The URL can be used to link to this page

86-162 NiNITE - C�TV CLERK PINK - FINANCE G I TY OF SA I NT PALT L Council ^v . CAI�IARV - �EPARTMENT File NO• `J�`/�� BLUE - MAVOR Council esolu ' n Presented By ,,�/� f ` -- Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date WHEREAS, the City of Saint Paul is under orders from federal and state regulatory agencies to abate the pollution of the Mississippi River caused by oombined sewer overflows, and, WHEREAS, the City of Saint Paul has its own sewer needs requiring upgrading and separation of its sewers, and, WHEREAS, the City has adopted the Saint Paul Comprehensive Sewer Plan in March 1985, and funding and scheduling have changed since that time, and, WHEREAS, the eatensive amount of sewer vonstruction provides a unique opportunity for Saint Paul to complete the paving of its residential streets at a greatly reduced cost, and, WHEREAS, the federal and state funding aid for the Combined Sewer Separation Program requires that certai.n construction deadlines be met during the first two years of the program. . THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Counci! of the City of Saint Paul hereby approves the amendments to the Comprehensive Sewer Plan for the City of Saint Paul as developed by the Department of Public Works, dated January 1986, a oopy of which is attached. These amendments provide; COUNC[LMEN Requested by Department of: Yeas DfeW Nays Nicosia Rettman In FBVO[ Scheibel �` Sonnen __ Ageipst BY Tedesco Wilson Form Approve by City Att n Adopted by Council: Date Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY By� Approved by :Navor: Date _ Approved ay for u ' sion to Council BY - — � - ljr= �� - /�=� 1. That the Combined Sewer Separation Program be accomplished within 10 years at an approaimate annual city cost of s4.8 Million with state legislature approved federal and state grant and state no-interest Ioan participative funding, - 2. That the plan incorparate a 20 year Street Paving Program, inciuding street lights and boulevard irees where appropriate, with an approaimate city annual 1986 cost of �8.6 million; street paving (during the first 10 qears) �il! be mand�ted anly for those streets needing reconstruction due to the necessary aeWer separatioa trench �orY; further street paving, street lights and boulevud tree �ort �vill be de#ermiaed by the City Council prior to Fina! Order approval_ 3. That the Combined Street. and Sewer Pragta�a projects be approved each yeu using the follo�ving approval process: a1. Starting in 198b, citizen revie�v of each projeci inclnding nei�ghborhood information meetiags and public hearings before the City Council; b). Starting in 1987, approval throogh the Capiti! I mprovement process, c)_ Starting in 1986. City Couacil ippr+oqal tbrough Preliminary and Final Or.ders as doae for a!1 othcr city projecis, afld . d). The above process �iil be follo�red in such a �vay that �ederal and state grant conditions and deadlines are met in a timely �vay. PAGB 2 C'-� �t -/�•�`-' �. That the Combined Streei and Sewer Program be financed from the follo�ving sources: a). Legislative approved Federa! grants afld State grants and loans � amounting to s 10.6 i1+lillion annuaily; and b). implemeatation of a S1,ormwater Utility Charge and application of tbe ezisting Storm Sewer Assessment Policy amaunting Lo a total of s4.8 Million annually; c). Se�ver Service Rate surcharge of 12�, amounting to S2.Q Milli�nn annually; d). Direct specia! assessment for 25x of the street paving construction including street lighting and boulevard trees amounting to�2.15 Million azmuall�y; e�. General Obligation Bonds amounting to �4.45 Millio�n annually; f). rhe availability of deferral of asse�sments, for senior citizens �vill continue for this program only,�vith age as the meaaure of budship. For purposes of this program only, a muimum deferral period of t�venty years aill be alloeved. A table of principle and accrued interest over the fu1! term f mazimum 20 year term) of ihe deferred assessment �vill be pre�ented to al! homeo�vflers_ S. That the Public Worta Deputment will talice all ateps nec��ary to issur� that all publ'ic �ad grivate utilities matc m�imu� use o�' thia opportunity so that ther� �vill be no conflicts after the paving is done in an irea: a�_ Public and private utilities 9vill be involved in the planning and are urged to do ail replacement upgrading necea�uy at th� time the irenches are dug, before str�ets are paved, b). Public Wvrts will modify it3 control and permitting process to assure thai the above is done, and wi11 �ort to obtain an ezcavation and restoration cost sharing agreement �vith each utiiity_ PAGE 3 �� G--�r��z c). Any necessary utility ezcavation in digging up of paved streets rvill be totally restored at the full cost of the utility responsible_ AND, BE IT RESOLVED, thit the Department of Public Worts �vili submit an anauz! report to the Ma9or and Citp Council fo!loving each yeus construction that includes ihe follo�ring: Summary of the previou� years se�ver and paving �vort, A report on the citizen participztion process for each project� Results of the jobs program focusing on employmeni opportunities aad programa for city youth and disadvsntaged, Recoa�mendations for the propo�ed progcam and financing � for the nezt year, and BE I'� RESOLYED, that apon compietion of the 10 year sewer separation project, the Public Worts Department lvill submit to ihe City Council a progress report on the i 0 pear program and plan for continuing the remaining 10 yeats of paving for ihe remaining neighborhood oiled streets in the City_ AND BE IT RESOLVED, that the four sewer areas eniitled: Maryland-faitier (Trout Brook), Snelling-University (West Kittsondale), Payne-Arcad� (Phalen Creek), and Hawthorne-Ruth (Beltline) are hereby apprwed for the 1986 Program year, pending apprwal of Fina! Orders; AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Department of Finance and Management Services is hsreby directed to initiate preliminary orders for formal public hearing on the Fina! Orders for these improvements. PA6B 4 WMITE - CITV CLE�iK B UE - MAVOR E GITY OF SAINT PALTL Council A _/�� CJCNA�R�V -�DEPARTMENT File N 0. � Council Resolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date AND BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Rainleader Disc�onnect Plan, as amended January 1986,which is a necessary part of a Combined Sewer Separation Program and Comprehensive Sewer Plan, which inc�orporates incentives and voluntary c�mpliance by the citizens of Saint Paul for 1986 and 1987 with mandatory compliance ia 1988 and thereafter, is approved at an approzimate aost a� s500,000.00 annually for 1986 and 1987, to be financ�d from the Sewer Service Fund. PAGB g COUNCILME[V Requested by Department of: Yeas Drew Nays N'°os'e � [n Favor Rettman Scheibel ��/�J��:.CJ� . Sonnen � __ Against BY Tedesco Wilson FEQ 1 '� 1986 Form Appro e by City Attor y Adopted by Council: Date Certified P• s d y uncil S ar BY sy� App ov by Mavor: a e _ �E8 � �7 �9�6 Approv d ayor or u i 'on to Council B _ — Y � PU��ISNED FEB 2 21986 . - . - . , �. : � � - � � �G �� _ .__ , � -°�,. �16 . � � WHITE - CITV CLERK �� PINK - FINANCE GITY OF . SAINT PALTL Council J CANARV - DEPARTMENT File NO. W � BLUE - MAVOR � Coun il Res ution > . _ Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date WHEREAS, the City Saint Paul is under orders from federal and state regulatory agencies to ate the pollution of the Mississippi River caused by oombined sewer overflow and, WHEREAS, the City of Sain Paul has its own sewer needs requiring upgrading and separation of its ewers, and, WHEREAS, the City has adopted the aint Paul Comprehensive Sewer Plan in March 1985, and funding and schedu ' have changed since that time, and� WHEREAS, the eztensive amount of se r oonstruction provides a unique opportunity for Saint Paul to complete the ving of its residential streets at a greatly reduoed cost, and, WHEREAS, the federal and state funding ai for the Combined Sewer Separation Program requires that oertain oons ction deadlines be met during the first two years of the program. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council �' the Cit of Saint Paul hereby approves the amendments to the Comprehensive Sewer lan fo� the City of Saint Paul as developed by the Department of Public W s, dated January 1986, a oopy of which is attached. These amendments provi e; COUfVCILMEN Requested by Department o • Yeas Nays Fletcher Drew In Favor DLPARTT�NT OF BLIC ;�dORKS Masanz ,/� Nicosia � s�he�be� __ Against BY � � Tedesco Wilson Adopted by Council: Date Form Approv by City Attorney Certified Yassed by Council Secretary BY . B� � Approved by 1�lavor: Date Approve � yor for Sub is t '1 BY BY • . • . ' , ' . � . . �� lF-�r � ��"�� l. That the Combined Sewer Separation Program be accomplished within 10 years at an approaimate annual city oost of s4.8 Million with state legislature approved federal and state grant and state no-interest loan participative funding, 2. That the plan incorporate a 20 year Street Paving Program, including street lights and boulevard trees, where appropriate, with an approgimate annua! city cost of s8.6 Mi!lion, and 3. That the Combined Street and Sewer Program be financed from the following sources: a). Legislative approved Federal grants and State grants and loans amounting to s 10.6 Million annually; and b). Implementation of a Stormwater Utility Charge and application of the eaisting Storm Sewer Assessment Policy (at the rate of 3 cents per square foot) amounting to a tota! s4.8 Million annually; c). Sewer Service Rate surcharge of 12x, amounting to �2.0 Million annvally; d). D�rect special assessment for 25% of the sireet paving oonstruction including street lighting and boulevard trees amounting to �2.15 Million annually; e1. General Obligation Bonds amounting to Z4.45 Million annuaUy; AND BE IT RESOLVED, that the four sewer areas entitled: Maryland-Galtier (Trout Brook), Snelling-University (West Kittsondale), Payne-Arcade (Phalen Creek), and Hawthorne-Ruth (Beltline) are hereby approved for the 1986 � Program year, providing 15 miles of sewers, 17 miles of paved streets, including lighting and trees; AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Department of Finance and � Management Services is hereby directed to initiate preliminary otders for formal public hearing on the Final Orders for these improvements. � PAGB 2 . . . . ;. . . . _ . - y�a.Z�- �' . � . � . C1� �.