The URL can be used to link to this page

279820 WHITE - CITY CLERK PINK - FINANCE 2�9g20 CANARY - DEPARTMENT G I T Y O F S A I N T �A U L COUflC1I BLUE - MAYOR File N . , , Council Resolution Presented B d�s'��'��o.�,� Referred To 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, at its meeting of January 20, 1983, the Council adopted a resolution, Council File No. 279731, approving the "Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policy: 1984-1985" for use in the Unified Capital Improvement Programming and Budgeting Process during 1983, and , WHEREAS, such resolution was adopted in accordance with the Finance Corr�nittee recommendation that Policy B7, page 29, be deleted as it pertains to UDAG reinvestment, and that Policy B7 would be given further consideration by the Finance Committee; and, WHEREAS, at its meeting of January 27, 1983, the Finance Committee gave consideration and recommended adoption of an amendment to the adopted 1984-1985 Capital Allocation Policy which pertains to UDAG reinvestment; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby adopts the attached amendment to the adopted "Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policy: 1984-1985" for use in the Unified Capital Improvement Prograrraning and Budget Process during 1983, and directs its distribution 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 Yeas Nays Requestgd by De artment of: F�unt Fletcher '� evi e In Favor a ox Galle3 � ahon Masart� alter __ Against BY �e Nicosia , Wilson Sch� g 1983 Adopted by Council:Wiison Date f EB Form Approved by City Attorney CertifiE:d P ss d by Council S ary BY Ap by Vlavor. D t F_ ��1 n ��3 Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council _ By PUBUSNED FE B I 9 1983 2�9�� Amendment to the "Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policy: 1984-1985" adopted January 20, 1983 as Council File No. 27 9731 : Policy B7: UDAG REINVESTMENT For all Urban Development Action Grants (UDAG) , fifty percent of the program income (i .e. , the UDAG percentage of any income earned by the City from the disposition of property acquired with grant funds, or the repayment of any loans made with grant funds, or any other revenues defined by the grant agree- ment as program income) from an individual UDAG shall be set aside for eligible projects within the District (s) in which such 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 citywide economic develop- ment purposes. <f �'�� =�h-- CI�.rY 0�' ��,;. ,. S A X N'i` �,E).YJ L `V � '`,� O�`FIC7� OP` TFIP: CITY COIINCIL 2"19820 .. ;fi�: ,-.- �'. �:,fi::,..- ,�:• ►:;,. ,.•. r_,•.::.,�! . � �_- - � � b D a t e ; January 27, 198� � �� .� ,� �'�� - � CO (�IMiTT � E R E PC1 RT TO = Sain� Paul Cifiy �ou�c�l F R O I1H = C O rn�!I�t'�e O h FINANCE, MANAGEMENT � PERSONNEL C H A I R James Scheibel � ' 1. Approval of minutes from meetings held January 17 and 20, 1983 - .� - 2. Resolution revising the riinimum Qualifications for the classifications s of Loan � Grant Specialist I and Supervisor cf Loans and Grants. (Personne� 3. P.esolution establishing the titles of bianagement Asst. I, 1�7anagement � Asst. II, and hianagement Asst. III and the class specifications. (Personnel �'��rT 4. Resolution repIacing the title and class specifications for Parking bfeter Repairman with the title and sp�ecification for Parking bieter R�pair ti4orker. (Personnel) ��''�'�°�_; -� S. Resolution deleting th'e title and specification for Senior Loan F Grant Specialist and estab�ishing the title and specification for Lo�n $ Grant Specialist II. �(Personnel) (`�',�`�"�`=j. , ��TM, _.. _^ . _ - 6. Resolution establishing the balance of the funding nceded .for the staff ti�ork for. ihe Personnel Issues Task Force to allo�, that Task Force to begin neeting. (Mayor's Office . _ :�,a.;.' . - f�( 7. Discussion of the policy guidelines for UDAG reinvestmen / ` : .�kau'��,�.--c�. S. Discussion of the Civic Center �Auditorium Feasibility Stud . .� ',�Ue�� t�.`� . .'"".. 9. Discussion of the policy for City employees for sno��r days. NOT 01� PREPARED AGENDA: • ' • Resolution establishing priorities for use of 1983 Residential Street Paving fund Resolution extending priorities for use of the adopted 1982 Capital Improvement �' Budget Appropriation to the Residential Street Paving Program. a CITY HALL SEVENTH FLOOR SNNT PAUL,Di1NNFSOTA 55102 .�„ � e ��,7`� � 0 CITY OF SAINT PAUL ��ii�i�i��n OFFICE OF TH� CITY COIINCIL WILLIAM L. WILSON MARTHA N. COBB Ci0IIAC11II18II LeRlelstiva Aid� MEMORANDUM T0: A1 Olson, City Clerk �Y FROM: William Wilson� Subject: Items for February 8 Council Agenda DATE: January 31 , 1983 1. A resolution amending the 1982 and 1983 Capital Improvement Budgets to provide funding for Drew School Site Passive Park Development 2.� A resolution amending the Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policy: 1984-1985 -- Policy B7: UDAG Reinvestment WLJ:vo ( I IY HALL SEVENTH FLOOR SAINT PAUL, MINNES(�I�A 55102 612 298-�3h�'� �?�� :�' �.� 9��6 h' `C1TT p.•�, . 3�• ;ti.; � CITY OF SAINT PAUL �. .,. ` �_�� ; DEPARTMENT Of PLANNING AND ECONQMIC DEVELOPMENT �� e9 . . DIVISION OF PLANNING '',� ,,E 25 Wesl Fou�th Streef.Saint Paut,Minnesota 55102 �'�r,�•�y�+� 611-292-7577 GEORGE UTIMER MAYOR MEMORANDUM . " . DATE: February 16, 1983 . T0: Neighborhood Contact List - . FROM: Peggy Rei chert��--� RE: 1984-1985 Capital Allocation Policy Attached is the 1984-1985 Capital Allocation Policy, which was adopted by City Council on February 8, 1983. This document contains a set of policy statements that are specifically designed to guide the City of • Saint Paul 's Unified Capital Programming and Budgeting Process (UCIPBP) . The 1984-1985 Policy will be used during the upcoming UCIPBP to develop Capital Improvement Budgets for 1984 and 1985. If you have any questions regarding this document, please call Lisa Roden or Katy Sears Lindblad at 292-1577, ext. 203 or 307, respectively. cc: Gregory Haupt Greg Blees Tamsen Aichinger Peter Hames James Bellus Members of the Capital Improvement Budget Committee CIB Staff List � ' � ' af saint� ul • . . c�tY , Pa . . plann�ng commission r�;solut�or�. . � , f�e number 82-46 �tQ �December 17. 1982• : � � � . - � � . . . i Paul is cha d . wHEREAS, the planning Con�nission of the City of Sa nt r9e with .the responsi�ility for the development and review of polities to � auide the biennial Unified Capital Improvement Proaram and 6udget Process (UCIPBP) ; and � �� WfiEREAS, the Capital Improvement Program Subcomnittee of the Planning Comnission �as reviewed and revised the aolicies adopted by City Council on January 14, 1982 �as "Saint Pau1 Capital fillocation Policy: 1983-1987" ; � and W!i"cREAS, the Planning CortQnission has reviewed the previously adopted policies ar,d the recomnended revisions of the Capit8l Improvement Proqram ' Suocamnit�ee; . NOW, THERE�ORF, BE IT RESOLVED, that the P7anning Cammission approves � the policies entitled "Saint Pau1 Capital Allocation Policy: 1984-1985" , as revised, for use during 1983 in preparation of the reconmended 1984 and 198� Capital Improvement Budgets; and � BE IT FURTHER RfSOLVED, that the Planning Conenission directs transmittal to the Mayor and City Countil for their review and adoption. l . � 1 :� � . � � � - �� . � � mOVed �/ McDonel l . ��d �/ _ Levv � �n �r �6 . aga�nst.— � r . � � --. � fE - C�Tr CLENK - .K _ FINANCE �j I'1'Y O F SA I � T � A IT L Council a�q 73 I .