The URL can be used to link to this page

278017 WMITE - CITY CLERK �j��i�-/ PINK - FINANCE �j V V S CANARY - DEPARTMENT G I T Y O F S A I N T L A U L COl1tIC1I BLUE - MAYOR File N . - � _ o ncil Resolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date WHEREAS, the Council of the City of St. Paul is responsible for providing policy guidance in the annual preparation of the Capital Improvement Budget; and WHEREAS, the 1981 Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process was a two- year process, resulting in a 1982 Capital Improvement Budget and a proposed 1983 Capital Improvement Budget; and WHEREAS, the 1983 Capital Improvement Budget Process will , therefore, consider substitutions to the proposed 1983 budget rather than an entirely different budget; and 41HEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended updating the 1982-1986 Capital Allocation Policy adopted on January 23, 1981 rather than revising the policies; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed, approved and recommended updates to the policies for guiding capital allocation, as set forth in "St. Paul Capital Allocation Policy: 1983-1987"; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of St. Paul hereby adopts the attached report, "St. Paul Capital Allocation Policy: 1983-1987", for use in the Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process during 1982 and directs its distribution to the Neighborhood Contact List, the Long Range Capital Improvement Budget Committee, the St. Paul Planning Commission and appropriate city staff persons. COUNCILMEN Requestgd by Department of: Yeas Nays Hunt P 1 a a d i Levine In Favor Maddox McM�� _ � __ Against BY Tedesco "'''S°" JA N 14 1981 Form Approved y i Att rney Adopted by C ouncil: Date — Certified as• by Counci cre BY r � i App by ;Vlayor: D � JAN 19 1982 Ap by Mayor fo ission t Council �� uBUSHED J AN 3 0 1982 ��O/�t�t tfiC �Cd ! � a ��801'7 Jane Rettner + � 1/11 A1 or Mike -- Attached is Finance Corranittee report recommending approval of the St. Paul Capital Allocation Policy, 1983-1987. I am attaching memo and report sent to us requesting item be placed on Finance ! Com�nittee agenda. I do not have the � resolution. I called Patricia James, PED, #6232, � asking if resolution was prepared and whether they had contacted you about placing � it on the agenda. AZs. James said they ( had not yet typed resolution and had not contacted you. She saic�she would see the � � resolution was typed and signed so it ' could be placed on the Thursday, January 14, � agenda. Could you please place it on the � agenda. Thanics, � i , �==' CZ'Z'�Y' fl�-+' ►'`^'J.�L�.?ti''� �.A.�CT��. /�irV� ��=��.. 1'7 ;°;` ' ��`•� o�rx�L o: T�cz. CL''�'Y COi7�CT_T. � �� . _..,.��;��'.�.� . � i ., �::..:::.�' t. i• , I��J . ; :. �.,'• ":.> �. :.�i�y, :s� . , , �',� �_'� �t 1��`�:�; Da�e : January 11, 1982 `�,��- � . ._ - t,I � f'd 1 �� 1 � I t... � � � � iJ � � .. � _ ? 0 : Sain� Paut Ci�� Cou�3c�� .�'= �� O � � C(3 i71 i'fi I'�2'E?L O Cl ,FINANCE, MANAGEMENT F� PERSONNEL _ _ . . - . _ George �McMahori ; efioirman� makes the fcsl toaving repart r�r� �C..F. ❑ Urdinai�ce . � . (1) [� Res�iu�ion . _ - - � . • � O.her . � . . � t�'1..� : � . At its .meeting of January 7, 1982, the Finance Corr�ittee reco�mended approval ;.:._..�_._.____ �of the fQllowing: -__� __ - =----- 1. St. Paul Capital Allocation Policy, 1983-1987. � � - .^.tTl' iL�LF. SEYE;tiTEI FJ.00;Z S�I�T PALTL, AfE1�FSJTr1� 5�1�' . . ��f � �.� —._ _ . � � . � . 1 � '��:, CITY OF SAI1 T I�AUT� �� ~ �"* ' OFFICE OF THE hiAYOR �. s ,� �. %,� !ii;i�i ii�ii �` ,,. „� ?� �s` 34? CITY HALL ''—•��-�� SAINT PAUL, MINI�ESOTA 55102 C.EORGE LATIMER (612) 298-4323 RECEI��a MAYOR December 22 , 1981 p�C 2 31981 President Rubv Hunt and Members of the City Council OFFICE OF GEORGE McMAHON 7th FToor, Ci ty F,al l - St. Paul , Minnesota 55102 � RE : "St. Paul Caoital Allocation Policy, 1983-1987" - - Dear Council President Hunt and Council Members: Copies of the Planninq Commission's recorrJnended capital allocation policies are transmitted with this letter. You will notice that no major alterations have been made from the 1982- 1986 policies . The Rlanning Commission recommends and I concur, that siqnificant tiolic,y chanqes not be made in the midc�le of the two-year budget orocess. Therefore, major policy revisions will be considered when the full ad hoe evaluation process is begun in the fall of 1982. I am sure you aiill want to join me in thanking the Planning Commission for taking the time to update these policies . I recommend their adoption. The aolicies must be heard and acted on by the Finance and Personnel Corr�nittee by January 8, and adopted by the full Council by January 14 in order to meet the budaet process timetable. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact the Planning Division. Merr.y Christmas and Haapy �lew Year to each of you. Sincerely, � � �eo e L�ti e�r }��'� � P�ayp r `J GL:PJ:mh Enc. �� 1 �� 1 1 I � ! 1 � . 1 1 1 P 1 ON P�OLIC� 1 � 1983�1987 1 CITY OF SAINT PAUL ' DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF PLANNING ' � , � r . ��1`7 � city of saint paul � � planning commission resolution file number $�-38 - date December 18, 1981 : WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of St. Paul is charged . with responsibility for development and review of policy to guide the Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process (UCIPBP); and WHEREAS, the Capital Improvement Subcommittee of the Planning Co�nission has reviewed and recommended changes to policies adopted as� part of "St. Paul Capital Allocation Policy: 1982-1986"; and . WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the previously adopted policies and the recommendations of the� Capital Improvement Subcommittee; NOW, BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission approves . the policies entitled "St. Paul Capital Allocation Policy: 1983-1987" for use during 1982 in preparation of the 1983-•Capital Improvement Budget and 1984-1987 Schedule of Tentative Commitments; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission directs transmTttal to the Mayor and City Council for their review and adoption. � moved by Nyduke. seconded by Summers in favor �8 against o � ��0�'� CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICY, 1983-1987 ERRATA SHEET Minor typographical errors were found after the document was printed and distributed. The corrected language follows: Paqe 1 , paragraph 2: The policies in this report will be used during the 1982 Unified Capital Improvement Proaram and Budget Process (UCIPBP) to develop a capital improvement budget for 1983 and a schedule of tentative commitments for 1984 through 1987. Individuals and groups that will use the policies to prepare or to evaluate proposals include neighborhood organizations, district councils, city operating departments, the Canital Improvement Budqet (CIB) Committee and its Task Forces, the Planning Commission, the Ma,yor and City Council . Pa�e 15, Policy S4, line 7: . . .as shown in Chapter Four of the PCI. Rehabilitation or replacement. . . Pa4e 16, Policy ID1 : (corrected from I to 1) Page 20, 3.3 Project Policies, line 3: (1983) and/or schedule of tentative commitments (1984-1987) . . . December 15, 1981 i ! 1 SAINT PAUL CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICY: 1983-1987 i � APPROVED BY THE SAINT PAUL PLANNING COMMISSION Resolution Number � � ADOPTED BY THE SAINT PAUL CITY COUNCIL: Council File Number � � � � � I � � DIVISION OF PLANNING � � DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 1101 CITY HALL ANNEX 25 WEST FOURTH STREET � SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 � � 1 1 , , TABLE OF CONTEN TS � � 1 1.O INTRODUCTION I , 1.1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND THE CIT�I BUDGET 1 1�2 POLICY OVERVIEW � ? � 2.0 UNDERLYING RATIONALE �� 4 � FOR SAINT PAUL'S CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICIES j2.1 GOALS AND PRINCIPLES � �� 4 2.2 TYPES OF CAPITAL PROJECTS 6 2.3 IMPLEMENTATION OF GOALS AND PRINCIPLES 7 � 1 3.0 THE POLICIES 14 � 3.1 STRATEGY POLICIES 14 3.2 IMPLEMENTATION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES 16 3.3 PROJECT POLICIES 20 3.4 BUDGET POLICIES 24 � � � 4.0 POLICY IMPL�MENTATION ~ � 28 � CR EDITS � �'� 2y � . . � � � � � � F1�;URES TITLE PAC,C � FIGURE 1: TYPES OF CAPITAL PKOJECTS 6 � F�IGUEtE 2: RE�IUENTIAL IMPROVEMENT S"TRATEGY CATEVURIES AND ODJECTIVES 11 � r1c�URE 3: PRIOKITY f�REAS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD BETTERM�.NT 12 r1i:�UlZE 4: ��OLICY ��ONITORING AND IMPbEMENTATION RESPONSIDILITY - 2x � � � � � � � � � i � � � � � � � � 1.0 INTRODUCTION � "Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policy: 1983-1987" is the City's I sixth set of capital allocation policies. Each year, the policies are reviewed and revisions which reflect the City's current goals, objectives and limitations are made. The policies are then forwarded to the City Council for its review and adoption. � The olicies in this report will be used during the 1982 Unified P Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process (UCIPBP) � to develop a capital improvement budget for 1982 and a schedule of tentative commitments for 1984 through 1987 and groups that will use the policies to prepare or to evaluate proposals include � neighborhood organizations, district councils,city operating departments, the Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) Committee and its Task Forces, the Planning Commission, � the Mayor and City Council. 1.1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Saint Paul's annual budget is divided into two documents: an � AND THE CITY BUDGET operating budget and a capital improvement budget. Although the two budgets are developed through separate processes, they are interrelated. � 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 revenue support these services by paying for staff, maintenance of equipment and buildings, necessary supplies, utilities, and other ongoing 1 expenses. These annual operating expenses generally fall into one of three categories: �� . - costs associated with continuing existing City services; - costs associated with providing new or expanded City services; and - costs associated with operating or maintaining a new � physical asset. The capital improvement budget funds physical improvements. � � A capital improvement is usually a one-time expense required to upgrade or add to the physical assets (land and buildings) of the City. Capital improvement expenditures can also be divided into three general categories: � - expenditures for rehafiilitating or replacing obsolete City facilities; � _ expenditures for building additional City facilities; and expenditures for providing incentives to the private sector to develop or redevelop assets which are not owned by � the City. � � r ant � Although the two budgets are developed separately, it is impo t to recognize the interrelationships between the two. When the City constructs a new facility, the operating budget must � be able to cover the cost of maintaining it. If the operating budget does not provide for routine maintenance of the City's physical assets, deterioration will occur and major capital � expenditures in the form of rehabilitation or replacement will be required, affecting the capital improvement budget. 1.2 POLICY OVERVIEW Le itimate ca ital im rovement needs invariably exceed � g P P the amount of money available to meet them. If the capital improvement budget is to rneet the most serious needs in � a manner which provides the most benefit for the City as a whole, a method for determining the relative priority of proposed projects and focusing capital expenditures is required. � The Capital Allocation Policies provide this focus and direction by coordinating goals, plans and priority statements into a set of � policies specifically designed to guide the capital improvement budgeting process. A general framework for the policies is presented in Chapter 2.0. � This framework includes goals, overriding principles and other supporting information for the policies themselves. The policies are found in Chapter 3.0, divided into four sections: � strategy policies, implementation and development policies, ' project policies, and budget policies. Each policy section pro- � vides a different level of direction for the capital improvement budgeting process. The strategy policies set general direction for the City's capital , improvement allocations based on the goals and principles. The implementation and development policies identify characteristics� which are important in evaluating capital improvement proposals, The rating sheet developed by the Capital Improvement Budget Committee for use by its Task Force is directly related to the implementation and development policies. � The project policies focus more specifically on types of projects that will be encouraged or discouraged. In some cases, conditions . � for funding particular projects or types of projects are indicated. In others, commitment to certain types of projects is identified. The last policy section, the budget policies, addresses the � various sources of funds available to Saint Paul for capital improvements. These policies identify conditions which must be met in order to use the source of funds. � � _�_ � � � A final chapter addresses responsibility for monitoring the policies. While the City Council has final responsibility for adopting the capital improvement budget, the Planning � Commission, the CIB Committee, and the Budget Section of the Mayor�s Office share responsibility for monitoring implementation of the policies during the budget review process. � i � 1 � i . 