The URL can be used to link to this page

279731 M�HITE - C�TV CLERK �n�� PINK - FINANCE COVRCII �� ~ CANARV - DEPARTMENT G I TY OF SA I NT PAUL �� BLUE - MAVOR File NO. � Counc 'l Resolution Presented By � a s�` � 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, the Capital Improvement Program Subcoir�nittee of the Planning Commission has reviewed and refined the policies adopted by City Council on January 14, 1982, as� "Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policy: 1983-1987" ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed, approved and recommended revisions to the policies for guiding capital allocation, as set forth in "Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policy: 1984-1985" ; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby adopts the attached report, "Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policy: 1984-1985" , for use in the Unified Capital Improvement Program 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 Requested b Department of: Fletcher �'°'"'"° ��s In Favor Masanz Nicosia scheibe� _ d __ Against BY Tedesco Wilson ' JAN 2 017� Form Approv by City Attorney Adopted by C ouncil: Date Cerlified Ya: ouncil Secretar BY �t'� /#ppro e by Mavor: D _ � JAN 2 ��3 Appr y Mayor for Su is io to Council - — By � PUBLISHEU JAN 2 q 198? -�� 3 � , : � ; _ , : � - . , � _ . , . _ � ; ; . _ , . - � .; _ , . . , : ; . �. : . , , . � � j . , . > s f — � � � � � � , � ��:� � � � �� ; J�us�y zt�c�,, ��a� , . ' , , , - : . , . �� . . . . . . . . . ' - � P " ,;. , �.Y . . . . . , . . .. .' � � .. . .M. � . . . .. . . . . � . . - ' . .. � - . . . ' . . . . .. ... � - � . � . • � � . ' �� . � - . . � ... ' � . .� . .., . . . . . � . � . " �S .. . '. . . . . . ' � . �. . . ' . � . . - ' ' - . � / ., . . . .. . . � . ._ '.. : .. ..' . .. _ � .: _' .�. . ./ � . , � �� ii�aai��a Sahstbel, Cluissep , � � � i ,: ' ` Fiat�ac:a� e�nant`6 Psrscma�i �G''�rs. , -, , 7tb $�,00r, Cit� 8s11 , � ' . ` $t. P;itt�., •Mi�+►otn ; 1 � �,' , , • , , __ ,. , ' -D�a�r Ccaac��n 8+�heibeli , : � ` - , ; � : : -. .. . _ . . � .. . , . . .. . � .. � .. _ . , . i .. . . . � . 1: . 'Th�r �3tp �'cnt��1 �tadsy ad@pt�d a rasolu�l.on, C.F. Z797��, apF�c�r'i� - ttw N�3t: Pay►i Capital Al].�atioa Palicp� 'I984-�4$S"<,1�c�c we� �ia t�b,� ' ' ' ,� Uuilied Capi�1. Tmprov�snt� Yrogrim .aad�;�ud�st:��o��s� duri�g 19$3. �a ac�p�rdan4ta� w3�h E3u� a�mmi�ta� xe�c+mm�adatio� t�'�pu�8:'agh 8�` on ps8e �;9�b� d�7.etod se it pe�rt�ias to UDAG zaiiriestm+�►t. ' �'h!a s�tios� �t� t�'k+�n �oit� �,he uud�rstaading Lh�r th+e tJ�A6' Rt�:nv�ctm+snt Policy ` � � further consl.��ratiam by tno Finaa�e �onsittes,. , . , , ,l . ;, �atld` b� ivsa � i , ; . . ,. Vesy Er�1y yours, � � ., , . , . . . _ . �. , , :,` . . . ` • ' , Albert B.•;02so�o - . . , ,. . . ,. - �� •. _ , City Clatk R � : � , ; _ A842tsCi' � � ' :� � � � � _ � � � . � ce s Y� 9twf _ _ � . - ,. _; , f • - " , . ; . � , . � . r . , . • _ -� ` ' � , � ' � � . , . . ,�. , : . • - , � , ; , , ; � . ". , � _ . ' ` ' °q; , , . , � . ` . ' 1, .. " . . �,. � ... . . . � . " . � . . . . .. rr � 'y . . f i i . . . - . � ' . . � . . � . � . ' . �� :J'. . ' .. . � . .� ., � . , i � ' :� . -�- � , '� • . ��.' - � � � � �..�' � .i ' — . . . .': . � . _ .♦ , . .. . n�, . . ... �. ,. i . . . . �. . . � ' .. , ' �1 � .� ' . � . . . � . . . � . ' � . . . . . ' � .... � ♦ , \ . . . , . ,.. . . r . � . . , . . . . , . 7 .. /. . . � . .. . . . � _. , . i... ... , . �. . .. _. � ._.. , .... r y. ' '. � �:I'1'Y" �OF S�1.INT �.E�TJL t_;r.. � —+a � 2'�9'731 �,� ..- � ��. '' OZ��'ZCF OF` '1'FIF. CI'1'� C;OUI�CI'L ��. - ��,�,��;� .r = L........ ,� �., 1983 ��' �""'"''� " D d t e , Ja�ivary I3, �' �_° -__!�,- \`e`�;��l�lk , . Co � �il (�[ � E R�� Pa ��r TO = Sarn� Pau ! Cifi�+ CoWt� cis � r- F R 0 I�13 � C O C�)�1!�� O�'1 FINANCE, Tf��NAGEbtF.NT F� PEftSON�EL C H A!R James Scheibel 1. Approval of mimites from meeting held January 6, 19s3. _�.� �� 2. Resolution authoriziiig an agreement with the DiiTinesota State Agricultural Society (State Fair Board), providin� for the Cit}•'s Police Dept. t furnish�rja�dio rel a9ir services ta tlie Societ}•. . _'.•"°"7'��-� P'�M��E��,4��6Yi� (Police Dept.) �„��',C.�;�� 3. �tesolution amsndino the Police Special Projects Fun�l ftudoet tQ bring it in line with the actual activity planned` for 19s3. ' (Police Dept.)�P�OV€.D��'�-�J�� . �,�.....: - 4. Resolution authorizing an agree�nen,t between the City of St. Paul the U of bilr'hereby the City will provide an instructor to teach at the U of 1�1's Division of School Health Education. (Health D�pt.) � 5. Resolution approving the St. Paul Capi 1I AlI . ;�s� Program for Capital Improvement� (PED) �- — ! ' . .. 6. Resolution ado tin the 19S4-S8 Pro r m for Ca ital Im ro�renent r � � r as part of the City's Corpxehensive Plan. (PED) -__ NOT ON THE PREPARED AGENDA: 7. Resolution allowing employees resigning in 1982, as well as in the four preceding years, the option of receiving the severance pay due him/her in full, or in five equal installment ` + . _ .