Loading...
275808 WHI7E - CITV CLERK COUIICIl "d���� �� Q PINK J FINANCE G I TY OF SA I NT PA l� L CANARY — DEPARTMENT � P. � iF B`UE - MAVOR File NO. ���� \� ncil Resolution - Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date A RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO INTERIM FUNDING OF GILLETTE HOSPITAL DEMOLITION (EXCEPT WEST WING) RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Saint Paul, upon recommendation of the Mayor and with the advice of the Long-Ra.nge Capital Improvement Budget Committee, that the 1979 Capital Improvement Budget, as heretofore adopted and amended by this Council, is hereby further amended in the following particulars: Amendments Capital Improvement Bond Funding FROM TO • Page 35 R-35 Downtown People Mover 96079-001 179,500 None C-XX Gillette Demolition 9 6 079-00 � 179,500 / ��i� Appropriation Analysis Current Amended Appropriation Change Appropriation . R-35 DPM 96079-001 750,500 -179,500 571,000 Gillette Demolition -0- +179,500 179,500 96079-002_M� � �J�'� and, be it, COU[VCILMEN Requested by Department of: Yeas Nays In Favor _ __ Against BY -- Form Approved by ty!Att ey Adopted by Council: Date — Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY By Approved by 17ayor: Date _ App ved or for S bmi C�ncil BY - — BY WHITE — GTV CLERK yyy���,�(( /� ((('''SSS��� PINK � FINANCE G I TY OF SA I NT PA U L COURCII ����(��eP CANARV — DEPARTMENT � �t7 79 BI�UE — MAVOR � Flle NO. � �����"� Council Resolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date . FURTHER RESOLVED, that such amendment transferring funds from the Downtown People Mover project account is intended to be temporary, the identified $179,500 to be restored to the Downtown People Mover account by resolution of this Council transferring that amount from the Debt - Capital Improvement Fund at such time as the Debt - Capital IMprovement Fund attains a balance of $179,500. ♦ . The St. Paul Long-Range Capital Improvement Budget Co �mittee received this request on (,aate)� � and recominends Q Signed: ' ngte:� �� �'?���— ri APPROVED A5 TO FUNDING: APPROVED: / Bernard J Carlson � R�.chard E. Schroeder Director of Finance� Budget Director COU[VC[LMEN Yeas Nays Requested by Department of: Hunt � Levine [n Favor Maddox McMahon � __ A gainst BY Showaiter Ted _ ilson Or+T � 4 ��p� Form Appro by i y At ney Ado d by Counci Date �+ ilou � ertified . -ed by Co cil Sec�etary BY By� � � . � �+ ` Approved avor: Date _ � V 1�80 Appr ayor for Subm' to Council BY - — BY ��� 0 C T 2 v 1980 . . .. � . �tJS���t� ' .;��:�;T,��o^:,-_: �� CITY OF SAlNT PAUL �;���� ;� ''-' LONG-RANGE CAPl�TAL IMPROVEMEN�T BUDGET COMMlTTEE 4 Z�'. GO , '�i �'.� Illl"1�1��i{i �: . =,�, ?!'-'�"!E''' ��: OFFICE OF 7HE MAYOR — BUDGET SECTION ;� - '�: s`"� 367 City Hail,Saint Paui,Minnesota 55102 �::�,��.�•.,�. ``. 612-298-4323 G[ORGE LATL'v1ER MAYOR September 12, 1980 Honorable George Latimer, Mayor 347 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Mayor Latimer: RE: Gillette Demolition The atta�hed r.esolution came before the Long-Range Capital Improve:�:ent Budget Cori.-nittee at the Committee ' s September 11 meetin;:. It' s consideration had been laid over from the August �� meeting p2ndi�g Planning Commission review. The Plannin.; Commission reviewed the project August 22 (findings attachecz} . The Cap��al Improvertenf Budget.�Committee , in accordance with Section 57 . 09 of the Saint Paul , Minnesota Administrative Code, revie�aed the attached resolution amending the 1979 Capital Improvem�nt Budget and advises as follows : PdOTION by Mr. Wittman, seconded by Mr. Gmeinder, recommending no action be taken by the Comrnittee in regard to the Capital Budget amendment before it and inviting the City Council to take this opportunity to reapen consideration of the highest and best use of the Gillette Hospital site; and that such consideration be undertaken through next spring' s Unified Capital Improvement Prograrri and Budc�et Process. Motion carried unanim�usly. �O , �� . . . � � ����i r�•- September 12, 1980 Page 2 The consensus of the Committee was two-fold: (1) That established capital budget process procedures, involving the Planning Commission and CIB Committee, had not been followed in considering the Gillette site as a municipal capital improvement versus a housing development; and (2) that the citywide perspective---as opposed to the neighborhood perspective-- on the use of the Gillette site had not been afforded adequate airing. Like the Planning Commission, the Capital Improvement Budget Committee stands ready to assist you or City Council further .in this matter, at your request. Sincerely, . �GGci'� Y ��� DAVID G. MCDONELL � Chairma� DGD:dw cc : Mr. Thomas FitzGibbon, Planning Commission Chairman Me:~:bers of the Capi�.al Improvement Budget Committee Me�::�ers of the Ci-�y Co'unci.l Mrs. Rose Mix, City Clerk Ms . Sue �Vanelli , District 5 Community Organizer -.