276231 WNITE - CITY CLERK ar 'f
PINK - FINANCE %
CANARY - DEPARTMENT G I T Y O F S A I N T PA LT L COUIICII �� � ��
BLUE - MAYOR File N O.
c
Council Resolution
Presented By
Referred To Committee: Date
Out of Committee By Date
IJHEREAS, the Council of the City of St. Paul is responsible for providing
policy guidance in the annual preparation of the Capital Improvement
Budget; and
t+IHEREAS, interested citizens, meeting as a subcommittee of the 1980 Capital
Improvement Budget Process Ad Hoc Evaluation Committee, anci the Capital
Improvement Program Subconunittee of the Planning Commission have reviewed
and refined the policies adopted by City Council on January 10, 1980,
as "St. Paul Capital Allocation Policy: 1981-1985"; and
I�JMEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed, approved and recomnended
revisions to the policies for guiding capital allocation, as set forth
in "St. Paul Capital A1location Policy: 1982-19�6";
P�OI�J, THEREFORE, 6E IT RESOLUED, that the City Council of the City of
St. Paul hereby adopts the attached report, "St. Paul Capital Allocation
Policy: 1982-1986", for use in the Unified Capital Improven�ent Program
and Budget Process during 1931 and directs its distribution to the Neig��borhood
Contact List, the Long-Range Capital Improvement Budget Committee and its
task forces, the St. Paul Planning Commission and appropriate city staff
persons.
COUIVCILMEN
Yeas Nays Requestgd by Department of:
Hunt
Levine In Favor
Maddox �
McMahon B
Showalter A gai n st y
��
�Iso�
JAN 2 0 1981 Form Approved by City Attorney
Adop y Counci Date —
ertified V• d by oun ' Secret►ary BY
y ��
Ap v by :Nayor: Da 2 3 1981 Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
�
By BY
�-►�� �!A N 31 i9 81
� � � �� /
C _
� �
�
;
.
�A�J
I.�
�J�AT�O� � �I��
�AI�I�'�i� A�L
1��2�19��
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
DEPAR7MENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF PLANNfNG
_„ _._. _
_ . �
TABLE OF CONTENTS
l.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND THE CITY BUDGET 1
1.2 POLICY OVERVIEW 2
2.0 UNDERLYING RATIONALE �
FOR SAINT PAUL'S CAPITAL
ALLOCf�TION POLICIES
2.1 GOALS AND PRINCIPLES 4
2.2 TYI'ES OF CAPITAL PROJECTS 6
2.3 IMPLEMENTATION OF GOALS AND PRINCIPLES 7
3.0 THE POLICIES 14
3.1 STRATEGY POLICIES 1�
3.2 IMPLEMENTATION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES 16
3.3 PROJECT POLICIES 20
3.4 BUDGET POLICIES 24
4.0 POLICY IMPLEMENTAT"ION 28
CREDITS 29
' FIGURcS TITLE PAGE
�IGURE l: TYPES OF CAPITAL PRUJECTS 6
FIGURE 2: RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY CATEGORIES AND OBJECTIVES I1
FIGURE 3: PRIORITY AREAS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD BETTERMENT 12
FIGURE 4: POLICY MONITORING AND IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY 28
l.0 INTRODUCTION
"Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policy: 1982-I986" is the City's
fifth 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 policies in this report will be used during the 1981 Unified
Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process (UCIPBP)
to develop a capital improvement budget for 1982 and a schedule
of tentative commitments for 1983 through 1986. Individuals
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 Nlayor and City Council.
1.1 CAPITAL IIV�PROVEMENTS Saint Paul's annual budget is divided into two documents: an
AND THE CITY SUDGET operating budget and a capital improvement budget. Although
the two budgets are developed throuoh separate processes,
they are interrelated.
The operating budget eovers costs associated with governing
the city and providing services. These services range from
police and fire protection to libraries and park programs.
Approximately 80�h of the City's revenue support th°se
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 �vith 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 rehabilitating or replacing obsolete
City facilities;
- expenditures for building additiona! City facilities; and
- expenditures for providing incentives to the private sector
to develap or redevelop assets which are not owned by
the City.
, ! __ .,, . _ ._ _. �.
': :
Although the two budgets are developed separately, it is important
to recognize the interrelationships between the two. �Vhen
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 Legitimate capital improvement needs invariably exceed
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 provicle 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 othe�-
supporting information for the policies themselves.
The policies are foun�l 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 direetion for the capital improvement
budgeting process.
The strategy policies set general direction for the City's capital
improvement all�cations based on the goals and princi�les.
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 disco�raged. 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.
-2-
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 th° policies during the budget review
process.
-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 reflecfed in varying degrees throughout the policy document.
2.1 GOALS AND PRINCIPI,ES For the past several years, two goals have formed the basis
for many of Saint Paul's activities, including decisions on
capital improvernent expenditures. Adopted by City Council
and identified by �1�layor Latimer as major objectives of his
administration, they are:
1. TO STRENGTHEN THE CITY'S NEIGHBORHOODS IN ORDER
TO MAKE THE�ti�I BETTER PLACES TO LIVE;
2. TO STRENGTHEN THE CITY'S ECONO�IIC BASE IN ORDER
TO PROVIDE JOBS AND SERVICES NEEDED BY KESIDENTS
OF THE CITY.
During 1979, a third major goal emerged for the City. This
goal also serves as a basis f.or the City's capital improvement
expenditure decisions:
3. TO CONSIDER ENERGY USE IN ALL THE CITY'S ACTIVITIES
AND TO INCREASE ENERGY EFFICIENCY WHENEVER
POSSIBLE.
In 1980, a fourth major gual arose ;rom the City's comprehensive
planning process. Both the introductory chapter and Imple-
mentation Strategy of the St. Paul Comprehensive Plan identify
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 II�iTEGRITY OF THE
CIT'Y'S PHYSICAL FACILITIES IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN
BASIC LEVELS OF SERVICE AND PREVENT POTENTIAL
HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARDS.
-�-
However, capital funds are limited and needs are great. As a
result, the goals are supplernented by three general principles
which reflect the City's responsibilities and opportunities.
These principles-are:
- Critical needs which are necessary tn 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 capital 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 consideration. /�t the same time, some funds should
be made available to prevent deterioration anci blight in
sound areas of the City and to meet the need for
improvements which benefit the City as a whole.
-5-
.. _ . __ __ _._.. __ _. _.. ._., _..._. .. ._ _ _ _ . _ __ _ _. . ,... _ .._.__��..._,_.
_ ` ,_.
2.2 TYPES OF CAPITAL Throughout the policies, capital improvement projects are
PRO��CTS divided into three categories: service system, support system,
and subsidy. These categories and their elements are presented
in Figure 1.
FIGURE 1 TYPES OF CAPITAL PROJECTS
SERVICE SYSTENI
Transportation: roads, bridges, curbs, sidewalks, lights, signals,
signs, skyway bridges, parking facilities
1Uaste 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, play�rounds, recreation centers, libraries,
cultural facilities, parkways and bikeways,
trees, special use .facilities
Social Care: health centers, !�ulti-service centers
SUPPORT SYSTE��
Administrative offices Training and educational facilities
Storage facilities Repair and maintenance facilities
Communication facilities
SUBSIDIES
Loans Grants/��Iatching F�nds Acquisition/Clearance
The first two categories cover most of the City's capital
facilities. T'he SERVICE SYS'fEM is the largest of the categories
and capitat improvements to the elements of the various
subsystems are a substantial responsibility of the city.
-6-
. . _
�
__ ___ ___-..___
The SUPPORT SYSTE��►, though smaller, is equally important.
These capital facilities support the service system and provide
the base of operation for the personnel and equipment necessary
to City services.
The SUBSIDY section lists the types of assistance the City
gives the private sector as incentives for development or �
redevelopment of physical assets which are not owned or
operated by the City. Housing and comfnercial 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 I[�1PLE�VIENTATION OF In order to translate the goals and principles into policies,
GOALS AND PRINCIPLES 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 GOALS ANB 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. Fulfiilment 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
among equally worthwhile projects, impac# on the City's goals
comes into consideration. Thus, severai 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 system
improvements. In addition, the annual proportion of funds
allocated to any one area of the City is monitored over time
to avoid excessive geographic concentration of improvements
and to assure that the needs of all areas of the City are being
addressed.
These guidelines are supplemented by priorities for basic systems,
economic c[evelopment, neighborhood betterment, energy efficiency
and housing. In combination, the policies form the basis for
Saint Paul's capital allocation strategy.
-7-
PRIORITIES FOR BASIC SYSTEMS
The City of St. Paul's primary responsibility is the provision
of basic services. While there are many amenities that the
City could offer, St. Paul requires sound and reliable service
and support systems in order to sustain its economic growth
and the quality of its neighborhoods.
Currently, many capital facilities have deteriorated as a result
of deferred maintenance. Moreover, much of the City's existing
infrastructure (i.e., streets, sewer and water lines, bridges,
and some public buildings) is approaching or has exceeded its
useful economic life. Given these conditians, maintaining
a basic level of service will necessitate major expenditures
for repair, rehabilitation or replacement of existing capital
facilities. In the face of rising costs and declining resources,
the Capital Allocation Policies emphasize maintenance of
basic services over service expansion. The policies give priority
consideration to needed rehabilitation and replacement of
physically deteriorated or obsolete facilities. They also identify
the desirability of addressing capital repair and replacement
on a systematic basis by granting special consideration to capital
improvements that are identified in the implementing department's
long-range capital program.
In some situations, additions to �xisting 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 and replacement. ?herefore, the Capital
Allocation Policies give secondary consideration to 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.
PRIORITIES FOR ECOIVOMIC DEVELOPMENT
The primary purpose of economic development activities
is twofold: .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 broadening the City's industrial
base; strengthening the downtown; strengthening neighborhood
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 municipal police
powers, legislative authority, persuasive powers, and technical
assistance to neutralize stumbling blocks to development.
-8-
•'Many of these tools are used by the City, the Port t�uthority
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 projects ariented specifically toward
promoting economic developrr�ent address the City's.goals,
special consideration is given to pro}ects which increase the
rn�mber of jobs available to City residents. In addition, projects
are evaluated against leveraging and return on investment
guidelines to help assure that tne level of private investment
. ' and the increase in taxes which resuit#rom City involvement _
jusfify the expenditure.
The Capital Allocation Policies also establish priorities for
capital expenditures among competing downtown, industrial,
and neighborhood commercial development needs. For the
past several years, emphasis has been placed on neighborhood
commercial areas, particularly pro}ects which complement
neighborhood revitalization.
_ The reason for this emphasis is twofold. First, industrial develop-
ment has traditionally been the responsibility af the Saint Paul
Port A�thority. Port Authority activities are monitored and
coordinated with City activities by the City Council (which
approves Port Authority bond issues and has two seats on the
Board) and the �Zayor (through the Department of Planning
and Economic Development):
Downtown development and recievelopment is a key part of
Sair.t Paui's eco�omic health. However, downtown develop-
ment is occurring at a rapid pace, and, as developer activity
increases, fewer incentives are required to maintain the
momentum. In addition, the City is encouraging less reliance
on general �blibation bonds and enco�raging the use of other
types of funding to leverage private investment, permiiting
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-
, _ _ _ .. . _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ . _ _ _ . ._ _ _ ._ __.... __
1 S,
PRIORITIES FOR NEIGHC30RHOOD BETTERi�tENT
Many qualities contribute to strong, stable neighborhoods,
including physical characteristics. If its physical aspects are �
to enhance a neighborhood, an adequate and steady level of
resources is required ta maintain them. Providing the resources
necessary to maintain private property is the responsibility
of individual property owners. The City is responsible for main-
taining the service system elements it owns and operates.
Ho�vever, choices must be made among capital improvement
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
betterment should be channeled to those areas where there
is the greatest opportunity for stimulating private reinvestment
and effecting measurable neighborhood improvement. Secondly;
a steady commitment of municipal resources should be made
available to other areas of the City to prevent deterioration
and to maintain their stability.
The greatest opportunity for effecting measurable impruvement
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 housing stock.
Two measures are used to identify these areas: housing condition
and income. Income is based on the median family income of the
census tract as a percentage of the median family income
of the mefropolitan area. Those census tracts where the
median family income is less than 80% of the metropolita�
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 Residentiai
Improvement Strategy categorizes the City's residential areas
on the basis of housing condition and establishes objectives
for each area.
-10-
FIGURE 2 RESIDENTIAL IMPROVE�V[ENT STRATEGY CATEGORIES
AND OBJECTIVES
% of Structures
Nee�ing i�iajor 9b of Structures
Repair or Needing Minor
- Beyond Repair Repairs Objectives
Conservation I 4 or less : 4 or less Surveillance
Conservation II 4 or less 5 to 19 Intensive
Maintenance .
' Improvement I -'„5 to Y9 20 to 81` Rehabilitation
Improvement II 20 to 39 80 or less Rehabilitation
- and Neighbochood
Improvement
Improvement III 40 or more 80 or less Ma}or 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.
The Capital Allocation Policies establish guidelines to preserve
a balanced approach for neighbortiood bet�errr�ent. The policies
also place emphasis on "neighborhood revitalizatian", 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 ITf�'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) aceas are recognized by the City as neighborhaod
revitalization.
-11-
FIGURE 3 PRIORITY AREAS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEh4ENTS�
-- —�-,-�—� --;
—� -- ,--�---T----� �
T � i
� i 304 t 306 ( !
� � �` :� 30Z01 307.02 � �
k:.;:.. y , .
I �i 303 1c<�� 305 I � � I
301 :f Y 302 `2�` /� � i I —�� _� — ���� �
�� y . .:.:�:.; .... t 311 '� ;.
, „r,�,r.=%�::; :,3��>i�;i:;:i;Ei:� i>:;;:>;�i.. .{ s10 .i;��.;;.rr:na��;.�, a' ��— ,�1
���_"'���=_—� :i.�;i���_:� 309 ....�
��• ,:........:... ;r,, i
i•::::��::;;�:�:5:`:;�i:' .t.. if:%:�:i::�:::::i:::;;:;.',•:��� „�
-� �
F::::?�:•>:o::•r>:::;.;;� .
=� .::;':�1i
''�:=% / .,NCt ...i..,
-°#:::::�:i;.:.;• �.:'
:::.:...:.:�::
... :�.;•:::..:;::: .
:;�;a'tu�::' •�`:;''^;�`"",;`Yi:`�w::�;;.�... '-- •,..,'.�.,ws . �':i�` t
�_ .:::::. .:,;;..;.�:: ,, r, -:.�.... _ - ,� s s.o2 ,�
.3ts . — i:•': e•:`;r:��.;�r{�+^'� ::3� :-<:e_::_l.