+�:`::.t;� �.,,, CITY H�\LL SEVENTH FLOOR SAINT PAUL, i�1IN�ESUTA SSlO? �� 2'�9'�3� �$�*`;�. GIT'Y O�+` �AIIti T P�1UL �~� '�? OFFICE OF THE MAYOR � 50 ,� _ �� a ��ua'�iiiu � ;� �t133 3,31�iV .�� 347 CITY HALL �ea• SAINT PAUL, MINNESOI'A 5510? GEORGE LATIMEK (612) 298-4323 MAYOR Decem6er 18, 1982 Council President Victor Tedesco _ _ and Mem6ers of the City Council 7th Floor City Hall St. Paul , Minnesota 55102 RE: Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policy: 1984-1985 Dear Council Members: On December 3, 1982, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the 1984-1985 Capital Allocation Policy. At its December 17, 1982 meeting, the Commission recommended adoption of the Policy for use durin the 1983 Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budgeting Process �UCIPBP) in developing the recommended 1984 and 1985 Capital Improvement Budgets. The 1984-1985 Policy was prepared 6y the Capital Improvement Program Subcommittee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission through a series of open meetings at which citizens, city staff and Subcommittee members reviewed and revised the previously adopted policies used in the 1981 and 1982 UCIPBP. The revised policies undenr�ent a period of pu6lic review in Nove�nber and Decem6er. It is my understanding that your Finance, Management and Personnel Committee will be reviewing the 1984-1985 Capital Allocation Policy at its January 6, 1983 __ meetinq. If you have any questions or need additional information, Pegqy Reichert, Deputy Director for Planning, and her staff will be happy to meet with you. Sincerely, o Latimer May r � Enc. �� . �. .. : �9'��1 � � ; ; , � � ; ; , � ; a , � �.� ; �i� .� � �. ��., . -c�� '�� ; , CITY OF SAINT PAUL DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF PLANNING , c�ty of s�nt �aul � � . . p�lann�ng commissian resol�on #�e ni�rr�er $2-�� t. _. _�e_ ` �ecen�ber 17. 1982. ; .. , - - -_ : - . �`��r•a� M��F �J � .. . . . • � �.. � . .. . . . .. - '�IEREAS, tt�e P�a�rtning C�nrnission �ofi�tt�e City of Saint Paul is cfiarged wi th the responsi bi 1 i ty for the devel opment an d revi ew of po1 i ci es to cuide the biennial Unified Gapital Improv€ment Program and Budget ?rocess (UCIP$P) ; and WHEREAS, th� Czpital Improvemen� Program Subcommittee or the Planning Conanission has reviewed and revised the policies adopted by City Gounc;l 4n January 14, 1982 �zs "Saint Pau1 Capital Rlloca�ion Policy: i983-�987" ; and WNERFAS, the Planning Conm;ission hes reviewed �he previously adopted policies ard the reconIInended revisions of the Capital imprvvement Proc±ram Subcommit�ee; NOW, T'rlEP.FFORE, 6z IT R�SDLVED, that the Planning Comrrissior approvQs the policies entitlee "Saint Paul Capitel fillocation P�licy: 1984-1985" , as revised, fior use during 1983 ir preparation of the rec�mmended 1984 and 1985 Capital Improvement BuoQets; and B� Ii FJRTFIER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission directs transmittal to the Mayar and City Council fior their review and adop�ion. moved�� McQonell 5e�conded by �e�v in f��vor '6 . �C,�it'1S'f= TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 .0 INTRODUCTION 1 1 .1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND TNE CITY BUDGET 1 .2 POLICY OVERVI W 2 2.0 UNDERLYING RATIONALE q FOR SAINT PAUL'S CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICIES .1 GOAL 4 �CI�L� 2.3 TYPES OF CAPITAL PROJECT 2.4 CAPITAL ALLOCATION TRATEGY 7 3.0 THE POLICIES 14_ 3. 1 STRATEGY POLICIES 14 3.2 IMPLEMENTATION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES 3.3 PROJ CT POLICI � 3.4 BUDGET POLI IE 26 4.0 POLICY IMPLEMENTATION 30 CREDITS 3 1 ' 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 31 , � 79 �.� � 1.0 INTRODUCTION The 1984-85 Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policy contains a set of policy statements that have been adopted to guide the City's Unified Capital Improvement Programming 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 recommended 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 include neighborhood organizations, District Councils, city operating departments, the Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) Committee 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 Commission, which is charged with the respon- � sibility for reviewing and revising the policies to reflect current city goals, objectives, and priorities. Each biennium, the recorr�nendations of the Planning Commission are transmitted to the Mayor and City Council for subsequent review and adoption by the City Council . 1 .1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Saint Paul 's annual budget is divided into two documents: 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) flf the City. Capital improvement expenditures can also be divided into three categories: . l . 