�4 � T�.r �� � --- . . . . .ti„ . � e� „-,-��:�„-�Y: , ' �- , CiTY PtANN1NG CflMMJ�$IC? `'M tltl�i��ll��w�-J ' , � . i� A '� ' Tf�omas P. jitzCibbon, r. 4 �••• .°' J , Ch irr:t; ' �'''"��,:...,.._�.� I5 West Fourth Street,Sa�iit Paut,Minrie,pE,, 5S� GEORGE Ul71MER • G12-29&y. M/1YOR ��K���� August 22, 1980 � _ . _ � . Honorabie Georg� Latimer � - Mayor Ci�ty of St. Paul . - 347 Ci-ty Na 11 ; . � . St. Paui , Minnesota 55102 - � Qear P4ayor Latimer: The P.lanning Commis�ion was recently asked by your of�ice ta revieti�r the proposed 1980 Capitai Im�rovement Budget amendment related to the Gilette Hospital site. � In accordance Hritn M.�. 462.356, Subd. 2, of 57.07 of the St_ Pau1 Administrative Cade, the Planning Commission must review the proposed amendment for conformance �ri th the Ci ty's Comprenens i ve P1 an. At its meeting of August 22, i980, the Planning Cammission considered the pro�osed budget amendment and adopted the attacf�ed report and findings. . In discu.ss�ng thzs r�atter, the Comm��ssion also expressed several cancerns which --I have be��, di rected �a share with you. ' First, the �ommission is cencerned <<�ith the rather signi•fican� co►��=1ict beti�reen ti�e Gi17e:�e proposal and tf�e City's Comprehensive Plar�, including adopted as t•reli as propos�� plan elenents. Furthermore, the Commission is concerned ti•�ith the decision-,�:a;ing process follo.�red by tf�e City Council in tnis matter, especial7y the bzlate�� involvement of the Pianning CommissiQn. This "after the fact request for P�lanning Commission review is, hopefully, not ta be construed as a precedent � for the future. Finally, we are concerned t�tith the apparer;t circumvention of the established Capital 8udget review process involving bo�h the Capi�al Zmprovement Budget Com�nittee and the Planning Commission. . I�. ��rould appear that �n th�s �nstance, -the Ci ty Counci 7 has al ready commi tted funds and de�nol i ti on i s undenr�ay and the review by tne Planning Corrmission and CTB Cor�nittee is, therefore9 moot. The Comm7ssian stands ready to provide any further assistance to yoc� or the City Council that, we can to reso7ve the various concerns related tQ the Gil�ette proposal- and the budget�amendr�ent process. Thank you for consideration. Sincerely, _ ��.�.P� ���, - Thomas P. FitzGibb � � Chairman cc; City Council Members � District 5 Council Chairman, Doug Forsberg Capital Improvement Budget Committee F�embers . Rose Mix, City Clerk . - . ..��n . ► � • � w � ' CtTY OF SAINT PAI, . , ,t� . . � a; DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMlC DEVELOPMEi� ��:�� .: - :����� -� . �� �� . DIVISION OF PtANi�i1N .... , ��''�"'� 25 West Fourth Street,Saint Paut,Min�esota,55i .;EOftGE CATIMER . - 6rt2_2�}8-q� MAYOk � ' MEh10RRNDUM . DATE: August 15, 198Q . � _ TD: Pianning Commission � - - . FROti: Comprehensive P7anning Staff . - . RE: Capita7 Improvement Budge�t Amendment: Gillette Haspital Introduction - - The City Council i�s seeking an amendm�nt of the 1980 Capital Improvement Buciget �o provi de fund i ng for the t�emo7�ti on of al l be2t the tdest !�!i ng of G�1 i ette Hospi tal � � In accordarce with t�I.S. 462.356, Subd . 2 and 57.07 of the St_ Paul , Minnesota, . - Administrat�ve Code, the Pianning Commission must reviet�t the propaszd arrendment for conformance ti�r�th the city's CompreF�ensive Plan. The Capita7 Impravement Budget Committee has cieelined to mal�e a budgetary recommendatian un�i1 after the Cornmission revie�•rs the proposal for conformance t•iith the Comprehensive P1an_ Back round � . . � Log Number: C-05xx (unassio��ed) : - Operati►�� �•eoartment: Co,�rtunity Services , Division of Parks and Recreation Description: Acquisition of approxir►iately l3 acres of undereztilized iand adjacent to Pha�en Park, demolition of structures, except t�Jest 4�ing of formzr Gi17e�te Hospital , and development of property as an additi�n tv Phalen Regional Park. Location: Ivy Avenue between Forest Street and Earl S�reet. - - Justification. Additional land to serve needs of users of Phalen Regional Far�c. Funding Schedule: 1980 - $213,000; interim funding from 1979 Capital Tmpravement � • Bonds (borrowecl from DP�1 project accaunt� ; ultimate funding from 1980 Debt-Capital Improvement Fund . Future - Unkno�,vn; parl: developrnent costs �o be a minimur� of �T70,000 Estimated Effect on Operatin� Budqet: +$6,000 per year. Est�mated Eff`ect on Future Revenues: IVone Status: Contract for demo ition has been Tet, at a cost of $128,000. Analysis . . Four elements �of the Comprehensive Plan bear directly on tF�e Gillette proposal � The Parks and Recreation P1an, the Housing Plan, the propased land Use F1an, and the _ District 5 Plan. - . " . .