•��HY - OE�ARrMENT � � , _, :.:JE - MAYOA File NO. � Cou�cil k�esolutzo� '�' Presented By ,. Referred To 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 � � 4y'NEREAS, the Capital Improvement Program Subcomnittee of the Planning �ommission has reviewed and refined the policies adopted by City Council or� January 14, 1982, as "Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policy: 1983-1987"; • ar.d � � WHEREAS, the Planning Corrmission has reviewed, approved and recorr�nended � revisions to the policies for guiding capital allocation, as set forth in "Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policy: 1984-1985"; NOW, THERE.`ORE, 8E IT RESOLVED, that the City Councfl of the City of � ' � Sai��t Paul hereby adopts the attached report, ':Saint Paul Capital Allocation _ . Policy: 1984-1985", for use .in �he Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process during 1983 and directs its distribution to the Neighborhood � y Contact List, the Long-Range Capital Improvement Budget Committee and its task forces, the Saint Paul Planning Comnission and appropriate city - staff persons. � � • - -.. , . . D � COG`�'(�1L1�lEN Requested b Department of: , Yeas Naps Fletcher - levine [p F8V0[ Masanz � �j I � Nicosia -t-l4�L��:'•�-`� L`. scne�bei _ Against BY "-��-- Tedesco Wilson I Form Appro�• by City Attorney :\;u�tecl by Council: Date Certified P:�ssed by Cuuncil Secretary By � F;� App u�bsi. y Mayoc for Su�is 'ion to Council A;>�ru•:ed h�• 11��•or: D�,te _� ��• :..�. �� ' � • � � FIGURES � FIGURE TITLE PAGE � FIGURE 1 TYPES OF CAPITAL PROJECTS 5 FIGURE 2 RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY CATEGORIES AND OBJECTIVES 11 � FIGURE 3 PRIORITY AREAS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD BETTERMENT 12 FIGURE 4 POLICY MONITORING AND IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY 34 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 1.O INTRODUCTION � � The 1984-85 Saint Paul Ca ital Allocation Polic contains p Y a set of policy statements that have been adopted to � guide the City's Unified Capital Improver�nt Programning and Budgeting Process (UCIPBP). The policies set the general direction for municipal capital expenditures � in the upcoming UCIPBP. The 1984-85 policies will be used during the 1983 UCIPBP to develop a Capital Improvement Budget for 1984 and a recomnended Capital Improvement � Budget for 1985. The policies are used in the UCIPBP to: (1) develop Capital Improvement Budget proposals; and (2) evaluate � such proposals for conformance with adopted city policy. Participants that use the policies to prepare or evaluate proposals inclvde neighborhood organizations, District � Councils, city operating departments, the Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) Comnittee and its Task Forces, the Planning Commission, and the Mayor and City Council. � The 1984-1985 Capital Allocation Policy represents the seventh revision of this document. It was prepared by the Planning Comnission, which is charged with the respon- � sibility for reviewing and revising the policies to reflect current city goals, objectives, and priorities. Each biennium, the recomnendations of the Planning Comnission are transmitted to the Mayor and City Council for subsequent ,� review and adoption by the City Council. � .l A I AL M RO M N aint aul 's annua u get is ivi e into two ocuments: AND THE CITY BUDGET an operating budget (general and special funds) and a capital improvement budget. Although the two budgets � are developed through separate processes, they are inter- related. � The operating budget covers costs associated with governing the city and providing services. These services range from police and fire protection to libraries and park programs. Approximately 80� of the City's revenues support ' these services by paying for staff, maintenance of equipment and buildings, necessary supplies, utilities, and other ongoing expenses. These annual operating expenses generally � fall into one of three categories: 1. Providing existing City services; 2. Providing new or expanded City services; and � 3. Operating and maintaining physical assets. � � 1 � � � � � � � The capital improvement budget funds physical improvements. : Generally, a capital improvement is a one-time expense � required to upgrade or add to the physical assets (land and buildings) of the City. Capital improvement expenditure� can also be divided into three categories: 1. Rehabilitating or replacing physically deteriorated � or functionally obsolete City facilities; 2. Constructing additions to, or new City facilities; � and 3. Providing incentives to the private sector to develop or redevelop assets which are not owned by the City. � Although the two budgets are developed separately, they are closely related in terms of relative spending levels. Capital improvement expenditures may increase operating � - budget costs or result in cost savings. Expanded or new capital facilities normally entail additional operating and maintenance expenses which must be covered by the � operating budget. Routine maintenance of the City's existing physical assets must also be covered by the operating budget. If maintenance is deferred, it may necessitate capital improvement expenditures to rehabilitate � or replace existing facilities. 1 .2 POLICY OVERVIEW Capital improvement needs in the City of Saint Paul exceed � the amount of capital resources available to meet such needs. In order for the Capital Improvement Budget to � meet the most serious needs in a manner which provides the most benefit to the City as a whole, it is imperative to determine the relative priority of proposed projects and allocate resources accordingly. � . The Capital Allocation Policy works to insure that high priority projects which meet the City's goals and objectives � are funded during the ensuing budget years. It transforms the City's goals, plans, and priority statements into a set of policies which provide guidance to capital budgeting � decisions. All budget proposals are developed and reviewed in accordance with these policy directives. Chapter 2.0 presents the underlying rationale of the ,� Capital Allocation Policy. It includes goals, principles, and other supportive information. � � 2 � � � � � Chapter 3.0 contains the policies, which are divided � into four sections: Strategy, Implementation and Development . Project, and Budget Policies. Each section provides a different level of direction to the capital budgeting process. � The Strate Policies set the general direction for . Saint au 's cap�ta improvement allocations within � the framework of city goals and objectives. The Implementation and Development Policies identify � criteria which are important considerations when evaluating capital improvement proposals. The rating sheet developed for the CIB Committee for use by its Task Forces is directly related to these policies. � The Pro 'ect Policies focus more specifically on types of projects to e encouraged or discouraged. In � some cases, conditions for funding particular projects or types of projects are indicated. In others, comnit- ment to certain types of projects is identified. � The Budget Policies identify the various sources of funds avai able to Saint Paul for capital improvements. These policies identify conditions that must be