committee uses these policies as a framework for developing their task force project rating sheet. The CIB Task Forces use the nolicies for obtaininr� a more thorou�h understandine of maior oolicv issues 11 ` � �7��i I. GOAL: TO MAINTAIN THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF CITY RESIDENTS THROUGH THE PRESERVATION E�F--��zA B�£-•-�t�B��--�A��d:��FrS---�4AI�3---��I E�----- ��3£�'�'��I£-14��E�,--REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT �_ : CONSOLIDATION OF VIABLE PUBLIC FACILITIES WHICH PROVIDE EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE SERVICE DELIVERY. 4F-E�BS�4�&'��'�1£�bF��--- E1: Infrastructure Maintenance and Imnrovement In evaluating the merits of each proposal: . a. First priority is the rehabilitation or replacement of physically deteriorated or functionally obsolete city facilities which are required to maintain the basic level of service for city residents. Extra consideration will be given to city facilities with • clear health and safety hazards. b. Of second priority are additions to existing city or joint use facilities, or construction of new city or joint use facilities, which will bring an area up to a level of service adopted in a city plan specifically for that system. c. Of third priority are improvements and additions to existing city facilities and new city facilities which are not specified in a city plan. II. GOAL: TO HELP PRESERVE THE FISCAL INTEGRITY OF THE CITY BY ENGAGING IN CAREFUL AND THOROUGH ANALYSIS OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROPOSALS INCLUDING THEIR LONG-RANGE IMPACT ON OPERATING COSTS AND REVENUE GENERATION. � E2: Imnact on Onerating Budaet In evaluating the merits of each proposal: � a. Projects that will result in a decrease in city operating and maintenance expenses will be given special consideration. b. Projects that will result in an increase in city operating and maintenance costs will be penalized. E3: Imnact on Citv Revenues a. Projects that increase revenue to the city will be given special consideration. 13 � � �7-ii/ b. Projects that reduce revenue to the city will be penalized. E4: r nts The city shall actively seek grants from other units of government or the private sector for projects that are consistent with adopted city plans and policies, and that are priorities of the city. Special consideration shall be given to capital improvement requests that will be used as a match for such grants; if the oroiect does not result in an increase in citv oneratinQ and maintenance costs. and if the nroiect does not reduce revenue to the citv. E5: Private Investment Capital improvement expenditure proposals that leverage committed private investment will be given special consideration. In addition, projects designed specifically as incentives to private development or redevelopment should meet the following guidelines: a. Leverat�e Guidelines: Minimum leveraging is normally 1:6 (each dollar should leverage at least 6 private dollars). This ratio may be as low as 1:3 if the project is (1) directly associated with concentrated neighborhood revitalization efforts; (2) o�ee�xg-pat�re�o�-jo�rs-v�t��rr�r�►a�i�y�o€-Sa��-R��}----- creatine iobs for citv residents; or (3) directly related to the development of low and moderate income housing; or (4) directly related to conservation of nonrenewable energy resources or development of energy alternatives; or LS) if the nroiect includes �deauate snace for a licensed child care center l�cated within the nroiect. b. R�turn on Investment: �-a�t�a�-r�e�r-a-�-t�re-€or�r�o€-- �e�v-�propeF��-�a�e��ko�d-��-a�-a-�rr�tr�;-��We-o€----- t#te--eit�}�-�x�est�e�r�-��esg-t��-pFo-j�et--3s--�eet�y----- a�seo-ietod-�-t�e-#�Fo-jeet��i�ed�x-Ee)-abe�e---��r-�re----- t�s�a�oe-�ta�-te�-�ie�d-to-��-eit�}-��-less--�ke�-t�re----- oos�-o€-s�r�tox��--sei�vi�es--�e�q��-ec�-----Pro jects associated with the enumerated exceptions to the leverage policy are subject to the following minimal return policies: i. In no case may the return in terms of tax revenues be less than the cost of additional services required. ii. In all cases, additional tax revenues generated from a project shall be sufficient to repay the city's investment over the course of the lifetime of the asset provided. 14 �- �y-�i� E6: Streamlining and Consolidatin� Citv Onerations Proposals that increase productivity and efficiency in the provision of city services while maintainina or decreasinst the citv's ooeratinr� exnenses will be given special consideration. ��e--p�ejjesef--a��st--�effioast-�a��-�ks�-�hc---- p��j�et-��-�£og�-��.