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 Strategy Policies set the general direction for Saint Paul 's capital 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 Project Policies focus more specifically on types of projects to be encouraged or discouraged. In some cases, conditions for funding particular projects or types of projects are indicated. In others, commit- ment to certain types of projects is identified. - The Budget Policies identify the various sources of funds available to Saint Paul for capital improvements. These policies identify conditions that must be met in order to use the source of funds. Chapter 4.0 assigns responsibilities for monitoring the policies. While the City Council has final responsibility for adopting the Capital Improvement Budget, the Planning Commission, 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 � l �+ �".� / 2.0 UNDERLYING RATIONALE FOR SAINT PAUL'S CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICIES Saint Paul 's Capital Allocation Policies are based on goals and principles established by the City. These goals and principles are reflected in varying degrees throughout the policy document. 2.1 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 gaal 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. 4. TO ENSURE THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE CITY' S PHYSICAL FACILITIES IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN BASIC LEVELS OF SERVICE AND PREUENT POTENTIAL HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARDS. 4 .2 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 . 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 commitment 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 improvement 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 l : 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 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 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 commercial 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 2.4 CAPITAL ALLOCATION 2.4. 1 BALANCE AMONG GOALS AND PRINCIPLES STRATEGY The City of Saint Paul is committed 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 al1 areas of the City are being addressed. 2.4.2 PRIORITIES FOR BASIC SYSTEMS The City af St. Paul `s primary responsibili•ty is the provision of basic services. While there are many amenities that the City could offer, St. Paul requires saund 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 emphasiies the maintenance of basic services over service expansion. It gives priority to needed rehabilitation and replacement of physically 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 Program for Capital Improvements or in the implementing departments ' long-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. 2.4.3 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 substantia� 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 committed private investment; (c) assist in the revitalization of neighborhood commercial areas; and (d) complement other concentrated revitalization activities. 8 The Policy recommends 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 cor�nercial 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. 2.4.4 PRIORITIES FOR NEIGHBORHOOD BETTERMEN 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 commitment 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 Improvement Strategy. It uses various measures of housing condition . 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) . 10 FIGURE 2: RESIDENTIAL 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 Neighborhood 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 provid'es impetus for improvements in the surrounding blocks. *The current policy (Strategy Policy S3: Balanced Neignborhood Betterment) was developed using 1970 Census information and the 1977 Residential Improvement Strategy. 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 Sound, 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* �. 304 306 � • (�� 303 '�'' 305 �� 307.01 ' 307.02 301 . ( �} : . .. 302 `,.i .:'::�.:: 31i `''�_ ::;2{:::2?�;:�::�i:;:'•i�::��::;:�::�>:;:;i?�y�.1 309 �{ 3t0 �� '� -1?{i}}i? Yvr� I � +:v' �� YE.}':•i:•:y:•}':•i:•i::}.i', :;�:•� � �\.: f��:::::;::::'`'':::;�`;``._' `>:,: -...y� .� :.31?• �"'` '�';:' :�:�;:::� 5� 3t8.02 ........... :: ::t;... s::;;:. :;�"."::`';:;:::.: `� � .319 t .;,.:.;i:':?:t � ,.5..;. ;:r+i;....,.,, :/.:::;:::�';:•::•:'.:•:::. •.i;�::::::•>:•:>_:: .. .,.;:... .�:"': S�:Sr::�:>i '::�::�:�::�::314� .;.;.;........uo-• •..�iF:•:::.+-�_�. . �:'�.a,��,.•:. $ :•:;�.,�, r.,. ''w` .;y::;:• �� •I . „�''''''�`��;•::... ;,�„'S. � 318.01 .... t''i:;� ,,r,, '`;'� i;:�i.:,e..:::: I ':3�k'� ��321.. ';:a,>;•..;:;:::_::�i t�,l.;•;'• :;,. :.;3:;i;:�i�:�::=::•'.�^:;i �; ':�:��,.i � I 324 �� '3�)+:�� f• 331. ''b'•;�� ❖�•.�::.� :>: . 322 323 t:�::•'•i;•..... . 1 �:;�::�.� � .:�.:+ 3 ��:"'�:��-I :; � :i�:':�;:i:�i;>�2,�,�..::3��:'_�,,^�.,..'.j'�;:'•�::�:;?:�� 329 � I 32 I :I ;i;�• .:y:,s;;•. + 330::;.`::� , � � I ��>i�;iC•::.....::::::�.� i:<,�9,.-''��`�..ti.... 3q5 I 346 347 j ::� •.:x•>::•Y:��''`'�'�� 2$�'� ..�r.;..::.r: 1 ':�k:�: I .... ::::;; .1336 .� . :;.y�:;::�:�:i; ;.:,,j � j •:N � �•• I 333. .r :�.,',..�`.,.,. :;:>:>:::�•. � 348 .•*�,,'i: :�`:;;:�:^3"r'f'�""" y,.• i �;.:';��s::::y��:��.'�..�x.'