met � in order to use the source of funds. Cha ter 4.0 assigns responsibilities for monitoring the � po icies. While the City Council has final responsibility for adopting the Capital Improvement Budget, the Planning Comnission, CIB Committee, and Mayor's Office of Management and Budget share responsibility for monitoring the imple- � mentation of the policies during the proposal review and budget preparation process. � � �' � � � 3 � 2.0 UNDERLYING RATIONALE FOR SAINT PAUL'S � CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICIES � Saint Paul 's Ca ital Allocation Policies are based on P goals and principles established by the City. These � goals and principles are reflected in varying degrees throughout the policy document. j .1 GOALS For the past several years, two goals have formed the basis for many of Saint Paul 's activities, including � decisions on capital improvement expenditures. Adopted by City Council and identified by Mayor Latimer as major objectives of his administration, they are: � 1. TO STRENGTHEN THE CITY'S NEIGHBORHOODS IN ORDER TO MAKE THEM BETTER PLACES TO LIVE. 2. TO STRENGTHEN THE CITY'S ECONOMIC BASE IN ORDER TO � PROVIDE JOBS AND SERVICES NEEDED BY RESIDENTS OF THE CITY. During 1979, a third major goal emerged for the City. � This goal also serves as a basis for the City's capital improvement expenditure decisions: � 3. TO CONSIDER ENERGY USE IN ALL THE CITY'S ACTIVITIES AND TO INCREASE ENERGY EFFICIENCY WHENEVER POSSIBLE. � In 1980, a fourth major goal arose from the City's compre- hensive planning process. The Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan identifies the maintenance of municipal infrastructure as a key objective for the 1980s. The goal serves as � an additional basis for decisions on capital improvement expenditures. 1 4. TO ENSURE THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE CITY'S PHYSICAL FACILITIES IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN BASIC LEVELS OF SERVICE AND PREVENT POTENTIAL HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARDS. � � � � � � 4 � � � . PRINCIPLES Because capital improvement needs surpass the City's limited capital resources, the goals are supplemented � by three general principles which reflect Saint Paul 's responsibilities and priorities. These principles are: 1. Capital improvements that are necessary to protect i basic life, health or public safety take precedence over all other capital expenditures. 2. The provision of basic services is the City's primary � responsibility. A steady corr�nitment of capital improve- ment funds is required to maintain the efficiency � and effectiveness of basic service systems. 3. When choices exist, the ability of a capital improvemen to stimulate private investment and effect measurable � neighborhood or economic improvement should be taken into consideration. At the same time, some funds should be made available to prevent deterioration � and blight in sound areas of the City, and to meet the need for improvements that benefit the City as a whole. � 2.3 TYPES OF CAPITAL Throughout the policies, capital improvement projects PROJECTS are divided into three categories: service system, support � system, and subsidy. As illustrated in Figure I, most of the City's capital facilities fall into the first two categories. � FIGURE 1 : TYPES OF CAPITAL PROJECTS � SERVICE SYSTEM Transportation: Streets, street lights, curbs, sidewalks, � signals, signs, bridges, skyway bridges, : parking facilities. Waste Removal : Sanitary sewers, storm sewers, ponding � areas, solid waste facilities, recycling facilities. � Water Supply: Supply distribution system. Public Safety: Police and fire stations. � � � 5 � i � Leisure/Culture/ Environment/ Parks, playgrounds, recreation centers, � Education: libraries, cultural facilities, parkways and bikeways, trees, special use facilities. � Social Care: Health centers, multi-service centers. SUPPORT SYSTEM � Administrative offices Storage facilities Communication facilities � Training and educational facilities Repair and maintenance facilities � SUBSIDIES Loans Grants/Matching Funds Acquisition/Clearance 1 The Service System contains the most visible capital improvements. It represents a substantial financial � responsibility of the City. The Support System is a smaller, but equally important � category. It includes those capital facilities necessary to support service delivery. It provides a base of operation for personnel and equipment. � The Subsidy section lists the types of assistance the City gives the private sector as incentives for development or redevelopment of physical assets which are not owned � or operated by the City. Housing and comnercial rehabilita- tion loans and grants, acquisition of substandard structures, and matching funds to develop parks or playgrounds which � are not part of the City's park system are all examples of subsidies. � � � �` �, 6 � � � . CA ITAL ALL ATION 2. .l BALANCE AMONG GOALS AND PRINCIPLE STRATEGY The City of Saint Paul is comnitted to economic development, � neighborhood betterment and efficient energy use. At the same time, its primary responsibility is providing basic levels of municipal services. This requires an ongoing investment of capital resources in order to rehabili� � tate, replace, and, in some cases, add to City service and support system facilities. In order to choose among equally worthwhile projects, it is important to evaluate such projects with respect to city goals. In many instances, a project may promote the attainment of more than one goal. � In order to achieve balance among the goals and principles, the Strategy Policies establish the relative proportion of funds that should address each of four areas: citywide � service system improvements, service system or subsidy projects in support of economic development, service system or subsidy projects in support of neighborhood � betterment, and support system improvements. In addition, the annual proportion of funds allocated to any one area of the City is monitored over time to avoid excessive � geographic concentration of improvements, and to assure that the needs of all areas of the City are being addressed. . .2 PRIORITIES FOR BASIC SYSTEMS � The City of St. Paul 's primary responsibility is the provision of basic services. While there are many amenities � that the City could offer, St. Paul requires sound and reliable service and support systems in order to sustain its economic growth and the quality of its neighborhoods. � � � � � �. ,� 7 � � � � Currently, many capital facilities have deteriorated as a result of age or deferred maintenance. Moreover, � much of the City's existing infrastructure (e.g., streets, sewer and water lines, bridges) is approaching or exceeding its useful life. Given these conditions, maintaining � a basic level of service will necessitate major expenditures for repair, rehabilitation or replacement of existing capital facilities. In the face of rising costs and � declining resources, the Capital Allocation Policy emphasizes the maintenance of basic services over service expansion. It gives priority to needed rehabilitation and replacement of physieally deteriorated or functionally obsolete facilities. � It also identifies the desirability of addressing capital repair and replacement on a systematic basis by granting special consideration to capital