`„f}}};__In evaluatina the merits of each nronosal: a:- ��reicase--�ke--gx��t��--��f o-f--�e�v�e�--o€--$tr--e��s�t�rg----- saF�toe-�i��o-�-}�re�e�es�i-ag-$�r�rx��-��a�t�g-��rd----- �eit�e�a�eat�os�s;or-- b- �Me��rfai�-�#re-qes�f��f o�-le�v�e�-o€-��c�r�rg-sc�vi�oe----- �v�t}e--�o�ei�g-�atr�a�-opefa�r�g-��-�a�te��aoe----- 009�Sa- � first nrioritv will be given to nroiects which �onsolidate two or more existina facilities into one. and which include a budueted amount for removal or disnosition of the facilitv or facilities to be closed: �nd � second nrioritv will be aiven to oroiects which maintain the aualitv and/or level of existin� service while lowerina annual oneratina and maintenance costs: and � ihird nrioritv will be stiven to nroiects which increase the aualitv and/or level of an existina �ervice without increasint� ooeratinrt and maintenance costs. E7: Acauisition �►c��3sition--is-�o�-saoe�rege�:---In order to maintain its existinQ tax base the citv shall discouraee the use of acauisition as a redevelonment tool. However, projects that involve acquisition may be given the same priority as projects which do not involve acquisition if: a. The acquisition is related to public development or reuse and: 1. Right-of-way of easements are necessary; � 2. The parcel(s) have been previously identified for conversion to park use if they become available; or 3. The parcel(s) have tax exempt status and a use which is consistent with city plans, policies, and priorities has been clearly identified. 15 . � i i,� b. The acquisition is related to private development or reuse and: I. The proposed reuse is consistent with city plans, policies, and priorities, and a. There is a reasonable expectation that development will occur within the immediate future, or b. There is an economic advantage to the city to acquire property for disposition within a reasonably foreseeable future. E8: Dunlication of Services Projects which duplicate existing public or private services which are available to the same population within a given geographic area should not be funded. E9: 7oint Use Facilities that can be financed and operated by the city and another agency will be given special consideration if: a. They can be constructed and operated more efficiently and effectively at less cost than separate facilities; n�i, b. 1"hey are consistent with city plans, policies and priorities; n�i c. Oneratin�� and maintenance cos�s will be shared jgintly bv the citv and other a�encv: and d. Thev do not result in an increase in citv overatin� and maintenance costs. and do not reduce revenue to the citv• E10: Continuation Proiects The funding needs of capital improvement projects that received a prior budget appropriation for construction plans or a construction phase normally have priority over new projects and program allocations. Feasibility studies are not prior commitments. Acquisition and preliminary design do not constitute prior commitments unless funding for construction plans has been approved and included in the CIB Committee's schedule of tentative future commitments. Program allocations are not considered continuation projects. • 16 , �--�7-i/l E11: Proarammin�¢ and Phasin� Projects should be adequately programmed and phased. This means that: a. Projects which are justified by city plans, policies, and priorities and are coordinated with other improvements, at a cost saving to the city, will be encouraged. b. Projects must be timed with other improvements planned for the area within the next five years (for example, completing sewer work before paving an area). c. The city will budget only the amount which can reasonably be expected to be expended in the budget year. Funds required to complete the project should be identified in the schedule and will constitute a tentative commitment subject to City Council adoption of a budget appropriation for the project. E 12: ,i�e The extent to which a project will be used will be taken into consideration. This means that: a. The larger the population served, the greater the consideration that should be given to the project. Administrative units shall be considered separately from neighborhood facilities. b: �Fo-jeet�-�rset�--e�•-a--y�oa;�e��-�iasi�-�-1--be--g�ve�----- g�ea�e�-tae�s3deis��o�-��s�-�FOjeot�-�r�a-�t�y-�rsed-ax----- e��ea�cj�ra�-�as�-- III: GOAL: TO PROMOTE THE ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OBJECTIVES OF INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTENANCE, JOBS MAINTENANCE AND CREATION, HOUSING MAINTENANCE AND � IMPROVEMENT, A,ND ENERGY CONSERVATION TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE. E13: Economic Develonment S�eofa�-oe�rsfde reEie�-s�re��-��$��e�r�e-p�o-,jee�s;-i�re��g----- s��sid�--e�l�ee��ro-�s;--�k-at---v�3�1�1--{a�--eo�x-��c�c�r�--��----- r�vit�a�tx�ie��-�aig�bo��hood�o�mx�ee�ee�i��-a�cas-��d-�a jo�----- i�a��-oen Fers;-or{b}�e Ea i�-cx�sEi�xg-�ebs-�-er�e a�e-�re�w-jo bs------ �v��t�r-t�o-_Ei��-o€-�Se��-�aa��---Consideration, includin� vroiect subsidv allocation, should be s�iven to nroiects which will retain existina iobs or create new iobs for citv residents and svecial consideration should be �iven to those nroiects or nroszrams which create iob onnortunities 17 " C��/ taraeted for economicallv disadvantaaed residents of the ci•tv• � E14: Housina Alternatives Special consideration will be given to projects, including subsidy allocations, that will encourage the availability of housing for low and moderate income families, and alternatives to traditional single family housing. E15: �Tei�hborhood Betterment Special consideration will be given to projects, including subsidy allocations, that support neighborhood betterment in areas which have been recognized