.::�.:�.-.�::::. � .:::_.3::.:r,;;�>;°.:,w,M, ... ... 342 �{.}.:{.:•::.:.:{.;;�. �C�„...i'�",L:{+. 35�.}• :.};{ � :}:3.4$}'::•r�{:.::::: ;,: ..�� \ � �.�: .�..�..,,�,v�,,,".'...,..:^*i�.' •::': 349 i 352 : 353 •.3( 58 �'�><�:�:3�$::�+'f:::,'.'�..'8��•�',''t��'':v`�•� � i _ , ..:•;%!:;;::::•:.;:;::,• \\ I Si 351 I � � 357 �':ri'::�:;:�::�:;,,.60 '� 361 � I c I I i I :;�%G<<�'� .;">,i'i�5:::'•`:';'• si \ I i i � �_ � i � I � I �:5:,$,�3:�"� � i:�:�ii.'+3�ci��'+'� I � 362 .� 363 ., 364 365 J s� . 368�<.::�`•::;: � �s::;; :::>i::�::::::�:•:,. � i� � � •� ..:•. 't,� � `�::�:?: �F:;�'%::::::,;�:::::�?:•.;. � / � :� � ii sss � � . ':::. ;:::::::�;�:•::•::•;:::; , •� �.> 3��5� .. . \ 37a � � � ,i � i i � ' 361 i •efu:;;;;. •......... � i , "..� '�.'•;•.;:.:F.;.•:''�:�::��:�::; /, ' I f�°es--�--�---' i / � .:ie�=--- � , t� � �� / � � . � � ._. _ . _. . _ . � i � � � 375 � I 367 j \ �� i t\ �\a ; =� \ti —�� \1 s�s.o,\w l� \ �/ \ `` ! � '" / 376.02 y �: Low and Moderate Income � � ;� � � Improvements I and II Areas \ � !� `��-----� , �� ' '''J:j::;��'' Improvement I I I Areas �.� _ � � / �-�----- - . *Residential Improvement Strategy ciassification 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. 12 .4.5 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 � � � q�� 3.0 THE POLICIES 3.1 TRATEGY POLICIES The Strategy Policies set the general direction for Saint Paul 's capital improvement expenditures within the framework of the goals and principles. These policies are monitored by the Planning Commission. The CIB Committee also monitors Policies S1 , S2, and S3 which relate to the proposed budget as a whole, rather than to individual projects. �. 14 S1: SALANCEO GOALS In order to assure a balanced approach to akxw�a-� biennial capital allocation, total budget allocations and tentative y scheduled commitments for new projects should reflect the following proportions: Category X of Total New Allocations Neighborhood Improvement -40 Economic Development -2-�'3(l� 1�T� Citywide Service System Imp. 35-45% Support System Development 5-10% Special grants, costs borne by other units of government or the private sector, and assessments for the particular project will be excluded from this calculation. Special grants will be monitored over time and taken into consideration in determining the appropriate proportions during ar►�uaa biennial policy review. S2: GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION The a�r�r�+►a�� biennial budget should be monitored over time to assure that the needs of all areas of the City are being addressed. The percentage distribution of capital improvement monies to each citizen participation district for the previous five budget years b�gi�r�ixu�} ��t�-�-��9.-a.s.t�-ba�s�y�a�= (1979-1983) will be identified in an anru�.a1� biennial report. The report will be taken into consideration in determining the appropriate geographic distribution of funds. Special grants, costs borne by other units of government or the private sector, and assessments for the particular project will be excluded from this calculation. Special grants will be monito.red over time and taken into consideration in determining the appropriate proportions during a�r�� biennial policy review. S3: BALANCED NEIGHBORHOOD BETTERMENT* In order to assure a balanced approach toward neighborhood betterment, new allocations of capital for subsidies and service system improvements should follow this distribution: % of Total Recommended % of Area Res. Blocks Service/Subsidy Capital Low/Moderate Income Areas 30% 60-75% which are Impravement I or II; All Improvement III Areas All Conservation I and II 70� 25-40% Areas; Improvement I and II Areas which are not Low/ Moderate Income 15 *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 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 cor�nitment of resources to other areas 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 teatatiue City's adopted five-year Program for Capital Improvements (PCI) . fo�_tbe_implementing_department, as-s�ewp-��-�ba$�e�-�ea�-e�-��e-��. 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 �e�� biennium. � S5: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT In order to take advantage of opportunities to stimulate private investment and effect measurable neighborhood improvement, special 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�au� S6: NEIGHBORHOOD BETTERMENT In order to take advantage of opportunities to stimulate private 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 neighborhood revitalization. These areas include .Iiie,nta#'a�d-�'x�.ea�a�e.��t -�+^e�s-�rrei Neighborhood Housing Service Areas. S7: HOUSING ALTERNATIVES Given the shortage of housing and limited land for new development, special consideration will be given to projects that will encourage the availability of rental housing, housing for low and moderate income families, and alternatives to traditional single family housing. S8: ENERGY EFFICIENCY Given the Cit 's commitment to efficient ener use s ecial consideration will be iven to: a ro 'ects that will increase energy efficiency in existing buildings, and (b) new projects that utilize ener efficient desi n and construction metho s, an t at are consistent with City p ans, policies and priorit�es. . 