improvements that are � identified in the St. Paul Pro ram for Ca ital Im rovements or in the implementing departments' ong-range capita program. � In some situations, additions to existing facilities or the construction of new facilities may be justified. However, the desirability of new facilities must be weighed � against their operating and maintenance costs, and the requisite diversion of resources from capital repair and replacement. Therefore, the Capital Allocation Policy � gives secondary consideration to additions to existing facilities and construction of new facilities which bring an area up to a level of service adopted in a city plan � specifically for that service or support system. . .3 PRIORITIES FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT � The Capital Allocation Policy seeks to strengthen Saint Paul 's economic base so as to: (1) increase the number of jobs for city residents; and (2) expand the local tax base � so that public services can be maintained without a substantial increase in property taxes. In support of these goals, the Capital Allocation Policy gives special consideration to capital projects that: (a) retain existing jobs or � create new permanent jobs; (b) leverage comrnitted private investment; (c) assist in the revitalization of neighborhood commercial areas; and (d) complement other concentrated � revitalization activities. � � � 8 � � � The Policy recomnends the use of subsidy allocations (primarily in the form of loans and matching grants) � to stimulate private investment and neighborhood improvements. The Policy also recognizes that many development and redevelopment opportunities present themselves outside � the biennial UCIPBP. These types of projects require a timely review and implementation process. For those projects that are consistent with City plans and policies, ' the Capital Allocation Policy authorizes the establishment � of a reserve fund, termed the Economic Base Development Opportunity Fund. It can be used to finance public develop- ment or redevelopment activities that act as incentives � to private investment. In choosing between various neighborhood comnercial revitali- � , zation proposals, the Capital Allocation Policy favors those which leverage public monies with private resources ' in concentrated areas of the City. This approach not only increases the investment potential of the public � dollar, but it coordinates improvements within a limited area so as to effect measurable economic improvement. � . . RIORI I FOR NEIGH OR D R Of the many qualities that contribute to strong, stable � neighborhoods, public improvements play a vital role. The physical aspects of a neighborhood are enhanced by well-maintained improvements. Moreover, new injections of public capital coupled with private investment can � reinforce existing confidence in sound neighborhoods, and stimulate renewed confidence in deteriorating ones. Because public resources are limited, Saint Paul must � choose between proposed capital improvement projects located throughout its neighborhoods. As a guide to budgeting decisions, the City has adopted a balanced � approach to neighborhood betterment. This approach is based on two principles: 1. To channel the majority of capital expenditures for � neighborhood betterment to those areas where there is the greatest opportunity for stimulating private � investment; and � � � 9 � � � � 2. To make available a steady comnitment of resources � to other areas of the City so as to prevent deterioration and maintain their stability. The greatest opportunity for effecting measurable improvement � is likely to be found in those areas where the housing is basically sound but requires varying degrees of repair and maintenance. It usually requires some combination � of public and private monies to finance the level of improvement needed to stabilize an area and preserve its housing stock. � Two measures are used to identify these types of areas: income and housing condition. Income is based on the median family income of a census tract as a percentage � of the median family income of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Those census tracts where the median family income is less than 80� of the metropolitan area are identified � as low and moderate income areas, and may require assistance. `� ► Housing condition is based on the 1977 Residential Im rovement � �Strateg�. It uses various measures of housing con ition to classify St. Paul 's residential areas into five categories � of improvement need. The categories range from "Conservation I" to "Improvement III" areas. Conservation I and II � are areas where the need is to maintain basically sound housing. Improvement I, II and III are areas where improve- ment measures are needed to eliminate existing deterioration. The Residential Improvement Strategy matches these categories � with appropriate treatment measures, ranging from surveillance and basic maintenance to intense improvement programs (see Figure 2). � 1 t � � � � ,o � � � FIGURE 2: RESIOENTIAL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY CATEGORIES AND OBJECTIVES � of Structures � Needing Major % of Structures Repair or Needing Minor � Beyond Repair Repairs Objectives Conservation I 4 or less 4 or less Surveillance Conservation II 4 or less 5 to 19 Intensive Maintenance � Improvement I 5 to 19 20 to 81 Rehabilitation Improvement II 20 to 39 � 80 or less Rehabilitation and Neighborhood Improvement Improvement III 40 or more 80 or less Major Nei hborhood � 9 Improvement � The Capital Allocation Policy uses this income and housing � condition data to formulate priority areas for neighborhood betterment.* Priority areas include: (1) those which are low and moderate income and are classified as Improvement I and II; and (2) all Improvement III areas (see Figure 3). � Concentrating neighborhood improvements in these priority areas helps stabilize them, and ,also provides impetus for improvements in the surrounding blocks. � � *The current policy (Strategy Policy S3: Balanced Neighborhood Betterment) was developed � using 1970 Census information and the 1977 Residential Improvement Strateq . It is anticipated that Policy S3 will be updated to reflect new, more accurate data concerning income and housing condition. Income will be based on the 1980 median family income � for local census tracts and the Twin Cities metropolitan area. This information is not yet available from the U.S. Census Bureau. Housing condition will be based on the Department of Planning and Economic Development's 1981 Saint Paul Housin Condition Re ort, which classifies residential structures into four categories of condition ound, � Needing Minor Repair, Needing Major Repair, Dilapidated) . Any revisions to the present policy will be preceded by public notification, and adoption by City Council Resolution. � � � 11 � � FIGURE 3 PRIORITY AREAS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS+�. � � � 3oa aos so� �'� so3 sos 3ozo, �rnoz .�Z 1� rr;r.v��`r� .y�:ti;:. L fr+`'.:;.,+'�'r]' yy 311 : •�� f.�V.`N.v�V�1.•'•'L.J:ti1:•::ry{. � 3� � fy�� :.•,f+•'1'�:.;::•;sti�:'�y' .: 309 ♦ .. .. � �• •�� .f�:�•..�•{{f•.�`}..��{. • • ... �1/•L{` `!:1• ,�W�� '•K.'}:::{J\;A`:�:L' � Y��f��'}fi� ti•4 •�4�:•'t�j:�•1\��:••::i':•::. �� ,L� �r:� �; y..`.}i'..t.v •. ' .�J}�f 1 �• .,{ �': ,vt;'y��y+. � . :r' ��y,.e{vi�i• �. ;::�:;:• 319 , : •i:�'•'�'�+' .