:::,•-: :? :�
— :��•:•.: %:;::.i
�1- ::t':<i::�::•::::•:•,,:'
:;'�`
r _
} 314 •:xt•::•:'r... •�
- I
::,.:: :::•... . ...::::.
_ �:`�:��� .•s:�� ..v::.::>::�::.�� .k��:::::�:: �=�;
:':�.��::'•::::s:::•'•:•:� :a �::�� - i
. t :.;U;=:;:�_� r::.:.. •�'�•�.. �
(,, �` ,T`'''���'''�`. ;•_'�.;::•.•;; `��':#::;�;..,'.5;., ,�::t;� :;N�;:i:<:5 318.0
. 4�•;;:?�'•�:�::�''� I j -���L" . .. '? .f7• I {Y:�::::: � i
�•: : :.....��:�.
, �i:?�.'`,.�',''y9.;7�..2.1.i � �--�::-\ ��'':'::':.i:'v:` ?:y:� :i'yCr .
, .: :ii}i:.. !
;. .
. �:,, • : •.„.::''' � _ .
..
� `^�-�. �,.„...::::..:....::.� � � 324 i _ I''.•:•v..::.�.:.. •:.;:;:::::::..� i •:::,:.. i_.... ...._ --- ---
; -- ;�b_ �322� 323 � ..::>. �;:H. �r a:,�_�:..� �t�:�y 331 z --- -- T �i__.__
,: i I � �
<:::•.. 332 \ ��' _ � :�i � t:"--��;�:;;��-:�>'�i<<::325i2�3 �'a7"+i';����:?i�j 329 :::�', .r ,� _i . . i
��:. i .i k<% i�:3�2�;:�: ���.. •:;� 4 33C:�i�.. ..�
�•� ::� i �> ,
:::r %�
�°. 346 347
__"_l_______.1 __� _ ti::NJ::a�N.YN.�v�tii{^•�
Y��y';�: �;�<::��:. 345
}:>!:J:::.•./1..::::.:i�i::��JLO � .
.. �� ���ti•:4i::?:;:. .
. . . . '( � �� , . .
I♦ ....-:}:
ti�:{::�.�i:'��' . i .
�� '� � $�3u 336 � 3�7 I; �_-,. �:. �;
� 333 �"'1 334 .;L.;�.;�':•:3. � \' 344 �
\ 3as — — � __. � � �� • �� ./ \� ��'�- .. ----T_i——------
r 3:3�:;;:�,: .j,'�3' 342 �.'�---�
I � t-r ._..._� r���..u:j'r,.}��i:t'^"^`^"''' :�•??\i:. ..� .
I �` '+�K�� � ..;;��'.;'+� .�+ �ry J�{.�r . .
350 Ca_;:_.�,,,,.,r�i: t.v �r`r ' /� �,\
e� 349 �— ; 352 I 353 t . 356 �: 3�� ti 3�a��,� � �
��_ ' �� r � �
J ' �•;
,) 35i � 357—�� �,� i/ ��j i 36t �
.. � .......: ,
�--� —L-- ---- __' ---—�- _. ::::::::q.;�;,y 36 �
r— , 7-— : ,.,> W� ; \\
� , j I �;;;:;�':;i�:::j�; �' ? !
i. � i
'; I � � k ��9 ' / � .3�i ,-4"
�i' � i ' i � ( /:(� � ,
f
I 362 363 ! 36a ;� 365 :� ' `I 368; ���� %-- �2:��''<i. ('
�
i
i 'i vi 366 '� I ,`� • . � � 3#�3:;�':t;' � i,c .. 374
,
� � .
� I ` f 361 , '"' ' 'r:
;, .
, , , .::
� ..,...,., � �-=- ---- --1_..— --�' i ,.. ::
� — �__ _ _ __._ . _ _ __,_
�'
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 fnr
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
which require a more moderate level of assistance is encouraged.
PRIORITIES FOR ENERGY
The strategy section of the Capital Altocation Policies recog-
nizes St. Paul's commitment to energy efficiency. It emphasizes
encouraging the efficienf use of energy in existing facitities
rather than undertaking new activities. Although any new
structure should be as energy efficient as possible, assuring
maximum energy efficiency �uithin existing structures will
be a major 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 redevelopment which encourages high density use ofpublic
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 of the Capital Allocation Policies atso
acknowledges housing as an important area which requires
special consideration. Although not a goai 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 Policies set general direction for the City's
capital improvement expenditures within the framework of
. the goals and principles. "fhese policies are monitored by
the Planning Commission. The CIB Committee also monitors
Policies S1, S2 and S3 which relate to the proposed budget
rather than to individual projects. ..
- S l: SALANCED GOALS _
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:
Categor� 9b Of Total New Allocations
Neighborh�ad Improvement 25-35:"0
Economic Development 20-309b
Citywide Service System
Improvement 35-45%
Support System Development 5_10°.6
Special grants, costs borne by other units of government or
the private sector, and assessments for the particular project
will be excluded from this calculation. Special grants �vill
be monitored over time and taken into consideration in deter- .
mining the appropriate proportions during annual policy review.
S2: GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION
The annual budgets should be monitored over time to assure
that the needs of all areas of the City are being addressed.
The percentage distribution of capital improvement monies
to each citizen participation district for the previous five budget
years, beginning with 1979 as the base year, will be identified
in an annual report. The report will be taken into consi�eration
in determining the appropriate geographic distribution of funds.
S3: BALANCED NEIGHBORHOOD BETTERMENT
In order to assure a balanced approach toward neighborhood
betterment, new allocations of capital for subsidies and service
system improvements should follow this distribution:
% of Total Recommended % of
Area Residential Service/Subsidy
Blocks Capital
Law/Moderate Income Areas
which are Improvement I 30RFi 60-75%
or II; All Improvement III
Areas.
All Conservation I and II
Areas; Improvement I 70°6 25�40%
and II Areas which are
not Low/Moderate Income.
-14-
_ , _ _ �, .. ._ _ _ _ .
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 of the PCI. Rehabilitation or replacement
of capital facilities not yet addressed in the PCI will be given
. ` special consideration if the need for the impro,yement appears -
in the implementing department's long-range capital program
for the current budget year.
. : S5: ECONOi�1IC DEVELOP�tENT
.
In order to tak� advantage of opportunities to stimulate private
investmerit and effect measurable neighborhood ir�provement,
special consideration should be given to projects that will (a}
_ 'complement the revitalization of neighborhood commercial
areas and major retail ce.nters, or (b) create ne�v jobs within
"' the City of St PauL
S6:_ NEIGHBORHOOD BETTERMENT
In order to take advantage of opportunities to stimulate private
investment and effect measurable neighbochood improvement,
special consideration should be given to projects which support
neighborhood betterment in areas which have been recognized
for conceRtrated neighborhood revitalization. These areas
include Identified Treatment Areas and Neighborhood Housing
Service Areas.
S7: HOUSING ALTERVATIVES
Given the shortage of housing and limited land for new development,
special consideration will be given to projects which will encourage
� the availability of renta� housing, housing for law ar�d 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 pubiic transportation
lines, or alternatives to single passenger automobile use. New
construction which is. consistent with City plans, policies and
priorities �vill be given special consideration if State building
code energy requirements are exceeded and renewable energy
sources are used.
-15-
_ _ ,, __ _ �_._ __ _____ , _ __ ____ __ _____ . ,. _ . . ,.. ... _ . _ __:.__� _ _ ,
.,
3.2 IMPLEMENTATION AND The Implementation and Development Policies identify criteria
DEVELOPMENT POLICIES which are important considerations in selecting capital improve-
ments. Most of these policies are stated in terms of "priorities'�
or "considerations" reflecting their use as evaluation criteria.
Tt�ese policies are monitored by the CIB Committee through �
its Task Force Project Rating Sheet.
IDI: SOURCES OF INPUT
The priorities recommended by the following groups will be
taken into consideration:
a. The recognized neighborhood organization(s) in the
affected area
b. The City operating department that will operate and
maintain the proposed project
_ c. The Planning Commission
ID2: CONFORMANCE W ITH CtTY PLANS
Proposals selected for funding must conform with a!1 adopted
City plans as determined by the Planning Commission.
ID3: CAPITAL ALLOCATION STRATEGY POLICIES
The Planning Cornrnission will evaluate 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 pro ject will be used will be taken into
consideration. Tnis means that:
a. The larger tne population served, the greater the consideration
that should be given to the project.
b. The longer the life expectancy of the pro}ect, the greater
the consideration that should be given to the project.
c. Projects which can be used year-round 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 effectively at less cost than separate facilities.
b. they are consistent with City plans, policies and priorities.
-16-
,: _ _ _
�.
ID6: DUPLICATION 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 PR03ECTS
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 funcfing for constr�uction plans has been appraved
and included in the CIB Committee's schedule of tentative
future commitments. Annual pro�rams are not considered
continuation projects.
IDB: SERVICfi AND SUPPORT SYSTEM IMPROVE1ViE(�ITS
h9aintaining basic City services shall be a high priority. This
means that in evaluating the merits of each proposal:
a. Rehabilitation, or replacement if rehab'ilitation is not '`
feasible, of absolete City facilities which are required
to maintain 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 pian 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 IMPROVEMENTS
Subsidy allocations should be directly retated to the goals and
objectives of the City. This means that:
a. Subsidy allocations which are directly related to concen-
trated neignborhood or commercia! revitalization areas
will be given first consideration.
b. Subsidy allocations which wiil 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.
�17-
__ _ _ ,.
. .
,. . ._
ID 10: ACQUISITION
Acquisition is not encouraged. However, projects which involve
acquisition may be given the same priarity as projects which
do not involve acquisition if:
a. The acquisition is related to public development or
reuse and:
1) right-of-way or easements are necessary;
2) the parcel(s) have been previously identified for
conversion to park use if they become available;
3) the parcei(s} have tax exempt status and a use
which is consistent with City plans, poficies, and
priorities has been ciearly 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 oc�ur.
ID 11: PROGRAMMING AND PHASING
Projects should be adeguately programmed and phased. This
means that:
a. Projects which are justified by City plans, policies, and
priorities and are coordinated with other improvements, .
at a cost saving to the City, will be encouraged.
b. Projects must be timed with other improvements planned
for the area within the next five years (for example,
completing sewer work before paving an area).
c. The City will budget only the amount which can reasonably
be expected to be expended in the budget year. Funds
required to complete the project should be identified
in the schedule and will constitute a tentative commitment
subject to City Counci! adoption of a budget appropriation
for the project.
ID12: PUBLIC ENVIRONtVIENT 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 considered. In evaluating the merits of each proposal:
a. Projects which will 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-
In14: OPERATOR'S ENERGY CONSUMPTION
It is desirable 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 witl result in a significant decrease in
- the project operator's level of energy consurription will
be given a high priority.
b.. Projects which wifl result in a significant increase in .
_ - the project operator's level of ener�y con�umption wiil �
�` . be given a low priority.
ID1�: IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET -
It is desirable to allocate City capital to projects which wilt
not re�ult-in a net increase in operating and maintenance expenses,
_ _ exclusive of that portion of opecation and rnaintenance expenses
assignable to energy consumption. At a rr►inimum, this means:
, � that in evaluating the merits of each proposal: ° �
_
a. f�rojeCts 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 Gity capital to projects which will
not reduce revenue to the City.' At a minimum, this means
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: PRIVAT'E 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 normaily
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 project 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 return
in the form of property taxes should be, at a minimum,
12�6 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.
-19-
_ __ _ _._. , _ __ . . ___ _, . _ ___ _ . _ __ _,_.
� '"
. e.
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, policies, and is a priority of the City.
ID19: STREAMLINING CITY OPERATIONS
Providing basic city services as efficiently as possible is a
high priority. Proposals that increase productivity in the
provision of City services will be given sgecial consideration.
' The proposer must demonstrate that the project or program witl:
a. Significantiy increase the quality andjor level of an existing
service without increasing annual operatior� and main-
tenance eosts'; or
b. ililaintain the q.uality.and/or level of existing service while
significantly lowerino annual operation and maintenance
costs.
3.3 PROJECI' POLICIES The Pro ject Policies focus more specifically on types of pro jects
that will be encouraged or discouraged for the next budget
(1982) and/or schedule of tentative commitments (1983-1986).
In some cases, funding limits or criteria for funding are established.
The CIii Committee monitors these policies with the assistance
of the Budget Section or the Planning Commission in certain
cases.
P1: TREES
Diseased shade tree removal will no longer receive a special
capital allocation. {Reforestation shoulri 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 pubiic benefit and part of a firm package for development
or redevelpment of the benefitting buildings.
b. Normally, the City will fund no more than 50� of skyway
bridge construction. The develapers 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, to be considered for funding.
P3: IDENTIFIED TREaTMENT AREAS
No new Identified Treatment Areas (ITA's) will be initiated
during 1982 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 7uly 27, 1978, as
Council File Number 271322.
-20-
, . _ _ _
� _ _ _ _ _ .._ __
_ �
P4: SITE PREPARATION FUND
The City will consider budgeting a site preparation
revolving fund under the foltowing conditions:
a. The fund will only be used to prepare tax-forfeited
sites owned by the City or formerly acquired by the Housing
and Redevelopment �uthority for clearance. `
b. Site preparation will be unclertaken oniy 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 $1OO,QOQ.
� : e. An arnount sufficient to repay the site preparation cos#s ' _
incurred shouid be returned to the site preparation fund
- from.proceeds of sale.
P5: NLW Fr1CILITIES
Given the City's fiscal constraints, certain types of projects
will be a lo�v priority for 1982 funding. These projects include:
a. Facilities to house programs or services w�ich 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 neeci in a City plan.
c. Swimming pools will not be considered for 1982 funding.
P6: ANNUAL PROGRA�IS
An annua! program.is a series of projects of consistent nature
that are implemented sequentially over 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
must be accompanied by: (1) a list of the specific activities
. carried out under the prior year's budget allocation for subsequent
review by the CIB task forces; and (2) a sunset provision which
identifies the expected date of program termination or conditions
that would result in program termination.