16 3.2 IMPLEMENTATION AND The Implementation and 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. 17 . .� ,i ��,�/ ID1: SOURCES OF INPUT he priorities recommended by the following groups will �be taken into consideration: , � a. The recognized neighborhood organization(s) in the affected area. b. The City operating department that will operate and maintain the proposed project. c. The Planning Comnission. ID2: CONFORMANCE WITH CITY PLANS roposals se ected for funding must conform with all adopted City plans- as determined by the Planning Commission. ID3: CAPITAL ALLOCATION STRATEuY POLICIES he Planning Commission will evaluate each proposal for degree of conformance with the Strategy Section of the City's adopted Capital Allocation Policies. ID4: USE � 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. ��a,}ects-which_c��-be-�sed-,�ea�-�s��d-w}��-�e-g�v�e�-g�ea�e� ee��e�a��e�-��a�-��e se-rvi�fiE l�-e a�-eR}y-�e-etse�-se age�a}�y.- Projects used on a year-round basis will be given greater consideration than projects primarily used on a seasonal basis. ID5: JOINT USE Facilities that can be financed and operated by the City and another agency will be given special consideration if: a. They can be constructed and operated more efficiently and effectively at less cost than separate f acilities, and, b. They are consistent with City plans, policies and priorities. ID6: DUPLICATION OF SERVICES rojects which duplicate existing public or private services which are available to the same population within a given geographic area should not be funded. ID7: CONTINUATION PROJECTS he funding needs of capital improvement projects that received a prior budget appropriation for construction plans or a construction phase normally have priority over new projects and program allocations. ar�d-ar��►�a�-��eg�at+��r 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 Committee's schedule of tentative future commitments. A�a� Program allocations are not considered continuation projects. 18 ID8: SERVICE AND SUPPORT SYSTEM IMPROUEMENTS Maintaining basic City services ��-b�e is a high prior.ity. �� lueaas_that In evaluating the merits of each proposal : - a. �et}a�}��e�-e�-�e��a�Eer�er��G-��-r-el�a�b}��a��-��-r�st-f��s�� a�-�bse�ete-C�t,�-�a��it�s-�ck�i.cf�-ar�-r-eq.��r-�d-ta.�aair�taia -tb�-�as�c-l�a�al�-8�-se��c�-f-8�-tl�a-sa��-a�_su�p.pa�t_s�st$ru �-s-��st-R�i.a��t�. 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. A��eAS-�e-e��s��g-€aE��es-��-Ee��a-e�-s�-r+�ew-€a6}�}t�es wk��6k�-w��-b��g-a�-a�ea-�g-te-a-�e�e�-e�-se��}�e-�dsptsd_in a_c�t,�-P�lA-5�32C��6��,�-�9�-tl��t-5g�1��C�-8�-564{3�36�t-S,�St2tA- ��-sess��-p��e��,�-}€-pe��6�-dses-�st-p�s��t-suc�-��adi�g_ Of second priority are additions to existing facilities, or construction of new f acilities, which wi 1 bring an area up to�ve� of service adopted in a City �lan specifically for that service or support system. c. Of last priority are improvements and additions to existing City f acilities and new City facilities which are not specified in a City plan. a��-�ast-p��o��t,�_ 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 Subsidy allocations 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. ID10: AC UISITION cquisition is not encouraged. However, projects that involve acquisition may be given the same priority as projects which do not involve acquisition if: a. The acquisition is related to public development or reuse and: 1 . Right-of-way 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 corrrnitted. 19 b. The acquisition is related to private development or reuse and: • . 1 . The proposed reuse is consistent with City plans, policies, and priorities, and ' �. ��e�e-}s-a-�easeRa��e-e��eE��}e�-��a�-�e�e�o�+e��-w}}} occu�. a. There is a reasonable ex ectation that develo ment wi occur within the immediate future, or b. There is a si nificant economic advanta e to the Cit to acquire property for disposition within a reasona ly foreseeable future. ID11: PROGRAMMING AND PHASING Projects shou d 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 Projects which will negatively impact on the environment or historic preservation will be discouraged. The natural environment includes air and water quality and noise levels. ID13: NON-CITY ENERGY 68A1��P4F��ADI EXPENSES The impact of every City project on non-City energy ccasumption ex enses i .e. , the ener costs incurred b rivate users of Cit ca ital im rovements will be considered. In evaluating the merits of each proposal : a. Projects that will result in a significant decrease in non- City energy �o+��+u�p-ta�a expenses wi 11 be given a high priority. b. Projects that will result in a significant increase in non- City energy co�unp�i�expenses will be given a low priority. ID14: OPERATOR'S ENERGY CONSUMPTION Delete policy in its entirety. See ID15 (now re-numbered as ID14) below. ID1�4: IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET It is desirable to all�cate City capital to projects that will not result in a net increase in City operating and maintenance (i nc 1 ud i ng energy) expenses. c�c-1�--i-�-0#�.k�a��.or�i.or��..f_.o{��i�n -arr�- -eit�pef'r.