1 � 1 t . � � 1 I i i . , -3- � 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 docurr:ent. 2.1 C;OALS AND PRINCIPLES For the ast several ears two oals have formed the basis � P Y � g fur many of Saint Paul's activities, including �ecisions on capital improvement expenditures. Adopted by City Council � and identifieu by �'�tayor Latimer as major objectives of his administration, they are: 1. TO STR�NGTH�N THE CITY'S NEIGHBORHOUDS IN ORUF.R � TO MAKE ThEM t3ETTEtt PLACES �fU LIVE; 2. TO STRENGTHEN THE CITY'S ECONOMIC BASE IN ORDE;�_ � TO PROVIUE JOBS AND SERVICES NEEDED BY �ES[DENTS OF THE CITY. During 1979, a third major goal emerged f�r the City. This � goal also serves as a basis for the City's capital irnprovernent expenditure decisions: 3. TO CONSIDER ENERGY USE IN HLL THE CITY'S ACTIVITIES � AND TO INCREASE ENERGY Et=FICIENCY WHENEVER POSSIBLE. � In 1980, a fourth major goal arose from the City's comprehensive planning process. Both the introductory chapter and Imple- � mentation Strategy of the St. Paul Comprehensive Plan identif y maintenance of the City's infrastructure as a major objective , for the 1980s. This objective will serve as an additional basis for decisions on capital improvement expenditures. � 4. TO ENSURE THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE CITY'S PHYSICAL FACILITIES IN ORQER TO MAINTAW � BAS1C LEVELS OF SERVICE AND PREVENT POTENTIAL HEALTH AND SAFETY tiAZARDS. � . � , � l , -4- : , 1 jHowever, capital funds�are limited and needs are great. As a result, the goals are supplemented by three general principles which reflect the City's responsibilities and opportunities. jThese principles ares - Critica� needs which are �ecessary to protect basic life, � health or public safety take precedence over all other capital improvements. - The City's primary responsibility.is the provision of basic � ' services. A steady commitment of capitdl improvement funds is required to maintain the efficiency and effectiveness , of,these basic service systems. - .When choices exist, the ability of a capital improvement � to stimulate private investment and effect measurable . neighborhood or economic imp�ovement 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 which benefit the City as a whole. ' . . . � � . 1 � . . . � , . . . ' � . . _ , ' . - ' i . 1 � � _S_ � 2.2 TYPES OF CAPITAL Throughout the policies, capital improvement projects are � PROJECTS divided into three categories: service system, support system, and subsidy. These categories and their elements are presented � in Figure l. FIGURE 1 TYPES OF CAPITAL PROJECTS � � SERVICE SYSTEM � Transportation; roads, bridges, curbs, sidewal�CS, lights, signals, signs, skyway bridges, parking facilities � Waste Removale sanitary sewers, storm sewers, ponding areas, solid waste facilities, recy�ling facilities � Water Supply: supply distribution system Public Safety: police and fire stations ' Leisure/Culture/ Environment/ � Education: parks, playgrounds, recreation centers, libraries, cultural facilities, parkways and bikeways, � . � trees, special use f'acilities � . cial Care: health centers multi-service centers , , So , SUPPORT S�lSTEM � Administrative offices Training and educational facilities � Storage facilities Repair and maintenance facilities Communication facilities SUBSIDIES , Loans Grants/Matching Funds Acquisition/Clearance � The first two categories cover most of the City's capital � facilities. The SERVICE SYSTEM is the largest of the categories and capital improvements ta the elements of the various subsystems are a substantial respor►sibility of the city. � � I -6- , � � The S!�1�PORT `:�YSTF:M, :hough smaller, is equally important. T��ese c.lpital iaciliti.:s s��pport the service system and provide the base c;f operatio:; for the persannel and equipment necessary to eity services. � The SUBSIDY section Lsts the types of assistance the City - gives the private sector as incentives for development or � rede�elopment of physical assets,which are not owned or operated by the City. Housing and commercial rehabilitation 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. � 2.3 IMPLEME[�ITATION OF �n order to translate the goals and principles into policies, GOALS AND PRINCIPLE5 concepts must be defined and priorities clarified. The following sections present terms, definitions and rationales which are � . important to an understanding of the policies. ' BALANCE AMONG GUALS AND PRINCIPLES � �Y The City of Saint Paul is committed to economic development, neighborhood betterment and efficient energy use. At the � same time, its first responsibility is maintaining basic levels of service. Fulfillment of this responsibility requires a steady- comrnitment to maintain the City's infrastructure through � rehabilitation, replacement, and, in some cases, additions to City service and support system facilities. In order to choose among equally worthwhile projects, impact on the City's goals comes into consideration. Thus, several ends can .be addressed � with one action. In order to help assure balance among goals and principles, � policy guidelines establish the relative proportion o� funds that should address each of four areas: citywide service system improvements, service systern or subsidy projects in support ' . of econornic development, service system or subsidy projects in support of neighborhood betterment, and support systerr► improvements. In addition, the ar�nual proportion of funds � allocated to any one area of the City is monitored over tirr�e to avoid excessive geographic concentration of improvements and So assure that the needs of all areas of the City are being addressed. IThese guidelines are supplemented by priorities for basic systems, economic development, neighborhood betterment, energy efficien�v � and housing. In combination, the policies form the basis for Saint Paul's capital allocation strategy. 1 1 � _�_ . ' PRIORITIES FOR BASIC SYSTEMS � � The City of St. Paul's primary responsibility is the provision of basic services. While there are many amenities tha't the � City could offer, St. Pau! requires sound and reliable service and support systems in order to sustain its economic growth and the quality.of its neighborhoods. . � Currently, many capital facilities have deteriorated as a result � of deferrecl maintenance. Moreover, much of the City's existing ' infrastructure (i.e., streets, sewer and water lines, bridges, and some public buildings) is approachi►�g or has exceeded its useful economic 1ife. Given these conditions, rna'intaining a basic level of service will necessitate major expenditures : � for rep�ir, rehabilitat�ion or replacement of existing capitaL facilities. In the face of rising costs and declining resources, the Capital Allocation Policies emphasize maintenance of � basic services over service expansion; The policies glve priur.ity consideration to needed rehabilitation anci replacement of physically deteriorated or obsolete facilities. .They also identify � thc desirability uf addressing capital repair and replacement � on a systematic �asis by granting special consideration to capital improvements that are identified in the implernenting department'S long-range capital program. � In 5ome situations, additions to existin�; facilities or the con- struction of new facilities may be justified. However, the - � desirability of new facilities must be weighed against operating and maintenance costs and the requisitp diversion of resources frorr� capital repair and replacement. Therefore, the Capital �lllocation Policies give secor�dary consi�eration to additions . � to existing facilities ancf construction af new facilities which will bring an area up io a level of seryice adoPted in.a city plan specifically for that service or supp�rt syste�n. � • PR10R1TIES FOR ECONOMIC DEVELUPfJENT � The �rimary purpose of economic development activrties is twcsfold: to increase the number of jobs for Saint Paul residents and to increase the tax base so that City services � can be maintained without substantial increases in taxes. Specific ways to do this include brvadenirig the City's industrial base; strengthening the downtown; strer�gthening neighborhood ' co�nmercial areas; and promotin� local economic development opportunities. A number of tools are available to the City of Saint Paul , tn encourage economie development activities. They include public improvements to support development; subsidies in the form of land acquisition or prepacation, tax abatement � or special types of financing; and the use of municipal police powers, legislative authority, persuasive powers, and technical assistance to neutralize stumbling blocks to development. � -8- r , � , tlAany of these tools are used by the City, the Port Authority and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Often, capital - expenditures are not required. However, when they are, priorities are established as a basis for selecting projects. � In order to assure that ro ects oriented s ecificall toward P J P Y prornoting economic development address the City's goals, � , special consideration is given to projects which increase the , number of jobs available to City residents. In addition, projects are evaluated against leveraging and retum on investment ' guidelines to help assure that the level of private investment and the increase in taxes which result from City involvement justify the expenditure. , The Capital Allocation Policies also establish priorities for , capital expenditures among competing downtown, industrial, , and neighborhood commercial development needs. For the � }�ast several years, emphasis has been placed on neighborhood commercial areas, particularly projects which complement . neighborhood revitalization. ' The reason for this emphasis is twofold. First, industrial develop- rnent has traditionally been the responsibility of the Saint Paul ' Port Authority. Port Authority activities are monitored and � coordinated with City activities,by the City Council (which approves Port Autharity bond issues and has two seats on the Board) and the Nlayor (through:the Department of Planning � anci Economic Development). Downtown development and redevelopment is a key part of � Saint Paul's economic health., .However, downtown develop- ment is occurring at.a rapid pace, and, as developer activity increases, fewer inceratives are required to maintain the momentum. In aad.ition, the City is encouraging less reliance � on general obligation bonds and encouraging the use of other types of funding to leverage private investment, permitting more attention to other areas of the City. ' � Service system improvements are required in the downtown as in other areas of the City. Projects which will increase � the number of jobs or which meet leveraging and return on investment guidelines and conform with the City's Economic Development Strategy may be funded, depending on the • availability of resources. However, as the downtown attracts , developer activity, fewer incentives in the form of special consideration should be required. � Secondly, among the many neighborhood commercial revitali- zation projects possible, some priorities must be established. Generally, assistance should go to those areas where there ' will be the greates# impact. Therefore, in addition to considering the merits of each proposal, the relationship to concentrated neighborhood revitalization is taken into consideration. This approach helps coordinate improvements by focusing on specific � areas rather than scattering small scale improvements throughout the City. � _9_ , PRIORI'1'IES FOR NEIGHBORHQOD I3ETTE MENT � � Many qualities contribute to strong, stable neighborhoods, including physical characteristics. If its physical aspects,are � to enhance a neighborhooct, an adequate and steady level of resources is required to maintain them. Providin� the resources : necessary to maintain private property is the responsibility of individual property owners. The City is responsible fur rr�ain- � taining the service system elements it owns and operates. However, choices must be made among capital imp�rovement ' projects located throughout the City. The basic principle used by the City to guide these choices is a balanced approach. First, the majoriYy of capital expenditures for neighborhood � betterment should be channeled to those areas where there is th� greatest opportunity for stimulating private reinvestment and effecting measurable neighborhooG improvement: Secondly, � a steady comrnitment of municipal resources should be made . available to other areas of the City io prevent deterioration and to maintain their stability. ' The greatest opportunity for effecting measurable irrtprovement is likely to be found in areas where the housing is basically sound but in need of some repair. Although some private � resources may be available, they usually are not sufficient to stabilize the area and preserve the nousing stock. Two measures are used to identify these areas: ho�sing condition ■ and income. Income is based on the rnedian fa�nily income,of th� census tract as a percentage of the median family income of the metropolitan area. Those c�nsus tracts where the � median family income is less than 80�6 of the metropolitan area are identified as low and moderate income and, potentially, will require assistance. ` Housing c;ondition is based on the Residential tmprovement � Strategy adopted by the City in 1977. The Residential ' Improvement Strategy categorizes the City's.residential areas on the basis of housing condition and estdi�iishes objectives . for each area. � ' - � ' � -10- � � ��1�,;C.i�E 2 RESiL;ENTIAL Ir�1PROVEMENT STRATEGY CATEGORIES , . 11i�U�OBJ Ei::TI VES � % of Structures Needing Major % of Structures Repair or Needing Minor � Beyond Repair Repairs Objectives Conserliation I 4 or less 4 or less Surveillance 1 c:onservation II 4 or less 5 to 19 Intensive Maintenance � Irnprovement I 5 to 19 20 to 81 Rehabilitation Irnprovement II 20 to 39 80 or less Rehabilitation and Neighborhood � Improvement Irnprovement III 40 or more 80 or less Major Neighborhood � Improvement . � � Based on this information, two broad types of areas are identi- fied. The priority areas for neighborhood betterment are those areas which are low or moderate income and are classified � as Improvement I or II. In addition, all Improvement III areas are included in the priority classification. The map on Page 12 gives a general indication of these areas of the City. tThe Capital Allocation Policies establish guidelines to preserve a balanced ap�pro�ach frir neighborhood betterment. The policies also place emphasis on "neighborhood revitalization", or a coordi- � nated approach for neighborhood improvement in a concentrated area. � • The reason for concentrating investments is to take advantage of limited resources. Within the priority areas, there are pockets where concentrated improvements would not only � stabilize that area but also provide impetus for improvements ir► the surrounding blocks. , In Saint Paul, these areas are called "Identified Treatment Areas" or ITA's. They are selected according to guidelines adopted by City Council and, once selected, receive special consideration for capital expenditure allocations within the � priority areas. In addition, Neighborhood Housing Service (NHS) areas are recognized"by the City �s neighborhood revitalization. � , � � -11- I � � � r FIGURE 3 PRIORITY AREAS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS*. ' � - - � � �ao.