fnr concentrated neighborhood revitalization. These areas include Neighborhood Housing Service Areas and adopted Neighborhood Partnership Program areas which are applicable to capital improvement projects. E16: . EnerQV Efficiencv Special consideration will be given to: a. Projects that will increase energy efficiency in existing buildings, and where a ten-vear minimum recoverv of costs is exnected. b. New projects that utilize energy efficient design and construction methods, and that are consistent with city plans, policies and priorities. IV. GOAL: TO IMPROVE THE DECISION MAKING ABILITIES OF BOTH THE PROPOSERS AND EVALUATORS OF CAPITAL PROJECTS. E17: Sources of Innut The priorities recommended by the following groups will be taken into consideration: a. The recognized neighborhood organization(s) in the affected area. b. The city operating department that will operate and maintain the proposed project. c. The Planning Commission. E18: Conformance with Citv Plans Proposals selected for funding must conform with all adopted City plans as determined by the Planning Commission. 18 , �l,r g�-/l l E19: �onformance with Pro¢ram for Cavital Imnrovements A project proposal will be given special consideration if it is listed in the city's adopted five-year Program for Capital Improvements (PCI). ��eb3��f�ti-s-a--or-- i�leee�are�E-o€-ea�it�-€�ei�ities-�et-}@�-a�dresse�d-�x-�k�----- �£�-�t�}-��-grve�a--spe�i�s�-�o�s�de�aa�iox--i�-t�re--aeed-�€er------ t�p f4Yt?F��i�--fl�E�F 5--3�-�i@--tAi Q�fA@A�-Hig-�Cp@ F�ii�2G�T�'$----- �o-�g-�a-�g�-oa-�i�a-1--�p�ogF��--�-s�--��re--atrFrc��--b�tidge�----- b�e�rx��- The nurnose of the PCI is to encoura�e citv � de�artments to do five-vear nlanning and nro�rammin�, �nd to allow the Plannina Commission an ovnortunitv to recommend nriorities from a citvside oersnective. E20: Public Environment and Historic Preservation Projects which will negatively impact on the environment or historic preservation will be discouraged. The natural environment includes air and water quality and noise levels. 19 , � �7-�// -------------------------------------------- 3.3 PROJECT POLICIES Project Policies focus on particular issue areas that are especially timely over the next budget biennium. In some cases, funding units or criteria are established. The CIB Committee monitors these policies with the assistance of the Planning Commission and the Budget Section of the Mayor's Office. 21 . �- ��i P1: Citv Fundina of Skvwavs The citv is currentiv reviewin� its nolicies re�ardin� skvwavs. and is �xnected to adont new nolicies earlv in 1987. Until that time. the followin� nolicies will aovern citv fundin� of skvwavs: a. Funds will not be budgeted for skyways unless the skyway is of public benefit and part of a firm package for development or redevelopment of the benefiting buildings. b. Normally, the city will finance no more than 509�0 of skyway bridge construction. The developers and/or property owners of benefiting buildings shall finance the entire cost of skyway construction within their buildings. c. The city will not provide money for the operation or maintenance of skyways unless the city is the owner/operator of a benefited building. d. Proposed skyways must be in conformance with the guidelines adopted by the Saint Paul City Council on January 8, 1980, as Council File Number 274243, to be considered for financing. e. The city will consider special assessment bonds for skyway construction under the provisions of new legislation adopted in 1984 (MN Stat. Ch. 548, Sec. 4-7 and Ch. 582, Sec.3-7, Laws of 1984). P2: New Facilities Certain types of projects will not be considered for financing in 1986- 1987. These projects are: a. New library or recreational service facilities which would increase the s�t$��-�eo�p�er�exxt- onerating and maintenance �xnenses fie��-��rgre�t--�cvc�s--- Expanded or rehabilitated library or recreational facilities which would require an increase in staff complement may be considered if the improvement is consistent with a Citv Council-annroved plan which identifies the need for the improvement �v�fe}3-�eg-bee�-- ado�t�si•ac+e-�3:--�#re-frecc�-#'�e�r--ed�t-to�ra�-sts��-v�3��-eox��re------ �o--�e�-eo�s}d�s�t�o�r�x-��C��-icv-�ew-p�eoes�----- b. Facilities to house programs or services which are not o�Fa�c�d- s�d�or-t�srtr�e3�red--nrovided by the city. v: �sei��rag-��o--ke�s�-��g�$�-or-scr�3aeg-o-pe�$��-s�rd-f oF------ �si�ei�rec�-k�y--�#re-�i�y--w�tte�h-sFo--tre4--idcx��ft�d-�es--a--p�i�s�r-i�y------ �reed-��r-a-e�y-��a�r--- d. Swimming pools. 