-21-
_. . ,_ _ .. . _ _ _ _ __ _ _ ----..___
. {
Annual programs currently authorized in the 1981 Capital
Improvement Budget which are subject to annual review,
evaluation and funding consideration are:
- Program Guidelines
Adopted by City Council
Log No• Program Title (if applicable)'�
C-6602 Citywide Tree Planting
C-b60S Accessibility of City
- ; Buildings and Services
R-4402- ITP� Programs : CF ��271322,
4405 June 27, 1978
_ - `R-55Q1 Commercial Rehabilitation -
Loan Program
R-6601 Multi-Unit Structure CF ��275073,
_ Rehabilitation Program June 30, I978
R-6602 Owner Occupied Rehabilitation CF ��272145,
Loan Program—Residential November 30, I978
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 ��2740Q2,
Improvements Program November 8, 1979
S-6601 Ma}or Sewer Repairs
5-6604 Sidewalk Reconst:-uction
S-6605 Har�dicapped Pedestrian Ramps
S-6606 Traffic Channelizations
S-6607 Signal Installations and
Revisions
S-6610 Residential Street Paving CF ��275577,
(Paving) and Lighting Program September 2, 1980
5-6611
(Lighting)
S-6612 Lighting Improvements CF ��275895
November 6, 1980
S-6613 PIA Long Side Subsidy
for Streets and Sidwalks
*Any program guidelines adopted by City Council that are not
in�luded in this list are still applicable to program activities.
P7: TAX ABf�1EMENT
Tax abatement is discouraged as a development incentive.
-22-
. _._ � _ _ _ _ __ .___.
P8: ECONOMIC BASE DEVELOPtVIENT OPPORTUNITY FUND
For the purpose of securing significant increases in the City's
property tax and permanent employment bases, a reserve fund
is au�horized for:the 1982 Capita! �rnproverr�ent'Bu�igef and ' �_
` �: Schedule to be calleci the "Economic �ase Developrnent Oppar- ,
. _ tunity Fund:' This fund will finance public incentives for new
private development or redevelopment opportunifies which
present themselves outside the annual Unified Capitai Improve-
:ment Program and Budget Process{UCIPBP) cycle. Normally,
- < -- all capital improvements afe budgeted and,pragrammed during �
' the annual UCIPBP. However, it would be ap�ropriate to have
a limited amount of money available ta permit short notice
financing of public improvements as incentives to private �
, __ _
developmenf. _
Proposals for use of the Economic 8ase Development Opportunity
Fund wi11 be required to meet the following conditions:
_.
a. Each proposal must meefi tP�e leveraging and re�um on
investment requirements stated in Capitai 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 must be noted in the
resolution brought to City Council authorizing use of
monies from the fund.
`d. Notification should be given�to all Disfrict Counciis at
: the time proposals are referred to the Planning Cornmis- `-
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 ;
with an implementation schedule that permits reuiew
through fhe 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.
P10: CAPITAL MAINTENANCE
The City continues to support a capital maintenance program
for City-owned buildings for the 1982 budget and 1983-I986
schedule of tentative commitments. Capital maintenance
is the replacement, renovation, remodeling and/or retrofitting
af 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, ceilings, roof and roofings. A building's service
system components are its ptumbing, electrical distribution,
communications, heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems.
-23-
The annual Capital Nlaintenance Program funding request is
to be submitted to the Budget Seetion for ineiusion in the annual
Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process
(UCIPBP) by the Division of Property Management in accordance
- generally with provisi�ns of 5.02(2�4b} and 57.06 of the Saint `
Paul, Minnesota Administrative�Code: In submitting annual:
funding requests under the Capital �rlaintenance Program, each
departrnent will include: (1) a statement of capital maintenance
projects authorized for funding in the prior year'sbudget; 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 funefing request, the Division
of Property l�9anagement is to solicit capital maintenance project
proposals from ttfie directors of the operating departments
of city government. However, the allocation to each department
of any Capital Maintenance Program funds a�propriated 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 Managemenf. The �!tayor 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 Poticies identify the various sources
POLICIES of funds available for capitai improvements and conditions
which must be met in order to use t�em. The Budget Section
of the 1�layor'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 will be accompanied by a financing
plan that (1) identifies these expenses, and (2) outlines
how they will be paid.
b. All street improvement projects on 1�Iunicipal 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 eligible for metropolitan,
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.
_?4_
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`recornmen�ed.
e. Capital improvements and prograins eligible for CDSG
_ . funding will be so funded; and
f. Capit`al improvements which cannot be financed wit��
- • monies governed by paragraphs{a) :fhrough (e) will be `
considered for Capital Improvement Bond f�nding.
,
B2; COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG} PROGRAM
Projects proposed for funding through the CDBG Program
must meet federal regulations for both eligibility:and fundability.
Essentially, this means that:
a. Only projects which serve low and moderate income
people or eliminate slums and blight �an be considered.
b. Of the total CDBG doilars which are allocated to projects,
most should serve low and moderate income people and
be located in areas which meet the Department of Housing
and Urban Development's definition of low or moderate
income. Specific emphasis should be placed on the Identi-
fied Treatment Areas: The remainder of funds may address
slums and blight not directly benefitting low or moderate
income people.
B3: BOP�iD FINANCING
a. The total amount of general obligation bonds issued by
the City should not exceed an a�lnuai average of $10.5 �
- million. Capital Improvement Bonds, Water Pollution
Abatement Bonds, and Tax Increment General Obligation ; ,
Bonds which are issued in 1982 will reflect this $10.5
million floating average identified in the City's dsbt
policy.
b. The City will issue no more than $12,270,000 in General
Obligation Bonds in 1982. This total will include $6A
million of Water Pollution Abatement Bonds for continuing
the St. Anthony Hill Sewer Rehabilitation Project (Thomas-
Dale Sewer). It may include as well a consideration of
other General Obligation Bond issues to a total of $6,270,000.
These other issues may include Automobile Parking Facil-
ities Act bonds (if not revenue bonds) to supplement the
1979 authorization (which has not yet been issued) for
construction of the Highland Parking Ramp; Tax Increment
Bonds (if not revenue bonds) in support of district heating,
extension of the Seventh Place Mall, or acquisition of
land for redevelopment; or Series 1982 Capital Improvement
Bonds.
-25-
c. The City does not intend to issue in 1982 general obligation
bonds for new project commitments under special state
authorizations for the City's residential or commercia!
rehabilitation programs, parking facilities, or urban renewat.
d. The use of revenue bonds to finance public improvement
comrnitments for economic development projects is
preferred over the use of the City's general obligation
bond financing. �Vhile Port Authority revenue bond
financing is a highly desired method of financing economic
development incentives, the City may consider using
tax increment bonding or Gity revenue bonding in 1982
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
General Obligation Bond funding.was anticipated.
3) Harkins Bowling Alley Site Parking Ramp ($3,000,000)
4) Highland Parking Ramp if legally possible ($1,700,000)
5) Mortgage 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 cansider
issuing bonds.
B4: `fAX INCREMENT FINANCING
a. Revenue Pro}ections by Consultant: Revenue projections
for all tax increment proposals should be analyzed by an
outside financial consultant rather than a bond consultant.
b. Debt Service From Bond Sale Proceeds: Debt service
for all tax increment projects will be paid from bond
proceeds for no more than the first three years of project
irnplementation when no tax increments or other project
revenues are generated.
c. Other Costs Funded from Bond Sales Proceeds: All costs
relating to any tax increment proposal should be funded
with bond proceeds and included in the justification of
each proposal. These costs include, but are not limited
to; design, acquisition and relocation, construction, bond
consultant, bond counsel, financial consultant and staff
time.
_?6_
_ _ __
,� _ _ _ ._ _ . _ _ .. .
d. �lll State requirements as set foc#h in tl�innesota Statutes
must be met.
B5: REHaBILITATION LOAN FUNDS
City bond monies used to provide residential rehabilitation
': loans shall be recycled for �dditionalloans,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 return to tne 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.
-27-
, ,.
__ _ . _ __. _ _ _ ____.. __.. ___. .._.____._ _ _ _---�_.,_
., . ,,
4.0 POLICY I�'�IPLEMENTATION
Saint Paul's Capital Allocation Policies will be effective only
if they are carefully monitored. While City Council has final
, responsibility and authority for implementing the polieies,
monitoring must occur throughout the proposal review and
budget preparation process.
Nionitoring responsibility is assigned to three groups: The Planning
Commission, the CIB Committee, and the Budget Section of the
Mayor's Office. In some instances, the responsibility is shared.
In others, input f rom others may be required, but the responsibility
for assuring implementation falls to one of these three groups.
Figure 4 indicates where respansibility for monitoring imple-
mentation of each policy rests in the project review and budget
preparation process.
FIGURE 4: POLICY MONITORtNG AND I[��PLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY
Planning CIB Mayor's Office
Commission Committee Budget Section
Strategy
Policies All Sl, S2, 53 ---
(S 1-58)
Implementa-
tion and
Development ID2, ID3 l�il ---
Policies
(ID 1-ID 19)
Project P1, P2,
Policies P3, Pb All F4 through P 10
(P1-P10)
Budget
Policies --- B1 through B4 All
(B 1-BS)
-28-
, _ _. _ _. .._ _ __
;:
CREDITS
PLANNING COMIv1ISSION Thomas Fitzgibbon, Chairman Nelsene Karns
Liz Anderson David Lanegran
�Clark Armstead Joseph Levy
lames aryan . �David McDonell
*Carolyn Cochrane �*-�ane Nelson
Sam Grais �Joseph Pangal ;
, Rev. Gl°n Hanggi *John Schmidt
� - Sr.Alberta Huber Gayle Summers
� *David Hyduke Janabeile Taylor
Richard Kadrie - - Adolf Tobler
*Robert Van Hoef
*Capital Improvement Program Subcommittee
- �*Subcommittee i;nair
ADMINISTRATION James J. Bellus, Director, DPED
AND POLICY � Peggy Reichert, Planning Administrator
DIRECTION Allen Lovejoy, Senior Planner �
AD HOC CITIZEN Tom Eddy �Nerrill Robinson
ADVISORY SUB- �erry Franck Robert Rogge
COMNIITTEE Harry Niemeyer James Selchow
AI Oertwig N9arcus Williams
Joseph Pangal _
RESEARCH AND Patricia James, Planner
PLANNING Lisa Roden, Planner
Gregory Blees, Budget Analyst
Gregory Haupt, Budget Analyst
-29-
_
_ _
,; . � _
L�
� �t*YO,- ' GITY OF SAINT PAUL
�
1—6--�' i
'� "'� ' OFFICE OF THE MAYOR �
- . ��
o ��, � : , �� z� r
� �� uimu, ,�.
o: rlll 1ii ll; w�
a '
�' 34? CITY HALL
��'�� SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102
GEORGE LATIMER (6]2) 298-4323 �
MAYOR �
December 22, 1980
Pres i dent Ron t�laddox and
Members of the St. Paul City Council
7th Floor City Hall
St. Paul , tlinnesota 55102
RE: "St. Paul Capital Allocation Policy, 1982-1986"
Dear Council President Maddox and Council P•lembers:
Transmitted with this letter are copies of the Planning Commission's recorunended
capital allocation policies. This policy document is identical to the one you recently
received except for the correction of some misprints.
You will notice that the Planning Commission's recommendations follow closely
those that the Ad Hoc Citizens Evaluation Committee submitted to you at the Perforr�ance
Hearing on November 20. Those instances where the policies differ from the Ad
Hoc Evaluation Corr�nittee recoir�nendations are noted below.
_ Implementation and Development Poli� ID14 was tightened by the Ad Hoc Evaluation
Cor�mittee to refer only to the energy use of the body that will be operating the
project. The Planning Commission saw the wisdom of this change, but thought that
the policies should also address the broader question of total enerc�y use. The
Comr�ission is, therefore, recommending a new policy, ID13, to encourage capital
improvement proposals which will reduce the overall consumption of nonrenewable
energy supplies.
Ir� lementation and Develo ment Polic ID19. This new policy, entitled "Strear�lining
ity perations , was suggested after the Ad Hoc Evaluation Corr�nittee had finished
its work. The policy gives credit to those imorovements which will promote more
efficient operation of city government. The Planning Commission felt it «as important
to support these kinds of capital improvements and so is recor.unending this policy.
Budget Policy 81 . Subsection a of this policy has been revised. As in ID19, this
change was proposed after the Ad Hoc Committee had finalized its recommendations,
and the Planning Commission believed that it had merit. The policy now recommends
that public improvements which will result in extraordinary operating and maintenance
costs be identified, and that a plan to pay for these extra costs be negotiated
between the city and the be�nefitted property owners before the improvements are made.
Budget Policy B5. This policy establishes revolving funds for residential and
commercial rehabilitation. After discussions with the Administrator of the Corr�unity
Development, Development, and Business Assistance Divisions of PED, the Commission
decided to recommend that "commercial " be dropped fror� the portion of the policy
dealing with CDBG monies. The reasons for this change is that PED has been highly
� ' -2-
successful in locating other resources for commercial rehabilitation, and CDBG
can, therefore, be freed to be used in other projects and programs.
I am sure you will want to join me in thanking the Planning Commission for their
time and thoughtfulness in revising these policies. I wholeheartedly recomnend
their adoption.
This document is scheduled to be heard and acted on by the Finance, Management and
Personnel Committee on January 8. If you have any questions, do not hesitate
to contact the Planning Administrator, Peggy Reichert.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to each of you.
Sincerely,
eor La i
Mayo
GL:PR:PJ:mh
Enc.
cc: Rose Mix
cc: John Connelly
Y
�
� ,a� f � / Q �< < ; �
� �� ___
� � -� `<: r�� �tf> SAINT PA�lL
;- �r ,� ��� - �. �' CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICY
��.��n_ �� � 1980 /'
F �.�-` �/'���/� /
_�J /
�
� � �
.� r'� '�r i��� �P s
'P&���. �°�`^`�4� fl' �� �P� '� � .
� �?�' E � '' ���.^��� � ��.
� e �
e <.,��e.e,<. "t�a v� �' ..
�� ��������.� .
9��`. ���
�`��- � �������,
�➢� ° �.� ��;,
x�$ �a��'��_. ���� �€.�� ��
,�, r� ����£ ��r � ��
�.
� ..,..,���� � �'� �,� ��� .
�a �� ��1,�ea�q����' �
DIVISION OF PLANNING
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
GLOSSARY �
Ava orem taxes: roperty or rea estate tax pa ase on the va ue o t e property.
Bon : n nterest- ear ng cert cate o n e te ness.
Bond funds: Dollars obtained through sale of bonds.
Cap ta : n accumu a on o goo s or money.
Capital allocation: Assignment of available capltal to uses, either by function (e.g., streets,
sewers) or by geographical area.
Capital expenditure: Actual spending of capital for pro�ects.
Capital improvement: A durable asset purchased with capital. Capital improvements are significant,
one time undertakings often paid for by borrowing.