�. ' aog ! � . 301 � 303 ��' 3p5 ' 307.01 ' 307.02 `� '•:%.::',� • . soz L� .:::::::::� `. ;:.:.:,eti::rr 3„ s � `J •. ;��;::':}`' :ac::•;. 3� ��r::��;�:;:<�:�:;:<:�'::;:.. ..%,5.: � .... .. .:;e,:;• , :.>,'>::��r� ; 9 • ••ti. .s•<•+:�''�'/ .;.• �;:;:��:::':;�:;:;;:�:::,s::;;' ....: �y,��>`;:�. :..,.: . r,:`:•.,.{{�• {i,v,•`iv.� S'��{:�'9?,P,..�.; ..��:, .��.Q�1". '.31s Er:: •• :;�::::..r.;r .314 �:;;;:?ji•:.�,....;,.a d .. ;t,�, •�� ..�,��...:.,;.. � f1 s,a�yy ,% 3/8.01 ��a�i. � s2. = r :;: �:.�� ., .r..o-�`y#�.. � ''' '::;:#7qir"4' 322 323 'x ,,:�':••.;�. 331 I .;� -,--- ,r'.': v/ 1�5:�:•:r I � . ;:j:�,,;;::,.�. ,f,y,�:{y• 332 � :.:� �;:::;;y;`' s,". 32g �,'r�;;jl _ �.,. �...:r.:. ��g,. 'K.a �`• 315 ; 346 347. ;� V ::::,.f., . : � j i � • , ��::•�' 336, � ..v''•.'• $ •';�.::.�••• � � •�\1 !V.��l. • . . ' . ':f J,.:.� : . � � 7 . . 34B 333 �;,.;.• � •x.•$r' 342 I : . •:•c�:!::: ��1 T . •.f'•'a.*75F.v.', . • • '� . ' - 350 I I <��i:: •. �++:�`� �' ,, 1 . , r.:<c�h:+'•. 349 i 352 3� 358 ��..�<::.��•. . �\ 351 � 1 ''�'�'�'"�;�:. � f 3s7_ ,,;,,•,,�i.i� 361 � W:•: rx /r� � . � � ' .1;.•:i'r'� r [�'�/'�,f - . �� I I �' '•r;:{Y�• � :;'{.�• � . . . ` . ` I I i i ' � �l,.•:;:.,n ., i i t .�:::��:�:r ��:: ��. f�. f� � 362 � 363 .� 360 385 �.�j � 368�^-0% ► �` �;, :+: 111f\••,•`�'{.'��y�{c;:, � f � ., � � J!._'. t.�': �{ .� }'Mf•l•'••1'�Y�' •� � �\� I • =� :� r a � A1r / ., x ::�::��.'•.�+.,;:,. , � ., � �i 366 ��'% �.�Q ��:: ,�%.;�.�,:; :.�;3�{;•::�.. 37d ' � I . .�1/ JV� �� T5i'. ,�, J ::ti;.%j � � � . I . . � . j ' s.__.__..� j L-_�� i .�� ._fie '�' __..__..a.__..�' . . i f, . � !� / . . . - �.. �`1 i ! � !� � 375 ; 367 j ' ` I � i\ \\ r'�, •% �, � �L, S, •�� / � '�'� � � j -� ( 1 s�s.oi`w �r , �� ;` � " ! '� �y� �"'� Low and Moderate Income � " � ' � �� 376.02 � � _ �% �� =��rh::�::::; Improvements I and I I Areas �� / � ,. � `` � � _ _._ ._. . `..._ -� " Improvement III Areas � -=-�—u�. ' � , . *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. ' � 12 � ' � One other type of area deserves mention. These are areas which would require extensive public expenditure for widespread acquisition and clearance before they would be attractive for � private re�investment. Because these areas would pla�e a large burden on City resources, they are not given a strong emphasis. Rather, a balance between sound areas of the City and areas � which require a more moderate level of assistance is encouraged. � PRIORITIES FOR ENERGY The strategy section of the Capital Allocation Policies recog- nizes St. Paul's commitment to energy efficiency. It emphasizes � encouraging the efficient use of energy in existing facilities rather than undertaking new activities. Although any new structure should be as energy efficient as possible, assuring � maximum energy efficiency within existing structures will be a ma jor challenge for St. Paul. Projects which encourage efficient energy use in existing buildings, � whether the project is proposed specifically for that purpose or for other purposes, are encouraged. In addition, development or redevFlopment which encourages high density use of public � transportation lines or encourages alternatives to the automobile . (particularly when there are no passengers) will be encouraged. New construction which is consistent with City plans, policies � and priorities may also be given a special consideration if the construction exceeds energy requirements in the applicable codes and uses renewable energy resources. � --- PRIORITIES FOR HOUSING � The strategy section af the Capital Allocation Policies also acknowledge� housing as an important area which requires special consideration. pAlthough not a goal in and of itself, ' , the availability and type of housing has an effect on the neigh- borhood stability, economic development and energy consumption. The Capital Allocation Policies recognize this relationship and include special consideration for projects which will encourage � the development of certain types of housing. These needs (rental housing, housing for low and moderate income families, and alternatives to single family housing) are based on three � considerations: a limited supply of land, spiraling costs, and energy considerations. � : ' � � -13- 3.0 THE POLICIES . � , 3.1 STRATEGY POLICIES The Strategy Po.licies set general direction for the City's � capital improvement expenditures within the framework o# . the goals and princ.iples. These policies are�monitored by the Planning Commission. The CIB Committe� also monitors � Policies Sl, S2 and S3 which relate to the proposed budget - rather than to individual projects.. � S1: BALANCED GOALS � I In order to assure a balanced.approach to annual capital allocation, . total budget allocations and #entative schedule commitments.� for new projects should r.+eflect the following proportions: � Categor� 96 Of Total New Allocations Neighborhood Improvement � 25-3596 _ . � Economic Development 20-309�6 Citywide Service System Improvement 35=45% Support System Development 5-10% . . � Special grants, costs bane by other units of government or the private sector, and assessments for the particufar project � will be excluded from this calculation. Special grants will be mohitored over time and taken into consideration in deter- mining the appropr�ate proportions during annual policy review. S2: C�EOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTIUN � The annual budgets should be monitored over time to assure that the needs of ali areas o# the City are being addressed. � The percentage distribution of capital improvement monies to each citizen participation district for the previous five budget years, beginning with 1979 as the base year, will be identified � in an annual repat. The report will be taken into cQnsideration in determining ttie appropriate geographic distribution of funds. 5pecial grants, costs borne by other units of government � or the private seetor, and assessments for the particular project �vill be excluded from this ealculation. Special granis will be monitored over time and taken into consideration in determining � the appropriate propations during annual policy review. S3: BALANCED NEIGHBURHOOD BE7TERMENT � In order to assure a balanced approach toward neighborhood betterment, new allocations of capital for subsidies and service system improvements should follow this distribution: � � 1 14 � � % of Total Recommended % of � Area Residential Service/Subsidy Blocks Capital � Low/Moderate Incom� Areas , which are Improvement I 30% 60-759i6 or II; All Improvement III Areas. � All Conservation I and II Areas; Improvement I 70% 25-40% and II Areas which are � not Low/Moderate Income. 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 or parks facility will be given special � consideration if it is listed in the tentative five-year Program for Capital Improvements (PCI) for the implementing department, as shown in Chapter Five Four of the PCI. Rehabilitation or replacemen � 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 year. 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) create new jobs within the City of St Paul. 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 which support � neighborhood betterment in areas which have been recognized for concentrated neighborhood revitalization. These areas include Identified Treatment Areas and 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 which 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 need for energy efficiency, special consideration will be given to projects which will encourage efficient energy use in existing buildings, high density use on public transpatation lines, or alternatives to single passenger automobile use. New , construction which is consistent with City plans, policies and priorities will be given special consideration if State building code energy requirernents are exceeded and renewable energy � sources are used. 15 � _ : ' , 3.2 IMPLENiENTATION AND The Implementation and Development Policies identify,criteria � UEVELUPMEN"f POLICIES which are iinportant eonsiderations in selecting capital improve� ments. Most of these policies are stated in terms of "priorities" or "consider�tions" reflecting their use as evaluation criteria. These policies are monitored by the CIB Committee #hrough � its Task Force Projeet Rating Sheet. IDI: SOURCES OF INPUT ,. The priorities recommended by the following groups will be , taken into consideration: � a. The recognized neighk�orhood organization(s) in the affected area � b. The City operating department that will operate and maintain the proposed project c. The Planning Commissian ID2: c;ONFORMANCE WITH CITY PLANS` � � Proposals selected for funding must conform.witti all adopted City plans as determined by,the Planning Commission. _ - � ID3: CAPITAL ALiOCATION STRATEGY PULICIES The Planning Commission will evaluat� 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 projec:t 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 g�ea�ter : the consideration that,sMould be: given to the projeet. � � c. Pro jects which can be used year=cound will be given greater consideration than those which can only be used - � seasonally. , IDS: JOINT USE Facilities which 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 eftectively at less cost than separate facilities. t b. they are consistent with City plans, policies and priorities. i 1 - � -16-- � I � � � ID6: DUPLICA`I'1ON OF SERVICES Projects which duplicate existing public or private services which are available to the same population within a given geo- graphic area should not be funded. � ID7: CONTINUATION PROJECTS The funding needs of capital improvement projects which received � a prior budget appropriation for construction plans or a con- struction phase normally have priority over new projects and annual programs. Feasibility studies are not prior commitments. , Acquisition and preliminary design do not constitute prior com- mitments unless funding for construction plans has been approved and included in the CIB Committee's schedule of tentative future commitments. Annual programs are not considered , continuation projects. IDB: SERVICE AND SUPPORT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS � Maintaining basic City services shall be a high priority. This means that in evaluating the merits of each proposal: , a. Rehabilitation, or replacement if rehabilitation is not � feasible, of obsolete City facilities which are required to rnaintain the basic level of service for the service , or support system is first priority. � b. Additions to existing facilities and 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 is second priority if policy does not prohibit such funding. c. Additions to existing City facilities and new City facilities which are not specified in a City plan are last priority. � d. Allocations for improvements to facilities which will not be owned or operated by the City will be treated as subsidy allocations. � ID9: OTHER IMPROVE.MENTS Subsidy allocations should be directly related to the goals and � , objectives of tFie City. This means that: a. Subsidy allocations which are directly related to concen- trated neighborhood or cornmercial 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. i 1 r _��_ � � ID 10: ACQUISITION • Acquisiti�.�n is not encouraged. However, projects which 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 necessacy; � 2) the parcel(s) have been previously identified for conversion to park use if they be�ome available; 3) the parcel(s) have tax exernpt status and a use � which is consistent with City plans, policies, and priorities has been clearly identified; or � 4) special granf funding has been committed. � b. The acquisition is related to private development or reuse and: � 1) the proposed reuse is consistent with City plans, policies,. and priorities, and 2) there is a reasonab�e expectation that dev.elopment � will occur. _ ID11: PROGRAMMING AND PHASING � - , Projects sho�ld be adequately programrned 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 reasonab4y � be expected to 6e expended in the budget year. Funds required to complete the project shoulci be identified in the schesiule and will,eonstitute a tentative commitment � subject to City Council adoption of a budget appropriatian ' for the project. 1D12: 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: TOT'AL ENERGY CONSUMPIION The impact of every City project on nonrenewable energy supplies will be considered. In evaluating the merits of each proposal: � a. Projects which wil! significantly reduce total energy consumption will be given a high priority. � b. Projects which will significantly increase total energy consumption will be given a low priority. � -18- � 1 1 ID14: OPERATOR'S E'VERvY CONSUMPTION It is de�irable to allocate city capital to projects which will not result in a net increase in the project operator's level , of energy consumption. In evaluating the merits of each proposal: � a. Projects which will result in a significant decrease in the project operator's level of energy consumption will be given a high priority. , b. Projects which will result in a significant increase in the project operator's level of energy consumption will be given a low priority. � ID15: IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET It is desirable to allocate City capital to projects which will not result in a net increase in operating and maintenance expenses, 1 exclusive of that portion of operation and maintenance expenses assignable to energy consumption. At a minimum, this means that in evaluating the merits of each proposal: ' a. Projects which will result in a significant decrease in operating and maintenance expenses will be given a high priority. ' b. Projects which will result in a significant increase in City operating and maintenance costs will be given low priority. � ID16: IMPACT ON CITY REVENUES It is desirable to allocate City capita! to projects which will not reduce revenue to the City. At a rriinimum, this rneans � that in evaluating the merits of each proposal: a� Projects which increase revenue to the City will be given a high priority. � b. Projects which reduce revenue to the City will be given a low priority. � , ID 17: PRIVATE IN VESTMENT Capital expenditure proposals which 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 directly associated with concentrated neighborhood revitalization � efforts, if the pro ject will result in additional permanent jobs within St. Paul, ar if the project is directly related to conservation of nonrenewable energy resources or development of energy alternatives. � b. RETURN ON INVESTMENT: The City's annual return in the form of property taxes should be, at a minimum, 12% unless the project is directly associated with the , projects listed in a) above. In no instance may tax yield be less than the cost of additional services required. � -14 ID18:GRANTS � Special consideration should be given to capital requests which will be used as a match for a grant from another unit of govern- ment or the private sector.if the proposed project is consistent � with adopted City plans, polic'ies, and is a priority of the City. ID19: STREAMLINING CITY OPERATIQNS • Providin basic cit services as efficient! as ossible is a ' g Y Y P high priority. Proposals that increase productivity in the provision of City services will be given special consideration. , The proposer rnust demonstrate that the project or program will: a. Significantly increase the quality and/or level of an existing � service without incr.easing annual operation and main- tenance costs; or b. Maintain the quality and/or level of existing service while significantly lowering annual operation and maintenance � costs. 