23 . � �'_f�� e. Multi-service centers, except under the following conditions: 1. community need has been demonstrated through a feasibility study 2. all conditions of the multi-service center plan have been met, and 3. there will be no requirement for city financing of operation or maintenance of the facility. P3: Pro�ram Allocations All requests for program allocations must be accompanied by: a. Program guidelines that are available for review, and are consistent with the applicable city plans and capital allocation policies. b. A sunset provision identifies the expected date of program termination or conditions that would result in program termination. c. A list of the specific activities carried out under prior years' budget allocation for review by the CIB task forces. P4: Extraordinarv Canital Maintenance ��re-ai�y-oe��rxes-�o-�x�fle�r�--a�-ax��o-F�►�F�-�at��ra�eo--�r-0g�a�r------ €of-��t�+-e�aed--b�i�dt�rgs--€o�-t�o�-�A8S-��89--�dge�-a�d-st>��e--e#�------ ��ts��rvc-eoxi�ri�x;e�ts:--One of the citv's obiectives is to nrotect its -- canital investment bv fundin� nreventive maintenance of canital facilities in the annual o�eratin�¢ bud�et. However nreventive maintenance activities were not fullv funded in oneratinQ bud�ets in past vears, and thuvs some canital facilities are in a state of disre�air, reauirin�. reconstruction or rehabilitation. To address such extraordina� caoital needs. the citv will continue to bud�et for Extr�ordinarv Ca�ital Maintenance Pro¢ram for citv-owned buildings at a fundin� level of $350.000 for the 1988-1989 canital bud�et. It is exnected that reQUlar nreventive maintenance will eliminate the need for ihe extraordinarv canital maintenance �ro�ram for future vears. Extraordinary capital maintenance is defined as the replacement, renovation, remodeling and/or retrofitting of the structural parts � and/or service system components of a building, and the man-made c4mnonents of an imnroved site. 1) Structural narts include footings and foundations; beams, joists, columns; load bearing walls, exterior walls and facade (excluding glass); stairs, floors, decks, ramps, ceilings; roofs and roofing. 24 . � ��-��I 2) Service svstem com�onents include plumbing, electrical, communications, hearing, ventilating, air conditioning, security systems and elevators; utility mains. 3) �ite comnonents include retainina walls. li�htin�. stairs. ramns. �dewalks, railings. fencin�, draina�e structures. and erosion control. Prioritv consideration will be given to those site comnonents whose condition affects buildin� comnonents identified above. Such maintenance must have a life expectancy that exceeds the terms of the bonds uses to finance it. Ongoing maintenance or routine preventive care and upkeep of the facilities �vit�-�li#'�-c�-poe�a-ao3+-�0€-- }�._��_�}�_�$f��f-�}re-�o-�E}y-shall be financed through the city's operating budget. It is likelv that this oolicv mav be refined durin¢ 1987 after the r�s�lxs of the citv's nreventive maintenance studv are shown. P5: Urban Renewal Bond Redevelonment Under Chapter 881, Laws of 1963 and amendments thereto, the Minnesota Legislature authorized the City of Saint Paul to issue general obligation bonds for urban renewal development purposes. The most recent Amendment, Chapter 395, Laws of 1973, set the city's total bonding authority at $43,400,000. As of ��84- 19 6 Saint Paul has issued $4�-,��5,�909-- $41.625.000 of Urban Renewal Bonds with remaining authority for ��;�=�3;OA4- 1 77 . ��ig��i�etpe�ed-be��s-r�-t�e��otrA�-of-�6309;OA4-vr��}}----- be-issaod-��rx�a�}r-i�--�9�83;-+956;-�9$�-s�d-�9$&,-�v��i-��3;404------ �o-�e�x�-�-��8A:-- The citv olans to continue issuinQ $500.000 of Urban Renewal Bonds per vear until the total bonding authoritv is reached. At the same time, the citv is nursuin¢ several ontions to extend the � abilitv of the city to use aeneral obli�ation bonds for urban renewal. First. the citv is seeking an amendment to the governin� leaislation which would raise the total bondinQ authoritv. Second, (if that is unsuccessful). the citv will seek chanaes in the lan�uaae aoverninn Ca�ital Imorovement Bonds to allow for limited financin� of economic develonment oroiects. The bond proceeds are to be called the "Urban Renewal Bond Redevelopment Fund." This fund will be utilized to finance redevelopment projects which present themselves outside the biennial Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process (UCIPBP) cycle. Prior to the sale of urban renewal bonds by the City of Saint Paul, the following conditions will be met: 1. Each proposal must relate to eligible project activities in a City Council approved Chapter 462 redevelopment project. Each proposal will be reviewed by the Planning Commission for consistency with project redevelopment 25 • � �_ ,i� plans and other city plans and policies. 2. Each proposal will be reviewed by the CIB Committee and the advice of the Committee transmitted to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and City Council where appropriate prior to action authorizing use of the monies from the fund. 3. Notification will be given to all district councils at the time the proposals are referred to the Planning Commission and Capital Improvement Budget Committee for review. 4. Proposals are subject to the leveraging and return on investment requirements stated in the Capital Allocation Policy. 5. Approximately 2 1/296 of bond proceeds may be used for bond fees and discount, and approximately 1096 of the bond proceeds may be used for administrative costs related to capital projects. P6: Combined Street and Sewer Proaram In Februarv. 