�e�-ar�i�gr►�r-1�#,o-�e�►�►°� -At -a--�nrtmurR-t�i-s�-��rat In evaluating the merits of each proposal : 20 a. Projects that will result in a significant decrease in C;ty 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 will be given low priority. ID1�5: IMPACT ON CITY REVENUES It is desira e to a locate City capital to projects that will not reduce revenue to the City. At_a.�u��i�uur�r-t��s-me��s-t�at 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. ID1�6: PRIVATE INVESTMENT Capital expenditure proposals that leverage committed private investment will be given special consideration. In addition, p rojects 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;_i�_t�e ��e�e6t-w��-��s��t-}�-�dd�t�aaal (2) creates permanent jobs within the City of Saint Paul ; or �€-��e-��e�e�� (3) is directly related to conservation of nonrenewable energy resources or development of energy alternatives. b. RETURN ON INVESTMENT: ��e-6��y=s Annual return in the form of new property taxes should be, at a minimum, 12% 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. ID1�7: GRANTS The City shall actively seek grants from other units of government or the private sector for projects that are consistent with adopted City plans and policies, and that are priorities of the City. Special consideration shall be given to capital requests that will be used as a match for such grants. ID98: STREAMLINING CITY OPERATIONS rovi ing asic 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. 21 . PROJECT POLICIES The Project Policies focus more specifically on the types of projects that will be encouraged or discouraged for the next biennial budgeting process. In some cases, funding limits or criteria are established. In certain cases, the CIB Committee monitors these policies with the assistance of the Planning Commission or the Office . � of Management and Budget. 22 . .2 % � � � / P1: TREES ' Diseased shade tree removal will no longer receive a special capital . allocation. (Reforestation should continue through 1985. ) sd��ee� �e-aAnaa�-re+viep:� P2: CITY FUNDING OF SKYWAYS a. Funds will not be budgeted for skyways unless the skyway is of public benefit and part of a firm package for development or redevelopment of the 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 Pau1 City Council on January 8, 1980, as Council File Number 274243, to be considered for funding. P3: IDENTIFIED TREATMENT AREAS or the bud et biennium followin official closure former ldentified reatment Areas I A's wi be iven s ecial consideration for activities t at are consistent with the ITA Pro ram Guidelines Council File No. 71322, ado ted June 27, 1978 , and were reviousl identified in their origina ITA proposa s. P4: NEW FACILITIES It is desirable for the City to only consider budgetin for the construction of new facilities, or additions to existing facilities, when it can be demonstrated that the City will be fiscally able to opera.te and maintain such facilities in the future. Because the City is currently faced with attempting to provide services with diminishinq resources, certain types of projects will not be considered for funding in 1984-1985. These projects are: a. Facilities to house proqrams or services which are not operated and/or maintained by the City. b. Facilities to house proqrams or services operated and/or maintained b the Cit which are not identified as a priority need in a City p an. c. Swimming pools and multi-service centers. d. _Proposals for the construction of new libraries, recreation centers and h sical ark facilities will not be considered for funding in 1984-198 . e. Proposals for remodelling and expansion of existing libraries, recreation centers, and parkland will be considered for funding, but if approved will be held in specified continqency until such time as s ecific cit olicies and lans have been ado ted w ich redefine ibrar recreation center, and ark service eve s, and which identify the capital facilities reouired to support the redefined service levels. 23 P5: ANNUAL PROGRAMS ALLOCATIONS q-dA�Yd -p�eg�a� A program allocation is a lump sum amount ig'ven . 