3.3 PROJECT POLICIES The Project Policies focus more specifically on types of projects , that will be encouraged or discouraged for.the next budget 1983 and/or schedule of tentative commitments 1984-1987. � In some cases, funding limits or criteria f�r funding are established. The CIB Committee inonitors these policies with the assistance of the Budget Section or the Planning Commission in certain cases. : 1 P1: TREES Diseased shade tree removal will no longer receive a special � capital allocation. (Reforestation should continue through 1985 subject to annual review.) 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 main- tenance of skyways unless the City is the owner/operator of a benefitted building. � d. Proposed skyways must be in conformance with the guide- lines adopted by the Saint Paul City Council on January 8, 1980, as Council File Number 274243, ta be considered for funding. , P3: IDEN'TIFIED TREATMENT AREAS No-new Identified Treatment Areas (ITA's) will be initiated � during 1983 unless an existing ITA is completed and funds are available to initiate a new ITA. Should this occur, selection of a new ITA will be made in accordance with the guidelines � adopted by the Saint Paul City Council on July 27, 1978, as Council File Number 271322. 20 � � ' P4: SITE PREYARATION FUND � The City will consider budgeting a site preparatiun revolving fund under the following conditions: 1 a. The fund will only be used to prepare tax-forfeited sites owned by the City or formerly acquired by the Ho�:,ing and Redevelopment Authority for clearance. b. Site preparation will be undertaken only if there is a � firm proposal from a developer for purchasing the parcel once it is prepared. c. Administrative and operating costs are not paid from , the fund. d. Initial funding does not exceed $100,000. e. An amount suffiCient to repay the site preparation costs � incurred should be returned to the site preparation fund from proceeds of sale. PS: NEW FACILITIES , Given the City's fiscal constraints, certain types of projects will be a low priority for 1983 funding� These projects include: � a. Facilities to house programs or services which are not operated by the City; and b. Facilities to house or provide new services operated or maintained by the City which are not identified as ' a priority need in a City plan. c. Swimming pools will not be considered for 1983 funding. � P6: ANNUAL PROGRAMS An annual program is a series of projects of consistent nature that are implemented sequentially ovec a period of time until 1 an identified objective is attained (e.g., residential street paving program). An annual program must have clear eligibility criteria which are available for review and are consistent with applicable city plans and capital allocation policies if � it is to be considered for funding. All funding requests for continuatian of annual programs 1 , rnust be accompanied by: (1) a list of the specific activities carried out under the prior year's budget allocation for subseque��t review by the CIB task forces; and (2) a sunset provision which ' identifies the expected date of prograij�, terminatio�� r conditions that would result in program terminati��n. � , ' , 21 � Annual programs authorized in the 1981 Capital , Impr-ovement Budget which are subject to annual review, evaluation ancl funding consideratiort are: ' � Program Guidelines Adopte�d by City Council-� Log No• Program Title (if applicable)* C-6602 Citywide Tree Planting � C-6605 Accessibility. of City � Buildings and Services R-4402- ITA Programs CF ��271322, 4405 June 27, 1978 � R-5501 Commercial Rehabilitation CF��27.65R 5 Loan Program March �6, 1981 R-6601 Multi-Unit Structure CF ��275073, Rehabilitation Program June 30, 1978 I R-6602 Owner Occupied Rehabilitation CF ��272145, Loan Program-Residential November 30, 1978 R-6603 Owner Occupied Rehabilitation CF ��272145, , Grant Program—Residential November 30, 1978 R-6604 Selective Clearance CF ��273807, September 2, 1979 �. R-6608 Neighborhood Commercial Area CF 4�274002, Improvements Pr.ogram November 8, 1979 . 5-6601 . Ma jor Sewer Repairs - S-G604 Sidewalk Reconstruction � 5-6605 Handic�pped f'edestrian Ramps �-6606 Traffic Channelizations 5-�607 Signal Installations and � Itevisions 5-6610 Residential Street Paving CF 277358 (Paving) and Lighting Program September 3, 1981 � 5-6611 (Li�hting) 5-6612 Lighting Improvements CF ��275895 November 6, 1980 � 5-6613 PIA Long Side Sut�sidy ior Streets and Sidwalks *Any program guidelines adopted by City Council that are not ` included in this list are still applicable io program activities. P7: TAX ABATE�UENT , Tax abatement is disr.ouraged as a developrnent incentive. � � , 22 , � � P8: E�:;ON��NIC BASE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY FUND For the purpuse of s�curing sig,�ificant increases in the Ciiy'S property tax and permanent e�nployment bases, a reserve fund � is authorized for the 1983 Capital Improvement Budget and Schedule to be called the "Economic Base Development Oppor- tunity Fund." This fund will finance public incentives for new � private development or redevelopment opportunities which present themselves outside the annual Unified Capital Improve- ment Program and Budget Process (UCIPBP) cycle. Normally, � all capital improvements are budgeted and programmed during the annual UCIPBP. However, it would be appropriate to have a limited amount of money available to permit short notice financing of public improvements 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 retum on , investment requirements stated in Capital Allocation Policy ID 17. b. Each proposal must be reviewed by the Planning Com- mission for consistency with City plans and policies. � c. Each proposal must be reviewed by the CIB Committee and the advice of the Committee rnust 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 Comrnis- sion and CIB Committee for review. � � e. Each proposal must require immediate appropriation ` of funds in order to assure timely implementation. (The CIB Committee will recommend that proposals 1 with an implementation "schedule that permits review through the annual UCIPBP be reviewed as part of the next annual UCIPBP cycle.) , P9: EIVERGY RETROFIT The City continues to suppa-t a limited-term program to retrofit City-owned buildings with energy-saving features through 1985. � ' P10: CAPITAL MAINTENANCE The City continues to support a capital maintenance program � for City-owned buildings for the 1983 bu�get and 1984-1987 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, founda- � tion walls, beams, joists, columns, load bearing walls, exterior facade, floors, �eilings, roof and roofings. A building's service system components are its plumbing, electrical distribution, � communications, heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems. , 23 1 E The annual Capital Maintenance Program funding request is � to be submitted to the Budget Section for inclusion in the annual Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process (UCIPBP) by the Division of Property Management in accordance generally with provisions of 5.02(2Xb) arad 57.06 of the Saint � Paul, Minnesota Administrative Code. In submitting annual funding requests under the Capital Maintenance Program, each � department will include: (1) a statement of capital maintenance � projects authorized for funding in the prior year's budget; and (2) a list of the specific improvements proposed to be carried out under the current year's funding request. � (To support the annual 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 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 in City Counci! of an appropriate resolution enumPrating the projects to be included in the program.) � 3.4 BUDGET AND FWANCE The Budget and Finance Poiicies identify the various sources POL.ICIES of funds ayailable for capital improvements and conditioris � which must be met in order to use them. The Budget Section of the Mayar's Office is responsible for developing these policies and the CIB Committee and the Budget Section of the Mayor's Office monitor these policies. , B1: FUND SOURCES Determination of which fund source is most appropriate for j financing each of the City's k�udget priorities will be made as follows: a. Projects subject to assessment wili be so assessed under the i City's Special Assessment Policy, adopted on December 23, 1976 as Council File No.268302, and amended June 17, 1980, Council File No. 275110. Those projECts benefitting � private property which result in extra�rdinary operating and maintenance expenses will be accompanied by a financing plan that (1) identifies these expenses, and (2) outlines , how they will be paid. b. Atl street improvement projects on Municipal State � Aid, County Aid, or Minnesota Trunk Highway routes will be considered for funds primarily with monies allocated to the city specifically for those routes. c. Capital improvements which are eli ible for metro olitan � g P � State or -Federal programs or private grants should be so financed, and, if appropriate, CDBG and CIB monies � may be used to provide local matching funds. -24- ' � c�� Capital improvements which could be financed with specific bonding authocity 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 frorn an existing � Tax Increment District should be so recommended. � e. Capital improvements and programs eligible for CDBG funding will be so funded; and ' � f. Capital improvements which cannot be firtanced with monies'governed by paragraphs(a) through (e) will be considered for Capital Improvement Bond funding. ' B2: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENI' �3LOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM Projects proposed for funding through the CDBG Program 1 must meet federal regulations for both eligibility and fundability. Es�entially, this means that: ' a. Only projects which serve low and moderate income people or eliminate slums and blight can be considered. b. Of the total CDBG dollars which are allocated to projects, � most should serve low and moderate income people and be located in areas which meet the Department of Housin� and Urban Development's definitian of low or rnoderate ' income. Specific emphasis sho��ld be placed on the Identi- fied Treatment Areas. The rernainder of funds may address slums and blight not directly benefitting !ow or moderate � inc:ome people. B3: BOND FINANCING � a. The total amount of general obligation bonds issued by the City should not exceed an annual average of $10.5 million. Capital Improvement E3onds, Water Pollution , Abatement Bonds, and Tax Increment General Obligation Bonds which are issued in 1983 will reflect this $10.5 million floating average identified in the City's debt , policy. � b. The City will issue no more than $1J,500,000 in General Obligation Bonds in 1983. This tota! may � inr_lude up to $4,955,000 of Water Poilution Abatement Bonds for continuing the St. Anthony Hill Sewer Rehabili- . tation Project (Thomas-Dale Sewer). It may inr_lude � as well a consideration of other General Obligation Bond issues to a total of $5,545,000. These other issues may include Tax Increment Bonds (if not revenue bonds) in support of district heating, extension of the � Seventh Place Mall, or acquisitinn of land for redevelop- ment; Urban Renewal Bonds; or Series 1983 Capital Improvement Bonds. , , 25 � c. The City does not intend to issue in 1983 general obligation bonds for new project commitments under speciat state authorizations for the City's residential or commercial rehabilitation programs, parking facilities, or urban renewal. � d. The use of revenue bonds to finance public improvement commitments for economic development projects is � preferred over the use of the City's general obligation bond financing. While Port Authority revenue b�d financing is a highly desired method of financing economic , development incentives, the City may consider using tax increment bonding or City revenue bonding in 1983 ' for the foUowing projects: 1) Block C, 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 antici ated. 3) Harkins Bowling Alley Site Parking Ramp (�3,000,000� 4) Highland Parking Ramp if legally possible ($1,7D0,000) ' S) :Ylortgage Revenue Boncfing for Housing Program ' 6) Canstruction 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) District heating. e. Projects proposed for funding with tax increment bonds � f whether general obligation or revenue) must meet the requirements of Policy B4 before City Council will consider issuing bonds. , B4: TAX INCREMENT FINANCING a Revenue Projections by Consultant: Revenue projections i for all tax increment proposals should be analyzed by an outside financial cnnsultant rather than a bond consultant. � b. Debt Service Prom Bond Sale Proceeds. Debt service for all tax increment projects will be paid from bond ' proceeds for no more than the first tf�ree years of project , implementation when no tax incrernents or other project revenues are generated. c. Other Costs Funded from Bond Sales Proceeds: Al! 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, baid consultant, bond counsel, financial consultant and staff time. � . , 26 � ' � � -.i. � Ali Statr requirements as set forth in Minnesota Statutes mu,t bc met. � B�: REHABILITATION LOAN FUNDS Ci�y bond monies used to provide residential 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 rehabilitation loans, which retum to the CDBG Program as program income, shall be appropriated from the program income ' line item to provide new loans as the ori�inal loans are repaid. ' ' � ' . � � ' ' � � � • ' ' � � _?