� _�� l. That the Combined Sewer Separation Program be acoomplished within 10 years at an approaimate annual city cost of s4.8 Million with state legislature approved federa! and state grant and state no-interest loan participative funding, 2. That the plan incorporate a 20 year Street Paving Program, including street lights and boulevard trees, where appropriate, with an approgimate annual city cost of �8.6 Million, and 3. That the Combined Street and Sewer Program be financed from the following sources: a). Legislative approved Federal grants and State grants and loans amounting to s 10.6 Million annually; and b). Implementation of a Stormwater Utility Charge and application of the eaisting Storm Sewer Assessment Policy (at the rate of 3 cents per square foot) amounting ta a total �4.8 Million annually; c). Sewer Service Rate surcharge of 12%, amounting to Z2.0 Million annually; d). Direct special assessment for 25% of the sireet paving construction including street lighting and boulevard trees amounting to Z2.1 S Million annually; e). General Obligation Bonds amounting to s4.45 Million annually; AND BE IT RESOLVED, ihat the four sewer areas entitled: Maryland-Galtier (Trout Brook), Snelling-University (West Kittsondale), Payne-Arcade (Phalen Creek), and Hawthorne-Ruth (Beltline) are hereby approved for the 1986 � Program year, providing 1 S miles of sewers, 17 miles of paved streets, including lighiing and trees; AND, Bfi IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Department of Finance and � Management Services is hereby directed to initiate preliminary orders for Pormal public h�aring on the Final Orders fur these improvements. � PAGE 2 , • � � . .. , , . . . �� a,e ' � ' , " �� 1. 'That the Combined Sewer Separation Program be acoomplished within 10 years at an approaimate annual city cost of s4.8 Million with state legislature approved federal and state grant and state no-interest loan participative funding, 2. That the plan incorporate a 20 year Street Paving Program, including street lights and boulevard trees, where appropriate, with an approaimate annual city cost of Z8.6 Million, and 3. That the Combined Street and Sewer Program be financed from the following sources: a). Legislative� approved Federal grants and State grants and loans amounting to s 10.6 Million annually; and b). Implementation of a Stormwater Utility Charge and application of the eaisting Storm Sewer Assessment Policy (at the rate of 3 cents per square foot) amounting to a total s4.8 Million annually; c). Sewer Service Rate surcharge of 12%, amounting to s2.0 Million annually; d). Direct special assessment for 25x of the street paving oonstruct.ion including street lighting and boulevard treea amounting to Z2.15 Millian annually; e). General Obligation Bonds amounting to s4.45 Million annually; AND BE IT RESOLVED, that the four sewer areas entitled: Maryland-Galtier (Trout Brook), Snelling-University (West Kittsondale), Payne-Arcade (Phalen Creek), and Hawthorne-Ruth (Beltline) are hereby approved for the 1986 Program year, providing 15 miles of sewers, 17 miles of paved streets, including lighting and trees; AND, Bfi IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Department of Finance and � Management Services is hereby directed to initiate preliminary orders for formal public hearing on the Final Orders for these improvements. � PAGfi 2 ° ' . • �. � ' � �`��'�- � . � . � � ,�'�/��-- 1. T'hat the Combined Sewer Separation Program be ac�omplished within 1 U years at an approzimate annual city cost of s4.8 Million with state legislature approved federal and state grant and state no-interest loan participative funding, 2. That the��lan inoorporate a 20 year Street Paving Program, including street ligh�s. and boulevard trees, where appropriate, with an approYimate aii�ua! city cost of s8.6 Million, and 3. That the Combined��treet and Sewer Program be financed from the following sources: �`•, �R ,�� a). Legislative approved Fe'Zleral grants and State grants and loans amounting to s 1 U.6 Million anni�ally; and ,� �4 b). Implementation of a Stormwate�,, Utility Charge and application of the eaisting Storm Sewer Assessment�'I?olicy (at the rate of 3 cents per square foot) amounting to a total s4.8 Mil�ion annually; c). Se�ver Service Rate surcharge of 12x, �'�mounting to s2.0 Million annually; ��, d). Direct special assessment for ZSx of the stree�t paving oonstruction includiag street lighting and boulevard trees amoun'�ing to s2.15 Million annuaiiy; e). General Obligation Bonds amountiag to Z4.45 Million a`s�nually; AND BE IT RfiSOLVED, that the four se�ver areas entitled: Mar}�and-Galtier (Trout Brook), Snelling-University (West Kittsondale), Payne-Arca�e (Phalen Creek), and Hawthorne-Ruth (Beltline) are hereby approved for t�ie 1986 Program year, providing 1 S miles of sewers, 17 miles of paved � treets, including lighting and trees; � AND, BB IT FURTHER RESOLVfiD, that the Department of Finance d Management Services is hereby directed to initiate preliminary orders f formal public hearing an the Final Orders fa these improvements. , PAGfi 2 WHITE - CITV CLERK �/� vA � C NARV - DEP RTMENT COl1I1C11 � � BLUE - MAVOR GITY OF SAINT PALTL File NO. �G —�� Coun 'l Reso ution . � , Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date �� AND BE I FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Rainleader Disconnect Plan, as amended Jan 1986, which is a necessary part of a Combined Sewer Separation Prog m and Comprehensive Sewer Plan, wluch inv�porates incentives and volu tary compliance by ihe citizens at' Saint Paul for 1986 and 1987 with manda vompliaace in 1988 and thereafter, is approved at an approzimate oost Z500,000.00 annually for 1986 and 1987, to be financed from the Sewer Se 'ce Fund. PAGE 3 COUNC[LMEN Requested by Department of: �.. Yeas Drew Nays Nicosia [n Favor DEPART1�Ir�NT OF PUBLIC �JORKS Rettman - Scheibel Sonnen __ Ag81IISt BY Tedesco W iison Adopted by Council: Date Form Approved City Atto y Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY r Bs� Approved by \7avor: Date _ Approved by AlEayor for S mission to Council By _ _ — By �r s-'-,t,, , ..� �;� .r''-.. `�-i,., '.. '� ._ . . . f " � ,� �; � -..' y�. �, - +t 'r.y ,n. 1k .�f: . ��: .< . , : - d 4 ��., 7 ��` � �,�`�' ... :��.�5` �. 4 r a�Nt}E -�rrr' Ct aic {� : � � �� P11�(i{ �FINANC `�`4 k 4 F . . .. . � ''�,,�, t'�� „ y r . �., CANA�iY �+:OEPRf�T .�N7 � �' � ' ��k` u/� '°''�'�'i� '�S �y) � �`�'�``Y (��' �A I N`T �.� � '�C�� ` k :� �t:i!E• -!,i�v O w: . _ � .�1�N� �1i iR} �7r •�" . .. . �.. . . . . . ... .. t dr� ir �?i�� ,�16Z.�.��.. , r � �4�1?Z �� eSO �� n� .� .�:£ � ; � t . '�� .� j F µP.resented By --: --^�. . x� Referi�d To Committee: " Date Out of�Committee By Date � , � ,. . , . - f �I , ,�. � _ �� I �i �,,,l�L�.T �t�.Y� #�sE �e �ii�/�t �na�ot �; ar , ;� � ' �r�d j�r� �l�, �i�le � s �uww�ef �rrt � a €�a�r�# �t '�:: 3� s�i �rwr �, �1�t � � i�ro�r�a�ri ��or�Yr�i b� tlr�►��t�irt P�r!�ar llii '. . �� . �.; .� � �t„#�7 w1� aar�ii�o��it �'!## a��. i��Npl� ,.,:, ��.,. - sE�-�!�t� ��l0�� a� �a�r tlli�i a�i l'�T, �ro►i� �� _ .; �i�ar�iw�t3ir�r �h��i. �; y � , � R:. . . . . . . . . . . . � , . . • ``� .. . �. .. � . . ... � . . .. _ .. . . ' ., . ' .. . .�. . .�, . . . ... � � � � � . � . � /' . . � . � �^ . - �' � � . .. .• . 1 t � . . i- " . � . � � . � � . . . . . .. `. > :� .. .. . :. �.i ,- . . � . . :s;. f�.. � . � � .. . � �� . .'._ .. '::-. . � . . rv., �� ,. ... . .. . . ... .. ....� . . . . . . �,,�. �' . " . �� . - . , ' . . - � . � � " � .. � � (i . .. .. .. - . . . . . . . .. . -��5 , � . �� . .� . . . .. . � . . .� . �� ' ... , . .. . � � , . . � . - . . . . i . . ., . . }.. . . . - � � � � ... . � . , . _ r � ' _ �� . . . . � . . . �' ,..�" ' .. . . . !{� ? � . . _ . . .1 �., . �e . .. . . . � . . . ��. � . . ' . . . . i ' . - . .. � . . . � . . . . . � . . �` .- . � . .. . ' .. .. . � . � � ... 's � ' . . . . . . � . �o,�� . .�, . - - . . _ � . � . - � � . ' � Y,�, � ' '. . � � . , .. . . . .�� . . . .-�� . . _ � . . � C(?Ua!1�'[LM�N ;,�,.� Requested by Depactment of: Yeas ..;�� NaysFr<= ` ` . N�:� [n Favor 8�t�'!'MiM! t� �'1'�/L+�C. �' ; Rett�+1�n , � ; :, ; , ,. � ' , ,r Schaihel --�� `. � Ag�snst gy � f �� x � �� ` . - Sono;a� '�, �a;;; Tedasio � .,y�� Wilson . . � � Form Appraved by City Attorney Adopted by Cipuncil: Date " � � ��,�,: � � � � � � '�� Certified Pasxed by Council Secretary BY ' g}. � , App�oved by�lavor: Date � -' Approved by Mayor fw Submission to Counci4 Hy. � � �� 5w By � ... � _ �T �_ �., _ __ _ _ . _�:.�� .�� ,� � ." . _ .. , _ � . �,`:, , ... PUBLI�s Q�PAR�MEIVT � �1l��i, I(�,�,lo �ort�ts �jo 2967 —� DON NYG�RD or TOP-i EGGUM'�CONTACT � � �31 �r- �(, (ey` 298-4241 �� 298-4299 PHONE JANU�,�Y 2 3, 19 8 6 ^ DATE 1 e�� ,, � ►a l n ASSIGN NUN�E�t FOR ROUTING ORDER (Clip All Locations for Signature) : �r r 3 Director of Management/Mayor Finance and Management Ser 'ces Di ector 4 City Clerk 3� �o..