Capitat Improvement Budget (CIB): A listing of capital expenditures for the coming year. In
St. Paul, the City Council appropriates money for capttal improvements by
adopting the Capital Improvement Budget.
Capital Improvement Program (CIP): A listing of tentative cortmitments for capital expenditures for
the years (usually four years) following the Capital Improvement Budget year.
In St. Paut, the CIP is an identification by the Planning Comnission of
direction and projects to be pursued. Each year previous Planning Cortmission
CIP recommendations are considered, affirmed or modified, and lmplemented
through adoption by City Council of a Capital Improvement Budget.
CIB Cortmittee: See St. Paul Long-Range Capital Improvement Budget Comnittee below.
Comnunity Development Biock Grant (CDBG): Monies made available annually to St. Paul by HUD
through provisions of the Housing and Cortmunity Development Acts of
1974 and 1977.
Cortmunity Development (Block Grant) Program: Refers to both Federal and locat activities connected
with implementation of the Housing and Comnunity Development Acts of 1974 and
1977.
Cnrtmunity Development Division: The division of St. Paul's Department of Planning and Economic
Development (DPED) with responsibility for overseeing and evaluating use of
CDBG monies.
Comnunity Development Plan: See Three-Year Comnunity Development Plan.
County Aid: An annual grant from Ramsey County to compensate St. Paul for maintaining, constructing
and reconstructing certain county-designated roads in St. Paul
De t servi ce: nnua or sem -annua payment o nterest an repayment o pr nc pa on a oan. ty
� of St. Paul debt service is primarily for bonds.
Department of Finance and Management Services (DFMS): One of six departments of St. Paul city
government.
Department of Planning and Economic Development (DPED): The newest department of St. Paul city
government. Comprised of the Planning Division, Economic Development Division,
Comnunity Development Division, and Renewal Division.
Oowntown People Mover (DPM): A fixed-guideway automatic public transit system under study for
downtown St. Paul.
E Ent t ement grant: at port on o B mon es to w c a c ty s ent t e y ormu a, as oppose
to a discretionary grant made at the discretion of the Secretary of HUD.
G nera o gat on on • cert cate o n e te ness ssue an so y a c ty o genera e cap a .
A general obligation bond 1s normally repaid from a levy on property. Its
debt service has first rights on any city revenues, and is therefore said to
be backed by the "full faith and credit" of the municipality. (See revenue
bond, below).
ent e reatment rea : spec e area w t n t e y o a nt au w c as een
� identified by the appropriate district council or neighborhood group, the
Planning Commission, and the City Council for the purpose of encouraging
property owners to rehabilitate thetr properties and to bring substantial
improvement to the area in accordance with an approved ITA ptan.
Continued on back cover
city of saint paul
planning commission resolution
file number 7847
UClte �PCPmhPr $_ 1978
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul is charged
with responsibility for development and review of policy to guide the
annual Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process
(UCIPBP); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the policies adopted as
part of "Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policy: 1979, 1980, 1981 " and
revised them as indicated in the attached copy;
NOW BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that the Planning Comnission approves
the policies entitled "Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policies: 1980",
as revised, and directs transmittal to the Mayor and City Council ,
along with relevant background information, for review and adoption.
moved by McDonel l _
_
seconded by _ PanQa, -
.
in fav�or-
against o
SAINT PAUL CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICY: 1980
APPROVED BY THE SAINT PAUL PLANNING COMMISSION:
DECEMBER 4, 1978
RESOCUTION NUMBER 78-47
ADOPTED BY THE SAINT PAUL CITY COUNCIL:
DIVISION OF PLANNING
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
421 WABASHA STREET
SAINT PAUL, PIINNESOTA 55102
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 .0 SAINT PAUL CAPITAL �
ALLOCATION POLICY: 1980 �
1 .1 DEFINITIONS AND TERMS 1
1 .2 THE POLICIES 3
.0 THE UNDERLYING RATIONALE 13
FOR SAINT PAUL CAPITAL
ALLOCATION POLICY
2. GOALS AND PRINCIPLES
2.� IMPLEMENTATION OF GOALS AND PRINCIPLES: 3
IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES
2.3 IMPLEMENTATION OF GOALS AND PRINCIPLES:
PRIORITY AREAS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT
. IMPLEMENTATION F GOALS AND PRINCIPLES:
THE CITY 'S ROLE IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
. IMPLEMEN TION F G ALS ND PRINCIPLES:
CITYWIDE BALANCE
3.0 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES IN
FISCAL PERSPECTIVE
3. TYPES OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS 23
3.2 FISCAL CONSTRAINTS
APPENDICES
.0 UNIFIED CAPITAL 3
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND
BUDGET PROCESS (UCIPBP)
5.0 POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
6.0 CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED 1 79
BUDGETS AND TENTATIVE FOUR-
YEAR PROGRAMS
6. CAPIT L I�MPRO E ENT BONDS 38
E
.3 TER P LLUTION ABATEMENT BONDS 42
7.0 RESOURCES FOR FURTHER 43
INFORMATION
CREDITS 44
GLOSSARY Inside Covers
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE TITLE
1 15 Typical Municipal Capital Projects
2 17 • Housing Condition/Income Map
3 24 Types of Capital Funds and Their Uses
4 32 The Unified Capital Improvement Program
and Budget Process for the City of
Saint Paul
5 33 1978/1979 Calendar for the Unified Capital
Improvement Program and Budget Process
6 35 Policy Monitoring and Implementation
Responsibility
iii
. 1.0 SAINT PAUL CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICY: 1980
The City of St. Paul 's annual capital improvement
budget and program is the result of a year-long process
called the Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget
Process or UCIPBP. A set of capital allocation policies,
adopted by the St. Paul City Council , are used to guide
the recommendations and final decisions made through this
process.
I� 1978, twenty-two policies were adopted by City Council
for a three-year period: 1979, 1980, and 1981 . In
adopting policies for three years , it was understood that
there would be an annual review so that appropriate
revisions could be made.
The policies which will be used in 1979 (resulting in a
budget and program for 1980) and a brief explanation of
key terms follow. The full document includes additional
chapters which present supporting information.
1.1 DEFINITIONS AND TERMS The policies are divided into three categories: strategy
policies, implementation and development policies , and
budget and finance policies. Each category reflects a
separate level of policy.
Strategy policies set general direction for St. Paul.
Their rationale is based on citywide goals and a strategy
for reaching these goals adopted by City Council for the
three-year period.
Implementation and development policies focus more
specifically on the kinds of capital projects that will
be encouraged or discouraged given the limited resources
available to St. Paul for capital improvements.
Budget and finance policies address the various sources
of funds available to St. Paul for capital improvements,
when they will be used, and conditions that must be met
in order to use them. •
1 .1.1 TYPES OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Three terms which differentiate between broad types of
capital projects are used throughout the policies.
These terms are: service system, system support and
subsidy.
1
Most capital improvements fit into the service system
category. Service systems include the following
subsystems:
- Transportation: roads, bridges, curbing,
sidewalks, lighting, signals, signs, skyways,
parking
- Waste S stem: sanitary sewers, solid waste
faci ities, recycling facilities
- Water System-Supply and Removal : supply
distribution, storm sewers, ponds
- Safety: police stations, fire stations
- Leisure/Education/Culture/Environment: parks,
parkways, p aygrounds, recreation centers,
libraries, cultural centers, museums, trees,
special use facilities
System support activities improve the ability of the city
to deliver services. Examples of system support projects
include:
- headquarters and administrative offices
- training or educational facilities
- repair and maintenance facilities
- storage facilities
- communications facilities
- The final category, subsidy, reflects assistance given
to individuals or businesses as incentive for capital
improvements. Subsidey allocations include:
- loans
- grants
- acquisition and/or clearance
2
1 .1 .2 PRIORITY AREAS
Some of the policies refer to different types of
residential areas within St. Paul . The classification of
areas is based on the median income of each census tract
in comparison with the median income of the SMSA* and the
condition of the area as indicated in St. Paul 's
"Residential Improvement Strategy" . The result is as
follows:
Residential Improvement Category
Conservation Improvement
Median Income I & II I & II Improvement III
Less than 65%
of SMSA Other A Improvement III
65-79% of
SMSA Other B Improvement III"
80% or more
of SMSA Other C Improvement III
*Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area as defined by
the U. S. Department of the Census.
The policies also refer to "neighborhood revitalization".
This means coordination of a number of improvements in a
residential area in order to stimulate private investment
and, as a result, halt deterioration. Neighborhoods
suitable for such an effort are most likely to be found
within "A", "B", or Improvement III areas .
1 .2 THE POLICIES 1 .2.1 STRATEGY POLICIES
A It would be desjrable for the City to take neighborhood
revitalization action aimed specifically at those areas
of deteriorated housing with the greatest potential for
attracting private reinvestment, especially in those
areas where significant private reinvestment is not
currently occurring.
B New allocation of both subsidy capital and capital for
service systems improvements in support of residential
and neighborhood improvement should follow this dis-
tribution:
3
� of Total Recommended
Residential % of Subsidy
Area Blocks Capital
A, B & Improvement III 30q 70-75%
All Other 70q 25-30%
C 1 .New service system capital improvements for neigh-
borhood betterment should support neighborhood
revitalization action aimed at those areas of
deteriorated housing with the greatest potential for
attracting private reinvestment (for example,
Identified Treatment Areas).
2•Furthermore, first priority for service system
improvements outside of areas chosen for neighbor-
hood revitalization should be in areas where the
poor condition of service systems can be demonstrated
to be depressing resale value of property or de-
terring maintenance investment of owners.
D 1. PJew allocations by the City of Saint Paul of both
subsidy capital and capital for service system
improvements in direct support of economic develop-
ment should emphasize complementing residential
revitalization (including District 17) as first
consideration.
2. Second consideration for city capital allocations in
direct support of economic development should be for
other commercial or retail reuse or revitalization,
including the downtown.
E (Not used)
F In order to assure a balanced approach to annual
capital allocation, total budget allocations and
tentative program commitments for new projects,
excluding special grants, costs born by other units
of government or the private sector and assessments
which are for a particular project, should approach
the following proportions:
� of Total
Cate or Available
Neighborhood Improvement 25-35%
Economic Development 20-30%
Citywide Service
Systems Improvement 35-45%
Support System Development 5-10�
4
G Not more than 20% of the monies budgeted each year,
excluding special grants, costs born by other units of
government or the private sector and assessments which
are for a particular project, shou1d be for projects
in any one district.
. . E N N N L ENT LICIES
H The f�anding needs of capital improvement projects
which have received previous budget appropriations for
construction plans, acquisition and/or construction
phases, normally have priority over new projects.
I Generally, the City's service system will not be
expanded.
1. Within service system categories, rehabilitation of
the city's existing facilities takes priority over
the addition of facilities to the service system,
except where economy or efficiency factors or
planning considerations indicate that such rehabil-
itation is inadvisable.
2, Replacement of existing city service system
facilities takes priority over additions to the city's
system.
3, Additions to the city's service system take last
priority untess the addition brings the area where
it is located up to a standard of service which has
been officially adopted by the city as part of a plan
for the specific service system and budget policy
does not limit such funding. In such cases, the
addition of service system components has the same
priority as replacement of existing service systems.
J Generally, the City will budget acquisition fundyng
for new pro�ects under the following conditions :
1, Acquisition related to prfivate development or reuse:
(housing or economic development) :
a. If there is a responsible developer with financing
correni tments i n hand; and
b. If the proposed reuse is in conformance with
adopted city plans.
5
2:Acquisition related to public development or reuse:
a. If right-of-way or easements for service systems
are deemed necessary; or
b. If there are opportunities to complete parkland
assembly where parcels have been previously
identified for conversion to park use when they
become available; or
c. If the property being acquired has tax exempt
status and the proposed use has been clearly
identified and is consistent w9th adopted City
plans, policies, and priorities for capital
expenditure; or
d• If opportunities for special grant funding exist.
K Allocation of capital funds for economic development
proposals will be based on the merits of each proposal
and upon its ability to leverage private investment
dollars and obtain a return of increased property
taxes in accordance with the identified leverage and
return on investment guidelines.
1 .LEVERAGE GUIDELINES: Normal leveraging is 1 :6. In
ot er wor s , eac ollar the city provides for a
particular pro3ect should mean six capital dollars
committed by the developer. For example, the City
would norma1ly anticipate providing no more than
$60,000 in public improvements to service systems
or in subsidy to a pro�ect valued at $360,000.
This ratio may go as low as 1 :3 if a given project
will have a major impact on a public goal . Examples
of such potentially worthwhile projects include:
a.Projects directly associated with neighborhood
revitalization efforts;
b.Projects which generate additional (not displace-
ment) employment within St. Paul ; and
c.Projects whose principal ob�ective is resource con-
servation or the development of alternative energy
sources.
2.�ETURN ON INVESTMENT GUIDELINES: Normal return on
nvestment s n ot er words, the city expects
to realize a direct return of 12% property taxes
for its participation in an economic development
project. If $75,000 in public improvements are
provided, tax receipts from the pro�ect should be
$9,000 per year more than they were before develop-
ment.
6
This return on investment may go as low as 4% if a
given project will have a major impact on a public
goal . Examples of such potentially worthwhile pro-
jects are given in 1, above.
However, at a minimum, the tax ield from a roject
s ou cover the cost of any add tiona mun c pa
services required.
L Tax abatement is discouraged as a development incentive.
However, it may be used to support projects that
explicitly serve a public purpose. If used, abated
valuation in any year of the abatement period should
not be lower than the valuation of land and improve-
ments before the project is started increased at a 6%
rate compounded annually over the term of abatement.
M The selection of Identified Treatment Areas for neigh-
borhood revitalization wjll be made according to the
ITA guidelines adopted by the St. Pau1 City Council
as File Number 271322 on June 27, 1978. (Copies may
be obtained by calling 298-5586.)
N (Reserved for commercial revitalization policy. )
0 If the Downtown People Mover (DPM) is implemented, not
more than $6.0 million in City Capital Improvement
Bonds will be appropriated as cash to meet the 10�
City match which will be required by the federal grant.
P Diseased shade tree removal as a special allocation
will be concluded with the 1980 capital improvement
budget. Reforestation should continue at at least
5,000 trees per year throughout the 1980-1984 Capital
Improvement Program.
� 1Q Conditions for City participation in funding skyways :
;.�.�.G �.
1 ,Funds will be budgeted only for skyway bridges that
are part of a firm package for development or
redevelopment of the benefitting buildings ;
�_�� `z �r 2,Normally, the City will fund only a portion of skyway
�d_��.,,,,� , bri dge cons tructi on. The devel opers and/or property
' owners of benefitting buildings shall fund the entire
cost of skyway system constructjon within their
buildings;
3,The City will not participate in funding the
operation or maintenance of a skyway system unless
the City is the owner or developer of a benefitted
building.