�_ , 4.a POLICY IMPLE �1EN fATIUN � S3int 1'aul's Capital Allocation Policies will be effective only � if they are carefully ►noriitored. 1�Vhi)e City Council has final responsibility ar�d authority for implementing the policies, monitoring must occ.ur throughout the proposal review and bud�et preparation process. ' ti•►onitoring responsibility is assigned to three groups: The Planning Commission, the CIB Committee, and thE Budget Section of the ' May�or's dffice. In same instances, the responsibility is shared. Ir► otners, input frum others may be required, but the responsibility zor �s5�rir�K irnplementation falls t� one of these three groups. . Fi�;ure 4 indicates where r�esponsibility iar monitc>ring imple- , rr�entati:�� c:f eacr: pulicy rests ir, the pr�aiec.t review and budget przp�r�tio� process. ' FIGURE 4: POLICY YIONITORING fINC) 1MPLEh�1Eh rATIUN 12ES1'ONSIBILITY � Pldnning CIR Mayor's C7ffice Camrr2issian �CU!Tl�riftt�� Lsudget Section , Stratei v � �011�.li='. -,I' ti iy '�"w, 1 s __._ (S1-5r.) I:n�l�ruc:-�t«._ , t1Ufi �sCk! 1�eVE.'lOr_r!it?I�L �jl l� 1�3 �.�� _ �V111:1C� ' lI1U 1-I�.�:1) Projec# Pl, PL, � Policies F'3, Pb A!1 P4 tt�rough ��1G (F�l-Ylr);� �iudget Yolicizs � --- 61 tPu�vugh �� All ��1—r�St � ' , � -2g- � ' , 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 ��ohn Schmidt Sam Grais Gayl� Summers � Rev. Glen Hanggi Janabelle Taylor Sr. Alberta Huber Adolf Tobler **David Hyduke �Robert Van Hcef ' Richard Kadrie � *Capital Improvement Pro�ram Subcarnmittee **Subcommittee Chair ' ADMINISTRATION � James J. Bellus, Director DPED �� - AND POLIC�Y Peggy Reichert, Deputy Director for Planning ' DIR ECTION Allen Love joy, Senior Planner ' � _.._-- -- -- RESEARCH AND Patricia James, Planner�___ .___.____ PLANNItVG Tamsen Aichinger, Budget .!�nalyst �,isa Roden, Planner ' , ' ' ' ' ' , 29 � g , . �. �;, ,$� �:�;'��;�:, G ITY O F SAIi\TT PAUT� �� "* '-� OFFICE OF THE MAYOR � � s >° �. �Q `, �i111�tiltlli ~� . � `:y' _..L.L �� _��o/ ''2 � 347 CITY HALL `�•��s� SAINT' PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 ' GEORGE LATI:�IER (612) 298-4323 J�_ ? MAYOR --'�-�" I December 22 , 1981 ' President Ruby Hunt and Members of the City Council 7th Floor, Cit,y Nal1 St. Paul , Minnesota . 55102 ' RE: "St. Paul Canital Allocation Policy, 1983-1987" Dear Council President Hunt and Council Members: Copies of the Planning Commission's recommended capital allocation policies are transmitted with this letter. You will notice that no major alterations have been made fram the 1982- 1Q86 policies. The Rlanning Commission recommends and I concur, that siqnificant oolicy changes not be made in the midc�le of the two-year budge� orocess. Therefore, major policy revisions will be considered when the full ad hoc evaluation process is begun in the fall of 1982. I am sure you v�rill want to join me in thanking the Planning Corr�nissian for taking the time to update these policies. I recommend their adoption. The oolicies must be heard and acted on by the Finance and Personnel Committee by January 8, and adopted by the full Council by January 14 in order to meet the budget process timetable. If you have any questions , do not hesitate to contact the Planning Division. Merr,y Christmas and Happy New Year to each of you. . Sincerely, � , \. _ � ; � :� , (�:�L,�, r� ;�' ,eo e Latimer �` P�ayp r GL:PJ:mh Enc. �� , ` �oi� 1 ��g 1 1 1 ! � 1 1 � 1 1 PAUL � TION FOLIC�Y 1 � 1983�1987 1 CITY OF SAINT PAUL ' DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF PLANNING ' � � � , . � � �'Q�� city of saint paul � planning commission resolution f ile number $�-36 • date December 18, 1981 : WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of St. Paul is charged ' with responsibility for development and review of policy to guide the Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process (UCIPBP); and WHEREAS, the Capital Improvement Subcommittee of the Planning Commission has reviewed and recommended changes to policies adopted as part of "St. Paul Capital Allocation Policy: 1982-1986"; and ' WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the previously adopted policies and the recommendations of the Capital Improvement Subcommittee; NOW, BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission approves � the policies entitled "St. Paul Capital Allocation Policy: 1983-1987" for use during 1982 in preparation of the 1983 Capital Improvement Budget and 1984-1987 Schedule of Tentative Commitments; and BE IT FllRTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission directs transmTttal . to the Mayor and City Council for their review and adoption. moved by McDonell seconded by Tayl or . in favor 18 . ► aga�r�st � . - � ��ai � CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICY, 1983-1987 ERRATA SHEET Minor tYpoqraphical errors were found after the document was printed and distributed. The corrected languaqe follows: Paqe 1 , paragraph 2: The policies in this report will be used during the 1982 Unified Capital Improvement Proaram and Budget Process (UCIPBP) to develop a capital improvement budget for 1q83 and a schedule of tentative commitments for 1984 through 1987. Individuals and groups that will use the policies to prepare or to evaluate proposals include neighborhood organizations, district councils, city operating departments, the Canital Improvement Budget (CIB) Committee and its Task Forces, the Planning Commission, the Mayor and City Council . Pa�e 15, Policy S4, line 7: . . .as shown in Chapter Four of the PCI. Rehabilitation or replacement. . . PaQe 16, Policy ID1 : (corrected from I to 1) Page 20, 3.3 Project Policies, line 3: (1983) and/or schedule of tentative commitments (1984-1987) . . . December 15, 1981 � � � SAINT PAUL CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICY: 1983-1987 � � APPROVED BY THE SAINT PAUL PLANNING COMMISSION Resolution Nurnber � � ADOPTED BY THE SAINT PAUL CITY COUNCIL: Council File Number � ' � � � � DIVISION OF PLANNING � � DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 1101 CITY HALL ANNEX 25 WEST FOURTH STREET � SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 � 1 . � : 1 � , TABLE OF CONTENTS � , � 1.0INTRODUCTION l - � l.l CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND THE"C[TY BUDGET 1 1�2 POLICY OVERVIEW ? � 2.0 UNDERLYING RATIONALE J�� ' 4 1 FOR SAINT PAUL'S CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICIES , 2.1 GOALS AND PRINCIPLES ~ � 4 � 2.2 TYPES OF CAPITAL PROJECTS 6 2.3 IMPLEMENTATION OF GOALS AND PRINCIPLES 7 � 1 3.0 THE POLICIES 14 � 3.1 STRATEGY POLICIES r l4 3.2 IMPLEMENTATION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES 16 3.3 PROJECT POLICIES 20 3.4 BUDGET POLICIES 24 � � 4.0 POLICY IMPL�MENTATION i 28 � CREDITS ~i� -~� 2y � � � � 1 . � t�1vURES TITLE PAC:C ' FIGURE 1: TYPES OF CAPITAL PkOJECTS 6 � F�IVURE 2: RE�If)ENTiAL IMPROVEMENT STKATEGY CATEGURIES AND ODJECTIVES 11 � rIGURE 3: PRIORITY AREAS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD BETT�,RMENT 12 r'li:�UttE 4: ��OLICY MONITORING AND IMPL,CMENTATION RESPONSIaILITY - 28 � � � � � � � , � � � � � � ; 1 1 � � � 1.0 INTRODUCTION � "Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policy: 1983-1987" is the City's � sixth set of capital allocation policies. Each year, the policies are reviewed and revisions which reflect the City's current goa.ls, objectives and limitations are made. The policies are � then forwarded to the City Council for its review and adoption. The policies in this report will be used during the 1982 Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process (UCIPBP) � to develop a capital improvement budget for 1982 and a schedule of tentative commitments for 1984 through l987 and groups that will use the policies to prepare or to evaluate proposals include � neighborhood organizations, district councils,city operating departments, the Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) Committee and its Task Forces, the Planning Commission, � the Mayor and City Council. 1.1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Saint Paul's annual budget is divided into two documents: an � AND THE CITY BUDGET operating budget and a capital improvement budget. Although the two budgets are developed through separate processes, they are interrelated. � 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 revenue 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: - costs associated with continuing existing City services; � - costs associated with providing new or expanded City services; and - costs associated with operating or maintaining a new � physical asset. The capital improvement budget funds physical improvements. � A capital improvement is usually a one-time expense required to upgrade or add to the physical assets (land and buildings) of the City. Capital improvement expenditures can also � be divided into three general categories: - expenditures for reh�'bilitating or replacing obsolete City facilities; � _ expenditures for building additional City facilities; and expenditures for providing incentives to the private sector to develop or redevelop assets which are not owned by � the City. � � it is im ortant � Although the two budgets are developed separately, p to recognize the interrelationships between the two. When the City constructs a new facility, the operating budget must � be able to cover the cost of maintaining it. If the operating budget does not provide for routine maintenance of the City's physical assets, deterioration will occur and major capital � expenditures in the form of rehabilitation or replacement will be required, affecting the capital improvement budget. e a ital im rovement needs invariabl exceed � � 1.2 POLICY OVERVIEW Legitimat c p p Y the amount of money available to meet them. If the capital improvement budget is to meet the most serious needs in � a manner which provides the most benefit for the City as a whole, a method for determining the relative priority of proposed projects and focusing capital expenditures is required. � The Capital Allocation Policies provide this focus and direction by coordinating goals, plans and priority statements into a set of � policies specifically designed to guide the capital improvement budgeting process. A general framework for the policies is presented in Chapter 2.0. � This framework includes goals, overriding principles and other supporting information for the policies themselves. The policies are found in Chapter 3.0, divided into four sections: � strategy policies, implementation and development policies, ' project policies, and budget policies. Each policy section pro- � vides a different level of direction for the capital improvement budgeting process. The strategy policies set general direction for the City's capital � improvement allocations based on the goals and principles. The implementation and development policies identify characteristics which are important in evaluating capital improvement proposals, � The rating sheet developed by the Capital Improvement Budget Committee for use by its Task Force is directly related to the implementation and development policies. � The project policies focus more specifically on types of projects that will be encouraged or discouraged. In some cases, conditions . � for funding particular projects or types of projects are indicated. In others, commitment to certain types of projects is identified. The last policy section, the budget policies, addresses the � various sources o,� funds available to Saint Paul for capital improvements. These policies identify conditions which must be met in order to use the source of funds. � � _�_ � � � A fina! chapter addresses responsibility for monitoring the policies. While the City Council has final responsibility for adopting the capital improvement budget, the Planning � Commission, the CIB Committee, and the Budget Section of the Mayor's Office share responsibility for monitoring implementation of the policies during the budget review process. � , � � I j . 1 . � � � � � � _ I . ! � 1 i � 1 l � -3- . � � 2.0 UNDERLYING RATIONALE FOR SAINT PAUL'S CAPITA�. 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 docurr�ent. 2.1 GOALS AND PRIN IPLES For the past several years, two goals have formed the basis , fur many of Saint Paul's activities, including �ecisions on capital improvement expenditures. Adopted by City Council � and identifie� by 1�layor Latimer as major objectives of his admi►�istration, they are: 1. TO STRENGTHEN THE CITY'S NEIGHBORHOUDS IN ORDER � TO MAK� TMEM k3ETTEK PLACES �f� LIVE; 2. TO STRENGTHEN THE CI'fY'S ECONOMIC BASE IN ORDE;•. � TO PROVIDE JUBS AN[.) SERVICES NEEDED BY RESIDENTS QF THE C1TY. During 1979, a third major goal emerged for the City. This � goal also serves as a basis for the City's capital improvernent 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 comprehensive planning process. Both the introductory chapter and Imple- � rnentation Strategy of the St. Paul Comprehensive Plan identify nraintenance of the City's infrastructure as a major objective , for the 1980s. This objective will serve as an additional basis for decisions on capital irnprovement expenditures. � 4. TO ENSURE THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE CITY'S PHYSICAL FACILITIES IN OR1�ER TO MAINTAIN � IdASIC LEVELS OF SERVICE AND PREVENT POTENTIAL HEALTH AND 5AFETY HAZARDS. � � � i i _4_ � � � ' However, capital fynds are limited and needs ar�e great. As a ' result, the goals are supplemented by three general principles . ` . which reflect the City's responsibiiities and opportunities. � These principles are: -. Critical needs which are necessary to protect basic life, � health or public safety take precedence over all other capital improvements. • - The City's prirnary responsibility is the provision of basic 1 ` services. A steady commitment of capitdl improvement funds is required to maintain the efficiency and effectiveness . of these basic service systems. - When choices exist, the ability of a capital improvement � to stimulate private investment and effect measurable neighborhood or economic improvement should be taken into consldecation. 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 which benefit the City as a whole. I _ I _ . � . . � _ i . � . � � � . � � � - � � 1 . - . 