�,��, � Budget a�rector Q� �rney ' � WHAT WILL BE:ACHIEVED BY TAKING AC ION ON THE ATTACHED MATERIALS? ( rpose/ Approva� of Combined Street and Sewer Program: Ratiortale • �, . Ep "' lp Year Combined Sewer S�paratiQn Program � NJA� 20 Year Nei borhood Street aving Program �� 2 3 � ��,n � � � �' �1�� '' � �c � ��TY AT G''' Tp ,� �C ,� � J �N d �� ' � � � $�a� COST/BENEFIT,� BUDGETARY AND PERSONNEL IMPACTS ANTICIPATED: Combined Se�irer Separation will cost $154 Plillion over 10 years. Nei rhood _ Street Pavi�tg will cost $172 tiillion over 20 years. ( ncludes st et lighting and boulevard t�ee installation) . , The combination of fundinc� sour s has been apnroved by tiayor Lai�imer in his January 8 letter, "Proposed Neighbo ood Investment Strategy" , �o the City Council. Details of the impact of proposed charges and assessments ',are contained in Donald E. Nygaard' s January 8 report, "Combined Street and Siewer Program" , to i3ayor Latimer. FINANCING SOU�CE AND BUDGET ACTIVITY NUMBER CHARGED OR CREDITED: (Mayor's signa- ture not re- Total Amou�pt of Transaction: $326 Million quired if under ($24 T2illion for 1986) $10,000) Funding Source: Federal Aid State Aid, State Loans, CIB Bonds, Sewer Service Charges!�, Stormwater Uti�ity Charges, Direct Assessments Activity N�mber: ATTACHMENTS (I�ist and Number All Attachments) : 1. Letter` from Mayor George Latimer to City Council, January 8 , 1986 2. Report'- from Donald E. lvygaard to P�Iayor Latimer, January 8, 1986 - DEPARTMENT REV*�EW CITY ATTORNEY REVI�W �Yes No +�ouncil Resolution Required? Resolution Required? Yes No Yes X No �nsurance Required? Insurance Sufficient? Yes No Yes �No Insurance Attached: (SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR INSTRUCTIONS) Revised 12/84 , J � �� ._ /�� , CITY OF SAINT PAUL � •��i;='��?' OFFICE OF TFIE CITY COIINCIL a:F Y'{: � WtLL.(AM L. WILSON MARK VOERDING Councilman MEMORANDUM ��~� l"0: Council Mernbers - � FROM: 8iil Wilson � RE: Stormwater Manacaement Pian OATE: February 6, 1y86 , Given the fi�ancial downturn reflected in the State and Federal - budgets and the impa�t these will have on city financing, it is imperative that we readjust our thinking o� the Stormwater Management Plan. Ideally we could repave, light and reforest the entire city in the next 10 years but the question is whether it is fair to put this additional burden on our residents at this � time. As the Stormwa�ter Management Plan is currentiy written, the net efifect is to issue a b1anK check for the Public Works Oepartment to install lighting and reforest the city without input from affected property owners anci City Council . Under tns . _,p 1 an, annua 1 costs to _c i ty taxpayers w i 1 1 t�.e___some $13.4 m i 1 1 i on __ _ dollars with an additional $10.6 miliion from federal and state funding sources. The Storrnwater Management Plan is seen by some as a great opportunity while others (particularly persons on fixed incomes) see it as an unreasonable, unbearable financiai burden. In my opinion, the two situations are separable and manageabie - we should be able to capture the real opportunity while at the same time remove unreasonable financial burdens. This can be done by doing initially only the parts of the Stormwater Management P1an which are necessary: 1 . Where sewer separation worK is required, the �epartment shouid also complete tne relatect curb, gutter repairing, lighting and reforestation work. This approach will result in �the completion of the manoatect sewer separation work in St. Paul while aiso repairing about 120 miles of oiled streets. 2. Any additional repaving, lighting or reforestation should be done in consultation with benefiting property owners on a project-by-project basis and accompanied with a financing plan. This process will provide for ongoing neighbarhood input into the scope and cost of any new proposed projects. CTTY HALL SEVENTH FLOOR SAINT PAUL,MINNESOTA 55102 6121298-4b4b a�sa 1 J �, . � �� -/� � t�E 3. Close a�ttention needs to be given to a senior citizens deferrai program in wnich combined principle and in�erest payments do not make the program an even greater fiancial burden. 4. The Public Works Department sho�ld annuaily submit to the City Council a full report following �he cons�truction season and recommendations for the foilowing season. 5. Upon completion ofi the 10 year sewer separation pro,ject, the Public Works Oepartment should submit to the City Council a plan for continued paving of remaining oiied streets on an annual basis. This approach will capture the real opportunities created by the �eeci for sewer separation while at the same time reduce the unreasonable financiai burden by cutting bacK on unnece�sary repaving, lighting anc! reforestation work. WLW:jca . � C.�-�-�� ,-�.�.� SEWER AMENOMENTS 2. . . . . . . . .and boulevard trees , WITH ALL AFFECTED NEIGHBORHOODS BEING ALLOWED TO OPT OUT OF THE SAME PRIOR TO THE FINAL ORDERS BEING ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCILwith an approximate 1986 city cost of $8.6 million, and 3. That the combined Street and sewer program FOR 1 86 be � financed . . . . . . . . .sources: � f) ALL. CITIZENS OF ST. PAUL 60 YEARS AND OVER WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO DEF'ER THE 25�, DIRECT ASSES5MENT WITHOUT DECLARING A :+ HARDSHIP FOR UP TO 20 YEARS A.T A MAXIMUM CAP PR�DETERMINED BEFOR�E THE FINAL ORDERS FOR THE WORK IS VOTED UPON BY THE CITY COUNCIL. 4. AND THAT PRIOR TO ANY FURTHER WORK ON THE PROGRAM, AN ANNUAI. REVIEW BE MADE BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL WITH REGARD TO SUCCESS OF TNE PRECEEDING YEARS WORK, JOBS CREATED, FINANCING AVAILABLE FOR CONTINUED PARTICIPATION, . AND CITIZEN PARTICIPATI�?N -- BY ALL-AREAS TO BE CONS I DERED--I-N THE YEAR FOR THE WORK.------- ��, :: , �_- - 5. AND THAT THE ALL WORK WOULD COINCIDE AND BE COOROINATED WITH NSP, WATER, ETC. TO MINIMIZE RE-PAVTNG DISRUPTIONS. 1 1 1 � .....�.._� ___..�,.__�__.._... ...�......�. , ..__�_.... _ .._.,.�.. ,.,,.,.�....�,.- _ � �� .. �� , .. ..�.L: . , �e..��T*�:� GITY OF SAINT PAUL o y OFFICE OF THE MAYOR '' I{ii i t�" ; � : �Q .... 347 CITY HALL SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 GEORGE LATIMER (612) 298-4323 MAYOR January 8, 1986 Council President Victor J. Tedesco and Members of the City Council RE: Proposed Neighborhood Investment Strategy Dear President Tedesco and Members of the City Council: Today I am presenting to you a proposal calling for a new Neighborhood Investment Strategy. The purpose of this city-wide, multi-year proposal is to strengthen, beautify and largely complete our neighborhood infrastructure improvements. As you know, the City's commitment to separadng our sewers spans more than twenty-five years. Since 1959, over $83 million has been allocated for sewer separation, including $34 million in the past ten years. This commitment has been supported by the Saint Paul Long-Range Capital Improvement Budget Committee, the City Council, and this administration. This proposal strategy combines our mandated responsibility to separate our sewer system with a commitment to pave our oiled streets, improve neighborhood lighting, and finish the job of replanting our lost trees. This program will ensure that each city neighborhood will have the same high quality of sewers, streets, lighting and trees. Properly implemented, the public investment proposed in this program will leverage increased private investment by Saint Paul property owners to maintain and improve the quality and appearance of their homes and businesses. Finally, it is my intention to use the new jobs created by these neighborhood investments to provide work for people of Saint Paul. We should place the highest priority on assisting unemployed factory workers, youth, and minorities. Saint Paul is known as the City of Neighborhoods. We take pride in explaining how the differences and diversity of our neighborhoods not only make them strong but also make the City strong. Each neighborhood provides residents with a solid feeling of place and belonging. There are familiar places in each neighborhood which are unique to it and of which residents feel justly proud. There are valuable landmarks, vistas and parks which all contribute to the sense of specialness associated with each neighborhood in Saint Paul. ,�...6 City Council January 6, 1986 Unfortunately, part of the "uniqueness" of some neighborhoods is that they have sewers which back up, they have streets in poor condition, their lighting is dim or they are almost treeless. The Neighborhood Investment Strategy will change that— not for the sake of uniformity; rather, to correct the mistakes of history and to demonstrate that we as a City want everyone to share in the same high quality of basic neighborhood infrastructure. When we speak of our neighborhoods, we praise their self-reliance and the partnership that exists not only between the neighborhoods and City Hall but among the neighborhoods themselves, and rightly so. In the past 10 years, one billion dollars worth of building permits have been issued for neighborhood improvements. The City has budgeted more than $380 million for capital improvement projects throughout the city. The Capital Improvement Budget Committee, a remarkable example of neighbors sharing City resources with neighbors, has overseen and directed these neighborhood capital investments. In 1967, Saint Paul began the current Capital Improvement Program. In 1974, federal resources allocated to the City were consolidated into the Community Development Block Grant Program. In 1976, we pulled all capital improvement decision-making under the Capital Improvement Budget Committee through the Unified Capital Improvement Budget Process. Finally, in 1978, the Urban Development Action Grant became available and several UDAG projects were awarded for neighborhood-based improvements. In looking at our history, we should be mindful of all the successful neighborhood investment programs which we have created, including the Identified Treatment Areas, the Neighborhood Partnership Program and all the housing subsidy programs, both for new housing and rehabilitated housing. As you know, federal dollars often formed the basis for those successful programs. Recently those dollars have decreased and their value has diminished. Yet, the