7
, �
/
� 2Q The City will consider budgeting funds for a site
preparation fund under the following conditions :
1. Funding is bud eted on a yearly basis with an initial
allocation of $�50,000;
2.The fund will only be used to prepare tax-forfeited
sites owned by the City or scattered sites formerly
acquired by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority
for clearance;
3•Site preparation will be undertaken only if a
developer has committed to buying the specific
parcel once it is prepared; and
4.No administrative or operating costs are paid from
the fund.
� 2.2.3 BUDGET POLICIES
R Given the City`s fiscal constraints it is desirabl@ to
�- allocate municipal capital to projects in 1980 and 1'9 1�
��`�� �� �� which will not result jn a net increase in City
operating and maintenance responsibilities. At a
minimum, this means that: '
1 ,Essential facilitjes which can be financed and
operated by the City and another agency will be
given a high priority if they can be constructed and
operated at less cost than separate facilities.
� 2,Generally, there will be no allocation of capital
for purchase or construction of facilities for
human services programs which are not operated by the
City or for rehabilitation of human services facili-
ties which are not owned by the City in 1980 and
�<.��, _��81�, As an exception, those citywide facilities
specifically provided for in HUD regulations as
eligible for Comnunity Development Block Grant funds
may be cons9dered. No CDBG monies w911 be appro-
��� priated to finance annual operation and maintenance
of human service facilities in 1980 and �981.
3,New swimming pools will not be considered for funding
in 1980 and 1981 .
S The City will annually budget for each project phase
only the estimated amount of money which can reasonably
be expected to be expended within the budget year.
The capital improvement program will identify funds
required to complete the financing of a project in
future years. This tentatjve commitment is subject to
}
,
8 '�
'��I e.a.l i'�r1 �eeR..L.f ;��cW...'Y � vt..t#.�I,.�,a,� .
��, �-� ;,,{, r ,�,`�- , „ . < ` ��;i,,,�„A ; adoption by City Council of a Capital Improvement
. ' Budget appropriation for the project.
>� .:.�ti�.:-:_:�•<� . s�C.?</9,- �7 9
T Determination of whjch fund source is most appropriate
for financing each of the City's budget priorities will
be made as follows:
1 .A11 street improvement projects on Municipal State
Aid, County Aid, or Minnesota Trunk Highway routes
will be considered for funding primarily with monies
allocated to the city specifically for those routes.
2.Capital improvements which are eligible for metro-
politan, State or Federal programs or private grants
should be so financed. CDBG and CIB monies may be
used to provide local matching funds, if appropriate.
3,Capital improvements which could be financed with
specific bonding authority may be so recorrnnended if ,
City Council has 9ndicated its intention to utilize . �
such authority;
4.Capital improvements and programs eligible for CDBG
funding will be so funded; and
,,
5,Capital improvement which cannot be financed with
monies governed by paragraphs (1 ) through (4) will
be considered for CIB bond funding.
U Bond financing:
1.The Cjty will issue $6,500,000 in Capital Improve-
ment Bonds in 1980.
2 ,The City will issue $4,002,000 in water pollution
abatement bonds in 1980 to finance the second phase
of the Thomas-Dale sewer project.
3,The City does not intend to issue tax levy-supported
bonds in 1980 for the resldential or cort�nercial
rehab9l�tation program, parking facilities, or
urban renewal .
� 4, If tax increment bond-funded projects are developed,
they must meet requirements of Policy V "Tax
Increment Financing Policy" before City Council will
consider issu9ng bonds.
9
V Tax increment financing:
1 ,Revenue Projections by Consultant: Revenue pro-
jections for «11 tax increment proposals should be
analyzed by a private financial consultant rather
than a bond consultant.
2,Debt Service From Bond Sale Proceeds: Debt service
for all tax increment projects will be paid from
bond proceeds for no more than the f�rst three years
of project implementation when no tax increments or
other pro�ect revenues are generated.
3,Other Costs Funded From Bond Sale Proceeds : All
costs relating to any tax increment proposals should
be funded with bond proceeds and included in the
justification of each proposal. These costs include,
but are not li�ited to: design, acquisition and
relocation, construction, bond consultant, bond
counsel , financial consultant and staff time.
4„Conditions to be fulfilled for tax increment bond
financing:
- a,There must be a clear statement of public purpose;
b,All state requirements must be met;
c,The prospective developer must have financing
avai 1 abl e; arid
d,There must be a written contract among the developer,
the city and any involved public authorities. The
contract must identify, among other things,
estimates for all anticipated costs related to the
development estimates for annual operating and
maintenance costs associated with the completed
project, and who js responsible for meeting each
of these costs.
S, Use of tax increment bond sale proceeds in accordance
with written financial plan: Tax increment bond
monies sha11 be expended only in accordance with the
terms identified in the financ9al plan, unless other-
wise provided for by City Council reso1ution as
recomnended by the director of the Department of
Finance and Management Services.
10
W City bond monies and CDBG monies used to provide
residential rehab911tation loans shall be recycled,
as the original loans are repaid, according to the
guidelines adopted by the Saint Paul City Council as
Council File 272145 adopted November 30, 1978. Monies
used to provide commercial rehabilitation loans shall
be recycled to administer the program and provide new
loans as the original loans are repaid.
11
2.0 THE UNDERLYING RATIONALE FOR SAINT PAUL
CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICY
Adopting a capital improvement budget is one of the
�nost important actions taken by city government.
Capital expenditures can have a significant effect on
the development or redevelopment of a city and its
neighborhoods. At the same time, legitimate capital
improvement needs invariably exceed the money available
to address them.
If a capital budget is going to meet the greatest needs
and have the most benefit for the �ity as a whole, a
method for determining the relative priority of projects
is required. Policies based on the goals and objectives
of a city help meet this requirement.
2.1 GOALS AND PRINCIPLES Two broad objectives form the basis for many of St.
Paul 's activities, including its capital expenditures.
City Council has adopted them as goals and Mayor Latimer
identified them as major objectives of his administration.
They are:
1 .To strengthen the city's neighborhoods in order to make
them better places to live; and
2.To strengthen the city's economic base in order to
provide jobs and services needed by residents of the city.
In addition, because capital improvement funds are
limited and because needs are great, the goals are
supplemented by three principles which relate specifically
to capital allocations:
1 .Critical needs which affect the basic protection of life,
health, or public safety take precedence over all other
capital expenditures;
2.Capital expenditures should be channeled to those areas
where there is the greatest opportunity for stimulating
private reinvestment and effecting measurable neighbor-
hood or economic improvement; and
3.Some capital 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.
2.2 IMPLEMENTATION OF GOALS In order to translate the goals and principles into
AND PRINCIPLES: IMPROVEMENT policies, the various types of projects which are typically
ACTIVITIES funded by the City as capital improvements are divided into
three broad categories: improvements to service systems,
improvements to facilities which support the ability of
local government to offer services efficiently and effective-
ly, and subsidies for improvements to privately awned
property.
13
These three broad categories and examples of each .are
listed in Figure 1. The subsidy and system support
categories are fairly limited. The service system
category is the largest of the three and is divided •
into subsystems.
The advantage of listing typical activities in this
manner is that it helps separate projects that are
directed toward individual or neighborhood needs from
those that serve a larger part of the comnunity or the
community as a whole. Based on this differentiation,
the policy statements can identify appropriate activities
more concisely.
2.3 IMPLEMENTATION OF GOALS The second step in translating the goals and principles
AND PRINCIPLES: PRIORITY into policies is identification of those areas of the
AREAS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD city where there is the greatest opportunity to stimulate
IMPROVEMENT private reinvestment and effect measurable neighborhood
improvement. The role city government is able to play
must also be identified if policy is to provide �irection.
Many qualities contribute to strong, stable neighborhoods.
If the physical aspects are to enhance the stability of
a neighborhood, an adequate and steady level of time and
money is required. Providing these resources for main-
taining individual properties is the responsibility of
the owner. The City has responsibility for providing
adequate resources to those. service systems which it owns
and operates.
However, in some cases property owners have been unable
to maintain their properties. Because the strength of
a city's neighborhoods and housing stock affects the
strength of the city as a whole, municipal assistance
to individual structures or areas which show some
deterioration may be justified.
2.3.1 HOUSING CONDITION/INCOME MAP
Given these premises, two factors are used to identify
those areas of the city that meet the intent of the goals
and principles: income and the condition of the housing
stock.
As a measure of income, the median family income of each
census tract is compared with the median family income of
the SMSA (Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area) and
divided into three categories: areas where the median
family income of the census tract is less than 65% of the
SMSA median family income, areas where it is between 65%
and 80� of the SMSA median family income, and areas where
it is 80% or more of the SMSA median family income. This
14
measure is the same as that required for expenditure of
Community Development Block Grant funds which must be
used primarily to benefit low and moderate income people.
Housing condition is based on St. Paul 's "Residential
Improvement Strategy". The "Residential Improvement
Strategy" , adopted as part of the city's comprehensive
plan in 1976, analyzes and classifies residential areas
of the city into five categories based on the percentage
of structures on each block which need major or minor
repairs . In addition to classifying areas, the
"Residential Improvement Strategy" establishes objectives
for each type of area and describes programs and
activities which could be used to conserve areas of
sound housing (conservation areas) , rehabilitate areas
of lightly deteriorated housing (Improvement I and II
areas) , and redevelop areas of badly deteriorated housing
(Improvement III areas) .
% of Structures
Needing Major % of Structures
Repair or Needing Minor
Beyond Repair Repairs Objectives
Conservation I 4 or less 4 or less Surveillance
Conservation II 4 or less 5 to 19 Intensive
Maintenance
Improvement I 5 to 19 20 to 81 Rehabilitation
Improvement II 20 to 39 80 or less Rehabilitation
and Neighbor-
hood Improve-
men t
Improvement III 40 or more 80 or less Major Neighbor-
hood Improve-
ment
The "Residential Improvement Strategy" reflects the position
of St. Paul government that the City' s capital allocation
decisions are important tactical moves for conserving and
maintaining the city's housing stock and that municipal
capital decisions can make a difference in neighborhood
confidence.
The result of combining these two factors is a housing
conditi�n/income map. The map shows where residential
improvements are most needed and where public assistance
may be necessary as impetus for either stabilization or
turnaround.
16
PRIMARY BENEFIT
FIGURE 1 : TYPICAL MUNICIPAL,
CAPITAL PROJECTS Indi- Neigh- City-
vidual borhood wide
SUBSIDY
Loans •
Grants •
Acquisition/clearance �
SUPPORT
Administration, training, repair
and maintenance, data processing,
storage and corr�nunications
facilities �
SERVICE
Trans ortation S stem
roads, ridges, curb ng, sidewalks,
lighting, signals, signage, skyways,
parki ng � �
Waste S stem
san tary sewers, solid waste facilities,
recycling facilities � �
Water S stem
Supp y dlstribution, storm sewers , ponds • •
p�Safet
stations , fire stations •
Leisure/Education/Culture/Environment
par s, parkways, p aygrounds, recreation centers,
libraries, cultural centers, museums, trees,
special use facilities �
Social Care
muf-ti-�' servi�ce centers, day care centers,
residential care facilities, health
centers �
15
.
304 ,;:::306
303 �• 305 30Z01 30Z02
301 - _
302
� eP x i:�i�::•':i; .;,���,�',#,�3i''''��:.
r 309 �i��':''
...�: >:• :: :r>:::::
319 ,� 318.02
''314:�: ,,,�� _
�
�4r �A�{.��
.jr�:>.:::`;:
_ .��+FJRiV:^:�:•
3
��:����ir:r
i
:�2 .`•:,i,�,',�.`� i'i�i;: ....
332 �i�,.�5r'�' 329
�..� .....
33 �
..... " 28 �'�'��.,`�? 346 347
` 336 � ' g
348. ��:t,,.�_,.�,#,':�:��'�'• 344
�+ 342 �, , p,
:::��::
-i::�'r �'�r$:�}:�i • :,.,i
349•� ....... :•352 33'�''�' 356 .
351 357 '�''�'�
�''360 361
�
363 = 364 ; '��3'8'S"'w��::''=��.
362 .. �'�:;9$&� '_
.�'�:�66 ; e,
.. 361 .. `� ,i.. 374
� ��. � �
` � .••••'.367
375
\:
�„
376.01
_ s�s.o2 HOUSING CONDITION/INCOME MAP*
INCOME OF
EACH CENSUS TRACT AS PERCENTAGE OF
ESTIMATED 1977 SMSA MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME � �,EE,
IMPROVEMENT I & II "�
A - � 64q
B 65-79q
C � ? 80%
IMPROVEMENT III
� � 79�
� ? 80�
*Residential Improvement Strategy classification combined
with the estimated 1977 median family income of each
census tract as a percentage of the estimated 1977 SMSA
median family income.
.
2.3.2 CLASSIFICATI N F PRIORITY AREAS
Assistance should go to areas where there is the greatest
opportunity for strengthening and stabilizing the neigh-
borhood. Two types of areas where municipal investment
is likely to have the greatest impact can be identified.
The first of these are called "fringe° .areas.
Fringe areas are characterized by housing that is basically
sound but in need of some repairs . While some private
resources are available, they usually are not sufficient
to stabilize the area and preserve the housing stock.
Fringe areas are defined as lightly or moderately deterio-
rated areas where most of the residents have a median
family income which is less than 80% of the SMSA median
family income. These areas are labeled "A" and "B" on
the map. Areas labeled "C" are similar in housing
condition and also require attention , but the higher
level of private resources mean that a lower level of
public incentives should be required.
Identification of the second type of area is more complex.
Throughout St. Paul there are areas where the housing is
deteriorated but also quite substantial . Concentrated
attention to these areas would serve to improve the
irrrnediate neighborhood and provide impetus for improve-
ments in surrounding blocks. Very often residents of
these areas are low or moderate income.
In order to bring about improvement, a large comnitment
of public resources may be necessary. However, once
initiated, private investment is likely to take over and
provide the resources necessary for stabilizing the
neighborhood over the long term. Such a comnitment is
referred to as "neighborhood revitalization. " Neighbor-
hood revitalization implies a concentration of capital
improvements , along with other types of city services,
in a relatively small area as a means for inducing and
securing private investment in the area.