1986, the Citv of Saint Paul committed itself to a 10-vear sewer senaration and 20-vear street navint� oroeram. The 1985 Minnesota Lertislature nroduced a fundins� nartnershi� to make this commitment nossible. The total cost of senaration will be $I 50 million: the citv. state and federal �zovernments will tosether contribute monev to meet this total cost. The vearlv costs in the fundina nartnershio are estimated as follows: �'ederal Share $5.8 Million State Share $4.8 Million (SO°rb Grants. 5096 Loansl Citv Share $4.8 Million �itv fundina for sewer senaration will consist of revenues from assessments. storm and sanitarv service charaes and ca�ital im�rovement bonds. The citv is takin� the sewer seoaration nrortram further in its nlans to pave streets in the vicinitv of the sewer nroiects--both those directiv over new sewers and those within the senarated draina�e area. This effort will renlace the old Residential Street Pavinn Pro�ram (RSPP). in which nei�hborhoods comneted for residential street navinQ. The old nro�ram involved the reconstruction of streets with all facilities, includinA oavement. curb and �utter. drainaae, and ornamental li�htinA. That nroQram naid for the entire cost of the nroiect without anv assessments charaed to benefitin� nronertv owners. Current residential street navina will dovetail with sewer seoaration. Streets to be naved will be determined bv nlanned sewer work. and 26 . C�,,C �-� �� benefitin� oronertv owners will be assessed. The total nro�ram will �QSt 59.2 million ner vear over the next five vears, for a total of S46 million. About one-half of this amount is exnected to come from Canital Imnrovement Bonds. one-auarter from assessments to nrovertv 4wners. and the remainder from Storm Sewer Char�e vroceeds. 27 ' �,,-- ��-�i� -------------------------------------------- 3.4 BUDGET POLICIES The Budget Policies identify the various sources of funds available for capital improvements, and the conditions that must be met in order to use them. The Mayor's Office - Budget Section is responsible for developing these policies, and the Budget Section and the CIB Committee are responsible for monitoring them. 29 . � � �'7 l l� B1: Financin� Sources Determination of which financing source is most appropriate for each of the city's capital improvement budget priorities will be made as follows: a. Recommended capital improvements which are subject to assessment will be so assessed under the city's Special Assessment Policy. The policies currently in effect were adopted on December 23, 1976 as Council File No. 268302 and amended June � 17, 1980 by Council File No. 275110; May 17, 1984 by Council File No. 84-632; and February 11, 1986 by Council File No. 86- 162. b. Recommended capital improvements located on Municipal State Aid, County Aid or Minnesota Trunk Highway routes and eligible for one or more of these financing sources will be financed to the extent allowable with money allocated to the city specifically for these routes. c. Recommended capital improvements which are eligible for metropolitan, state or federal programs or private grants should be so financed. If appropriate, CDBG or CIB money may be used to provide local matching funds. d. Recommended capital improvements which can be financed with specific bonding authority may be so recommended if City Council has indicated its intention to use such authority. Recommended capital improvements which can be financed with revenue bonds or revenue from an existing Tax Increment District should be so financed. e. Recommended capital improvements or portions thereof and programs eligible for CDBG financing should be so financed. f. Recommended capital improvements which cannot be financed with money governed by paragraphs (a) through (e) will be � considered for Capital Improvement Bond Financing. B2: Community Develonment Block Grant (CDBGI Pronram Projects proposed for financing through the CDBG Program must meet the federal guidelines issued by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. This means that: a. Projects must be included in the list of eligible activities contained in the federal regulations. b. Projects must either principally benefit low and moderate income persons, eliminate slums and blight, or meet a community need having a particular urgency. 31 , � �_ , �� c. Of the total CDBG dollars which are allocated to projects, most should principally benefit low and moderate income persons or be located in areas which meet the Department of Housing and Urban DevelopmenYs definition of low and moderate income. The remainder of the money may address slums and blight or community needs having a particular urgency. B3: Bond Financina a: S�eei€ia-g�3de}3�res--�ega;di�g-fke-srxiotx�t--o€-gc��s�-eb��g��o-a------ be�-�o-�-�ss�ed--r�--��8b-��r�--��'�-�r��-�be--�e�e�s�eet�-�€�cf------ Se��r�-�a��-de��-pe}3o�-�a�-bee�-icv}se�-a-x�-�o#�ed-to-oo��------ , �#�e--yca�-s-�9$�-�k�e��gk--��19-5----�t--is-�a�ie�p�4oA--�#ret--�}�-dc�t------ �}��-�,.