•,. ;m.4,. ,�f 318.02 •..:'v r.;'•:j.:•::. r..;.;:. •.,��, �. v. �'� �t�::',�^+•'r+ y �rar:'::`'��`'�,ti � 314 f ��r. �, I I ;,::3�;i� ,.i .� ,1.j. .� " , {.:S�:s f:'t•''' r. ++• v 318.0/ :iti �� I �,'� n�.�Mr'•' I��`�:,*m,�, 322 323 324 X�, •f �1 yr�;'i`. 1 . ��'• � };. �• 4. ��X•�• �.. . �Jr�I� �� Y M C.•.W.••[� ll 1.•• 9�1 l 1 W C K.�J J:{ }"�::. J�� .,.� v c a •.3 •'•.� 'J� J• •J•�fft,�1 .{ .{�r� �t % Lt. i1•.��I. ��:ti�}i{?��V. .�'�Y! %�''{�.� >" ^ L,;•::;a':}i'�,;: •;�v,�Z 345 346 347 Yf. T,.1 . � �'�:�.'•�• �3V � j t(��1 y � . � '•p 333 +2;�',`•;'•i�'�{�� :: '•�` � � JY V �f�M1�.•�}�:��f�"!' �titi� � '+ 342 350 ''' .::•` � . ,•� \• � 349 3� 353 35g :�*' �, • 351 357 � 1 ., `'• 361 � i •��;{' ' r. � I ,'`•'�� -}. • . � �2 , 363 .I 364 365 � 36g. xf.':• •f�,. `�t�;? •�••} �(�\ I .r. .1JJ{ \ / 1 � � � � 366 / ( ••..' ��'i.1r�� !',�., ''f'� � j 374 �� I �� I 1 •I .. '.�� ••i .�i4i;•4.,f,��. ,.�vk'�S� � . �' --�----� 1 ..:ia•..:..:• __ / i � ' Y ! , �- - . .. t.. I. / I C � 375 I� 387 j 1t\ i ` ! '/ �` \ � j% . 1 1. ti� � \ 1 3�6.a,, � \ / . ..... .... �' I � �� ::��'�� Low and Moderate Income � � �� 3�g.02 � .:.:..,.�::.. ; �:�: ?'r''i. ' �;;�:: `�1�� Improvements I and I I Areas \ � ,_ � , �- ,\ __i . ��___ %�� Improvement I I I Areas ` 1 � --m ,., � � � � . *Residential Improvement Strategy classification of housing condition combined with the estimated 1977 median family income of each census tract as a percentage of the estimated 1977 SMSA median family income. � � �2 � j t . .5 PRIORITIES FOR HOUSING � The Strategy section of the Capital Allocation Policy recognizes housing as an important area which requires special consideration. The availability and type of � housing in Saint Paul has an effect on neighborhood stability, economic development, and energy consumption. Therefore, the Capital Allocation Policy gives special consideration to projects that encourage the availability � of rental housing, housing for low and moderate income families, and alternatives to traditional single family housing. � 2.4.6 PRIORITIES FOR ENERGY The Strategy section also recognizes Saint Paul 's corrmitment � to energy efficiency. It emphasizes increasing energy efficiency in existing facilities, and utilizing energy efficient design and construction methods for new facilities. � In addition to the City's energy expenses, the policies also consider the energy expenses of non-City users of public improvements. � � � � � . � � � � 13 . � � � � S1: BALANCED GOALS n or er to assure a balanced approach to biennial canital �llncatinn ■ 3.0 THE POLICIES i ! . GY LIC e trategy o ic es set t e genera direct�on for int � Paul 's capital improvement expenditures within the fra�ar� of the goals and principles. These policies are monitored by the Planning Comnission. The CIB Committee also monitor<; . Policies S1, S2, and S3 which relate to the proposed �r budget as a whole, rather than to individual pro�ects. i . '- s r ! � I � � � � � � � : � � i , I � - I � I , 1 .j � � • , � 14 � � *It is anticipated that the policy will be revised in Fall 1984 � to reflect new, more accurate data concerning housing condition and income. Housing condition will be based on the Department of Planning and Economic Development's 1981 Saint Paul Housing Conditions Report, which classifies residential structures into ■ four categories of condition (Sound, Needing Minor Repair, Needing Major Repair, Dilapidated) . Income will be based on the median family income of the metropolitan area. The City of Saint Paul t is still awaiting 1980 income data from the U.S. Census Bureau. In accordance with the current policy, the revised policy will � continue to: ( 1) channel the majority of capital expenditures for neighborhood betterment to those areas where there is the greatest opportunity for stimulating private investment; and (2) ; to make available a steady comnitment of resources to other areas rt of the City so as to prevent deterioration and maintain their stability. ' S4: BASIC SYSTEMS � It is desirable for the City to address needed rehabilitation or replacement of its capital facilities on a systematic basis. Therefore, rehabilitation, replacement or development of a transportation, � sewer, library, or parks facility will be given special consideration if it is listed in the City's adopted five-year Program for Capital Improvements (PCI) . Rehabilitation or replacement of capital facilities �. not yet addressed in the PCI will be given special consideration if the need for the improvement appears in the implementing department's long-range capital program for the current budget biennium. � S5: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT In order to take advantage of opportunities to stimulate private investment and effect measurable neighborhood improvement, special R ' consideration should be given to projects that will (a) complement the revitalization of neighborhood commercial areas and major retail � centers, or (b) retain existing jobs or create new jobs within � � the City of Saint Paul . S6: NEIGHBORHOOD BETTERMENT � In order to take advantage of opportunities to stimulate private �k investment and effect measurable neighborhood improvement, special consideration should be given to projects that support neighborhood betterment in areas which have been recognized for concentrated t� neighborhood revitalization. These areas include Neighborhood Housing Service Areas. i � � ! i� �� 16 � � � � � � S7: HOUSING ALTERNATIVES Given the shortage of housing and limited land for new development, special consideration will be given to projects that will encourage I the availability of rental housing, housing for low and moderate income families, and alternatives to traditional single family housing. � S8: ENERGY EFFICIENCY Given the City's comnitment to efficient energy use, special consideration will be given to: (a) projects that will increase energy efficiency � in existing buildings, and (b) new projects that utilize energy efficient design and construction methods, and that are consistent with City plans, policies and priorities. � � � � � � � � � � � � � 17 � � � 3.2 IMPLEMENTATION AND The Implementation an Development Policies identify DEVELOPMENT POLICIES criteria that are important considerations in selecting � capital improvements. Most of these policies are stated in terms of "priorities" or "considerations" reflecting their use as evaluation criteria. These policies are � monitored by the CIB Committee through its Task Force Project Rating Sheet. � � � � . � � � � � � � � � 18 � ! � � ID1: SOURCES OF "INPUT he priorities recomnended 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 Comnission. � ID2: CONFORMANCE WITH CITY PLANS r�N�sa s selected for fund�ng must conform with all adopted City plans as determined by the Planning Commission. ` I03: CAPITAL ALLOCATION STRATEGY POLICIES The anning omnission wi eva uate each proposal for degree � of conformance with the Strategy Section of the City's adopted Capital Allocation Policies. ID4: USE � 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. b. The longer the life expectancy of the project, the greater � the consideration that should be given to the project. c. Projects used on a year-round basis will be given greater consi- deration than projects primarily used on a seasonal basis. � I05: JOINT USE ac�ies 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, and, b. They are consistent with City plans, policies and priorities. � ID6: DUPLICATION 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. � � � � 19 � � ID7: CONTINUATION PROJECTS � he funding needs of capita,l 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 comnitments unless funding � for construction plans has been approved and included in the CIB Corrmittee's schedule of tentative future cornnitments. Program allocations are not considered continuation projects. ID8: SERVICE AND SUPPORT SYSTEM IMPRDVEMENTS � Maintaining basic City services is a high priority. 