Neither the "Residential Improvement Strategy" nor the
map identify specific areas which would be suitable for
neighborhood revitalization. Given the comnitment of
time and money required of the City and the neighborhood,
it is appropriate that areas be selected carefully and
that activities be carefully planned by residents them-
selves. Generally, these areas will be located within
"A", "B", or Improvement III areas and will meet the
criteria adopted by City Council for the Identified
Treatment Area Program.
18
Other geographical areas also require attention . However,
they. do not represent similar opportunities for improve-
ment based on public incentives because they are either
sound or, if deteriorated, would require extensive public
expenditure for acquisition, clearance, and redevelopment
before they could be made attractive for private invest-
ment. Given very limited resources, it was decided that
for the near future St. Paul 's primary efforts should be
focused in those areas where significant improvement will
not require large-scale redevelopment and on completing
existing redevelopment projects.
`L.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF GOALS The intent of economic development activity is twofold :
AN D PRINCIPLES: THE CITY'S to increase the number of jobs and income for city resi-
RULE IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT dents and to expand the city's tax base so that reliance
on any one source is minimized. Specific steps to bring
about these changes include broadening the city's
industrial base; strengthening the downtown as a retail ,
commercial, convention and industrial center; strengthening
community commercial and retail centers; and promoting
local neighborhood economic development opportunities.
Public economic development activities in St. Paul consist
of a wide range of activities and incentives. They include
public improvements to support development; subsidy in the
form of land acquisition or preparation, tax abatement,
or special types of financing assistance; and the use of
municipal police powers, legislative authority, persuasive
powers and technical assistance to neutralize stumbling
blocks to development.
These economic development tools are used by the City of
St. Paul and the Port Authority of St. Paul to achieve
shared economic development objectives. These objectives
are set by the City Council which approves Port Authority
bond issues and has two positions on the Authority Board.
Economic development actions of the Port Authority are
overseen and coordinated with those of the city by the
P1ayor through the Division of Economic Development of the
Department of Planning and Economic Dev�lopment.
In the past, the Port Authority has addressed itself
principally to industrial park development with some ex-
ceptions (assistance to United Hospitals, Inc. , Control
Data Corporation, and the Amtrak Station). The City, on
the other hand, has strongly promoted and assisted
downtown and neighborhood economic development. Recently,
the Port Authority has taken a somewhat larger role in
downtown development.
19
Expanding the Port Authority's role in downtown redevelop-
ment could be consistent with City Council economic
deve�opment strategy and objectives. With policy guidance
and planning from the City, the Authority could undertake
the acquisition, clearance, and preparation of land when
there is developer comnitment and generate
capital for development of such land through sale of�
revenue bonds.
This would reduce the need for city capital generated
through sale of general ob]igation bonds. It is the
City's intention to finance revitalization of downtown
with less reliance on general obligation bonds while
pursuing other forms of public financing to leverage
private funds. It would also permit St. Paul to expand
its economic development activities in areas other than
downtown. Economic development strategy for St. Paul
must carry commitment to a continuing level of dawntown
revitalization. However, the City should geographically
broaden its economic stimulation and development efforts
to place gradually increasing emphasis on use of its
funds for development projects which: (1) more closely
ally with neighborhood revitalization; and (2) promote
reuse or revitalization of existing comnercial or retail
areas.
Certain types of projects in downtown will continue to
require initial investment from the City to improve
their redevelopment potential. For example, service
systems improvements which cannot reasonably be made
part of a redevelopment project would continue to be
made by the City. But, as the downtown attracts more
developer activity, less municipal subsidy capital should
be needed to maintain reinvestment momentum.
If the Port Authority is to continue to expand its role
in downtown redevelopment, an overall economic develop-
ment strategy must be developed by City Council and
followed by both the City and the Port Authority. Some
city financing tools, particularly those not available
to the Port Authority, may have to be used for project
preparation in dawntown redevelopment. Tax increment
financing and development district bonding could also be
pressed into service for funding proposals under some
circumstances. But the PQrt Authority's revenue bonding
capability would provide most future funding for both
industrial development and downtown redevelopment.
20
2.5 IMPLEMENTATION OF Both•of St. Pau s goa s must be pursue if the city is
GOALS AND PRINCIPLES: to remain a good place to live. There must also be
CITYWIDE BALANCE balance among geographical areas of the city. While
priorities must be set, each area of St. Paul is depend-
ent on other areas and priorities must not lead to
concentration in one or two areas while the rest of the
city is neglected.
Citywide needs must also be addressed so that improvements
which benefit a part of the city rest on a sound base.
This means that facilities which allow efficient delivery
of city services must be adequate.
It also means that service system improvements which serve
the city as a whole must be adequate if the more localized
parts are to be effective. As an example, it would not be
appropriate for St. Paul to improve streets which serve
residents of a small area and neglect the major streets
which lead to that neighborhood as well as a number of
other neighborhoods.
As a result, four categories of benefit must be addressed:
- Neighborhood improvement
- Economic development
- Citywide service systems, and
- Support systems.
In order to achieve balance between geographic areas of
the city and between levels of benefit, guidelines for
the proportion of available resources which should go to
different areas and different levels are set. The
guidelines reflect St. Paul 's rationale for capital
expenditure supplemented by an analysis of past budgets
and the knowledge gained through each annual budget
process. In this way, the City's goals can be addressed
as well as changing needs and situations within the city.
21
3.0 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL PERSPECTIVE
St. Paul 's annual budget has two major sections : an
operating budget and a capital improvement budget.
Although treated separately, each of these two budgets
can have an impact on the other. As a result, the
relationships between the two must be considered as
part of sound budgeting practice.
Most of the income received by a city is used to support
the operation of city services and maintenance of the
equipment and buildings required by these services.
Salaries , fringe benefits, supplies, utility costs, and
routine maintenance are all part of the operating budget.
Usually an operating expense will fall into one of the
following three categories:
l.operating and maintenance expenses to continue
existing government services which are provided
directly or under contract;
2.operating and maintenance expenses for new or expanded
services; or
3.operating and maintenance expenses associated with
additional public facilities .
Capital improvements are long-term, physical improvements.
Typically, a capital improvement is a one-time expendi-
ture with a life expectancy of at least three years.
Capital expenditures also fall into one of three categories:
l.the cost of significantly upgrading or replacing an
outmoded municipal facility;
2.the cost of adding a new municipal facility; or
3.the cost of providing incentives to the private sector
to encourage physical improvements or development.
3. 1 TYPES OF CAPITAL There are a number of types of funds available to St. Paul
IMPROVEMENT FUNDS for capital improvements. These include bonds, grants
and aids from other levels of government, and local funds
supported by property taxes, user charges or assessments.
In addition, the costs of some projects are shared with
other units of government and occasionally a private
business or foundation will give the city a grant for a
specific project.
The allowable uses of the fund sources can vary considerably.
Limitations on the use may relate to the purpose of the
project (to benefit low and moderate income people, for
example) , the type of project (streets, sewers) , specific
1 ocati on s (MSA s treets or Coun ty Ai d s treets) , or a
23
FIGURE 3: TYPES OF CAPTTAL FUNDS AND THEIR USES
FUND TYPE dSE
Bonds
Capital Improvement Bonds Any capttal expenditure. Capital Improvement Bond funds are dallars
(Chapter 234, Laws of borrowed by the city which are repaid from a levy on property.
Minnesota, 1976)
Auto Parking Factlities Act Parking facilities. Parking Facilities Bond funds are general
(Minnesota Statute 459.14) obligation bonds exclusively for acquisitlon of land or construction
of automoblle parking ptaces. They are repald through levies, assess-
ments. or revenue of the facility.
Tax Increment Bonds Economic development. Tax Increment Bond funds are dollars borrowed
to finanee redevelopment of specified parcels of tand. These bonds
ape repatd through increased property taxes resulting from redevelop-
ment of the parcets,
Developmemt District Bonds Economic development. Development District Bond funds are dollars
borrowed to finance redevelopment of a specified tract of land
designated as a development district. These bonds are repaid through
' increased property taxes resulting from redevelopment in the district.
Water Pollution Abatement Pollution control through construction of sewage and storn�water
Bonds (Minnesota Statute facilities, General obligation bonds repaid from a levy on property.
115.41)
Revenue Bonds Any capital project which will generate revenue.
Citv of Saint Paul: Revenue bonds issued by the city are repaid solely
from revenues generated through the facility constructed with bond
proceeds. For example, in 1980 the city will consider issuing sewer
revenue bonds to construct a storm sewer which removes lake water
oyerflow from the sewage system. The bonds will be repaid from
savings realized through reduced sewage treatment costs.
Port Authorit of Saint Paui: The Port Authority may issue revenue
on s repa so ey rom revenues generated by facilities constructed
with bond proceeds. Authority revenue bonds are sold to construct
industrial facilities or comnercial developments.
�ederal Aid
Housing and Community Comnunity development and housing pro�ects which benefit lower income
Development Act Block Grant people, etiminate slums and b11 ht, or meet an urgent need (Community
Development 81ock Grant Program�. The entitlement grant was authorized
by Congress in 1974 and reenacted in modified form 1n 1971.
Urban Development Action Economic development and facilities revitalization. Supplemental
Grant (UDAG) program to the Comnunity Development Block Grant Program.
Economic Development Economic revitalization. Possible use of these funds is for financing
Assistance Grant construction of the Civic Center Theater and Exhibition Hall.
Land and Water Conservation Acquisition and development of local parks and recreatlon facilities.
Funds (LAWCON) Administered by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation.
Urban Mass Transportation Downtown People Mover Feasibility Study. If the feasibility study
Administratlon (UMTA) proves out, UMTA wi11 fund 80% of construction.
Demonstration Grant
Great River Road Grant Development of the Great River Road along the Mississippi River. The
(Surface Transportation US Department of Transportation program is administered by the
, Act of 1978) Minnesota Department of Transportatlon (MnDOT).
Constructlon Grants and Construction of wastewater treatment facilities, including sewers. This
Loan Program (Clean US F�vironmental Protection Agency program is admintstered in Minnesota
Water Act of 1917) by the Minnesota Pollution Controt Agency (MPCA).
Interstate Turnback Construction of lnterstate highway substitution transportation profects.
Funds Grant A Federal Highway Administration program funded through the Federal
Aid Highway Act and administered by MnDOT.
I
24
FUND TYPE USE
State Assistance
Municipal State Aid (MSA) Repair/construction/maintenance of MSA roads and bridges.
Minnesota Department of Repair/reconstruction of state highways and bridges in St. Pau1. No
Transportation (MnDOT) transfer of funds involved; all contracts are let and administered by
MnDOT.
Shade Tree Grants Removal of diseased shade trees and reforestation.
Legislative Comnission on Acquisition and development of local parks and recreation facilities.
Minnesota Resources Grants Administered by State Planning.
Metro A eq ncy Assistance
Metropolitan Transit Downtown People Mover Feasibility Study. MTC, using State Legislature
Cortmission (MTC) Grant authorized funds, will assume 10% of the cost of the study (and of the
project, if feasible).
Metropolitan Parks and Open Renovation/development of regional park and open space areas in St. Paul.
Space Cortmission Grant
Metropolitan Waste Control Construction of wastewater treatment facilities. Seven-county bonding
Comnission (MWCC) Grant authority is utilized to match state and federal funding available for
sewer and treatment plant projects in the metro area.
County Assistance
County Aid Repair/construction/maintenance on County State Aid (CSA) system roads
and bridges and county roads.
City Funds
Public Improvement Aid (PIA) Streets, sidewalks, alleys. PIA dollars are local property tax monies.
Sewer Repair Fund Unforeseen sewer repair. Sewer repair dollars are local monies generated
through user charges included in each water bill.
Assessrt�nts Certain capital improvements wholly or partially funded through charges
to benefitting property owners.
General Fund Monies Any capital improvement, as determined appropriate by City Council.
Miscellaneous
Railroad Funding Agreements Improvements to railroad crossings and development of railroad-owned
land as joint city-railroad pro�ects.
25
specific project (Urban Mass Transportation Administration
Demonstration Gran t).
The budgetary implications of fund sources also vary.
Bonds are a form of indebtedness and must be repaid by
the City. Depending on the type of bond, citywide property
taxes, property taxes resulting from the project, assess-
ments, or revenue from the project may be used to pay off
this debt.
Grants and aids from, other levels of government generally
do not require repayment. Some grants do require that
the City match the amount of the grant with a specific
percentage of the total cost of the project or projects.
Finally, some local funds are routinely set aside from
property taxes or user charges to be used for eapital
improvements to specific service systems.
.
3.2 FISCAL CONSTRAINTS In addition to the limited uses of some fund sources, the
capital improvements which can be undertaken by St. Paul
are limited, quite simply, by the amount of money which
is available. The yearly requests for capital improve-
ments far exceed the dollars available to finance them.
Several factors serve to compound the limits faced by
St. Paul. The first of these is, of course, rapidly
increasing costs which are not matched by increasing
revenues. This affects all of the City's budget and makes
it all the more important that the impact of a capital
improvement on the operating budget be seriously consider-
ed.
The second factor is increased reliance of the City on
grants and aids from other levels of government. Between
1970 and 1976 St. Paul 's total revenues rose from $126.2
million to $213.8 million. But property tax revenues
collected by the City were actually less in 1976 than in
1970. Grants and aids, on the other hand, have been
tncreasing both in dollars and as a percentage of
St. Faul 's total revenues.
Grants and aids are welcomed by St. Paul as a means
for providing local improvements and services without in-
creasing reliance on property or real estate taxes. These
funds also help free money with fewer constraints to meet
� important needs. It is important to remember, though,
that capital allocations must reflect the mandated purpose
of the funds.
Conversely, the third limitat�an faced by St. Paul is
decreasing aid. A major source funding for capital projects
has been the federal Community Development Block Grant
program. These funds are being severely curtailed and, in
26
1980, St. Paul anticipates receiving approximately half
of what it did during the first three years of the
program. St. Paul 's annual entitlement during 1975, 1976
and 1977 was $18,835,000. Its 1980 entitlement is pro-
jected to be approximately $9.7 million.
The final constraint faced annually is the commitment by
the City to complete ongoing projects before new projects
are initiated. When this commitment is combined with a
decreasing budget and increasing costs, the ability of
the City to initiate new projects is very limited. For
example, the tentative program commitments approved as
part of the 1979 capital improvement budget for Community
Development Block Grant funds totalled $9.6 million,
leaving less than $100,000 of the anticipated $9.7
million entitlement for new projects. The tentative
commitments for capital improvement bonds exceed $6.0
million and St. Paul 's bonding limit is set at $6.5 million.
Although both the commitments and the revenue projections
are tentative, these figures give a sense of the difficult
decisions which must be faced annually.