needs of our neighborhoods still exist and we will not shrink from our responsibility to meet those needs. Obviously, this cannot be done all at once. We can and will, however, commit to separating our sewers during the required ten-year period, and I propose we commit to completing street paving, lighring improvements and tree planting during the next twenty years in conjunction with sewer improvements. These committments will demonstrate confidence in our neighborhoods, will provide a stability and certainty to neighborhood capital improvements, and will provide jobs for city residents. The Neighborhood Investment Strategy will move us forward to realize our vision of city neighborhoods: neighborhoods characterized by strength, stability and, import- antly, beauty. Of course, achieving this vision will cost money. The program which I propose to you is affordable and its financing components are within our ability to pay. 2 City Council January 6, 1986 The enclosed letter from Donald E. Nygaard, Director of Public Works, provides the details of the sewer, street, lighting and tree replanting components of the Neighborhood Investment Strategy. I support it. Also, the Department of Planning & Economic Development is preparing a plan which will provide assistance to neighborhoods and leverage additional private investment. The plan will also define a jobs program based on PED's years of experience in working with neighborhoods, District Councils and other City institutions. You will hear more of this later. The proposal is, I believe, an exciting one. Through it we will create our own opportunity to invest in our neighborhoods and, by linking with other programs, maximize the benefits from these neighborhood investments. This proposal is far-reaching and ambitious. It needs timely consideration by you, the City Council, and our neighborhoods. Mr. Nygaard's letter outlines the time frame within which decisions must be made in order to begin construction by May lst. Obviously this is a very tight schedule, but it's very important that we have full participation from the neighborhoods. Accordingly, I am making a wide distribution of this proposal. I am very enthusiastic about this Neighborhood Investment Strategy and look forward to working with you and the residents of our neighborhoods in accomplishing this tremendous undertaking. Very truly yours, � eor e ati er Ma r cc: Department and Office Directors Neighborhood Contact List Editors, Neighborhood Newspapers 3 �' � ' � �� _:`��` "R`��"� CITY OF SAINT PAUL �1tT 0r�4�9 -~ ''� DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS -'♦ s: %• .tl�l l'�II �' `��-"• ^_° DONALD E. NYGAARD, DIRECTOR '•",.s°`� 600 City Hall Annex, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 i,,nn,"...� 612-298-4241 GEORGE LATIMER MAYOR January 8, 1986 Mayor George Latimer 347 City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 RE: COMBINED STREET and SEWER PROGRAM (A "Down-to-Earth" Revival in Saint Paul's Neighborhoods) Dear Mayor Latimer: I am presenting a proposal to you which I believe to be both farsighted and timely. Please give it your serious consideration. If worthy of enactment, the City should move courageously and quickly to get it underway. SEWER SEPARATION IS BEGINNING — In June 1985, as part of the amended Minnesota Water Pollution Control bill, the Legislature approved a combination of grants and loans to separate Saint Paul's sewers and, thereby, speed up elimination of combined sewer overflows to the Mississippi River. We are now underway with neighborhood sewer separation plans for 1986 and 1987. We are working with the PCA and have negotiated the terms under which we proceed, and agreement on the first-priority projects. Engineering consultant interviews for project design are completed and contract terms are negotiated. John Taft has investigated various financing options and their effects on Saint Paul. The timeline is complicated and tight. Program approvals by you and the Council are needed in January to meet Federal and State regulations and our own financing and construction schedules. IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY — State and Federal commitments of financial assistance and requirements to separate the City's sewer system provide an opportunity to more effectively coordinate other public improvements and necessities with sewer construction. In particular, we have before us a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to improve and beautify the City's neighborhoods by paving the remainder of Saint Paul's oiled streets in conjunc- tion with sewer separation. Even though the sewer program is a gigantic undertaking for Saint Paul, the opportunity to revitalize our neighborhoods, through the completion of streets and boulevards, and thereby generate new jobs and apprenticeship programs is too great to be delayed or missed. I believe we should add street paving to the sewer construcrion program for 1986. I urge you to adopt sewer separation and related neigh- borhood street paving as the top Public Works priority for the next ten to twenty years. � January 8, 1986 THE COMPREHENSIVE SEWER SEPARATION PLAN THE TIMELINE IS TIGHT —With two-thirds of the sewer-separation funding coming from state and federal sources, it is important that the regulatory agencies agree on and approve our priorities and overall program. We are working within an extremely tight timeline. Preliminary engineering for the 1986 and 1987 sewer projects is substantially completed. MPCA and EPA agree that the first two years' sewer construc- tion is critical. Sewer construcdon during these early years will involve primarily sewer outlets. Substandally less neighborhood street trenching is directly associated with early construction than in later years. Less than 12 miles of oiled streets will be directly affected by sewer construction during each of the first two years. The Saint Pau120-year Comprehensive Sewer Plan, approved by the City Council last March, must be amended. The Plan must conform with MPCA requirements and State and Federal permits, reissued in December. Major amendments are: Change the sewer separation program from 20 to 10 years, Adjust the sewer financing plan to show City State and Federal , funding commitments, and Modify the rainleader disconnect program to allow a two-year voluntary effort prior to mandatory disconnect. The sewer separation program must be completed within the framework of the federal and state guidelines which determine the eligibility and distribution of funds. These are included in the following criteria which we used to determine sewer separation project priorities: 1. Remove the most CSO for the least dollars expended; 2. Eliminate localized flooding and basement backups; 3. Coordinate with MNDOT's construcrion programs; 4. Coordinate with MWCC's CSO and lake overflow projects; 5. Coordinate utility work, including Water, NSP, Bell Telephone, District Heating, and cable TV; 6. Minimize traffic congestion and utility disruption by dispersing construction geographically; and 7. Coordinate neighborhood street resurfacing with sewer installation. A program for removal of downspouts is one major requirement. We expect favorable results from the two-year voluntary disconnect program, and it meets this requirement for now. If the voluntary program is not sufficient, a mandatory disconnect program for remaining hookups (possibly including water-treatment charges, user fees, and penalties) will be required by 1988. 2 January 8, 1986 The total cost for the ten-year sewer separation program is $154 million. It is to be funded at$15.4 million per year as follows: Federal Grants $ 5.8 million State Grants 2.4 million State (no-interest loans)* 2.4 million Total annual Grant and Loan contribution $10.6 million Saint Paul's share 4.8 million TOTAL per year $15.4 million * Repayment of the loan portion is to begin in year eleven and be fully repaid by year twenty. AN INTEGRATED COMPREHENSIVE STREET PAVING PLAN MY VISION FOR SAINT PAUL—A Self-Reliant, Down-to-Earth Revival of Saint Paul's Neighborhoods. I propose, Mayor, that we use the sewer separation program as an opportunity to expand improvements in our neighborhoods and that we finish constructing the physical public system necessary for overall neighborhood restoration. I propose we reach beyond the sewer separation project and continue to pave the remaining oiled streets in Saint Paul until all streets are paved. As I've stated earlier, we've already begun the comprehensive sewer separation program. The stormwater drainage system can be completed, including streets, curbs, and gutters, along with sewer separation. Lights, trees, boulevards, and selected sidewalks can be included, on an as-needed basis, to finish the job in a coordinated and cost-effective manner. Driveways will be finished according to exisdng policy . Alleys would be constructed only upon special petition. I recommend this dual program because our separated stormwater system will operate effectively only with improved streets, curbs and catch basins which capture runoff and carry it directly to the river. Much of this construcrion can be seen as a public necessity. The preliminary engineering is principally done for the sewer separation projects. We now have a more complete picture of the actual effect on neighborhoods and on each of the stormwater drainage areas. I have considered the effects, both on our property owners and on the stormwater flow patterns, and I have reached the following conclusion: For 1986 I propose that the four sewer separation areas (shown on the attached maps) be declared Neighborhood Street and Sewer Areas. Separated sewers will be constructed in these areas. Affected streets (some already high-maintenance streets) are clustered into concentrated groupings and make paving even more cost-effective. 3 �' .