1 ! , _5 � 2.2 TYPES OF CAPITAC Throu hout the policies, capital improvement projects are � 8 PROJECTS divided into three categocies: service system, support system, and subsidy. These categories and their elements are presented � in Figure 1. FIGURE 1 TYPES O� CAPITAL PROJECTS � � SERVICE SYSTEM � Transportation: roads, bridges, curbs, sidewalks, lights, signals, signs, 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 � � Leisure/Culture/ • Environment/ � Education: parks, playgrounds, recreation centers, libraries, cultural facilities, parkways and bikeways, � trees, special use facilities ' � . � cia are• health centers multi-service centers � So 1 C . , � = 1 SUPPORT S�lSTEM � Administrative offices Training and educational facilities � Storage facilities Repair and maintenance facilities Communication facilities . � SUBSIDIES Loans Grants/Matching Funds Acquisition/Clearance � The first two categories cover most of the City's capital � facilities. 7he SERVICE SYSTEM is the largest of the categories and capital improvements to the elements of the various subsystems are a substantial respunsibility of the city. ' . � 1 -6- , � ' The StJfsPORT '=,YSTFlN', =hough smaller, is equally important. These c,�pital iacititi.:s.s��pport the service system and provide the base :;f operatio;; for the personnel and equipment necessar-y to��ity services. � The SUBSIDY section l�sts the types of assistance the City gives the private sector as,incentives for development or ' redeveloprnent of physical assets which are not owned or . operated by the City. Housing and commercial rehabilitation loans and grants, acquisition of substandard structures, and � ra�a#ching #unds to develop parks:or playgrounds which are not part of the City's park system 'are all examples of subsidies. j 2.3 IMPLEMENTATION OF In order to translate the goals and principles into policies, GOALS AND PRINCIPLES concepts must be defined and priprities clarified. �he followin� sec#ions present terms, definitions and rationales which are � important to an understanding of the policies. � � BALANCE AMONG GUALS AND PRINCIPLES The City of Saint Paul is committed to economic development, neighborhood betterment and efficient energy use. At the � same time, its first responsibility is maintaining basic levels of service. Fulfillment of this responsibility requires a steady- commitment to maintain the City's infrastructure through � rehabilitation, replacement, and, in some cases, additions to City service and support system facilities. in order to choose arr�ong equally worthwhile projects, impact on the City's goals � comes into consideration. Thus, several ends can be addressed with one action. In order to help assure balance among goals and principles, � policy guidelines 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 syste�n improvements. in addition, the annual proportion of funds alloca#ed to any one area of the City is monitored over tirr�e � ta avoid excessive geographic concentration of improvements and to assure that the needs of all areas of the City are being addressed. � These guidelines are supplemented by priorities for basic syste�ris, economic development, neighborhood betterment, energy efficien�v ' and housing. In combination, the policies form the basis for Saint Paul's capital allocation strategy. I � - _ -a-- � . � PRIORITIES FOR BASIC SYSTEMS , The City of St. Paul's primary responsibility is the provision of basic services. While there are many amenities thart 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, . � Currently, many capital tacilities have deteriorated as a result of deferred maintenance. Moreover, much of the City's existing � ►nfrastruc:ture (i.e., streets, sewer and water lines, bridges, and some public buildings) is appro3ching or has exceeded its useful economic life. Given these conditions, maintaining � a basic level of service will necessitdte major expenditures . � for repair, rehabilitation or replacement of existing capital . facilities. In the face of rising costs and declining resources, the Capital Allocation Policies emphasice maintenance of � bas'tc services over service expansion, The policies give priur.ity consideration to needed rehabilitation anci replacement of physically deteriorated or obsolete facilities. They �lso identify � the desirability uf adaressing capital repair and replacement � on a systematic basis by granting special consideration.to capital improvements that are identified in the implernenting depdrtm�nt's long-range capital program. � In sorne situations, additions to existing facilities or the con- struction of new facilities may be justified. However, the � � desirability of new facilities must be weighed against operating and maintenance costs and the requisite diversion of resources from capital repair anci replacement. Therefore,,the Capital tlllocation Policies give secondary c;onsideration to additions . � to existing facilities and construction af new facitities which will bring an area up to a level of seryice adopted in.a city plan specifically for that service or supp�rt systerri. � • PRIORITIES FOR ECONOMIC DEVELUPlYiENT . , The primary purpose of economic development activrties is twofold: to increase the number of jobs for Saint Paul residents and to increase the tax base so that City services � can be maintair�ed without substantial increases in taxes. Specific ways to do this include br�adeniiig the City's irxiustrial base; strengthening the dowr�town; stren�;thening neighborhuud � commercial areas; and promoting local economic development opportunities. A number of tools are available to the City of Saint Paul ' to encourage economic development activities. They include public improvements to support development; subsidies in the form of land acquisition or preparation, tax abatement , or special types of financing; and the use of munici�al police powers, legislative authority, persuasive powers, and technical ' assistance to neutralize stumbling blocks to devel�pment. � _g_ l � , Many of these tools are used by the City, the Port Authority and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Often, capital expenditures are not required. �-lowever, when they are, priorities . are established as a.basis for selecting projects. � � In order to assure that ro ects.�riented s ecificall toward P 1 P Y promoting economic development address the City's goals, 1 special consideration is given to projects which increase the number of jobs available to City residents. In addition, projects are evaluated against leveraging and return on investment � guidelines to he�p assure that the level of private investment and the increase in taxes which result from City involvement justify the expenditure. 1 . The Capital Allocation Policies also establish priorities for capital expenditures among competing downtown, industrial, and neighborhood commercial development needs. For the I , past several years, emphasis has been placed on neighborhood , commercial areas, particularly projects which complement r�eighborhqod revitalization. � The reason for this eiY�phasis is twofold. First, industrial develop- -rnent has traditionally been the responsibility of the Saint Paul ' Port Authority. Port Authority activities are monitored and 1 coordinated with City activities by the City Council (which approves Port Authority bond issues and has two seats on the � Board) and the Mayor (�hrough the Department of Planning � anri Economic Uevelopment). Downtown development and redevelopment is a key part of � Saint Paul's economic health. However, downtown develop- ment is occurring at a rapid pace, and, as developer activity increases, fewer inca�tives are required to maintain the .momentum. In aadition, the City is encouraging less reliance 1 on genera! obligation bonds and encouraging the use of other types of funding to leverage private investment, permitting more attention to other areas of the City. � Service system improvements are required in the downtown as in other areas of the City. Projects which will increase the number of jobs or which meet leveraging and return on � investment guidelines and conform with the City's Economic Development Strategy may be funded, depending on the availability of resources. However, as the downtown attracts � developer activity, fewer incentives in the form of special consideration should be required. � Secondly, among the many neighborhood commercial revitali- zation projects possible, some priorities must be established. Generally, assistance should go to those areas where there , will be the greatest impact. Therefore, in addition to considering the merits of each proposal, the relationship to concentrated neighborhood revitalization is taken into consideration. This approach helps coordinate improvements by focusing on specific � areas rather than scattering small scale improvements throughout the City. � -9- � � , PRIORITIES FOR NEIGHBORHOOD BETTERMENT � � Many qualities contribute to strong, stable neighborhoods, including physical charac#eristics. If its physical aspects.are � to enhance a neighborhood, an adequate and steady level of resources is required to maintain them. Providin� the resources : necessary to maintain private property is the responsibility of individual property owners. The City is responsible fur rnain- � taining the service system elements it owns and operates. However, choices must be made among capital in�p�rovernent• � projects located throughout the City. The basic principle used by the City to guide these choices is a balanced approach. First, the majority of capital expenditures for neighborhood j betterment should be channeled to those areas where there is the greatest opportunity for stimulating private reinvestment and effecting measurable neighborhood impravement. Secondly, � a steady eommitment of municipal resources should be made . available to uther areas of the City to prevent deterioration and to maintain their stability. . � �Th� greatest opportunity for effecting measurable improvement is likely to be found in areas where thehousing is basically sound but in need of some repair. Although some private . ' resources may be available, they usually are not sufficient to stabilize the area and preserve the nousing stock. Two measures are used to identify these areas: ho�sing condition � anci income. Income is based on the rnedian fainily income of th� census tract as a percentage of the median family income of the metropolitan area. Those census tracts where the � median farriily l�eome is less than 80% of the metropolitan area are identified as low and moderate income and, potentially, will require assistance.: � Housing condition is based on the Residential imProvement � Strategy adopted by the City in 1977. The Residential � Improvement Strategy categorizes the City's.residential areas on the basis of housing condition and estabushes objectives . for each area. � l 1 1 � 1 _�o_ : i � � �'I�.�UizE 2 KESIL;ENTIAL Ir.iPROVEMENT STRATEGY CATEGORIES , . /l.i`D OB.1 Ei:=TI VES � % of Structures Needing Maior % of Structures Repalr or Needing Minor Beyond 12epair Repairs Objectives ' Conser vat Eon I 4 or less 4 or less Surveillance � Conservation .II 4 or less 5 to 19 � Intensive Maintenance � IrnprovemeM I 5 to 19 20 to 81 Rehabilitation I�nprovement II 20 to 39 80 or less Rehabilitation and Neighborhood , Improvement Irnprovement III 40 or more 80 or less Major Neighborhood 1 Improvement � , Based on this information, two broad types of a�eas are identi- fied. The priority areas for neighborhood betterment are those ' areas whieh are low or moderate income and are classified as Improvement I or II. In addition, all Improvement III areas are included in the priority classification. The map on Page 12 gives a general indication of these areas of the City. � The Capital Allocation Policies establish guidelines to preserve ' a balanced approach for neighborhood betterment. The policies 1 also place emphasis on "neighborhood revitalization", or a coordi- nated approach for neighborhood improvement in a concentrated area. ' • The reason for concentrating investments is to take advantage . of limited resources. Within the priority areas, there are � pockets where concentrated improvements would not only � stabilize that area but also provide impetus for improvements in the surrounding blocks. In Saint Paul, these areas are called "Identified Treatment � Areas" or ITA's. They are selected according to guidelines adopted by City Council and, once selected, receive special consideration for capital expenditure allocations within the ' priority areas. In addition, Neighborhood Housing Service fNHS) areas are recognized by the City as neighborhood - • revital"ization. � :.• � � -11- � � � t FIGURE 3 PRIORITY AREAS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS*. � • : . . � � � 3a. � sos l , �3 - r.,.;;, � . 307.01 ' 307.02 301 302 �, .:..'• . � . 'L�� •:..•.:��i,'' .:;:,..::..:y�.: �t i � 1 J.�i::��:•:•J! .. . . . � ;.;r�.,:;;�,,,�,,,;::::.:;. �??;�r• '.�1Q . .. . 1 ..�t: 309 �.�•::;r•:.. +:fi'; �'r'�.;�r�::;,��•,•::r'�� ,., . �" E•,';'''�:{•. }::ri 'r �„ , :�_�:�```:�:: .::.r;' ::i::;�.+�. ..,. :•:....; '.319 �:j,;:}%;�.}; t>.: �}'1.v. ,.. v.v.•} . .3�E.O� :vi:i••• �'i {::' .3u• ��;Y'•%�•?}:Y.•n�� . r•: .. :�:�:::�s�i: ��::•• .:.::r �. � �r:. 3/8.01 �:�k" .;��1; . :.fi. %s• ^�• i �:$;•r:';;..•.r 'fS' . . . . � . ��::::.,;. I ,324 ...,, •.;.,:::r:.,r;�::;. • •::� 322 323 • � '�`' . T_ � • . ►.•f�V•. f:� •..•l. . L�tif,f f�V:�l� �� '•••��•�.I ]7� I ..� . . ..... :::�?'�':4•}i:. .L..{Y��• . . . . . � . f� ..,) I�I�� !i•9 i�%i..�Ji' � ' JG V },�''1 . 332 �:.;:•:.:::.,,.'�,3,.�'�••• :;•::::•::h��'�:� ':9 33ff;::•� ••r:;•: o-.•:'.:: ., .. _ �•::::r;::. .,::�• .;:`•Y- %i+;: '•• 3t5 j 346 34Z • '1 ;:;f;�::.�� ;�:r• � .•._r•�•.•+•}•'.,•'• ...:'..:::�: •.�.+ r � ;�;.�5" " i r,3!�i^c'•. 336 � � ..�:.. :� 333 �. .,`.,�;�, � %"`.:,..:t..�::�• 3�4 i ` = I 348 .;..... ;;::��` �• . s = : _ �'�'. .;....•r. 342 .3$0 •I '�...i.��,�, .r:•�.•.� 'rt� .r .` . � '`��' �. 349 3� 3� .�... �F , � 352 � :i.;.�' . I 35t I ! 357 �f � . �6t \ (---�_ � i �y y"• . n.�{ \ , . �. � ! ��— r— r; r _ ,,�., `. I ( ( � :.y +S,t+ � � � .. <?��:�. .' , `�., I �: I' ..••'; . �_ � �I ( I ';�:''�'�'�z� �`•''`�:cr ' 'a. ':� J.�;:Lj}'JL { ♦/ I. � 362 i 3Ii3 364 � 385 � � '3&8 x;.%'�, 1 j yY1:� ~ �y1�'p��.�titiY.�'}.tit1\'{M1`•��,G. \ , J I , �� `� �� \_� � r �.'.��}},; '�:tii;:•'y.,.�'%,,�q%C':?!•:f��l�� % � �� :1 .�� :.�:� J . L i:..:3•. �,:? .,r y�•.. i .� I t � � � $��Err.., �:�;:(•:..•.4.; ��:::r , ; 374 ; � � v 361 f� � 41{1�� L��'�.�ti{!C . � � _1.._�.