}}�_}�_��y�d-i�-�38�---�lected officials renresentin� �he Citv of Saint Paul, the Port Authoritv, Indenendent School District 625. and Ramsev Countv are meetinA iointiv to develon �n overlannina debt nolicv, and it is eznected that the new nolicv will be adovted earlv in 1987. The policy will take into consideration the overlapping long-term general obligation bonded indebtedness of the four ma jor units of government which affect the Saint Paul tax`base. It is anticipated that the annual average for general obligation bonds issued by the City of Saint Paul and supported by property tax revenues will not �x�eed $12 million in 1988 and $12.9 million in 1989. The snecific limits will be identified after the Joint Debt Advisorv Committee finishes its renort. b- �#ie--E��-�r��-�stra--ao--�ore�-�kk�t�-��-0;�OA;004-�xx--�9�8�-�Ad------ �-��;384,-000--ia--��3&'�-�spi�a�-�p�e�e��r�-$o-ac�s--i�-�eees�r�a�r�ee------ ivi��-stsEo-�a�v;-��r�-t�re-cx�e�t-a�o�rx�t-is-c�e�e�de��-oH--bo�#r-t#re------ gefrere�-�e�i�ige�i�e�--deb�--po�ie3+�--a�d--El:e--�ed--to-�se�a--v�a�f------ pe��r�ie�-e�be�e�x��o�ds-a�ad-x��a-fe�e�vs�-boadg----- c. �h� citv will issue un to S4 million ner vear in snecial assessment bondin� to finance 1988-1989 street navina work to be naid bv benefited nronertv owners. The exact amount of bondina will be determined bv snecific nroiects chosen and will be continaent on the amount of federal. state and city �onstruction funds available for sewer senaration. d. The use of revenue bonds to finance public improvement commitments for economic development projects is preferred over other financing sources. �V�i�o--�er�-�4��ofiE�--icvo�x�--- be�-��x��or�g-�s-��-desirc�--�xe�ko�-e€--€}�ra�e3�g-eee3:o�te------ i�ree�ti�►�eg-the city may consider using tax increment, taxable bonds. or tax-exemnt revenue bonds in 1988 or 1989 for the following projects: 1)- �iigk�etiA--s��etsce�e--txipFo-ve�e��s-r€-�ee�s�-��sess�ex�s----- �_}�}�}-�o-�s�e��c�@�t;-Riverfront Develonment 2) Downtown parking proposals; 32 i . ��7-�� 3} EaAS�t�-�o�i�e�-�e€--�ev�o�r-�projeet�-�k��-�e��e�e--�Feet�e�----- oos�s--f��--�o��-v�e�cF-•�uv��x--t�re--e��tre�--Er�et��--0os�----- a�e��r�s-e�esed�c�t eaF�ieo-o�fk�-�oads-iss�ed-to-€i�a�ee----- ooas��e��aa-o€-�e�v-sawers;-- 4)- �isrt�ie�-�rea-�tffg-s��e�rcx�aasi4�---- 5) Other project-specific public redevelopment costs which leverage significant private investment, or investment by the State of Minnesota. Such bond issues may be general obligation bonds if there is a dedicated revenue source to cover the interest and principle payments and if there is backup financing other than property tax revenues to cover the debt service. B4: Tax Increment Financin� a. Revenue projections by consultant: revenue projections for all tax increment proposals should be analyzed by an outside financial consultant rather than a bond consultant. b. Debt service from bond sale proceeds: debt service for all tax increment projects will be paid from bond proceeds for no more than the first three years of project implementation when no tax increments or other project revenues are generated. c. Other costs funded from bond sale proceeds: all costs relating to any tax increment proposal should be funded with bond proceeds and included in the justification of each proposal. These costs include, but are not limited to: design, acquisition and relocation, construction, bond consultant fees, bond counsel fees, financial consultant fees and staff time. B5: HRA General Fund (New Policy) The HRA General Fund will be used for redevelonment of bli�hted areas as desi�nated in citv nlans. Proiects funded throu�h the HRA Seneral Fund must be ohvsical imnrovements which will result in the revitalization of the communitv. The use of the HRA General Fund is �overned bv the state municioal housina and redevelonment law (Minn. Statutes: Chanter 4621. Uses of the fund include acauisition, clearance. relocation. rehabilitation and nublic imnrovements. B6: HRA Develonment Fund (New Policy) Like the HRA General Fund, the nurnose of the HRA Develonment Fund is to redevelon bli�hted areas as designated in citv vlans. Proiects funded throueh the HRA Develonment Fund must be nhvsical imnrovements which will result in the revitalizationof the �ommunitv. However. at least 5096 of the HRA Develonment Fund 33 � �� 7�/�� must be u ed for redevelonment activities within the boundaries of the 7th Place Redevelonment Area and Tax Increment District LrQU�hlv bounded bv St. Peter and Market St. to the west. llth St. and 9th St. to the north. Robert St. and Jackson St. to the east and Sth St and 4th St. to the south). The HRA Develonment Fund was established in 1983 in the resolution �uthorizin¢ the sale/leaseback of the Civic Center (HRA Resolution $3-10/13-2) Like the HRA General Fund it is used for acauisition �learance. relocation, rehabilitation, nublic imnrovmements, and nroiect loans. B7: Rehabilitation Loan Funds City bond money used to provide residential and commercial rehabilitation loans shall be recycled for additional loans as the original loans are repaid according to the guidelines adopted by the Saint Paul City Council. CDBG money used to provide residential and commercial rehabilitation loans, which return to the CDBG program as program income, shall be appropriated from the program income line item to provide new loans as the original loans are repaid. B8: Sale/Leaseback Before any sale/leaseback agreements