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 the service or support system. b. Of second priority are additions to existing facilities, or � construction of new facilities, which will bring an area up to a level of service adopted in a City plan specifically for that service or support system. � c. Of last priority are improvements and additions to existing City facilities and new City facilities which are not specified in a City plan. � d. Allocations for improvements to facilities which will not be owned or operated by the City will be treated as subsidy allocations. � ID9: OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ubsidy al ocations should be directly related to the goals and � objectives of the City. This means that: a. Subsidy allocations which are directly related to concentrated neighborhood or commercial revitalization areas will be given � first consideration. b. Subsidy allocations which will primarily benefit low or moderate ' income people in other areas of the City, or will directly result in development or redevelopment, will be given second consideration. � c. Other subsidy allocations will be given last consideration. � � � 20 � . � � ID10: AC UISITION c,u�siti�n is n�t enc�urage�. H�wever, 'r�jects that inv�lve acquisition may be given the same priority as projects which do Inot involve acquisition if: a. The acquisition is related to public development or reuse and: , 1 . Right-of-way or easements are necessary; 2. The parcel(s) have been previously identified for conversion to park use if they become available; 3. The parcel(s) have tax exempt status and a use which is � consistent with City plans, policies, and priorities has been clearly identified; or 4. Special grant funding has been comnitted. � b. The acquisition is related to private development or reuse and: , 1 . 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 a significant economic advantage to the City to acquire property for disposition within a reasonably foreseeable future. � ID11: PROGRAMMING AND PHASING 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. ID12: PUBLIC ENVIRONMENT AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION � rojects w ich wi negatively impact on t e environment or historic preservation will be discouraged. The natural environment includes air and water quality and noise levels. � � � 21 � � � ID13: NON-CITY ENERGY EXPENSES ` he impact of every City project on non-City energy expenses (i.e., the energy costs incurred by private users of City capital imp�rovements) � will be considered. In evaluating the merits of each proposal : a. Projects that will result in a significant decrease in non- City energy expenses will be given a high priority. � b. Projects that will result in a significant increase in non- City energy expenses will be given a low priority. ID14: IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET i It is desira e to allocate City capital to projects that will not result in a net increase in City operating and maintenance � (including energy) expenses. In evaluating the merits of each proposal: a. Projects that will result in a significant decrease in City � operating and maintenance expenses will be given a high priority. b. Projects that will result in a significant increase in City operating and maintenance costs w�ll be given low priority. � ID15: IMPACT ON CITY REVENUES It is desirable to allocate City capital to projects that will ' not reduce revenue to the City. In evaluating the merits of each proposal : a. Projects that increase revenue to the City will be given a � high priority. b. Projects that reduce revenue to the City will be given a low priority. � ID16: PRIVATE INVESTMENT Capital 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. LEVERAGE 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) creates permanent jobs within the City of Saint Paul ; or (3) . is directly related to conservation of nonrenewable energy resources or development of energy alternatives. � � � 22 � � , b. RETURN ON INVESTMENT: Annual return in the form of new property taxes s ou e, at a minimum, 12X of the City's investment � unless the project is directly associated with the projects listed in (a) above. In no instance may tax yield to the City be less than the cost of additional services required. � ID17: GRANTS h�e 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 requests that will be used as a match for such grants. ' ID18: STREAMLINING CITY OPfRATIONS roviding basic city services as efficiently as possible is a high priority. Proposals that increase productivity in the provision � of City services will be given special consideration. The proposer must demonstrate that the project or program will : � a. Significantly increase the quality and/or level of an existing service without increasing annual operation and maintenance costs; or , b. Maintain the quality and/or level of existing service while significantly lowering annual operation and maintenance costs. ' i � t 1 1 1 t 1 23 � � � . RO EC OLICI The roject Policies focus more specifical y on the types � of projects that wi}1 be encouraged or discouraged for the next biennial budgeting process. In some cases, funding limits or criteria are established. In certain 1 cases, the CIB Committee monitors these policies with the assistance of the Planning Comnission or the Office of Management and Budget. � _ � 1 t � � � � � � � � � � � � � . 24 � � � P1 : TREES Di eased shade tree removal will no longer receive a special capital � allocation. (Reforestation should continue through 1985.) P2: CITY FUNDING OF SKYWAYS � a. un s wi not e budgeted for skyways unless the skyway is of public benefit and part of a firm package for development or redevelopment of the benefitting buildings. b. Normally, the City will fund no more than 50% of skyway bridge � construction. The developers and/or property owners of benefitting buildings shall fund the entire cost of skyway construction within their buildings. ' c. The City will not provide funds for the operation or maintenance of skyways unless the City is the owner/operator of a benefitted 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 funding. ' P3: IDENTIFIED TREATMENT AREAS or the u get �ennium ollowing official closure, former ldentified Treatment Areas (ITA'�) will be given special consideration for � activities that are consistent with the ITA Pro ram Guidelines (Council File No. 271322, adopted June 27, 1978�, and were previously identified in their original ITA proposals. � P4: NEW FACILITIES It is desirable for the City to only consider budgeting for the construction of new facilities, or additions to existing facilities, � when it can be demonstrated that the City will be fiscally able