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) ro ram uidelines that are available for review, and are consistent wit app icable City plans and Capital Allocation Policies; (b) a sunset provision that identifies the expected date of program termination or conditians 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 CI6 task forces. P6: TAX ABATEMENT As a o ted b the St. Paul Cit Council on Ma 7 1981 as Council Fi e No. 2 6 , the Cit will not consider tax abatement as a eve o ment/redevelo ment tool unless so determined b the Ma or and y Cit Council Resolution, and with the exce tion of tax abatement assistance for low income renta housing development. P7: ECONOMIC BASE DEVELOPMENT 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 1983 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 �anual biennial Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process UCIP P cycle. Normally, all capital improvements are budgeted and prograrrmed during the annual biennial UCIPBP. However, it would be appropriate to have a limited amount of money available to permit short notice financing of public imp�ouemeats 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: a. Each proposal must meet the leveraging and return on investment requirements stated in Capital Allocation Policy ID1�6. b. Each proposal must be reviewed by the Planning Commission for consistency with City plans and policies. c. Each proposal must be reviewed by the CIB Committee 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 Corrnnittee for review. e. Each proposal must require immediate appropriation of funds in order to assure timely implementation. (The CIB Committee will recorranend that proposals with an implementation schedule that permits review through the aaa�a� biennial UCIPBP be reviewed as part of the next ann�aa biennial UCIPBP cycle. ) 24 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 ��3 1984-1985 budget and �9�4-�98� schedule of tentative commitments. Ca� maintenance is the replacement, renovation, remodeling and/or retrofitting of the structuraT 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, communications, heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems. The aqpba� biennial Capital Maintenance Program funding request is to be submitted to the Budget Section for inclusion in the annaa� biennial Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process UCI BP 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 annual 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 �e��5 biennium's funding request. (To support the annual biennial UCIPBP funding request, the Division of Property Management is to solicit capital maintenance project proposals from the directors of the operating departments of city government. However, the allocation ta 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 ia_Cit�-Csuacil of an appropriate City Council resolution enumerating the projects to be included in the program.) 25 �, '� � j�/ �- 3.4 BUDGET POLICIES The Budget Policies identify the various sources of funds available for capital improvements, and the conditions that must be met in order to use them. The Mayor's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is responsible for developing these policies, and OMB and the CIB Committee are responsible for monitoring them. 26 ' Bl : FUND SOURCES � Determination of which fund source is most appropriate for financing each of the City's budget priorities will be made as fol�l�ws: • a. Projects subject to assessment will be so assessed under the City's Special Assessment Policy currently in effect* ada�t�d aa_Dec_emh.er 23,_1gZ6�-as-6a��rc��-F fi�-e-t�.--c6c34�;-am�ct-amerr� � J�aa-lz�-�98�;-6ot�t�-F}�-e-Wt�.--�7-5-�}0: *The assessment poiicy current�y in effect was adopted December 23 , 1976, as Council File ho. 268302 and amenoed June 17 , 1980, y Council File No. 275110. b. All street improvement projects on Municipal State Aid, County Aid, or Minnesota Trunk highway routes, will be considered for f�uuls fundin primarily vr�th monies cllocated to the City specifically for those routes. c. Capital improvements which are eligible for metropolitan, state or federal programs, or private grants, sho;:ld be so financed. ar� If appropriate, CDBG and CIB monies may be used to provide local matching funds. d. Capital improvements which could be finance� with specific t�onding authority may be so recommended if �ity Council has indicated its intention to utilize such autherity. High priority capital improvements which can be funded wi�h revenue bonds or from revenues from an existino Tax Increment District should be so recommended. e. Capital improvements and programs elig�ble for CDBG fundino 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: COMMt1NITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK CRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM Projects proposed for funding through the CD3G Program must meet the federal �uidelir�es issued by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. This means that: a. Projects must be included ir� the list of eligible activities contained in the federal requlations. b. Proiects must either principally benefit low an� moderate income persons, eliminate slums and blioht, or mee� � community need having a particular urgency. c. Of the total CDBG dollars which are allocated to projects, most should principally benefit low and modera�e income persons, and be located in areas which meet tne Department of Housing and Urban Development 's definition of low and moderate income. The remainder of runds may address sl�ms and blioh� or commurity needs havinQ a particular urgency. � ?7 63: BOND FINANCING , a. In accordance with Cit Council 's debt reduction o�ic ado ted . on Januar 19 8 as Council File No. 2 9, re uirin . t at aint au 's enera obli ation debt er ca ita be reduced ' to or less b 19 5 and re uirin that Saint Paul 's eneral ob i ation debt as a ercenta e of estimated market value be reduced to or less by 1 , the total amount of general obligation bonds issued by the City should uot_exceed_an_annual_ average of $10.5 million er ear between 1977 and 1985. Capital Improvement Bonds, Water o ution Abatement Bonds, Ur an Renewal Bonds, and Tax Increment General Obligation Bonds, and General Obli ation Bonds in su ort of Civic Center re air that are issued in 1 and 1 wi 1 reflect this 1 . million floating average. �deAt��ed-�q-t�e-c�t�'s-de�t-pe��c�_ b. The City will issue no more than $i�0,�0(�,-0A8 $12,900,000 in General Obligation Bonds in �3+63- -L984 and $9,3 , 0 in 1985. �b}s-�e�a� The 1984 total should include a roximatel 000 5439��39A8 in Water Pollution Abatement onds for continuing the St. Anthony Hill Sewer Rehabilitation Project (Thomas-Dale Sewer) . It may also include as-we�� a consideration of other General Obligation�ond issues to a total of $7,455,000 S�s�4�;A90 in 1984; and to a total of $9,300,000 in 1985. These other issues may include Tax Increment onds 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 General 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 commitments under special state authorizations for the City's residential or commercial rehabilitatian programs or parking f acilities e�-��a�-�e�ewaa-in 1984 or 1985. d. The use of revenue bonds to finance public improvement eomnitments 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 as�83 1984 or 1985 for the following projects: 1 . Block � , 22 and/or L. 2. Previous committed R-20, R-37 and NDP Projects under contract with HUD for which Urban Renewal General Obligation Bond funding was anticipated. 3-. k{axka as-�aa�-�1 a e�-Sa.te_Parka ag-&amP-�$3,DDD,DDD.�.. 4� �i-i g�aaa�-�a�k-�ta�p-a�-a eg�a a�-�es�a ba e-��,�AD,OOD.�_ 5. 3�-A1e��ag2-�ever�2-bo��a ag-#'e�-�e�sa�g-��eg�ar�. b.. 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. 7_ 5) District heating system expansion. nn . � �� 7,� i 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. Revenue 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 wben 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. 65: REHABILITATION LOAN FUNDS City bond monies used to provide residential and commercial rehabilitation loans shall be recycled for additional loans as the original loans are repaid according to the guidelines adopted by the Saint Paul City Council . CDBG monies used to provide residential and commercial rehabilitation loans, which return to the CDBG Program as program income, shall be appropriated from the program income line item to provide new loans as the original loans are repaid. 66: SALE/LEASEBACK Cit staff is encoura ed to anal ze o tions for usin sale/leaseback inancin a ternatives for ma 'or ca ital im rovement to cit facilities. efore an sa e/ easeback a reements wi be a roved b Cit Council Resolution, the fo lowing conditions must be met: a. The feasibility of the proposal must be analyzed by an independent fiscal consultant chcsen by the City. Costs for such analysis must be borne by the initiator of the project if other than a city agency. b. The advice of the Long Range Capital Improvement Budget Committee must be obtained. c. If repurchase of the facility is part of the proposal , the package should be structured to minimize repurchase costs and financing must be feasible. B7: UD REINVESTMENT All AG ro ram income i .e. , the UDAG ercenta e of an income earne the Cit from the dis osition of ro ert ac uired with rant f ds or the re a ent of an loans made with rant funds or an ot r revenues defined b the rant a reement as ro ram income sha 1 be de osited in the Cit wide UDAG Revolvin Loan und to e us for cit wide economic develo ment ur oses. In the event that nei hborhood s can demonstrate substantial ne ative im acts resultin directl from a UDAG ro 'ect such nei hborhood s would be eli ible o receive u to 2 of that ro 'ect's ro ram income to rectif t identified ne ative im acts. 29 _ � 4.0 POLICY IMPLEMENTATION Saint Paul 's Capital Allocation Policy will only be effec- tive if it is carefully monitored. While City Council has final responsibility and authority for implementinq 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. FIGURE 4: POLICY MONITORING AND IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILIT Mayor 's Office Planning CIB of Management Corrn�ni ss i on Commi ttee and Budget Strategy Policies All S1 , S2, S3 (S1-S8) Implemen- tation and Development ID2, ID3 All Policies (ID1-ID18) Project Policies P3, P6 All Pl , P2, P4 - P9 (P1-P9) Budget Policies B1-B4, B6, 67 All (61-B7) 30 . � . 2'�9'�31 CREDITS PLANNING COMMISSION 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. Alberta Huber Janabelle Taylor **David Hyduke *Adolph Tobler Richard Kadrie *Robert UanHoef *Capital Improvement Program Subcommittee **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 31