�� /lv � January 8, 1986 Basically, the next ten years would be devoted to finishing the oiled streets in sewer separation neighborhoods; remaining oiled streets would be completed in conjunction with separation and during the following ten years. Meanwhile, our street maintenance overlay and chip-sealing program will continue on the about 500 miles of existing paved streets. The Class I and II streets (the arterials and the downtown) have been essentially completed over the last ten years. WE'VE ALREADY DONE THE ARTERIALS AND PARKWAYS. For the last decade the City has joined with businesses and citizens to turn around our commercial areas. We have worked in partnership with businesses doing private construction; we have begun district heating; and we have revived public facilides —streets, sidewalks, parkways, and the public amenities that are a part of them. Today's revitalized commercial areas, downtown, and connecting roadways demonstrate the potenrial for more revival in Saint Paul. Each completed part is an asset to our entire city. NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION WORKS. UDAG and CDBG funds have helped pay for neighborhood revitalizarion in many demonstration areas. The ITA program has proved that decay can be stopped and blight can be removed when government and citizens work together to make it happen. Our housing rehabilitation loan and grant programs have been some of the most successful in the nation. The Neighborhood Partnership Program (NPP) is demonstrating that cooperative programs work to everyone's advantage. Throughout the city, partnership programs are improving our quality of life, our economic health, and the strength of our neighbor- hoods, as well as creating jobs. We know it can be done, even though Federal funds have all but stopped, and Saint Paul is going to have to make its future on its own. SCHEDULING AND FINANCING IT'S AN APPROPRIATE TIME. Residents in many neighborhoods are asking for improved streets. Saint Paul has well demonstrated that fixing physical amenities encourages residents to take more pride in their homes and neighborhoods. Demonstra- tion areas such as Thomas-Dale and Mount Ida show the success of government-resident partnerships. Neighborhood improvement works. Now let's join together with all of our neighborhoods and finish the job. About 120 miles of oiled streets will be resurfaced as a direct part of the combined sewer separation program. The opportunity we have before us now is to resurface the remaining 220 miles of oiled streets and virtually eliminate the City's neighborhood street and sewer problems for years to come. The tota1340 miles of oiled streets have long been a maintenance and drainage problem because of poor surfaces. We can improve this situation now. No other city has this same opportunity. 4 . �� - /l� January 8, 1986 ACTION IS NEEDED NOW. If we are to meet next spring's construction schedule, street work needs to be detailed as part of the recently signed sewer construction contracts. Program and funding approvals are needed now. The Public Works Committee is scheduled to review the amended Comprehensive Sewer Plan and street paving proposal on January 27 at 10:00 AM, and full City Council action would be required shortly thereafter. To be most cost-effective, the paving program should be approved as part of the stormwater management package. There is very little time. A "down-to-earth" decision is needed soon. CAN WE PAY FOR IT? It won't be free; self-reliance isn't free. It is affordable. Its cost is an investment in Saint Paul's future, in jobs as well as a more beauriful and inviring City this very next year. The opportunity exists, because of the necessity to separate our storm and sanitary sewers and help clean up the Mississippi River. In order to finish this massive task within a ten yeaz period, the State Legislature has broadened our financing authority for sewer and stormwater drainage improvements and has agreed to share in the cost, providing one-third Federal grants and one-third State loans and grants. We in Saint Paul will pay the other one-third. Total cost for the entire sewer and street program (including street lights and trees) is $326 million. In round numbers, $154 million for sewer separation and $172 million for all the street surfacing, curb work and drainage facilities. The City's share of the basic programs is $220 million over the construction period for the street paving program and sewer construction. COMBINED STREET AND SEWER PROGRAM BUDGET Comprehensive Sewer Program $154 million Paving Program (17 miles/year average) 152 million (all remaining oiled streets) Street lights and boulevard trees 20 million (estimated at$10 million each) GRAND TOTAL $ 326 million Less State and Federal contributions $106 million The City's share $220 million 5 January 8, 1986 FINANCING SOURCES ARE VARIED. Many alternative ways of funding this undertaking have been examined. Some of them are listed below and in the attachment titled "Potential Financing Options". These choices could be used separately, in combination with each other, or supplemented with revenues from other funding sources. The 1985 State Legislature amended Minnesota Statutes 1984, [116.19] Section 7, to grant special municipal powers for stormwater management. Some of these new opdons are being considered. The final combination of financing alternatives we consider needs to be evaluated according to the following criteria: Is it affordable? Does it spread project costs fairly? Does it promote Saint Paul's self-reliance? Does it promote Saint Paul's future growth and development? Is it tax-deductible or partly refundable? Do tax-exempt properties also pay? Will our AA+ bond rating be maintained or improved? Is it likely to get majority support by Saint Paul residents? The major financing sources being considered are listed here. More detail on each alternative can be found in the attachments. Most of the financing options can be used in varying amounts, as either the primary source of funding or as part of a revenue formula using a variety of sources. Add a surcharge on the Sewer Service Charge billing Create a Stormwater Utility and charge by drainage area Collect Property Tax by special districts for Water Pollution Abatement Levy an assessment on directly benefiting properties Combine the Sewer Fund with the financial base of the Water Utility Collect a Water Utility payment for water pipe relocation costs MY RECOMMENDED FINANCING PROPOSAL. I believe the method of financing which will be most fair to the greatest number of citizens is a combination of alternatives. Following is a table showing the combination of financing tools I recommend we consider. This proposal is based on a total City budget, in round numbers, of$13.4 million per year, which includes Saint Paul's share of the ten-year sewer separation program a�d our costs for completing streets, lighting and trees over the next twenty years: 6 January 8, 1986 A PROPOSAL FOR FUNDING THE CITY'S $13.4 MILLION SHARE OF THE 1986 NEIGHBORHOOD STREET AND SEWER CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM SEWER SEPARATION: $4.8 million New Stormwater Utility Charge spread against all properties city-wide on the basis of land area and level of development (financed by a mix of pay-as-you-go and Sewer Utility Revenue Bonds supported by utility charges). STREET PAVING (with lights and trees): �8.6 million 1. A surcharge on existing sewer rates. $2.0 million 2. General Obligation bonds; existing CIB bonding authority (property tax levy for debt service). $4.45 million 3. Direct Special Assessment against benefiting properties � 25% full construction cost (financed with Assessment Supported Bonds). $2.15 million TOTAL SEWER AND STREET PROGRAM $13.4 million Adjustments could be made in amounts collected among these and other options. For instance, the direct assessment could be lowered and a city-wide fee increased, the Water Utility could be charged a fee in lieu of a franchise fee, and other minor fund sources could be tapped if desired. The 25% level proposed for special assessments for street reconstruction (including lights and trees) is well below the assessment level in many suburban communides (most at 100%) and follows the Minneapolis precedent (a 25% special assessment policy has been used successfully for years for paving residential streets). While I recognize that assessments are likely to be the subject of much discussion, special assessments are an essential part of this proposed financing plan. Special assessments make it possible for the City to undertake a project of this scope while (1) remaining within our goals for the issuance of general obligation debt, and (2) preserving our capacity for other current and future capital improvements. 