__'.��. _. / L_! i1�—a!� __._.___._`_ . I �: � ! � ��. '�1 ' !� � 375 �� . � , � � . / / � I \ � . '� � .\ I \ '� ' _ � �1 � �. j� � ,�'. ' ..\` 376.01`� � \� ��/ �. �r I ! .y� ':'�:"`."�;�:� Low and Moderate Income � ' ' � l'� 3�s.oz >:::v�•.: _ `�"'`"'` Improvements I and I i Areas �� `� �� , �•••.'f::;,•::�:: � . .� , . ,•'� ' _ _ _: , �.._ = " Improvement I I I Areas , � _� � � � . *Residential Improvement Strategy classification of housing , condrtion combined with the estimated 1977 median family income of each census tract as a percentage of the estimated � 1977 SMSA median family income. 12 � � � 1 rOne other type of area deserves mention. These are areas which would require extensive public expenditure for widespread acquisition and clearance before they would be attractive for � private reinvestment. Because these areas'would place a large burden on City resources, they are not given a strong emphasis. Rather, a balance between sound areas of the City and areas Iwhich require a more moderate level of assistance is encouraged. ' PRIORITIFS FOR ENERGY The strategy section of the Capital Allocation Policies recog- nizes St. Paul's commitment to energy efficiency. It emphasizes � encouraging the efficient use of energy in existing facilities rather than undertaking new activities. Although any new structure should be as energy efficient as possible, assuring 1 maximum energy efficiency within existing structures will be a major challenge for St. Paul. Projects which encourage efficient energy use in existing buildings, � whetF�er the project is proposed specifically for that purpose or for other purposes, are encouraged. In addition, development or redevelopment which encourages high density use of public 1 � � transportation lines or encourages alternatives to the automobile (particularly when there are no passengers) will be encouraged. New construction which is consistent with City plans, policies � _ and priorities may also be given a special consideration if the construction exceeds energy requirements in the applicable codes and uses renewable energy resources. � --- PRIORITIES FOR HOUSING 1 The strategy section of the Capital Allocation Policies also adcnowledges housing as an important area which requires special consideration. Although not a goal in and of itself, � , the availability and type of housing has an effect on the neigh- borhood stability, ec'onomic development and energy consumption. The Capital Allocation Policies recognize this relationship and include special consideration for projects which will encourage I the development of certain �ypes of housing. These needs (renta! housing, housing for low and moderate income families, and alternatives to single family housing) are based on three � considerations: a limited supply of land, spiraling costs, and energy considerations. � � � � -13- 3.0 THE POLICIES I � 3.1 STRATEGY POLICIES The Strategy Po.licies set general direction for the City's � capital improvement expenditures within the framework o# . the goals and princ.iples. These policies are�monitored by . the Planning Commission. The CIB Committe� atso monitors � Policies Sl, S2 and S3 which relate to the proposed budget - rather than to individual p.rojects.. S1: BALANCED GOALS � . I In order to assure a balanced.approach to annual capital allocation, total budget allocations and 'tentative schedule commitments_ for new projects should reflect,the following proportions: � Category 9i6 Of Total New Allocations Neighborhood Improvement � 25-35�6 . � Economic Development 20-309i6 Citywide Service System Improvement 35=45% Support System Development 5-1096 . . � Special grants, costs borne by other units of government or theprivate sector, and assessments for the particular project � will be excluded from this calculation. Special grants will be rnonitored over time and taken:into consideration in deter- �-nining the appropriate proportions during annual policy review. S2: GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTfON � The annual budgets should be monitored over time to assure that the needs of ali areas o# the City are being addressed. � The percentage distribution of capital improvement monies to each citiaen participation district#or the previous five budget years, beginning with 1979 as the base year, will be identified , in an annual report. The report wiil be taken into cqnsideration in determining ttie appropriate geographic distribution of funds. Special grants, costs borne by other units of government � or the private secfior, and assessments for the particular project �vill be excluded from this ealculation. Special �rants will be monitored over time and taken into consideration in determining � the appropriate proportions during annua! 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: � � t 14 � � % of Total Recommended % of � Area Residential Service/Subsidy Blocks Capital Low/Moderate Incomr Areas � which are Improvement I 30% 60-75% or II; All Improvement III Areas. � All Conservation I and II Areas; Improvement I 70% 25-40% and II Areas which are 1 not Low/Moderate Income. S4: BASIC SYS"fEMS ' 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 or parks facility will be given special � _ , consideration if it is listed in the tentative five-year Progra m for Capital Improvernents (PCI) for the implementing department, as shown in Chapter Five Four of the PCI. Rehabilitation or replacemen ' 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 year. ' S5: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT � In order to take advantage of opportunities to stimulate private I investment and effect measurable neighbahood improvement, special consideration should be given to projects that will (a) complement the revitalization of neighborhood commercial � areas and major retail centers, or (b) create new jobs within the City of St Paul. 56: 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 which support � neighbahood betterment in areas which have been recognized for concentrated neighborhood revitalization. These areas include Identified Treatment Areas and Neighborhood Housing , , Service Areas. S7: HOUSING ALTERNATIVES Given the shortage of housing and limited land for new development, / special consideration wil! be given to projects which will encourage the availability of rental housing, housing for low and moderate income families, and alternatives to traditional single family � housing. S�: ENERGY EFFICIENCY , Given the need for energy efficiency, special consideration will be given to projects which will encourage efficient energy use in existing buildings, high density use on public transportation lines, or alternatives to single passenger automobile use. New , construction which is consistent with City plans, policies and priorities will be given special consideration if State building code energy requirements are exceeded and renewable energy � sources are used. 15 � . t 3.2 IMPLE[v1ENTATION AND The Implementation and Development Policies identify�criteria � UEVELOPMEN"f POLICIES which are important considerations in selecting capital improve� ments. Most of thes� policies are stated in terms of !'priorities" or "considerations" reflecting their use as evaluatian criteria. These policies are monitored by the CIB Committee through j its Task Force Projeet Rating Sheet. IDI: SOURCES OF INPUT . , The priorities recommended by the following grou�s will be taken into consideration: , a. The recognized neighborhood organization(s) in the affected area � b. The City operating department that will operate and maintain the proposed project c. The Planning Commission ID2: (:ONFORMANCE WITH CITY PLP�NS � - ' Proposals selected for funding must conform.with all �dop#ed � City plans as determined by the Planning. Commission. ,-<- � ID3: CAl�ITAL ALLOCATION STRATEGY PULICIES The Planning Commission will evaluate each proposal foc ' degree of conformance with the Strategy Section of the City's adopted Capital Allocation Policies. ID4: USE � The extent to which a projec:t 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 li#e expeciancy of the pro}ect, the greater _� the consideration that sMould be given to the project. c. Projects which can be used year=round wtll be given ` greater consideration than those which can onl� be used � seasonaliy: � � IDS: JOINT USE Facilities which 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. b. they are consistent with City plans, policies and priorities. _ , : . � � -16- � 1 � - � ID6: DUPLICAT"lON OF SERVICES Proje�:ts which duplicate existing public or private services which are available to the same population within a given geo- graphic area should not be funded. � ID7: CONTINUATION PROJECTS The funding needs of capital improvement projects which received , a prior budget appropriation for construction plans or a con- struction phase normally have priority over new projects and annual programs. Feasibility studies are not prior commitments. Acquisition and preliminary design do not constitute prior com- ' mitments unless funding for construction plans has been approved and included in the CIB Committee's schedule of tentative future commitments. Annual programs are not considered � continuation projects. IDB: SERVICE AND SUPPORT SYSTEAi► IMPROVEMENTS ' Maintaining basic City services shall be a high priority. This means that in evalUating the merits of each proposal: a. Rehabilitation, or replacement if rehabilitation is not � feasible, of obsolete City facilities which are required to rnaintain the basic level of service for the service or support system is first priority. ' b. Additions to existing facilities and 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 is second priority if policy does not prohibit such funding. c. Additions to existing City facilities and new City facilities which are not specified in a City plan are last priority. 1 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. Thi� means that: _ ao Subsidy allocations which are directly related to concen trated 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 cansideration. c. Other subsidy allocati�ns will be given last consideration. � � � --17- � . � ID 10: ACQUISITION - Acquisition is n�t encouraged. However, projects which 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 the.y become available; 3) the parcel(s) have tax exempt status and a use , which is consisteni with City plans, policies, and ' prior'ities has been clearly identified; or " 4) special grant funding has been committed. . � b. The acquisition is related to private development or reuse and: 1) the proposed reuse is consistent with City plans, , policies, and priorities, and : 2) there is a reasonable expectation that development � will occur. ID11: PROGRAMMING AND PHASING \' � Projects should be adequateiy programrned 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, cornpleting 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 t�udget appropriation , for the project. 1D12: PUBLIC ENVIRUNMENT 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: TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION The impact of every City project on nonrenewable energy supplies will be cansidered. In evaluating the merits of each proposal: � a. Projects which will significantly reduce total energy consumption will be given a h;gh priority. � b. Projects which will significantly increase total energy consumption will be given a low priority. � -18- � 1 � ID14: OPERATOR'S E'VERvY CONSUMPTION It is de�irable to allocate city capital to projects which will 1 not result in a net �ncrease in the project operator's level of energy consumption. In evaluating the merits of each proposal: ' a. Projects which will result in a significant-decrease in the project operator's level of energy consumption will be given a high priority. ' b. Projects which will result in a significant increase in the project operator's level of energy consumption will be given a low priority. , ID15: IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET It is desirable to allocate City capital to projects which will � not result in a net increase in operating and maintenance expenses, � exclusive of that portion of operation and maintenance expenses assignable to energy consumption. At a minimum, this means that in evaluating the merits of each proposal: ' a. Projects which will result in a significant decrease in operating and maintenance expenses will be given a � high priority. � b. Projects which will result in a significant increase in City operating and maintenance costs will be given low priority. � ID16: IMPACT ON CITY REVENUES It is desirable to allocate City capital to projects which will not reduce revenue to the City. At a rr�inimum, this rneans 1 that in evaluating the merits of each proposal: a� Projects which increase revenue to the City will be given a high priority. , b. Projects which reduce revenue to the City will be given a low priority. � , ID17: PRIVATE INVESTMENT Capital expenditure proposals which 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 1:6 each dollar should leverage at least 6 private dollars). This ratio may be as low as 1:3 if the project is directly associated with concentrated neighborhood revitalization � efforts, if the pro ject will result in additional permanent jobs within St. Paul, or if the project is directly related to conservation of nonrenewable energy resources or , development of energy alternatives. b. RETURN ON INVESTMENT: The City's annual retum in the form of property taxes should be, at a minimum, 12% unless the project is directly associated with the � projects listed in a) above. In no instance may tax yield be less than the cost of additional services required. � -1Q- ID18:GRANTS , Special consideration should be given to capital requests which will be used as a match for a grant from another unit of govern- ment or the private sector if the proposed project is consistent � with adopted City plans, polic'ies, and is'a priority of the City. ID19: S1'REAMLINING CITY OPERATIONS , Providing basic city services as efficiently as possible is a high priority. Proposals that increase productivity in the provisian 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 incr.easing annual operation and main- tenance costs; or b. Maintain the quality and/or �evel of existing service while significantly lowering annual operation and maintenance , costs. 3.3 PROJECT POLICIES ThePro'ect Policies focus more specifically on types of projects ' l that will be encouraged or discouraged for.the next budget. 