to operate and maintain such facilities in the future. Because the City is currently faced with attempting to provide services � with diminishing resources, certain types of projects will not be considered for funding in 1984-1985. These projects are: a. Facilities to house programs or services which are not operated , and/or maintained by the City. b. Facilities to house programs or services operated and/or maintained by the City which are not identified as a priority need in , a City plan. c. Swimming pools and multi-service centers. d. Proposals for the construction of new libraries, �recreation , centers and physical park facilities will not be considered for funding in 1984-1985. � � � 25 . � � e. Proposals for remodeling and expansion of existing libraries, � recreation centers, and parkland will be considered for funding, but if approved will be held in specified contingency until � such time as specific city policies and plans have been adopted which redefine library, recreation center, and park service levels, and which identify the capital facilities required � to support the redefined service levels. P5: PROGRAM ALLOCATIONS A program a ocation is a ump sum amount given to fund a series � of projects which are consistent in nature and are implemented sequentially over a period of time until an identified objective is attained (e.g., residential street paving program). All funding , requests for program allocations must be accompanied by: (a) program guidelines that are available for review, and are consistent with applicable City plans and Capital Allocation Policies; (b) a sunset provision that identifies the expected date of program termination , or conditions that would result in program termination; and (c) if applicable, a list of the specific activities carried out under the prior year's budget allocation for review by the CIB task forces. , P6: TAX ABATEMENT As adopted by the St. Paul City Council on May 7, 1981 as Council � File No. 276807, 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. � P7: ECONOMIC BASE DEUELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY FUND For the purpose of securing significant increases in the City's ' property tax and permanent employment bases, a reserve fund is authorized for the 1984-1985 Capital Improvement Budget and Schedule to be called the "Economic Base Development Opportunity Fund". This fund will finance public incentives for new private development , or redevelopment opportunities which present themselves outside the biennial Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process (UCIPBP) cycle. Normally, all capital improvements are budgeted ' and prograrr�ned during the biennial UCIPBP. However, it would be appropriate to have a limited amount of money available to permit short notice financing of public development or redevelopment activities ' that act as incentives to private development. Proposals for use of the Economic Base Development Opportunity Fund will be required to meet the following conditions: , � , ' 26 � � � a. Each proposal must meet the leveraging and return on investment requirements stated in Capital Allocation Policy ID16. b. Each proposal must be reviewed by the Planning Comnission for � consistency with City plans and policies. c. Each proposal must be reviewed by the CIB Comnittee and the advice of the Committee must be noted in the resolution brought � to City Council authorizing use of monies from the fund. d. Notification should be given to all District Councils at the time proposals are referred to the Planning Commission and � CIB Comnittee for review: e. Each proposal must require immediate appropriation of funds in order to assure timely implementation. (The CIB Committee will recommend that proposals with an implementation schedule ' that permits review through the biennial UCIPBP be reviewed as part of the next biennial UCIPBP cycle.) � P8: ENERGY RETROFIT heCity continues to support a limited-term program to retrofit City-owned buildings with energy-saving features through 1985. � P9: CAPITAL MAINTENANCE he City continues to support a capital maintenance program for City-owned buildings for the 1984-1985 budget and schedule of tentative � commitments. Capital maintenance is the replacement, renovation, remodeling and/or retrofitting of the structural parts and/or service system components of a building made necessary by obsolescence, ' wear beyond economic repair or catastrophic damage resulting from the acts of man or nature. A building's structural parts are its footings, foundation walls, beams, joists, columns, load bearing � walls, exterior facade, floors, ceilings, roof and roofings. A building's service system components are its plumbing, electrical distribution, comnunications, heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems. � The biennial Capital Maintenance Program funding request is to be submitted to the Budget Section for inclusion in the biennial ' Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process (UCIPBP) by the Division of Property Management in accordance generally with provisions of 5.02(2)(b) and 57.06 of the Saint Paul, Minnesota Administrative Code. In submitting biennial funding requests under , the Capital Maintenance Program, each department will include: (a) a statement of capital maintenance projects authorized for funding in the prior years ' budget; and (b) a list of the specific � improvements proposed to be carried out under the current biennium's funding request. � , r 2� � � To su ort the annual biennial UCIPBP fundin re uest � ( pp g q , the Divis�on of Property Management is to solicit capital maintenance project proposals from the directors of the operating departments of city � government. However, the allocation to each department of any Capital Maintenance Program funds appropriated by City Council in an adopted Capital Improvement Budget will be a joint decision � by the directors of the operating departments meeting as a group under the coordination and with the advice of the Division of Property Management. The Mayor will implement this decision as he sees � fit through the introduction of an appropriate City Council resolution enumerating the projects to be included in the program. ) ' � , , ' i t 1 1 r � � z8 � � � ' � . . U T OIICIES The sudget olicies identify the various sources of funds available for capital improvert�nts, and the conditions � that must be met in order to use them. The Mayor's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is responsible for developing these policies, and OMB and the CIB Committee are respons�ble , for monitoring them. � _ , _ , . ' � ' , , . _ .,`. i 1 1 i 1 � 1 1 ' 29 ' � � B1 : FUND SOURCES Determination of which fund source is most appropriate for financing each of the City's budget priorities will be made as follows: � a. Projects subject to assessment will be so assessed under the City's Special Assessment Policy currently in effect.