will be approved by City Council resolution, the following conditions must be met: a. The feasibility of the proposal must be analyzed by an independent fiscal consultant chosen by the city. Costs for such analysis must be borne by the initiator of the project if other than a city agency. b. The advice of the Long Range Capital Improvement Budget Committee must be obtained. c. If the repurchase of the facility is part of the proposal, the package should be structured to minimize repurchase costs and financing must be feasible. B9: UDAG Reinvestment As indicated by City Council Resolution No. 279820 (dated February 8, 1983) all Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) program income, shall be distributed as follows: Fifty percent of the program income from an individual UDAG shall be set aside for eligible projects within the district(s) in which the UDAG is located. The remaining fifty percent of the program income shall be deposited in the citywide UDAG Revolving Loan Fund to be used for economic development purposes. UDAG program income is that percentage of any income earned by the city from the disposition of property acquired with UDAG money, the repayment of any loans made with UDAG money, or any other revenues defined by the grant agreement as program income. 34 C� �7-<<< All UDAG program income is administered according to HUD guidelines (Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Aids to State and Local Governments). In accordance with these guidelines, proposals for re-use of program income are reviewed by the HRA Board and administered by HRA staff. B10: '�'ax Abatement The city will not consider tax abatement as a development/redevelopment tool unless so determined by the Mayor, and by City Council resolution, and with the exception of tax abatement assistance for low income rental housing development. (Council File No. 276807). B11: Assessment Policv [The city's assessment policy is still in draft form. A summary of the policy will be inserted here, and the full version will be appended to the CAP] �12 Multi-Year Projection of Canital Financina Sources �n�endix A is a nroiection of all canital financinQ sources for the vears 1988 throurzh 1992. The five-vear tentative orot�ram included in the biennial caoital budaet shall not exceed these fundinQ nroiections 35 � � �� 4.0 POLICY IMPLEMENTATION -------------------------------------------- Saint Paul's Capital Allocation Policy will only be effective if it is carefully monitored. While City Council has final responsibility and authority for adopting the policies, monitoring must occur throughout the proposal review and budget preparation process. Responsibility for monitoring is assigned to three groups: the Planning Commission, the CIB Committee, and the Mayor's Budget Office. Such . responsibility may fall entirely to one of these groups, or be shared among them. Figure 4 indicates how monitoring and implementation responsibilities are distributed. FIGURE 4: POLICY MONITORING AND IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY Planning CIB Mayor's Office- Commission Committee Budget Section Strategy Policies All Sl, S2, S3 (S1-SS) Implemen- tation IM13-IM16 All Policies (IMl-IM21) Project Policies PS All All Budget Policies All All (B1-B7) 36 �� - ii� S.0 DEFINITIONS ----------------------------------------- Capital Expenditure - A one time expense required to upgrade or add to the physical assets (land and buildings) of the city. In addition, capital expenditures include incentives to the private sector to develop or re-develop assets not owned by the city. Capital Improvement Budget - The annual capital improvement budget shall _ include appropriations for all projects to be funded during the budget year which have an estimated useful life in excess of three years, other than the acquisition of office or mechanical equipment, vehicles or mobile equipment, and minor remodeling or repairs of existing structures. The annual capital improvement budget shall include the proceeds of general obligation or revenue bonds of the city authorized by law, all aids, grants, and special revenues received by the city for funding capital improvements, all monies appropriated by the City Council in the General Fund and Special Fund budgets for capital projects, and all special financing methods such as tax increment financing, long-term lease agreements, and sale-leaseback financing. A five year program which identifies the future costs associated with multi-year capital projects and any additional capital projects that are scheduled for implementation during the time of the program shall accompany each annual capital improvement budget. Operating Budget - The annual operating budget is a 12-month financial plan which provides for delivery of city services; support and planni�:g for service delivery; routine maintenance; minor remodeling and repairs of existing structures; acquisition of vehicles, mobile, mechanical, and office equipment; and other activities having an estimated useful life of less than three years. Primary financing sources for the operating budget are property taxes, federal and state aids, dedicated revenues, user charges, and grants. � Program Allocation - A program allocation is a lump sum amount given to fund a series of capital projects which are consistent in nature and are implemented sequentially in time until an identified objective is reached. An example of a program allocation is the residential street paving program. Subsidy Allocation - A subsidy allocation is assistance that the city gives to the private sector as incentive for development or redevelopment of physical assets now owned or operated by the city. Subsidy allocations include loans, grants, matching funds, or acquisition and clearance. 