7 �� January 8, 1986 IN CONCLUSION The advantages of doing street paving at the same time as sewer trenching are obvious. The opportunity to complete all our street paving along with our sewers is an opportunity that will never present itself again. We can choose to complete our streets and sewers now, creating jobs for the next two decades and accomplishing major improvements that will last another 100 years. I am convinced this program will help make Saint Paul not only the "Most Livable" city of the present, but the ideal city of the future for the next century, for our children and for theirs. Very truly yours, ` � , �� Donald E. Nygaard Attachments: Why Pave Now? Financing Options Map of watersheds and four 1986 Project Areas Maps of each project area (4) Three Sample Construction Options Estimated Costs for a Typical Homeowner DEN:JAE 8 � � '�� COMBINED SEWER SEPARATION AND STREET PAVING PROGRAM Why Pave Now? January, 1986 There are many good reasons for paving Saint Paul's oiled streets now. THE TIMING IS RIGHT. Coordinating the paving work with sewer separation is an efficient way to benefit from street disruption and get both jobs done at the same time. IT IS COST-EFFECTIVE . The Federal and State funds available for restoring the streets to their previous condirion by patching the trenches can go toward the cost of street paving, reducing the paving costs on these streets by up to one-third. PAVED STREETS ARE NECESSARY FOR STORMWATER CONTROL. Effective stormwater control requires paved and finished streets, curbs and catch basins throughout the city, as well as a separated sewer system to carry the runoff directly to the Mississippi River. A FINANCING PACKAGE CAN BE DEVELOPED TO SPREADS COSTS FAIRLY. Saint Paul is embarking on a stormwater management program which benefits the entire city. Some street construction is eligible to be financed as part of city-wide stormwater management. Special taxing districts can be established to help pay for stormwater drainage construction. COMPLETED STREETS HELP CLEAN THE MISSISSIPPI RNER. Less dirt and silt from eroded boulevards will be carried in rainwater to the River. Streets can be swept cleaner, reducing the quanrities of sand, salt, and leaves which reach the River. Residents are less likely to pour engine oil, anti-freeze, and other household hazardous wastes onto a finished street. SNOW PLOWING IS QUICKER AND CLEANER. Plows can run from curb to curb without cutting into boulevards or leaving muddy edges. Plow blades can be set lower and scrape cleaner when running on a smooth, paved surface. LESS MAINTENANCE IS REQUIRED. Paved streets suffer much less from potholes and cracking. Oiling can be eliminated. Potholes and breakups from freezing and thawing are the plague of oiled streets and require year-round attention. Also, less maintenance is required for cleaning the sewer system because less debris is can-ied into the catch basins and sewers. ` January 8, 1986 2 PAVED STREETS ARE SAFER. The smoother surface and flattened crown make driving safer in hazardous weather. Vehicles are less likely to get stuck in the ice and snow when parked along a finished curb line. The flattened roadway surface and solid foundation makes pulling away from the curb easier in icy or thawing conditions. Handicap ramps can be installed in the curbs where appropriate, making travel safer for handicapped persons. Boulevard maintenance is easier and less hazardous for residents. NEIGHBORHOODS LOOK BETTER. All the experience in Saint Paul, over the last decade, has clearly demonstrated that finished streets improve the looks of the neighborhoods. Where needed, street lights and trees will be included in the program, and sidewalks can be added if petitioned for or are essential. Residents take pride in a good-looking neighborhood and are inclined to improve the looks of their own property as well. Improving one's property is contagious. Other residents are likely to follow the example of their conscientious neighbors. CONSTRUCTION WORK PROVIDES LOCAL JOBS. Twenty years of predictable work provides the opportunity to develop youth apprentice programs in partnership with the unions and "home grow" our skilled labor force of the future. By working with the District Councils, the contractors, and the unions, the jobs created can be filled with people from our own neighborhoods. Using a construction industry "rule of thumb", such a construction program would create about 300 seasonal jobs per year over the next decade, some continuing on for another decade. The spinoff effects —creating other jobs which provide services and supplies and the overall effects on our local economy—will be tremendous. WE TAKE PRIDE IN SAINT PAUL. Here is a way to make it show. Most of Saint Paul's oiled streets are about one hundred years old. The city was growing too fast then to take the time to pave all its streets. Streets were platted and graded. The streets were sprayed with water to keep the dust down until about fifty years ago, when the City began coaring them with street oil and sand. That process has continued for fifty years with little change. Today we have the opportunity to pick up where we left off one hundred years ago and pave our remaining streets. Approximately one-third (340 miles) of Saint Paul's neighborhood streets remain to be paved. If we continue paving at our present pace, we would complete the job no earlier than the year 2070— an impractical schedule. WE LEAD AESTHETICALLY AND ENVIRONMENTALLY. When it is all done, Saint Paul's neighborhoods will be among the cleanest and most aesthetically striking of any older, built American city. � COMBINED SEWER SEPARATION AND STREET PAVING PROGRAM POTENTIAL FINANCING OPTIONS January, 1986 Following is a list of some of the options for financing street and sewer construction which can be used in varying amounts, as either the primary source of funding or as part of a revenue formula using a variety of sources. The 1985 State Legislature amended Minnesota Statutes 1984, [116.19] Section 7, to grant special municipal powers for water pollution control. Broadened financing authority was included in the legislation. Stormwater Utilitv�ge b,v Area — A program based on the stormwater utility mechanisms already well established or in the process of being established in Roseville, Richfield and Shakopee could be used to finance Saint Paul's portion of the entire sewer, rainleader and street reconstruction program. If charged on a surface area basis, as drainage improvements generally are, the cost allocation system is already at least partially in place, and could be expanded to accommodate this approach. Advantages Disadvantages � • City precedent exists for spreading • Is not tax-deductible project costs based on surface area • All properties pay, even • No problem with tax levy limits if benefits are indirect • Distributes costs to all properties • Some properties have or areas already been assessed • Tax-exempt properties pay for stormwater relief Addition to Sewer Service Charge — Revenues could be collected through a surcharge on the sewer portion of the Water Utility bill. The exisdng formula, a modified formula, or a flat rate could be used. Advantages Disadvantages • Collecdon system in place • Present charge based on • Distributes cost to all water use, not stormwater properties or users • Sewer service rate is • Reduces property tax levy already high compared to • Allows use of revenue bonds other metro communities • Can be collected quarterly • Is not tax-deductible January 8, 1986 Pro�y�g— State law allows the levying of city-wide property taxes through the establishment of a special taxing district or districts for water-pollution abatement. Such taxes are not restricted by any other tax levy limitations. Advantages Disadvantages • Tax-deductible • Affects overall levy totals • Collection system in place • May affect bonding limits • State pays homestead and • May offset resources refunds to some property owners available for other capital • Cost is distributed to all improvement projects Taxable properties • Tax-exempt properties do not pay • Allows use of revenue bonds • Use of system and streets may not be correlated with property and tax Direct Assessment—The law allows use of assessments, and they may be levied according to existing procedures. Only the directly affected property owners would pay a one-time cost. Advantages Disadvantages • Those directly benefiting • High administrative costs pay directly for improvement • Potential for • Historical method of project-by-project veto paying for improvements • High cost to beneficiaries • Existing policy for combined • A change from existing sewer improvements policy for street reconstruction (:�mbination Sewer Fund and Water Utililtv—Combining the sewer fund with the Water Utility offers an opportunity to finance sewer-related project costs with dedicated revenues by consolidadng the financial base of the City's existing utilities. Advantages Disadvantages • Frees up other financial resources • Difficult to approve • Uses an existing utility • Slow to implement • Allows use of Revenue Bonds • Fees not tax-deductible Water Revenues—The Water Utility can levy a surcharge to pay for the cost of water pipe relocation associated with sewer construction. Advantages Disadvantages • Consistent with existing City • Not tax-deductible policy for utility relocation • Alternative to property tax 2 � /;��,��'�i�� '� , / �- : � ��, � "� ��►' � � _....�� ,, 1 � � , �_ . �0��=��1�11=��:� e"'�%�.r = •�tl�� 9 ,_�i �'"�" ,;,, ,' �;. � ��►� — — :�!e;; l�� :. : �" :►:,�� ;;��;n��ri i , , , , , ,�� , , . , , ��, i � �� ' ' � �: . �, .� _. � �s _ ��I � _ — . �I ■� � ., , .. __ . � �rq� ,1 � �=�---m�,�� _ . ,� 1� IIi�' ' " . > ;�li � � ti .��n��i�� ,��,. . � � �� —� � . ti �'�4�t�:sl��'l��0 _�� '�� •. �IIII i.�`�"�1�►...n��1�lY ��:��1�r,.w�;� e7 ' � I ,� � '�� - � t , � ,�i! E . . , , .� : � = � . ' �'':;�;�� l �� rl ' : ��. ' �.=r �� ,Z � � � � i ��'� ��`-��pi E�i � �1 1 _—�i�r�. � �� . , , _ ;.��1 � I � , � ��. . ,�� )I � � � - �ii�.`�:��: ,��llilllU�'' � �� I N � �� . ► i � / •�If , ':'�� l � . : �.�N�� , �� ., h J ��i� . . �►�►, .,�►��, ; ue i �i i .��1 •- �. ��. . r.�:..,,,. �. �:��i� , . . , �!:'�.... ` �i; y ��;';�.� - ��=F�i�iii 1�1��'•� ,�•'`''�i�:* ' • � �� I �� LQl1= � �1�• �,��:��% . � �i e��:li � �� '��' � ' 'i 'iii��'' �� r` 1 � �I �...I�a ��t°`• '� � � i�� • ��:::a�� :��t ��►`� �! � �:I:�� ;,�, e- �` . �► ,� �hll��: ��.,�� il�:�� • . , , �� I��•� • �,!.��! ! �1 `�� M � �e �r � .��' - � ��wf�:I��l�� .�6�.5� 1�� f . � � r� '''� � I � � ' , ��;; �IE� , ;I�l�i.�� Ir� � .�, � �� ' ,�•,� � �; ��r� �• 1� ► � . � „� � � „ .�� r- �� ,�,� +��n � � �"i .. � � �' � , � � ' ,,..��1 �� .. �� , �, ��; _ 1' + � '� � ! �� . � . ,��I . �_- . . ,! � � ��, . � - ,, • �. ► ; I � � � � � - r . �� _. _ - n. � .�� , _ . �. � :. ------� .-.. - - - • r-�. sa • � � ,�.,'i':.�.-� _. �h W� �'•l/I�Y�M,� ' � �, •�MOAM�KV�M = "'�� I� /I[LO .