27
� APPENDICES
. UNI TED C T L N
AND BUDGET PROCESS
. EN I N
. E E 37
AND TENTATIVE FOUR YEAR PROGRAMS
. U CES HE R
29 �
4.0 UNIFIED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
AND BUDGET PROCESS (UCIPBP)
Review of adopted policies is only the first step in
St. Paul 's annual Unified Capital Improvement Program
and Budget Process (UCIPBP). Once the policies have
been reviewed and appropriate revisions adopted by City
Council , proposals for capital improvements are submitted
and an extensive review process begins .
The UCIPBP was originally es tablished as a method for
allocating capital improvement bond funds. The process
has been enlarged over the years to include all federal ,
state and local funds for capital expenditures. The
various bodies with responsibility for reviewing the
proposals and making recommendations represent all areas
of the city and a wide range of expertise and knowledge.
The primary review body is the St. Paul Long-Range Capital
Improvement Budget (CIB) Comnittee. Three task forces
assist the CIB Committee by reviewing proposals thoroughly
and ranking them on the basis of a pre-determined rating
sheet. The CIB Cor�nittee then incorporates the recor�nenda-
tions of the Task Forces into an annual budget and submits
a formal recorr�nendation to the Mayor and City Council.
In addition to the CIB Committee and the task forces,
proposals are reviewed by district councils or neighbor-
hood organizations, city operating departments, and the
St. Paul Planning Comnission. The input from these
groups is incorporated into the rating sheet which helps
assure that all considerations are adequately reflected.
The complete process, beginning with the development of
policies through final adoption of the annual budget by
Ci ty Counci 1 , i s di agrarr�ned i n Fi gure 4. Fi gure 5 pre-
sents the 1979 UCIPBP calendar which will result in a
capital improvement budget for 1980.
31
FIGURE 4 TF� UNIFIED CAPI'fAL IIiPROVEMENT PROGRIIM AND BUDGET PRO(.ESS FOR THE CITY OF �AINT PAUL •
P[OCers Ste�s •
s CITY STAFF AND INTERESTED CITI2EN5 SNTEAESTED ORGANIZATIONS PLAMJING COUNCLL
R4commendation COMMISSION NAYOR �� STAPF
of Goels and 1. Planning Division 1. Diatrict Councils
Policies for 2. Mayor's Office-Bu�get Section 2. District Organizations
Capital Resource 3. Community Development Divieion 3. Others on tha E.N.S.
Allocatiun 4. Ad Hoc Citizen Committee
5. Council Staff
Adoption of
Goale and
Policies for CITY COUNCIL
Capical Resource '
Allocation
CITIZ£N ORGANIZATIONS ::ITY OPERATING DEPAR'"MENTS OTHER AGENCIES
Projeccs 1. District Councils 1. Fire 1. Quasi-City Agencies
idencified 2. Citizen Groups 2. Police A. Porc Authority
on "?reliqunazy 3. Buainess Ozganiza[ions 3. Public Works 8. School Diatzict
Identificacion 4. Cownunity Services C. Board of Water Commissioners
Furm" 5. Finance 6 Manaqement Svca. D. Civic Center Authority
6. Planninq 6 Economic Dev. 2. Governmental Units .
A. Metropolitan Council
B. Metro Waste Control Commission
C. Metro TcanaiG Commission �
D. County of Remsey
E. Ninnesota Highway Department
3. Private Agencies
OFFICE OF CITY PIANNING
Planniny, Policy 1. City Planners
and Timinq �2. Operatinq Departments s
=.nilicts Agencies
:dentified 3. Project Coordinators
4. Council StafE
Pro7ect Phasing
an3 Costing OPERATING DEPARTMENTS
Requesting Entity
Determines
Whether Co Sub- CITIZEN ORGANIZATIONS OPERATING DEPARTMENTS OTHER AGENCIES
mit Formal Fund-
in� Request
Fun3iiig Raquests BLIDGET DIRECfOR
Foctnall/ Submitted �
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF ANALYSIS DISTNICT COUNCIL COUNCIL
STAFF
Project A) Comprehensive Plan 1. Planning Division A) District Prioritie
Analysis B) Capital Allocation Policies 2. Mayor's Office-BUdget Sect. B) Project Comments
C) Recommended Program 3. Community Development Div.
4. Property Manaqement Div.
A) Eligibility & Feasibility
Recomm�:ndations
Transmitted BUDGET DIRECTOR
Die�;ribute Requests
to Appropriate IB COtM1ITTEE
Task Force
Review Projects. COMMUNITY FACILITIES STAEETS 8 UTILITIES RESIDENTIAL 6 ECONOMIC
.TOUr Si[es. TASK FORCE TASK FORCE DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE
Discrict s Staff
Presentations. 1. Rep. Erom 17 districts 1. Rep. from 17 districts 1. Rep. from 17 districts °"
Ping. Coa¢n. Recom. 2. CIB Committee Members 2. CIB Committee Members 2. CIB Commi�tee Members
Dist. ^_ouncil Prioritiee
Priority Rate Projects.
Determine Funding
Priorities 6 Recom.
Formulate Recommended �
Budge[ 6 Proqram Using
Task Focce Priorities CIB COI4�ITTEE
6 RECOlntnenddtions
Revies+ CIB Committee
Recommended Budget 6 DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS COUNCIL STAFF
Identify Disaqreements
Consider CI8 Committee .
Reco�renended Budye� s Program
s Dpt. Directors' Recom. MAY�R
to Detecmine Mayor's
Proposed Budqet
Considec Recommenda-
tions of the Mayoc 6 �
the CIB Committee 6 CITY CGQNrIL
Adopt Capital Improve-
ment 8udget 3 2 o.`fice oi cne Mayor
Budget Sec[ion-8/1Si7A
, FIGURE 5 1978/1979 C1ILENDAR FOA THE UNIPIED CAPST7IL II�ROVEI�NT PROGMM & BUDGET PROCESS
(Uaed !or det�rmining th� 1990 Cepiul Improvsarnt Budgat)
ADOPTION OF GOALS AND POLICIES FOR CAPITAL ALLOCATION Tentativa Date
1) Interested citizens and City staff begin to review and avaluate last year's overall
davelopment strategies and budqet policies by October 23, 1978
2) Intaresced citizens and City staff draft multi-year ovecall development strategiea
and budget policiea for all capital resourcea available to address Saint Paul's
capical need�. This draft will be distributed to districts through the Early
NotiEication Sysiam (ENS) by November 17
3) 3tearing Comnittee of the Planning Cortmission holds a public meetinq on the
proposed overall development strateqies and budget policies by Decembex 4
a) Planning Commission recommends overall development stratagies a.nd budqet policies by Decembez 22
5) City Council's Finance, Management and Parsonnel Committae revieae recou�ended overall
development stratagies and budqet policiea by January 8, 1979
ti) City Council adopts Saint Paul Capital Allocetlon Policias (overall development
strategies and budget policies) by January 11
7) Adopted Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policies distributed through the Early
Notification System (ENS) by Januazy 19
PROGRAMMING AND BUDGETING PAOCESS ACTIVITIES
8) Departments and organizations identify projects on "Preliminary Identification
Form" (blue foxm) by February 19
9) Entities requestinq project funding maet with approptiate City staff, includinq
operatinq departments, planners and project coozdinators to identify: February 26 to March 2
a. Planning conflicts
b. Timing conflicts
c. Capital allocation policies conflicts
d. Cost estimates
1. Capital: Design, acquisition, construction, etc.
2. Mnual operating costs
3. Effect on revenuea
10) Final submisaion date for formally submitting project funding requests to the .
Flayor's Office - Bu3get Section, Room 367, on the "Unified Capital Project Re-
quest Form" (white form>. Mazch 30
11) Planning Commission review to determine requested project's conformance with
the Saint eaul Comprehensive Plan and adopted capital allocation policies. April 9 to May 11
1�) CIB Task Force Budget Priorities and Recommendations. Includes review of
layt year's Capital I:nprovement Budget and current capiGal allocation policies,
bus tour, presentations by various citizen ozqanizationa and operating de-
partments, review of Planning Coaunission reco�endationa and District Council
priorities, staf: analysis and project ratinq. Mazch 19 to June 15
131 CIB Committee fundinq priorities and project recommendations to the Mayor and
City Council after r,�viewinq task force recormnendationa and holdinq a public
hearing. June 18 to July 6
14) Department Directors' recommendations to Mayor. July 16 to July 20
15) Mayor holds P;iblic Hearing on budget recormnendations between July 16 and July 20
16) Mayor determines his budqet priorities and recommendations by July 24
17) Mayor's Proposed Capital Improvement Budget and Program preparation (typinq,
printing, collating and binding). July 30 to August LO
18) Mayor transmits ?roposed CIB to City Council by (Ordinance N16306) Auqust 14
19) City Council (Finance, Management and Personnel Committee) Public Hearing between August 2'. to September 21
20) City Council adopts 1980 Capital Improvement Budget by September 27
21) Tax Levy Resolution adopted by (requirement by State law) Ociober 9
22) Grant applications are prepared by January 15, 1980
ANNUAL PROCESS EVALUATION: WIFIED CAPITAL IP�ROVEM.:NT PROGRAM AND BUDGET PROCESS
23) Ad Hoc Con¢nittee (Interested representatives ftom City Council, CIB Committee,
CIB Task Forces, Planning Commission, District Councils and City staff). October 1 to October 30, 19'9
a. Task Force Rating Sheet
b. Task Force and CIB Cortanittee Structure
c. Performance Monitoring and Evaluation
d. Capital Allocation Policies
CITIZEN :AONITORING AND EVxLUATION PROCESS Continuous
33
Mayor'� Office - Budqet Section
GNB:nlg Auqust 15, 1978
' 5.0 POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
The effectiveness of policy depends entirely on whether
or not projects and the capital improvement budget as a
whole conform with the policies . City Council estab-
lishes the policies and has responsibility for adoptinq
the annual capital improvement budget. Thus, final
responsibility and authority for implementing policy
rests with City Council .
During the review process, responsibility for monitoring
the policies is shared by the CIB Committee, the Planning
Commission and the Budget Section of the Mayor's Office.
Figure 6 indicates where the responsibility for moni-
toring the implementation of each policy lies in the
project review and budget recommendation process .
FIGURE 6: POLICY MONITORING AND IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBILITY
Planning CIE Mayor's Office
Commission Committee Bud et Section
�
°' A•r
� 6* g*
•r
O C
� D
(E - not used)
a� F* F*
+�
� G* G*
�
�
�
,� H
a I'� •r
� � �fO •r
� o K
o a L•r
+' +' M M
� �
+' °' N N
� �
� o �* �
°' '— P* P
r N
� � 1Q
� � ZQ* 2Q
�
a�
'� R
•r �i--�
c a° T*
'� U
a�
d--� U V
N C
�c� W
"C3 C
�•i—
OO L.L
* Policies which relate to the budget as a whole
rather than individual projects
35
'�� g 8 g. go $ .
� m
'.mi °D °° u' .°� °a �°n
a r+
b S o S oo °g
aN � o 0 00
$'� m n ui � s g
M
a �+
� °o °o °o °o °o 0
��
� r r N ry N 1f1
aN
O
'O O
�� � p � p p O o O
1!1 O ul O vf vl O �
&v� � r �o �n �n v o `r
� � �
r N �o "'�
a ^'
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 o g o 0 0 0 0
0 ��yy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ou, o $ o 0 0 0 0 0
C n � O Y� �O O O t�t O m m O �1 � � ` N
�n �o ao �o in �n o r n o v .-� v � � .ni �o
� � en in v� r ,�
� � $ �
� a � o a o 0
.�-' � M a v�i O � �
O +� �
s " � a " � a a a a b b a � � b a b � a a "
M M N M
� ���' 8' � � 8' $' �
� o a a a aa a a $ g � o 0
.'�, a''+ � .r � .� g .a p o g b .� .� °o u, o a $ o
�i H � � �I � � C0 a� � M u°, a� d � d � � � � � �
. �
� � �
u
U 3 � N O
O �' ,� N M L '
M �
�.1 � '�0 1, b 9�� � y 0 � i�
g � � � � � � � & � � �
; �' " � b � 9 � o� ° ,� � � ,� � �
� �-myi �v ,s+ ro D. ai a a � � �y .�i a�+ i �
e�L O
� qtT U�l Y U x N W aa � ia7 O� Cj � � C G �
0 U +i ' tJ M 1 O O �.1 > 0' +� . a+ > y '� > ,C N
z �"e "' wa� a �" � � aa a a • Q � r' $' � �'
O +i
m .ri w � ~ a'�+ w � ai s+ a O � � m a � ►�
o a+ R U a� C X
W �1 +�i H O� .�] C � � b b E > N N q ++ � �+ '� '� o'
� m �0 A »� +i �t C+
W a+ y we '{ '� '� �C! � � C �C M C�n � � wQ o�a� �O
O. �l t�il �.�+ u W � � r y � b .b1 � x ~ D � Vp C yp' .-� al tT
� e M � +(y► O � '�O� +� Wy W@ J� �� � .A1 a O C � 1�
� M 04 U O � W � 6�a Pi QG U N U' �l � W fq �-7 .