* ' b. Al1 street improvement projects on Municipal State Aid, County Aid, or Minnesota Trunk Highway routes, will be considered for funding primarily with monies allocated to the City specifically for those routes. , ' c. Capital improvements which are eligible for metropolitan, state or federal programs, or private grants, should be so financed. If appropriate, CDBG and CIB monies may be used to provide ' local matching funds. d. Capital improvements which could be financed with specific bonding authority may be so recommended if City Council has , indicated its intention to utilize such authority. High priority capital improvements which can be funded with revenue bonds or from revenues from an existing Tax Increment District should be so recormnended. ' e. Capital improvements and programs eligible for CDBG funding will be so funded. f. Capital improvements which cannot be financed with monies governed ' by paragraphs (a) through (e) will be considered for Capital Improvement Bond funding. ' B2: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM Projects proposed for funding through the CDBG rogram 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. , c. Of the total CDBG dollars which are allocated to projects, most should principally benefit low and moderate income persons, and be located in areas which meet the Department of Housing and Urban Development's definition of low and moderate income. , The remainder of funds may address slums and blight or comnunity needs having a particular urgency. � * The assessment policy currently in effect was adopted December 23, 1976 as Council File No. 268302 and amended June 17, 1980, by Council File ' No. 275110. , , 30 � � � B3: BOND FINANCING � a. In accordance with City Council 's debt reduction policy adopted on January 30, 1978, as Council File No. 270479, requiring that Saint Paul 's general obligation debt per capita be reduced � to $900 or less by 1985, and requiring that Saint Paul 's general obligation debt as a percentage of estimated market value be reduced to 6� or less by ;1985, the total amount of general � obligation bonds issued by the City should average $10.5 million per year between 1977 and 1985. Capital Improvement Bonds, Water Pollution Abatement Bonds, Urban Renewal Bonds, and Tax Increment General Obligation Bonds, and General Obligation ' Bonds in support of Civic Center repair that are issued in 1984 and 1985 will reflect this $10.5 million floating average. b. The City will issue no more than $12,900,000 in General Obligation � Bonds in 1984 and $9,300,000 in 1985. The 1984 total should include approximately $5,445,000 in Water Pollution Abatement , Bonds for continuing the St. Anthony Hill Sewer Rehabilitation Project (Thomas-Dale Sewer). It may also include a consideration of other General Obligation Bond issue$ to a total of $7,455,000 in 1984; and to a total of $9,300,000 in 1985. These other � issues may include Tax Increment Bonds (if not Revenue Bonds); in support of district heating, extension of the Seventh Place Mall, or acquisition of land for redevelopment; Urban Renewal , Bonds Series 1984 Capital Improvement Bonds; Water Pollution Abatement Bonds; or Gener.al Obligation Bonds in support of Civic Center repair, provided that the debt on bonds for the Civic Center can be supported entirely by Civic Center revenues. ' c. The City does not intend to issue in 1983 General Obligation Bonds for new project corr�nitments under special state authorizations � for the City's residential or commercial rehabilitation programs or parking facilities in }984 or 1985. d. The use of revenue bonds to finance public improvement comnitments ' for economic development projects is preferred over the use of the City's General Obligation Bond financing. While Port Authority Revenue Bond financing is a highly desired method � of financing economic incentives, the City may consider using Tax Increment Bonding or city Revenue Bonding in 1984 or 1985 for the following projects: ' 1 . Block 22 and/or L. 2. Previous comnitted R-20, R-37 and NOP Projects under contract ' with HUD for which Urban Renewal General Obligation Bond funding was anticipated. 3. Mortgage revenue bonding for housing programs. ' 31 ' � ' . � � 4. Construction of sewer projects that eliminate treatment costs for storm water when the annual treatment cost amounts exceed debt service on bonds issued to finance construction ' of new sewers. 5. District heating system expansion. � e. Projects proposed for funding with tax increment bonds (whether general obligation or revenue) must meet the requirements of Policy B4 before City Council will consider issuing bonds. ' 64: TAX INCREMENT FINANCING a. evenue rojections 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 Sales 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, bond counsel, financial consultant and staff time. � ' B5: REHABILITATION LOAN FUNDS City bond monies used to provide residential and comnercial 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 . COBG monies used to provide residential and comnercial 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. 66: SALE/LEASEBACK , City staff is encouraged to analyze options for using sale/leaseback financing alternatives for major capital improvement to city facilities. 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. ' , 32 � � � b. The advice of the Long Range Capital Improvement Budget Comnittee must be obtained. � c. If repurchase of the facility is part of the proposal, the package should be structured to minimize repurchase costs and financing must be feasible. 67: UDAG REINVESTMENT (as amended by City Council Resolution No. 2�9s2o ' ated e ruary , 1983). For all Urban Development Action Grants (UDAG), fifty percent of � the program income (i.e., the UDAG percentage of any income earned by the City from the disposition of property acquired with grant funds, or the repayment of any loans made with grant funds, or ' any other revenues defined by the grant agreement as program income) from an individual UDAG shall be set aside for eligible projects within the District(s) in which such 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. , � ' ' i � ' ' , ' ' � ' ' • ! 4.0 POLICY IMPLEMENTATION � � Saint Paul 's Ca ital Allocation P i - p ol cy will only be effec tive if it is carefully monitored. While City Council � has final responsibility and authority for implementing 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 ' Office of Management and Budget. Such responsibility may fall entirely to one of these groups, or be shared among them. Figure 4 indicates how monitoring and imple- mentation responsibilities are distributed. IFIGURE 4: POLICY MONITORING AND IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY � Mayor's Office Planning CIB of Management Commission Comnittee and Budget ' Strategy � Policies All S1, S2, S3 (S1-S8) ' Implemen- tation and ' Development ID2, ID3 Al1 Policies (ID1-ID18) ' Project . Policies P3, P6 All P1, P2, P4 - P9 (P1-P9) � Budget Policies 61-B4, 66, B7 All ' (B1-67) , ' ' , t34 ' CREDITS , � � PLANNING COMMISSI ON Thomas FitzGibbon, Chairman Nelsene Karns Liz Anderson David Lanegran , *Clark Armstead Joseph Levy *Ralph Brown *David McDonell James Bryan *Joseph Pangal � *Carolyn Cochrane *John Schmidt Sam Grais Gayle Summers Sr. Albert�a Huber Janabelle Taylor , **David Hyduke *Adolph Tobler Richard Kadrie *Robert VanHoef *Capital Improvement Program Subcomnittee ' **Subcommittee Chair � ADMINISTRATION AND James J. Bellus, Director, Department of Planning and POLICY DIRECTION Economic Development Peggy A. Reichert, Deputy Director, Planning Division Allen Lovejoy, Principal Planner ' RESEARCH AND PLANNING Lisa Roden, Planner-in-Charge ' Tamsen Aichinger, Budget Analyst ' ' � ' 1 r � � ' 35