� � ♦ 1�r�� / �i� 1 {1 �11--� —�+-��IM� �'•.4 Y — y�f � Yrpy1�MW.I� 2L . . , . , .:. � . •: 7 � . 1 r ' M `• 1�� ,. ,:',� � � Kp r. —L . . ^. .. � J �• � :�, M[IK� lYl[ 'C �,�' :. ,,� _.� ...,....a..F/ .}..� . � . . 'L' , .� P : :,•;;,,� . � . :,: `'; � �t�r ..:� �� » o ± •:4...�• _,�: .� ;'. a I . � (� �� rwtoe :_ �� J�� M �;y�� U I��=� ." �-- -M[wir � --� . � `: . �� y r k ��a Y �� Nt�ITT :>:::...::� F �_ . c ro-r[. � �uw r� . : : > . ... ,. f�C C� . ..,, ,'r � �Q �� U+� � NAMLINf.� o Nu�Y�O r I � ' � � �� `O. !' UNIVERS/Tl' o �� '..'a:.ak� L • � ��` [M.l ``� ' ` O[.�"� S� C : I � v M � ~�v : . � �— � w. � r:ir �� ' � � —�� ML�"� �,.. =� � � C�C� C� O C = W� "�►`" ;a o .�� o 0 0 � ; Qo 'uo:��oo :�:;:ENE�� 000c W Q,� ^ • _� � ��7 "U M� � �� .'� []� .V� 0��:�;'� C � �' ` ❑3 ��__.ye y = C��'°� � � 1 �I\ y �[OYYMDlI �� ^ , W�.J �_� M�S �J �a .�� L�� `�.,�.,` u ., _ : CNC "� C� O � O=� _�_��_� C �ry.•.' �.' �s � �tM(11�YIIML� ��; � u ,� R ;T� O �OU OOO C �•� -- - � .. : .� ' o� �a =�� , .. ...:..._..: .. �� . Y '�� y��'., ♦ � = MD t ;� (�r�rA�t �'1 . � WI[LOt ' (IV. '''' � r: � ; I I C ° b � . . .: � v►� . � i �v r �q rI� �'�Ew�i�r' .. I r , ��.._J� � . 1E11�' ' '. . .�G ...�. . �Y:.r I� ' . .. �O .� � • �i QAY�•.� r�'�L►M^� l,.Y ' n . -.. � ... ....:. C�11110r LL,�--� p[. u U: _,,�� ,'�� 0�0�.7 Do l� ^..� ; � � — ... ,. � � � � � :�� .�.� �,�. >�� ;�.�M C . '� L �fE �V4 G • .��.. ' . CEM_' C �il[N�11t � �. � � �O L�D � �� ,F' . . . �I� �1--�1�O NL[N�/t ��V[ .�OtlNM/N�fI[CO ��.:� , AR M4L `� C� �,a L� �❑O� �'��` '. ::�= :. �• �.00 L , . ... , . .:.,..... .:.. AvE. �I-1=� f I I� �l I-1 f� n I� n n n n � ,.—� .. .�-, r--�r--��.� r � � ELL I � � � � �I I UER � IT1� ( � E �T � i1T� 0� � aALE � TOTRL OILED RESIDENTIAL STREETS 4.5 MILES � _ - ., �.,,.r--,--=� ;;-- --n _ �_ _ _�.p�� _ �� 1i J�.�• ;, �. 4l1 1� :_�,� U �` y� ; '� ��"; ..' .vi � `. : ]� J• � ?t '.. nr�wucc L� �`� `�� ,`�I 1 +, �/f � � .�, ui� �� '�j�. = �. �IO�A NK.�' VM. f//NY11l7 r .�i l. :�'y. u J ~� ^ � 1�V'' Ai ��.,~„�. �•. MOr� Ml �J ,�e :. c[rtr[�r . ,�.•.. :��, .'�: ��_� , � + . l� � `�. 1 r s W w�-4';''s; ( (� � � � . �r �� .t._.; N i < � � � �. �r�r�.�v[. � �, . a .�;,..:.�. -;.�,� �; —N[M��IIA = . �U ~,. . �S � � f I, � ;�/'.'�. . �. . , I� H y�(�` � T � � •'.I�ICL �nLIMtON.�` '��7 " l�y�. W � a o=�=��8 _�� :.� = ��.-�.o .:�F ��.�.� �� , � � �., AVE E. ARLINGTON— .<<�o. ��;; oo a��y��- � = - � � � o c � � N r�'� . , t � t:'"�-- ' ` '� . ,�, . �m...� �r---, , �Y d a � k�J L�J �D��.•rtj 1 -� ..+,...-. "n.,, Wtlf fTY; ,, � �, i�' '�` � t+ '•� r a. • � ,d� ;,y'".t• � t �l_J �x....:.iu ' W = ' .;1�r I� �vr r�vt`l�� [AfT• J �� »_ � 1 � Y ::,, i; ; �-� a o� �M IM�CIMtN ,� � ' � �''� � r � ? W�(�I �� 0� �:.��=., ,�.�; .�,�; � ¢��o.�; :�� : �, r — MARYLAN �VE. t �� ? -]� r �� . w..-.-' I I �❑ ❑0 �� ❑ OC—]'.o� E L� �. � ' -°'" Ee` Ir-1 ❑O [�"�7❑ � U �� :J�.1 d �J �+:�'O .: '� M � rI1 fI i[I1�MIYY r�YC. II-- [ r�11M11 Y 1 W�rD4[w�d� r I I l .J �L I I I I a l J ��L_� ��I . ` •�•.: :� � w JEtiAYI AVt. 1 ��/ArIIM� ;� � Y ❑ �❑a� �JJU � �� UIL . � c .. �..�� w� � . .. �5oo�.p .��. � � �� ❑ V �❑� �JIINKb.TON iG � E \ � �_� P 0 0 �,�c ��—,� �'►rV �y ��or� Ll�O�] �,s � �� . ��—!Y AU� �� LJTL�o��J O•A� OAKLANO =�C � �,,o�� C� � � : C� C� °�,. r' � nw�ow -�rc_sr � []�� u�ar�cw_a. Y i � F�a� Ir�rIz�r��.�r �i� CEMETERY, '��i � MMOES{ ;-3T.1 �U �,�K= YMMTW�_AK. � v � Yplpf /T �YILI011O I I � � r I NMMI/[�_A11L. �� wL�;��U� �� --��J � C►� �7\ .,r MT��_ [�-,.�fl' -- I U C�. ` � �] ...�„� � ' � �i t I_:� - . � ��" ' �.trurat[ �st��,�-�. r �i SJ� ]�'� ' F' ACR[I1 t. M �DU� +� i J ��v �u�� v[. � �M1 .3.� ��I�� .I1�ICM •T. I . 1 �...wo ��.� ^� �, .IR. � 1+ F �p, I �' ^rIMT[III u- �� r � �'��J'��i u �4 '-1 P<9ro I�'--�i��Nici��.�� tAR � � AhIL� �' GALTI ER � �T� � �lT � R � � � ) TOTHL OILED RfSIDENTIAI STREETS 4.7 MILES � ��ai u u� - _1 ��:v �o.J ' ; -,. ..r � � — - � ( wVE. � �o_ '�;�.r i�% '' '�.y.,w � '� � �� '.►�� " � �i�Y. �bOD [. \�.`:�'. ( :��_:: aa❑ � � oo �: o.: : :��. .� ,—� oo �i: � .s. -- M. � a�w�+ r • "'JOAmo�l.', � [. ��tl �., � L[A� s � r' r [—�-'` "''" � . � � . ' ` ►,r��,. � i IKM v? rv� �v[ [ Ivr � St�ool � �� , ; W • � N , � � �l � � � � .\ �: .�rJ s f. J C � �_ � � �r�ciMrM �• r � �va j :, \J,. W-.. ,�o C� �_JOQOO [— � C�p� - _ r�: r. ;. ` '`� [ OA/M�L �� , � �� c�� aoo � .. �: U :.-�:::; �, �� ` l�J Q a �vi. ' � �t t.� ��'�', ir MI�RY�r N�o� - --- ' -�—�U❑�� . �N � e:%� t �� ` • y �; �.: ;;�: r L�JIJ �QQ�❑ L J�i �� 0 0 � �•:; e �r� � �ou N . _:. � . ,:. .:- C C.�C]O�❑ O C� O O�J U ��,� �0:t . �.� �,� � r. u ❑❑^� � ��^Q a �GEIIAMIYY � J � -� �[ I U '�� a � °M 'oo❑ orr�.�ao ..p.O� ►N�LEM �� w. _ �K �o� .';•: Q� `�o��'�'�� i�=��o ..--1� :`stM;= ��0 -f :•=. ro� Q �{ ;� � : : � � ��.�� o o��oa-,��: o o �;� . ��' � —ac. Y •-: : + °E,S„L •�> p r—r 0 � .:��► U �e�� o��,„::-�:�f t� ti` �[NR ....`�� C I ❑O a y t � • ��'�' /[60;. �' � �S � t-� � � �� ':. ..�� :f _ � : a �..,� q4�♦O ,��0 0 I� �D:�:� 1:�� *�::. y,,-�-��. � ti;,;.i o U ��❑ �� '='" a`� �� : • - � w�� ,Ma '.r',;, � U � W� C� �D C_._l C� 3 =� �.�. o, �� ., _ � , � � _ � W , �.<u...•.. . .. - �-w111TA11 �V �/��1 " �; k� � .. , , � ��.,. ....... � Q �� 0°�7� ' � d�� ,=�:wi. y � �� r � • �'' S N .vc. �i � �r , � � � � � ) - �l ��. �' � ' s C� 1. . C� C��a�� '. .�� .I.' � * �� MINN� ''`-'' �l �.»,�'" �" �7a�L . � % .:. •:� � '`• A ' ' i �MIY W �I 1��,..� �.f� > i!�_uroMr +�,. .. �t;:`� sch dQ�� U �] . �� ' ;.: �C%�►f:.�. ��:� � d L�i-'�� ' + ei;'°'-. ,.,.,;, F . �—�' y�..:� . � o � - ;,r. �< F�' 4; ov�vi��,^ 4� �'" t�, � 1 � � �� r ''�9� ► � ( , ��, O. ir ,� ► tr. ' �` �`Tt � �t �,(�v� \ y�� , � �••��y y h r,: �i� '��: � : z" � T�-.3 ,��Y; l .� z .. � , ' r�' � b°�':�' � � -- ~ i .�''� � � � � • . �= '+ ` �� y � .,o.. � -1^- � �* � �, � Q '� � _": • t , ��, - a J ";, ' �' * `.:�..+'� �'� /- �� •. , ...._ .�. �� , �� ( ��':`♦ �J` `4+' � � 9/ �, �`�f . ._.. 9y � �h+ .. l�. ��%' � C� '� �1 ♦ ��~�s� .a ,� ♦ !:'�,< _y� �� E � AR � AaE = � � H � LE � CF� EEl� � TOTAL OILED RESIDENTIAL STREETS 5.2 MILES __ 6''� — /� � � ivE - - - � -� � � ' �-7(_ -J � - �• ' .,,`.�", ; �d�`'�,•„� L�_J uwr• `-- ! I�� `�rr j ~ :A . y. u � �%... • l � •� �r—� ❑��= �� J i o �� •- ` `p �,. J��-�..�C.V[� ❑ � ��.".. ' � .�J -� • ��•�L _� �.----��m � �� ,,,Y.. s� �' �� , �� n t ro�r�M• � � 1��_� �� LU�YK�� , ' ��v � 1OC� C�� C_ ._�� ' . -�� .� �� I � ..�.o, „� . .�, .., �� __ � � ��.. �o .. � l�� C f "v� �Oa f��. �� _ .� ; I ) �-� .�,�. ��. ��;; �N[11�00 �f ��L-_J l_ _ )°l—� ' � : . ��/J: �-=;:�. ^ . Ct�i.� ICOTiM y�^� �V[. �' � � � --._� �� N�IOCN MIS �y �— ��;•�.. ��=`..�o_`� �,�� CJ— .�� I r— ��.. T ��: W_ :��. .�.. . nr_- m � �� . �'O�'� : � rMnc�wrw .rc � .+�� •~f', � �%� � �___�J��K�� r �� O � W 'f.""., • '� ; _ J � Ci'�� ' ` � � � 3 . � � MI.M�( J r[. M O� � � .1 0�' �r..,. 7 1 �w�rrMO�IM[ _wt e► '��.. .J I.��_.._� I,�' �� OR0111�—AK. i _� _.—__ _M�RYLAND— - - �%/• - '+� AV . "�'��- - -'"�� ' �� '�r? +`�.eo � - - - �,ir. ^ . �.1' . / r r J,' ' ,01 \� � fbr� Jr r I : K �wi \ ♦ M�� .! �" 110��AM! r ,�� •1_J� W�. �� /) /teI,.r.�y 1 " _°�� D t�11 r� !o� C_Jl^ !I �. �--- I or � r��.�w 'a� � + Ourxur w/ r � � r��;I� �, ` ..«o�,. . --- . cu��wt r ,•. � . � _,�. .�. . - � �� ' �� ' �Y(CMAMIC—M1[ ('YYMOIIK'T�Y[. � �P � '• ' :�' ',\`�� 4� � ��' (y�, �' �.1.- _a..:_.A`,. �•�" , �res r v[� I r�rct� rc Q� • �� - ,r..��,....•.Ir�f SCNMi� � I \� T V '� � u�i �f�;:J�C. '"r�,,.;,�, .��,.� � � .K. . . ,� � _ _� C-7 : ��Do-,. ` �;: CASE • AVE. - — �'• ti 1 C—" ,r'� C� �J �__� - . f�'.� �� ;� w 't� i t�Dl❑�� i[II •,. 1 �� L _� �-o ' (�' � '. � ••l�J L�� :.�9:: v D�v ^.. f a � ,�r 1I� I..��....'..I.� .. • ,. .� • �� J U L�J L�.�I � �� ,r•�. �4 . . �� ~� �--z ) �` -'� OC� C� .. ;� �C� " t � � � (�: ._ ' .�•f'• s ,� lI L""� O Ci:,.� �� / ,��,,�M �, .�. : i •• JU �� :�UOPU� .,L ,"7�=�C� ...... . � JN�� OOL_� L� �� C""�O l IMINNEIIANA—� r--1�l rAVE �, �_,�� ^I � � R �THO � �iE / RUTN ( � � L� Li � � l iOTRI OIIED RESIDENTIAL STREETS 2.7 MILES Combined Sewer Separation and Street Paving Program Three Sample Construction Options Shops Homes . ..:ti;::;:;: '`:::'�:�'��.��..`'`..:..�:•'..��.�.'�.:::..:.;.�'`�''':�':``'.`':.��:: Sewer Separation and Street Paving (with trees and lights) Shops Homes , �;.:;;::: Sewer Separation Only Shops Homes Street Pa ving On/y (with trees and lights) COMBINED SEWER SEPARATION AND STREET PAVING PROGRAM Estimated Costs for a Typical Homeowner January, 1986 A total of$13.4 million is necessary in 1986 and each of the fotlowing nine years for a full sewer separation, street paving, street lighting and boulevard tree planting program that will allow completion of these improvements throughout the entire city. Non-sewer-related improvements will continue for an additional 10 years. Funds would be obtained through several methods. How would this program's costs affect a typical homeowner assumed to have a 50 by 150 foot lot? Of course, not every tot would be affected the same way. All home- owners would pay some costs such as an annual stormwater utility charge or a sewer service surchazge. However, not all lots front on oiled streets, not all lots are served by a combined sewer, and not all neighborhoods desire lighting or boulevard trees. Estimates of typical per-lot costs for each of these different�nancing methods follow. FOR SEWER SEPARATION We are proposing a new stormwater utility charge spread against all properties city-wide, based on land area and level of development. It would be used to generate$4.8 million annually city-wide. To obtain this amount would require a rate of approximately 0.45 cents per square foot. This represents cost to the typical homeowner of$32.00 per year ($8.00 per quarter). This cost would condnue for 10 years. Under this bonding schedule, this cost would be much less in 1986 and in the early years of the program. A portion of the sewer separation costs would be obtained through a one dme direct storm sewer assessment under the present policy of 3 cents per square foot. This would result in a one-time cost