37 � . r \ � � � � � fV O O O O O O O O O O O O O O p O O O O O O O O II O S� O O O O O O O O O O O N O M N N O O O O O O O 11 O P O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 11 O � O O O �pp O O O pO O O O N Ip� V1 V1 O O O O tl I� � � N M M M O CD N O 1 .Pt 00 O � C�0 .�t S M II � N .O N T N � 1A � N M N �t 11 O N N � N N ,N N M N W N ii W y 11 � 11 = tl W S O O O O O O O O O p p O p p p O O O O O O O 11 O � Q O O O O O O S O O O O N O N N N O O O O O O O II O , � O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O �i O OC O O O O O O O p p M �t O O O O O O II �t a O �t � � O O O O Y1 O O f� N O p p O O O 11 N S N M N N M O ao N M �1' �t N N �O �O N �f O 11 N � ` M N M � M N N M N N N N N N 11 � � II a �i c�.� pp. o 0 0p 0 0p 0 0p 0p 0p 0 0 � o 0 p0 0 0 0 0 0p o ii o J P O O O S O O O O O O O O N � � O O O O O O� O li O aop �p. ppp o 0 0p pp 0 0p o u► �. o pp, 0 0 0 op ii r� � �O O N N M N o CD N �O S .�t � �t N S O � EO �� v . 2 M .p N N � �p M N M N ' 11 0p � N M N � � M N M N M N � �1 �? y W tl X � a O O O O O S O O O O O ~ O � � O O Op O �p O O O N O O O O O O O 11 O � � p N O O pp I�A �p O M f� A � �O O O O S 11 � � = OC � � �eD M 1R O � N P �Y .t If1 �O 1� IA N 00 �t f� 11 M . � y � « M N N N N M M N N N M N M ~ N M K p li W = 11 11 V 11 z °� °o °o °o °o g °o °o °o °o °o °o °w o �i °o °o °o g °o °o °o °o °o ii °o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o u o • � � . p p �p C O M � �.aOp O O O �C 11� O O N J p CpD. � O O O O O 11 00 ►Wt- � � N M N N O a0 M N �t � �n O O �A M O � .�f o il � Z � M N � N N M N M � N K M P li v�i � N N M �� M h 11 W p � N = �O W G7 a+ Z N � Z c �u � � � tll N L W � y 2 � C � U' OC � M H � m C L L U�p N � y L L p LL � L � � O. � O � N N Z W C7 a+ O y C Ep Z y � a+ p .aL t c � 'Q C�D v N � O F f dl M QI �+ N L W < �' � «� a �o o �yp .+ �� m O � t � � �op `p � � O � L O Jm W �+ t � i.i « ►� C C� Ol Qy � �� m v � J O aJ '� M 'pC V M d1 M N C C� ` M 'Np M ` O dl < � � N � � 3 J W � ~ � � � � CO � � Vl . 2 ~ � M M O D U = O a+ a C .N� � � � � L 10 " � $1 C7 C N L tll • L fA L 10 'i • � Q, 2 L QE� M ! •� CI �F 10 dl ^ L ++ L E �f�1 M 1i M 10 f.l '+ � OI 41 10 Lq1 4 � d m ` W L Cq� 1+ t � a E N V/ Z > 3 p S O K t� E di H A ^ M O O n 10 10 O C M 1! O �U O ql Ly L E L O YCC C L t �+ C�p M L �- ,� � � N N � a,�+ YN � � 0! L • � � •� t XN ty/1 C � {� = OC a < N N N J LL E � H S LL � U � F- ` ( �,.,� + -0 � y-.. 6 `�� ...- �� ' �� r . � `j - /// • �� CITY OF S�IYT P�.�L - .;,_..:�� , �- ;incct�rn OF'�IC� OF TH�' CZZ'Y�COUYCIL . Commi��ee Re�art �:T.�a?�ca. 1��.a�e�e�.t. � F�r�an��? �a�mi�te�. .. � JANUARY 27, 1987 __ •. l. Approval of minutes from meeting held .�anuazy-�5, Y987. - -- .- -`"+ _ . __ � 2. Report by Finance Director Gene Schiller regarding review of several financial management issues (laid over from January 15, 1987) . � 3. Letr.er of the Mayor transmitting Planning Gommission recommendations on the report entitled "Committee Report on the Findings 'and� Recourmendations of the Citizens Commission on Bonding and Financing Practices." 4. Letter of rhe State Department of Revenue transmitting Application No. 328587 of Barton Enterprises Inc. for reduction of certain real estate in the city • � of Saint Paul. � _ - _ _ ,..---- 5. Resolution establishing the rate of pay for title of Real Estate Risk and Facilities Manager in Grade 20, Section I D 4, Professional Employees Supervisory S�andard Range of the Salary Plan and Rates of Compensation Resolution. 6. Res�lution changing tlte grade for Civil Service Transaction Clerk II from J Grasie 34 to Grade 36, Section I D 1; of the Salary Plan and Rates of Compen- sati�n Resolution. 7. Resolution amending the 1987 budget by transferring $S,lOb from Contingent � '��"' Reserve to Civic Organization Partnership Programs and authorizing payment to P O c*arious organizations for contractural services. 8. Resol:ution ac��:,.t�� 1988-1992 Program for Cagital. Imparovement as part of the Compre.��sfve Pla�, and for nse in the Unified Capital Improvemeat Program and Budg�t P"�acess. �,��,��wr(_ 9. Re��t�t�c��& C� 198�8-Z98� Cag�l Alit��atioa;.Boliey £+a3c.>t�se� fa the � Unifi.e�i�al Imgrovement P�ogram and Budge� Prc►ceas. 10. Resolution directing the Department of Finance and Ma.nagement Services to prepare for 1987 General Obligation Bond sale. 11. Administrative Order: D-8241: Additions of $800 to the Fuel Service Station Canopy Construction Project (laid over from January 15, 1987) . �1?Y Hr1LI: SEVENTIi FLOC�Yt Se�IIVT PAUL.MINNE50'�'A:5102 -�..6 .