1983 and/or schedule of tentative commitments 1984-1987,,- , In some cases, funding limits or criteria f�r funding are established. The CIB Committee monitors these policies with the assistance of the Budget S�ction or the Planning Cammission in certain cases. � P1: TREES Diseased shade tree removal will no longer receive a special � capital allocation. (Reforestation should continue through 1985 subject to annual review.) P2: CITY FUNDING OF SKYWAYS � a. Funds will not be budgeted far 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 constructian. The developers and/or property • owners of benefitting b�ildings shall fund the entire- , cost of skyway construction within their buildings. c. The City will not provide funds for the operation or main- tenance of skyways unless the City is the owner/operator , of a benefitted building. d. Proposed skyways must be in conformance with the guide- lines adopted by the Saint Paul City Council on January 8, 1980, as Council File Number 274243, ta be considered for funding. , P3: IDENTIFIED 'fREATMENT AREAS No new Identified Treatment Areas (ITA's) will be initiated � during 1983 unless an existing ITA is completed and funds are available to initiate a new ITA. Should this occur, selection of a new ITA will be made in accordance with the guidelines adopted by the Saint Pau1 City Council on July 27, 1978, as � Council File Number 271322. 20 ' i � ', P4: SITE PREYARATION FUND � The City will consider budgeting a site preparatic�n revolving fund under the following conditions: , a. The fund will only be used to prepare tax-forfeited sites owned by the City or formerly acquired by the Hou�ing and Redevelopment Authority for clearance. b. Site preparation will be undertaken only if there is a ' firm proposal from a developer for purchasing the parcel once it is prepared. c. Administrative and operating costs are not paid from ' the fund. d. Initial funding does not exceed $100,000. e. An amount sufficient to repay the site preparation costs , incurred should be returned to the site preparation fund from proceeds of sale. P5: NEW FACILITIES , Given the City's fiscal constraints, certain types of projects will be a low priurity for 1983 fundingo These projects include: ' a. Facilities to house programs or services which are not operated by the City; and b. Facilities to house or provide new services operated or maintained by the City which are not identified as � a priority need in a City plan. c. Swimming pools will not be considered for 1983 funding. 1 P6: ANNUAL PROGRAMS An annual program is a series of projects of consistent nature that are implemented sequentially ovec a period of time until � an identified objective is attained (e.g., residential street paving program). An annual program must have clear eligibility criteria which are available for review and are consistent with applicable city plans and capital allocation policies if � it is to be considered for funding. All funding requests for continuation of annual programs � , rnust be accompanied by: (1) a list of ihe specific activities carried out under the prior year's budget allocation for subsequer�t review by the CIB task forces; and (2) a sunset provision which 1 identifies the expected date of progra+y�t terminatio�� c�r conditions that would result in prograrn terrninati��n. , � 1 1 2, 1 ' ��Annual programs authorized in the 1981 Capital Improvement Budget which are subject to annual review, evaluation and funding consideratiort are: � � Program Guidelines . Adopted by City Council- � Log No• Program Title (if applicable)* C-6602 Citywide Tree Planting � G6605 Accessibility of City , Buildings and Services R-4402- ITA Programs CF ��271322, 4405 June 27,'1978 , R-5501 Commercial Rehabilitation CF4�27,6585 Loan Progra m March 16, 1981 R-6601 Multi-Unit Structure CF ��275073, Rehabilita�ion Program June 30, 1978 , R-6602 Owner Occupied Rehabilitation CF �f272145, Loan Program-Residential November 30, 1978 R-6603 Owner Occupied Rehabilitation CF ��272145, � Grant Program—Residential Novernber 30, 1978 R-6604 Selective Clearance CF ��273807, : Septe mber 2, 1979 � R-6608 Neighbarhood Commercial Area CF ��274002, Improvements Pr.ogram November 8, 1979 5-6601 Ma jor Sewer Repairs 5-6604 Sidewalk Reconstruction ' 5-6605 Handic�pped Pedestrian Ramps 5-6606 ?raffic Channelizations 5-6607 Signal Installations and � I7evisions 5-6610 Residential Street Paving CF 277358 (Paving) and Lighting Program September 3, 1981 � 5-6611 (Li�hting) 5-661� Lighting Improvements CF ��275895 November 6, 1980 � 5-6613 PIA Long Side Subsidy ior Streets and Sidwalks *Any program guidelines adopted by City Council that are not , included in this list are still applicable to program activities. P7: TAX ABATE�'i�tENT , Tax abatement is discouraged as a development incentive. ' � , 22 , � ' P8: E�:ONO_VIIC Bf'►SE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUivITY FUND For the purpuse of s.:curir�g significant inc�reases in the Ciiy's property tax and permanent einployment bases, a reserve fund � is authorized for the 1983 Capital Improvement Budget and Schedule to be calied the "Economic Ba�e Development Oppor- tunity Fund." This fund will finance public incentives for new , private development or redevelopment opportunities which present themselves outside the annual Unified Capital Improve- ment Program and B�dget Process (UCIPBP) cycle. Normally, � all capital improvements are budgeted and programmed during the annual UCIPBP. However, it would be appropriate to have a limited amount of money available to permit short notice financing of public improvements 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 retum on investment requirements stated in Capital Allocation � Policy ID 17. b. Each proposal must be reviewed by the Planning Com- mission for consistency with City plans and policies. � c. Each proposal must be reviewed by the CIB Committee and the advice of the Committee rnust 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 Commis- sion and CIB Committee for review. I 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 annual UCIPBP be reviewed as part of the next annual UCIPBP cycle.) � P9: ENERGY RETROFIT The City continues to support a limited-term program to retrofit City-owned buildings with energy-saving features through 1985. IP10: CAPITAL MAINTENANCE The City continues to support a capital maintenance program , for City-owned buildings for the 1983 buciget and 1984-1987 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 resultin� from the acts of man or nature. A building's structural parts are its footings, founda- � tion walls, beams, joists, columns, load bearing walls, exterior facade, floors, �eilings, roof and roofings. A building's service system components are its plumbing, electrical distribution, , communications, heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems. , 23 � � The annual Capital Maintenance Program funding request is ' to be submitted to the Budget Section for inclusion in the annual Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process (UCIPBP) by the Division of Property Management in accordance generally with provisions of 5A2(2Xb) and 57.06 of the Saint , Paul, Minnesota Administrative Code. In submitting annual funding requests under the Capital Maintenance Program, each department will include: (1) a statement of capital maintenance ' projects authorized for funding in the prior year's budget; and (2) a list of the specific improvements proposed to be carried out under the current year's funding request. � (To support the annual UCIPBP funding request, the Division of�Property Management is to solicit capital maintenance project �ptoposals 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 in City Council of an appropriate resolution enumerating the projects to be included in the program.) � 3.4 BUDGET AND FINANCE The Budget and Finance Poiicies identify the various sources POLICIES of funds ayailable for capital improvements and conditions � which must be met in order to use therr�. The Budget Section of the Mayar's Office is responsible for developing these policies and the CIB Committee and the Budget Section of the Mayor's � Office monitor these policies. 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, adopted on December 23, 1976 as Council File No..268302, and amended June 17, 1980, , Council File No. 275110. Those projects benefitting private property which result in extraordinary operating and maintenance expenses wiil be accompanied by a financing plan that (1) identifies these expenses, and (2} outlines , how they will be paid. b. Atl street improvement projects on Municipal State Aid, County Aid, or Minnesota Trunk Highway routes j will be considered for funds primarily with monies allocated to the city specifically for those routes. c. Capital improvements which are eli ible for metro olitan , g P � State or �Federal programs or private grants should be � so financed, and, if appropriate, CDBG and C1B monies � may be used to provide local rnatching funds. -24- � ' 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 recommended. � e. Capital improvements and programs eligible for CDBG funding will be so funded; and � � 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 Program , must meet federal regulations for both eligibility and fundability. Es$entially, this means that: a. Only projects which serve low and moderate income , people or eliminate slums and blight can be considered. b. Of the total CDBG dollars which are allocated to projects, � most should serve low and moderate income people and be located in areas which meet the Department of Housii�g and Urban Development's definitian of low or moderate ' incomz. Specific emphasis should be placed on the Identi- fied Treatment Areas. The rernainder of funds may address slurris and blight not directly benefitting low or moderate ' income people. B3: B�ND FINANCING � a. The total amount of general obligation bonds issued by the City should not exceed an annua! average of $10.5 million. Capital Improvement F3r�nds, Water Pollution ' Abatement Bonds, and Tax Increment General Obligation Bonds which are issued in 1983 will reflect this $10.5 million floating average identified in the City's debt , policy. , b. The City will issue no more than $10,500,000 in General Obligation Bonds in 1983. This total may � include up to $4,955,000 of Water Pollution Abatement Bonds for continuing the St. Anthony Hill Sewer Rehabili- . tation Project (Thomas-Dale Sewer). It may include � as well a consideration of other General Obligation Bond issues to a total of $5,545,000. These other issues may include Tax Increment Bonds (if not revenue bonds) in support of district heating, extension of the 1 Seventh Place Mall, or acquisitinn of land for redevelop- ment; Urban Renewal Bonds; or Series 1983 Capital Improvement Bonds. 1 , 25 , c. The City dces not intend to issue in l983 general ' obligation bonds for new project commitments under special state authorizations for the City's residential or commercial rehabilitation programs, parking facilities, or urban renewal. � d. The use of revenue bonds to finance public improvement commitments for economic development projects is � preferred over the use of the City's general obligation bvnd financing. While Port Authority revenue bond financing is a highly desired method of financing economic � development incentives, the City may consider using tax increment bonding or City revenue bonding in 1983 for the following projects: 1) Block C, 22 and/or L. ' 2) Previous committed R-20, R-37 and NDP projects under contract with HUD for which Urban Renewal � Genera! Obligation Bond funding was antici ated. 3) Harkins Bowling Alley Site Parking Ramp (�3,OOQ,000) 4) Highland Parking Ramp if legally possible ($1,700,000) 5) �Vlortgage Revenue Bonding for Housing Program � 6) 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) District heating. 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. , B4: TAX INCREMENT FINANCING a Revenue Projections by Consultant: Revenue projections � for all tax increment proposals should be analyzed by an outsicfe 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 ' prc�ceeds for no more than the first three years of project � implementation when no tax incrernents or other project revenues are generated. �. Other Costs Funded from Bond Sales Proceeds: AlI 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. � . � 26 ` i , ' , ��. �� Ali Sta+e requirements a5 set forth in Minnesota Statutes mu>t bc met. ' B9: REHABILITATION LOAN FUNDS Ci�y bond monies used to provide residential 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 rehabilitation loans, which retum 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. ' ' , . ' � � � ' � 1 , � , ' _??_ � 4.0 POLICY IMPLE �IEN fATIUN ' S�.int 1'aul's Capital Allocation Pulicies wi(1 be effective only � if they are carefully monitored. While City Council Mas final responsibility ar�d authority for implerr�enting the policies, monitoring must occ.ur throughout the proposal review and bud�et preparation process. � ti��onitoring responsibility is assigned to three groups: The Planning Commission, the CIB Committee, and the Budget Section of the ' Ma}�or's Office. In same instances, the responsibility is shared. Ir� otners, input from others may be required, but the responsibility for �ss�rir�g irnplementation falls t� one af these three groups. Fi�;ure 4 indicates where resperosibility fur monitc�ring imple- ' r��entaiic_�n c�f eaci: policy rests ir, the prajec:t review and budget pr�p�r�tion process. , FIGUKE 4: POLICY ttitONITORING fINC) ItvlPLEh-1ENrATIUN t2ESPONSIBiLITY , P7anr�ing CIR Mayor's Uffice Cz�r,:mission Corr��r�;tt«�e LSudget Section ' Stratei y , Policir-�. =�,i� Li, =,t, ,s __... (51-�r1 ltr�pl�rsic::it�- � tlOfi �sfl�! 1)evelo,.;r,;e�1t Ir�"�; ID3 �?il --- Y��li��c� , IIDI-1�.�.>) � Prvject �1 p� � Policie� P3, �'b All P4�through F'lU (N1-Plrj) L�udget Yalicizs � --• 61 tFiruu�;h ��!� All , 1131-f3si , ' � ' -28- , , , 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 ' Rev. Glen Hanggi Janabelle Taylor Sr. Alberta Huber Adolf Tobler **David Hyduke *Robert Van Hoef , Richard Kadrie ' *Capital Improvement Program Subcornmittee **Swbcommittee Chair ' ADMINISTRATION James J. Bellus, 17irector, DPED �� - AND POLICY Peggy Reichert, Deputy Director for Planning ' DIRECTION Allen Lovejoy, Senior Planner � RESEARCH AND � Patricia James, Plannerr � � �� `-` —"`� PLANNIIVG Tamsen Aichinger, Budget ,'�nalyst �isa Raden, Plar�ner ' ' , ' ' ' ' 29 