h-�
J w �
� � � o o .� �n o v �n �o n m r+ �o n v �o u*
v� �o �o �v n M r+ �o �o n o� �n �n v �n r+ v
� � i � � � � � i i i � � � � � i �
� Z U Ul �l1 fA U1 tA Vl N N p! Vl U U U U �q U
Q
U
� fTl �'f uf � m .� �A sT tr (V N P m �n vf .-1 u1 m
ql �n ao ao ao r �n �n n n � n .-� rv .r rv n rv
�p a
38
6.0 CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED 1979 BUDGET AND TENTATIVE FOUR-YEAR PROGRAMS
6.1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS
6.2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS
6.3 WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT BONDS
37
.�
e
� '� � S 8 8 S �
w$ y ' . . . °
�'+ M N v � n O
a °� a i �i m
� o --
� •a
� �
a y�
�N �y . � C � � � ` � �
��ppp tj aD p O O w�pi r
� � O n + �O r�'f O
a � � w �t+ �i m
O
U M
y
yC
'r�� a■ � °' � � � � � � 8
6a� U V M N p N O O O� 8
8�.� "'� .r � U1 � n �D O
a� �i � .��i ` r m
.. �
�p � � � � � � � � � g g �
�.1 n r U1 O N O N P
� w x � � � ,� � .. � 8 � ; 8
� � N � v • 1f1
a � � �o
e
M
• � � � � � � b � � � � � b 8 8 �
� q �1 � S � .�i N � � r e�v w n � � ai g
r
a � .� � a � � �,
�
.; : ., ,�
a v
� � �
� � � M � g � � � � �
��
" � � � ^ s � a a a a a ,�
� a ^�
� �
� � � g � � � � � g � � � � �
� � � � �� " � " $ � ' " x � �
O �1 N �
q .�1 ev .��r .� � fV tr + n �
a� r� v r„+ .� a
� s $ �
� � � ; �
-� � w .�
� � � � � � � $
� ~ •+ � � � i •'�i
� � � �
" s � � � � � � � o
� � a M � � � , � � 3
�o � ° s � �, � e � a .�' �
i � � � � P r � � �
t�il � A�i � � A � M � ,, p � � �
� ± ►a � W � Y Y M
� M � �o '� � A` � Y Q`� � � �
� M�a F+ � �Q 4• 1R� L �.� •» • MQ
a m �l U H O y � 1�. � a's p M Y � M
M � � h �i Q
rl �) Y1 � a M M MI n n � � �1 � N � .1
b b v L Jc d � Z b d� u � � .� � �
M .�1 r r1 �
� � D � F
� N .-°�i � wr+i wri n � .ri .�-� �
39
x��' °o g °o � °o °o $o g °o o � o
0
e�,m I ° °g °o � v° h ° � c° o° °c �n
�
.ti r ' ` �! � �
a
�o °o g g °o g g � g � � g °o �
N y ry p p C C O O O O O O
p p �
�p,T v�i O O � � � .�i O O O O �n ai
�p .+ r O `n ... � � ? � � N � �4
�i°' .r g
. g
. �
�'S � g a o 0 0 � a g o � � g � �
.. .. �, �
>�� °� '� �°n °o °o .�". °e v .°-� � g °o °o � a
p .ti .�. n r o � � � � � � �
U �
a 5
` MM
7
u
0 0 o s o g � 0 8 8 � `
'E o 0 0 � 3 � 8 � �
">�p m �. o o � ,
p(y O� ..a i O O O O � O � O � g O O O � 7
V O�+ �n O � � O .+ a � '+ o o N �
N O� �n � � N � � .N. v ��„ ~ .y .+ �
a m
.i
M
O
° >� [���j7 o S 8 a g 8 � � 8 � � � � g � � g � � � � � 8 0
� O o� PI O �n - o O o o u� o �n o r o O p O wf �f O� p �+i ui � �D O
[+ ; U.-1 a �O O �n O O .� v f� .ti rf fV CD O O • .ti tv O m uf y t� W
ry m ao .+ �n r �n ,n n rv er .� ^� •+ er v+ .r �w
}{ '' .-� u
✓ �
� a � 'y y �
Q` �0 Y �
p� � M
�p' � � � s o a a a a � ' a � � s a � d � 1 � � 1 °s
p ; p�p Q� O O 4p� N(� Np� Np� pM� Ma M M Mp� 4p� b O b b O
p � C M ~ t�v ry M M M y M M �1 � � 1 1 4 7 � •1 1 1 1 1 � � � O
� ` � �D "�
`� O' M 6 O� W IY 0. d W h O� W pG � �
w "� � Q
3 3 3 � � 3 � � � ~ °
" ; ; � �
� F g ,�., � 8 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
{� � � � 8 g g : : a $ �; 5�j ° �
Y G �l a OI P'/ ��l1 1f� fV 1!1 � N ~ m S •�1
N .F„ " _,� r N ,
p u s � r+
Z �
� u p V � N �
..� • O y
�•-� O w y O � • B ~ .y � �0
Z � S ' � � � � �
a e
¢ � � � � � � � o � ` �
� �g N .. a .� w � v �+ � �
(� i.i c jS � � M e
o� � � o � `� �.�i � °Y � � � a ° e � � p°
U • .ya 'p,., 7 ~pY .�t.� � ✓ ~ ��°pi�� r � � y � N a
� Y > �q£ �' 7 M � � � �� � P Y C Y .�i • U � W � C
pJp � 5 $ �L M ° • � Q� w �w L � + � �,�i+ ' � a�i M '� Y � `� $ � -'+
C
Z � � g q � �� � � � w a ��� 'Z ��i � °i �� � � = w ' o, � e. w �v
• o �I • • p� .. +i �1 o� �' a�
W O.r 7 � Y � ; O � � �y � �N MrC ~ � M Y C J 7 C N
� S � � ~ rl � l/ N yM •tlyl NC V y � P� � � F Q � '� •� O +1 Y
O 4 O O � O • Y � �4 A � � U M� L • VI Y Y+�Cp/ a V � .� O ~`y � � .� O �
Yl PL+� V +1 +/ C� V O "��y Y � � � ►1 � �M � M � N �
� � B.. w �' � Ey5 y� �1
�p �p.. .. H a r '�
�! w N w Y ✓ V M O~g O � O O U 4~ w Y Y Y1 F�M1 � ! � M � � N � Z
� �i o .. o m � �a w�b �. .. i� .� S.. o•.� g M� a � 4 a � .
� a � ��" ���� �� � � .:� .:� �'� � � aa� � � 8 � � � � � 8' � N� z
�
Z M
= .(p1 O .�1 � e`I O f � .�ml fV m $ a ^ r N N e~V .��i .�i ~ O � ~
� Q� 9 T .M f V V ♦ O Yf V1 Yf .+ �
O
° � dc dc cc k dc dc a ac aa dc w a ui u� u u w u a dc as k oc
U
N �
t0 a ° ^ w a'o a� o m n rv � ev n n er n m � � o �D a� .� o eV
. r, � n n r "+ s r r- n �w rv ev �o �n �o m • m a�
40
G G c� p
�7 U O C� ` G O
X d f� C� � , O O .
H N M . . �. _
c �•i
$s o c �n v � c
8 M ,y V n rv �, r
o, .� cv m
p p U C� O O
O C O
M 4l O O O � O O
H N N . . . - • •
5 p O t"� O
C�O� O O � V �O O
p p .r �n r� N o�. o r
U~ V .ti N 0�
a
O O O O O O
'K� 0 0000000
2t °o o °o °o °o 0 o OOt0000�
r+ y � O O O 0 � � w w w w w n
�..� � ,y • • • O f� O O O LC)O O e�
� 8,� � °o °o u`�i d' o o r- 001000
o p ,.� v 'n N m .� n r-�M C7 N
t'a .; .. a� "
�
b4
0 0 0 0 00
5'dY � O � p p O O O O�
N O O � O O O O .-� O w w w
°v �°,�' ,,�'� d° °o °o u`''i °v � °o ��i
a V r� �v a+ r
a .r o� �
� [� o 0p op a �p o 0 8 0 � S o 0 0 °o �--;
,.� pf p� p O � O O O O O O V' O O O O O w '� _� ' �
� (� �
p � Q r1 O � O O O 1'� v1 �O O O N �
� � � g�.y ^� � .1 • 1A M V 1+ �"� N 1f1 f+1 N � � � N
a� . . . E
�yC .-� w n �
M �tl � L b9
a, °i v O
m q x C s"
,� � 0 � G.
y �
� � � � � b a o b a a b a a �
� a o"
� � � � � _
M N "'� /,' Q pp� pp� pp�
� E G '� O O � O O V O O V . �yM �N a � .
r� - - ., ., .. o
a� 'C � .� o �o o � ° M m° � °aC.� �C. �Q Z
U � � ~ � � � � � N �i K K � .
� � rl
10
U .�.�
� ~ N
� � � „ �' • � � E
� � o
� p
,�
�� � ,�e � � � � > L� o c
d p' � �' N NMd�r
01 �a � .�i � � � � � � N� i�-�d
� i � .�i °w a o � a+ ae �i r v1 'v U�t'f to ,�1-�
up, e o �+ 7 O � p M M C�1
y '� � 04 ~ a� +1 a+ � � � � M � � � }�Y Y ,1-f
° O Rf 'v Rf c� c�tn
i w � � �� � � �, � �' � � � � c� t� NNO o
y � +� i r- �'—
x a � M t� w � x � �i t� o. � � ± a w b � C�i G�i m m�
.+ � ■ a w �.-� � 1 +�
� � � � o w � � � a � �' . � � a a � � � �- � � i � ��
� '� .� � � � � c� o,� �o ro v�
Y �' �: �� � �� � � �y � � y � � �' -Q' � � ����,�,
a � � � � �' s� � i w � v a a i� � * o--� �-a 3 N N GC
N � N
� r
�� r-- 1 1
f��l m .� N N • .1 .�-1 I�f
� dc u � d� u u u � � c�� �
pp�T�� p .�Q
al N O� N O� � f~V /V .-1 YPI Iw
41
.
� �,
� -, .. o �
,� v � �
u� � - 3
0 a� v o 0
a rn �. rv r�,
p � .� a� u�
w v
a �, �+
�,
�
�n
. o
JJ
� O N O
N rv O 'O O
�m • G
O� O O O
N ri O Q! p
a v '�
�
e
d
>
a�
�° o v $ °o °o
p � � q O O O
0 3 .-� o .+
M � � C t� O M
a •.. , .
0
�+ o
0
0
ui C
� O r O � O O O
� � O O S O O O
�� O D ,.�y V N .� O
Of
.�
a ,,,; �
� °o S °o �°0 25 $ �°o
.�i m �a I .
� a' � °o e�°� o° � o ui r
� ''� .-1 .-1 •-1 r-�1 N 10
N ry
� a $
tl
� a a �
y � a a g a � � �
r � O+p1
O � A M M � � N � O�1 M f�V
�$' 6�. p a N M �0 er
a � y ` $' Q Q 5�
►'�. u �'i •r °' o � � °0 2S Z5 2S
� � � � sp� � "' ° "' ° � � �
U F Y F� E [ r � r N '
� �J s a� � : : •
N -./
U i
M
N � w
0 �Z � �
O y
m " � �
� �
Z
W j �M1 .r Y � M
Q � r� NJ � � �••1 Y � �
m A'i � ���j �.. � •
�
Z °' � � � �� � � � �,� ��
� � � � � : � ; ,� :o � �o
F— a y m a+ e'a � � e� s+ � � m a+
� � ~ � �� �� w ''�w 8C� ��•
p. au+ � M � � � �p � M a� � � M
d.' ` � � � �� �� R� � � �� � �
W A � � � N �D �0 6�0 M t�VO �
Q
3
M
(�r� �`1 O .1 P
� � � � � � .�
� �' "' °' °' � S °R 9i
Me �c u► �n u�
no
.
7.0 RESOURCES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
The following city offices can provfde additional infor-
mation on specific elements of the Unified Capital
Improvement Programming and Budgeting Process.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Plannin�c 298-4151
- anning ommiss�on policy development and
review of proposals
- capital allocation policies
- Three-Year Community Development and Housing Plan
- comprehensive plan segments
- capital improvement program
Divisi�n of Communit Develo ment 298-5586
- e g e actvtes
- Three-Year Community Development and Housing Plan
- Community Development Program Budget
- grants and aids
- citizen participation processes
- program monitoring and evaluation
MAYOR'S OFFICE
Budget Section 298-4323
- Annual UCIPBP and schedule
- Mayor's budget review and recorr�nendations
- CIB Committee and Task Forces
- Annual budget and program
- Capital improvement fund sources
- Capital improvement proposal forms
- Technical assistance for developing proposals
In addition, the agendas for full City Council meetings
and Committee meetings to review, obtain public input or
take action on recomnendations for policy revisions or
budget recommendations can be obtained from the City
Clerk's Office, 298-4231 .
43
.
CREDITS
PLANNING COMMISSION **Martha Norton, Chairman e Levy
*Liz Anderson *David G. McDonell
*James Bryan Jean McGinley
*Carolyn Cochrane George McMahon
Thomas P. Fitzgibbon, Jr. *Jane A. Nelson
Sam Grais *Joseph Pangal
*Rev. Glen Hanggi Gayle W. Sumrners
Sister Alberta Huber Janabelle Taylor
David M. Hyduke Adolf T. Tobler
Nelsene Karns Robert F. Van Hoef
*Steering Comnittee and Special Policy
Revi ew Merr�bers
**Chairman, Steering Comnittee
ADMINISTRATION AND James J. Bellus , Planning Administrator
POLICY DIRECTION William Q. Patton, Comnunity Development Administrator
Ken Dzugan, Principal Planner
AD HOC CITIZENS COMMITTEE John Auge
George Hrynewych
Merrill Robinson
RESEARCH AND PLANNING Tamsen Aichinger, Planner
Gregory Blees, Budget Analyst
Gregory Haupt, Budget Analyst
44
.
GLOSSARY (continued from front cover)
J o nt-use ac ty: ac ty operate an or ma nta ned by the c ty wit one or rtare other public
or private agencies (for example, Independent School District N625, Ramsey
County, Port Authority, United Way, Wilder Foundation.)
L everag ng: n genera , use o non-equ ty cap ta to ncrease return to equ y. n mun c pa
government, refers to use of municipal capital as an inducement to comnitment
of private sector capital in a development pro�ect.
Mun c pa cap ta : ap ta mon es appropr ate y ty ounc n t e ap ta mprovement Bu get.
Municipal State Aid (MSA): State gasoline tax (principally) dollars returned to a municipality as
a grant for use in maintenance and construction/reconstruction of certain
state-designated roads (called the "MSA routes").
Po cy: gu e ne or ru e nten e to eterm ne or a n eterm n ng ec s ons.
Private sector: The non-governmental portion of the econo�y. "Private sector" and "public sector"
are the two general divisions of all economic activity and decision-making.
eturn on nvestmen e ers to t e pro t on an nvestment. or examp e, t e return on nvestment
R �in a standard savings account is about 5%.
Revenue bond: A certificate of indebtedness whose debt service is.only from revenues of the facility
constructed with the bond funds. Unlike general obligation bonds (see above),
revenue bonds cannot legally become a liability of the property tax base.
T ax a atement: e act or pract ce o m t ng t e uture amount o rea estate tax to e pa on a
property. Occasionally used by municipal legislatures as an tncentive for
development characterized by some public benefit.
Three-Year Comnunity Development Plan: A plan required by HUD as part of St. Paul's Year V (1979)
Cortmunity Development Block 6rant Applicatlon. The plan must identify
St. Paul's major comnunity development needs and specify St. Paul's strategy
for meeting them with CD86 and other funds over the period 1979 through 1981.
UB : ee n e ap ta mprovement rogram an u get rocess.
Unified Capitat Improvement Program and Budget Process (UCIPBP): The formal process used by the
City of St. Paul annually to arrive at a Capitat Improvement Budget and a
Capital Improvement Program.