of$225.00 per homeowner which could be paid through a cost of$25.00 per year financed over 20 years at 9% interest. This is not included on the following summary table since the costs raised from this method will lower the stormwater utility charge by an equal amount city-wide. FOR STREET PAVING A street paving program of$7.6 million annually would be paid for through a mix of charges including a surcharge on existing sewer rates, a city-wide property tax levy and a direct assessment against benefited properties. A sewer service rate surcharge will be necessary to generate $2.0 million. This represents a 12% surcharge on existing rates, which reflects a small annual increased cost to the typical homeowner— $14.00 per year ($3.50 per quarter) for 20 years. �� - �� a A city-wide property tax levy would be necessary to generate $4.45 million for street reconstruction. This spread over a typical property ($62,000 market value, $11,500 assessed value) would increase the annual property tax for the homeowner by $29 dollars per year, assuming this total amount is funded on a pay-as-you-go basis, rather than through bonding. Under the bonding program, this cost is reduced by more than 80% in 1986. The remainder of the street repaving, $1.9 million, would be financed through direct special assessments of 1/4 full construction cost. This represents a rate of about $18.75 per residential foot or a total of$937.50 for the typical lot. This can be spread to a cost of$103.00 per year over a twenty year financing period (figured at 9% interest). FOR LIGHTING AND TREES The street lighting and boulevard trees programs are estimated to cost$1/2 million each or $1 million total for 1986. This construcrion or installation would be at the choice of property owners within the project area on project by project basis at a 25% assessment of construction cost. For lighting this comes to $1.94 per front foot for a total one time cost of$97.00 which could be paid through a charge of$10.00 per year financed for twenty years. The boulevard trees 25% assessment calculates to$0.75 per foot for a total cost of a $37.50 which could be paid through an annual cost of$4.00 per year financed over 20 years. CLOSING Again these charges would not all occur to every property in the city. These are only estimates to help provide some understanding of the impact of the charges for each of these portions of the program. The table on the following page summarizes this information. 2 COMBINED SEWER SEPARATION AND STREET PAVING PROGRAM FUNDING ALTERNATIVES AND THEIR EFFECT ON A TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNER Annual Effects of Sewer Program (10 Years, $15.4 Million Each Year) Amount Cost to Property Owner (pay-as-you-go) Federal Grants $5.8 Million $ 0 State Grants 2.4 " 0 State No-Interest Loans 2.4 " 0 Stormwater Utility Charge 4.8 " 32 Annual Effects of Street Program (20 Years, $8.6 Million Each Year) Amount Cost to Property Owner Sewer Service Rate Surcharge $2.0 million $ 14 Citywide Property Tax Levy 4.45 " 29 -Streets $ 3.7 million -Lighting 0.375 " -Trees 0.375 " Direct Special Assessments -Streets ($7.6m x 25%) 1.9 $103 -Lighting ($O.Sm x 25%) 0.125 10 -Trees ($O.Sm x 25%) 0.125 4 Important Notes 1. Not all costs will occur to a given property owner. Some will occur only if paving,light installation or tree planting occurs on his/her block. 2. The amounts shown for Stormwater Utility Chazges and Citywide Property Tax Levy assume total "pay-as-you-go" financing. Use of bonding will dramatically lower these charges in the early yeazs of the program. 3. Assessments can be paid up at any time by the homeowner,thereby reducing the interest costs. 1/8/86 3 a H' ; . � .�;`+�'.+e ,�; . . m � .��¢ � 9� ,�y,, q � �� G.',s . �. _ �" - + `kT�� ,�y/ �� }�,'',A,'�� ..�3,� n4 ° � _ ' � � �.c ?�-� y��4�"�` � �i�,�t. � n � � ? h ' �.: N a/ t�}� x� �?k '� 4;�j Z �. �t .e� � - r- .- 3 r 4�' F�, k.� - +« '.t� �s'€�'� ��"'' ._ -:�� :.Y 1-�.`�"�� w ' � % � f ' � I ! i . S+ . �, s. +�,yj S�S F q � . . �,y� # ,r- - -"r`� �� t �x �?4 t� r�� 'r°� � �' '�'��,'' �,��'� � ��3�p t �`1 �f i! ,� ,��'"i.e��,y,r�s� °a � '�u "s°�"S r `_�. '�° .� � �.�' x. .�r 3� � -��* e. 5 �..* ;: �.,a �;.�� w,wy'+� � „�a .',7, '" � u �,,r si's�'^,��y ��.� '��" _��t��`�.�... v "� `�,�; ' �fi z � � �'«�'��'a a��. �' t +,�: �'�.. a'� t � � . ,!�; u �� ,a .<��`� �T..� "fa..d� � t }�c�.h�*3zF,�,�p �s �: sy :I!�. iz . ' F� ,t .�Y'� ") ^ -, i;'y�r i � s� ? +r �'se `! �� ':'"��" ��'�� c;a� �� . � ' r �� q - *w�t� �'��l��,'r� �µ.� ✓ � ."t 'S"Y '�'s^!'�r ' . . . � f�� .�_ �. Y; � ' �x^ ., � 3 m -`�a �'� .,q.�� . 1�.�f� ,y'sr�.k,�' a �,', xc., � � k_ €:r,�j , k �'% �'1,.��!. C +�` z�.i �; .� -t ;� �ta � , � °� as.,�,.. '�a��...'" wr�c. �� r k _�� e �� ,_ � Y �- a � �> .. .._ ' � -�a K��; 4<..v-.n._.3t F i }}�''�`� �` •y n �r"��- �l �F� •��^�.�'� j .�.,+�., ��1��'`� 5'�ekl' � 4'��`� '�€�� . , ` ��11��1y'� { 2Sd �e_ �.�, .. �' . .� :-� �`� �.. ,. , e ' � '�; .q��s��,�1,3 e�k,c-ci�,�'C: 3�._ 4 _ .w. , .. �, ��.: ;� , � �., . �p � tl � ; F. J ,t ��1�.�:� ��'• � ,�� 4��.&.��.�. �t� S s�� "`, 9 y y;. ,, s ,rp � �-.-• '` `"� � . '�'��°5�1 �7� `l'Y��:� � � '� �. � , �,� � :��a.� ,yts.{`s_� '�1ffi� '� � u �. +�r - E,-n" ,. '._2 ,�� } Y � � `�,s u, `�ro'�Yy�'", ry= � ' .._ ' _;,S n5`r d�,�,;� f ' " �''�sa�n4:�.�',�F�.,�R �� .:c +� s �•�, x✓�� i R . , a , �� : �� .�kv: .. , r �_ < , �i � ��°S '•� �,�°�y+�� ' �q` '^ ,"� "x' �',#g 'r2 s+ � °� a +� +'��'p > a} �{�,p�� a � r .�ie *1 ��L �k'�s' k"s �s i,��r- "�- ��; i�, s °�,�,,�� ., . .,,, � ., i:r� `� ° � z'�` a, r ; ��Df u� ` �, ' I�Y �z. .'. . . �'c'�Y�`� � _ y Y=� 3'��,�e�. . � " �y „ � a�.4e'„�� .�`.., 1 ��z ��- '�t �., 'j�� ' `��#:'��4 ��:�}��+c_ 4- *'��F� T ,�i: �4 +, ��`� .S, �{F � � a-;� �.�>t" �, ia `��. z , � T� T , ~ a � � v'4* y� 4,'�W� � '�Y ^ � --�"' >f v`f�, ".6�'W '� �'f '��r #- '�x �� '� E � ;�z '9..vt'p H#r GA ° } $ 'aw j�� n s � ; P� �.�n'^r�.b7�' ., K'� �t; • 4_ s �L s .� . � . �: t�� _.'„�. : �' � ,�°�� _�f �'�� .��,� �� ,��+i � ��''��:��''m z {�r� � }�, ��#7k3��: ��.�✓" �� xk� '*�''�'+�' �,�,�z" " y�.�+t"i y "'as> Y4 �� `x ��7r�+ � � � �x ��C s� �� -,�C� � F 4�r .+5:�i b#.� _.� r��"��.�F . � �� F` �' � � wr �' }, � � r- � 'R ,�� . � } �*�y, ��1 �`� � iPkE a�,, � G E -c�J4g�;,:a ,.�`` . � a.,. �� '�1� � t �,'t�`"b'vT`"Y'lF. '� � �,�..'� • \j `F ��.-� ��.�`��. t� p � x *:� y - s r� �� _ , .'� ' -�� "� _ _ �e3�X�a�'Y'�"�j�'�t��•x� . �� r � y��, ' S <. z '{-�-�� M �'.�'fi"y'� t +.:. .�� r Mfi't�� t�ry * ,,.�r ��it�� a,; a �' �x^ � »:.�.«�Xe,_x�,,�,yy�� s. ,,� �'" ,�-�"'y �Y�. '�y�#�� `� ?� ��r w �.�.»� �� C k.i�la �� .. a��? . , ��r� ;.a�. b�` �s3 s, "sw r}. .�'*�"W,'� $ �,� � i i '� � r.•.� !, � � °x� � ; v a �-� Y >i�� #r� �� w�` ��* a�{,� �� _ � '��i'�� ` �'^..>f- r�+'�,.�+, a- . �,��n��%.v �, �yt� � p# �+4��x.:s a� .. � �r��r�+� �?s :., :. ��` s S �,'* k-y � ��` �,� ' ��Ya� d:'F ��'p1�6t 3�*t `� o - � � .,�,�w �''r- � _ `` .`„y� �t . ' ..��41��.' �, � �'�� +,� �,,hx '�� 7 �'�t ''�'�,F �.'��afg£ '�" a.-.� 4$� 's 5{ '�..�� .�' ,� . � '�`'x :t�w�'.�c� \� �-a' .{ �.�m�� ...i�.r '�c: �� 3 T c� 3? !L ".P i i,[� . Y {MR S,�y 'l� ! �'s�� 't�q H ��1 ��yk�y �� t� �F q�q.'S?�'' � xaCR �1� L.. �'y4T � �� '� r �,�"ti "� h j. -� ; � - '� �� ' �� ;�� ( �� ' � " '' `'� �'� �z` �` '' � `� �t"� � �, r . .��... : �:# ��s^ t�r a � � �. . �,� -� o, . ,': .� . : `B �.� .� >ii-� � `v* � �'��Y° � �,�. s .� _1 ; ,�,p;. 'v a ` _ r�;. .�,�', `'� , r`,�`,��'N.'. �? . ` ��• �� ,�(� � .'s� �`,� �� ; k ,,� �- X =f ,� y�. ��sa� ft ,�, c ,�i` h, � •' �4 - :) �\�� "" �' �f ti��,�AB.��1'i ��' ��"� �` ��,,� , „ {�� ,.�� a�*,t, �i x a�y' ;x T�'T� +16 f �)S Y � 4� :� ��. � 5 ,a ��;�'r1K,�r,yz� �t.� ��T*! . I%�� ; �:� . � ; ��A'��q�q •�,�. .��H't�. � � � �'✓ � '.a �� .. �` � '�� nr'�'�'� � � d�' � � �.' � d �i� � _Zt 'ux�y �e A� � �i �� , ., �,.�� '�;►�.. . � .� .a� �� e' a�'"��.^G��y- � ,�i Bk . c r�,�� y#J ° � e} R ..'�y�. . :-:� '4",2"1�� 5�'1kx r r. �3�La�`7'� `5.�9� .�.c��) . t �1 �. '� a z �, �c}3 t ,�Y`�s x .��+ a ,� .J� A �t '+.. r'�.� :g r` ,�-�`N�,c, E4l'4'� � ,� ,� �I��'r ��w��-� �' � .s-ti'��'� � ��tw�� "� � ` ��F�' +. °'�� `�.�..'� `;�`,,,#�t.�# a��4�£�" y�'�,i, � �. �h c. � � '� .� .3� it; k tt�.��s ��j� r i t.�+t�'a' , �.� .�: ,�� A ,t�- � �,.t Y t y'6 ..��v. � X ��,� � .{,�•SZ��?�"'Yt' ��4bj:.1+.i" t' �I, b* .. � { ,�-�' s� °�'�.i2 � .0�''�� '�°j��,�� 1 ,� rc r�. .,' .� � '"t. s � `� ,e �*' '$g'y �.K t� �. y 3 w � * `V y� —�`�'' :� t ki•'�.,� � ` t� ;. �y�y�t�'�y�"?�r � -��s �d � . ��y�,,'�""'��^ � ��'�� "°''�_ n�,tr :'�„ �� ` � °!!m�.�'s •""'�' d{�`3��:��a£'� k'�`,i�,�',Y�`€�i�4.. m� � [' � �' j, f�;��" t ;f _ �'3":.. � -`�� e'� >q+t^k„F'�.'�`,�st. 2 q .:'^*a /� �� '��:�h�i y '°� � �3, � ��4�� r s�. ;�_ _��3�� Ck f iA\tY7J� '� yAh"�.,�.�.~ � -_ _ �� +��y� �p� ��~�F �V� ��s,�(y . ('('� ' � r.' '.. . Y � r'°`C �... .� . ^�'- , �� ..`��`�e-�OyT�`3 i' �� g�, a �,$' s�. q�:F # �s- q.E N'a t Y ��:.�'� �x. ta' �.�+n .�# x ,��5, :�x��i � � t �t.,.,. � k ¢� $,��n:�;.cY' "�� "�r"'4 i ��4 •�- .�s +4d'-`h 7"��*°�� '23t ti � ��at a�. .. a. �-� ,�i�-t� ,.� 4�! a�� 5 "�s�t'Ty.e_.h� -� -�.� �� -y,�, :". # �' .._i,t .� t; '$�` '�:� ��8��p�'�k��J'h'-y�'- '*M � � � .� ', '.�.� ... '.' �y.� � S�� .s� •��ya"��'i„i� ��'t�`�;✓'o��F� Q' � .... w� a � '4 �+'� � tr � w � ..- ,'. ��- .. �. . • .... ..d .. , . �.,.*� :..... '. ,< . .-._. , , d�., � $ �t �:'.C'�� ..'2� ��_ .,q.`�*s,�>� .�, � , , -:�^. ,.; .. r� , , ,* ''` ; f � � v t�£y+� �r � .�_t � �� * d ,v .'�' ��'�� > # . �� ,., � .. � _ ,. ^ �' .� s�'%`�.� � � �. � � � °� . E�-�ti= � d � "' _ � �� i �� , : � r ;� � , . '�_; " �� r � � � �� r^: > f � rt� �e. � y >�� ,, � a:r � :, ; �:a, � x� � r'� ��.'1MI1�� ( �' 3 ,n ..� � '4t�1 � � t 3 � r � ,/� r `; 1 �.& � ''�� ' i�t� �{,s �' �,h w a S :�� y, ��,��;�.:f ' � f � '_ i - ;'3� y :'a .t' �S� } ,K �� ',�. �.�;5 ` r r �'? `.�� `��F� � .r _ '� . y 4 r '� t ° _ .. _., f. ,� �, .. .> . . .. � �_ .. , �'-.R , ', �_ ; . . '�p �' ��.-•,��'