- . -z- , . , � . ; � .� - � . , � - ��7����. a �.��..,� � .rarks and Recreation P7an (adopted by City Courici� September 18, 1979) � _ The Gillette proposal wou?d directiy conflict ��rith one specific policy of this plan: ,� M-5 Provisions -For maintenance shall be made before propasals fior ne1•i facilities � , are approved (page 8) . ' i . - � Tn acldition, the proFosal would appear to confl�ict t•r-ith the general thrust o-E the Plan, t�rhich includes the following policies (pages 6-7� : . ; _ � . G-1 The City shail be responsibie for the acquisition, development, operation and programming of those recreat�on eiements c7assi�fied as mini-park, neighbor: _. recreation center, neighborhood park, community recreation cerrter, corr�r►unity park, athietic Fields and citywide speciai use areas . G-2 The City should encourage the county and the Metropolitan Gouncil to sF�are witFt the city the responsibility for tf�e acquisition, development, operation and programming of those recreation elements classified as regional parks, � regional historic parks , regional special use areas and regional trails. A-1 Maximum use sha11 be made of existing public facilities and land. A-2 The acquisition of land in areas with a defined need tvith no recreation servicf s��u7d take priori�y over the acquisition of land to expand existing recrea�ior ar�as . ° - A-3 T�e acquisition o� vacant land should talce priority over the acquisition of developed land . - � A-4 La:�d acquisition s;�all be consistent with the Parks and Recreation Plan The general direci.ian of these policies is that funds are lim�ited, and acquisition of' park 7and by the City should a7so be limited to providing recrea�ion space in underserved areas . 7he Phalen n�ignbornood is not identified in the Plan as an unde.rserved area. 2. Housin Plan (adopted by Pianning Commission; Hearing before City Council or� August 28 . The G�llette pro�osa7 would not be in direct confilic� �•rith any specific policy of tf�e Housing Plan, but it would not be in keeping 4vith the general thrust of city hausing policy--that the c�ty needs to provide a 1arge nu��bpr of additional housi ng uni ts and ti�ri 11 expl ore a11 avai 1 ab7 e opportuni ti es . Housi ng ���as frequent�y suggested as an appropriate reuse for the site in earlier discussions . 3e Land Use Plan (a��roved by Land Use Comrnittee; Pub1ic Hearing on August 22� . - ' " The Gi7lette proposal �•rould conflict witln a proposed policy regarding the reuse • � o� institutional lands. � Policy 4.3-5: The city, in conjunctior� with the nei�hborf�ood and District ' Council 7nvolved , will inves�igate appropria�e reuses for vacated �institutional buildings and land, giving first consideration to parks only if specifically called for in the Parks and Recreation Plans and other�ris� giving preference to residential uses or mixed use developm�n.ts (page 67; Nearjng Draft) . ,. ' /. -3- , ' � � ' s �ecause the Parks and Recreation Plan does no� specifically ca71 for additional park land at that location, the L�znd Use Pian would ca11 for residential or mixed use development of the Gillette property. � � � �` 4. pistrict 5 Plan (adopted by City Council) . � �" . . � District 5 made no specific recommendations on Gillette, .except that they be allowe to participate in determining appropriate reuse of tfie property. This tivas done in earlier discussions. The District Plan does not give the city any guidance on the disposition ofi the Gillette site. - - • . - Two othzr land use issues should be considered : the effect of the proposal on the � environment, and its effect on historic preserva�ion. � � 1 . Effect on Environment: Unknawn ' 2. Effect on Historic Preser��ation: Somewhat positive: The historic�lly ia�3�gn�fican portion of Gillette Hospital is being demolished, while that� portion (41es� Wing) t�hat is historically significant wi11 remain. . - Summary of Findings - . 1. The proposal would be in conf3ict ti,ritt� the Parks and P,ecreation PTan based on - i�s priorities for the use of the City's limited funds for recreation. 2. The proYOSa1 would be in conflict with the general intent of. th� �lousing Plan, to add housing units wh�n opportunities to do so are available. � 3. The preposa1 would be in c�nflict ���ith the Land UsepPlan`s policy on reuse of ' insti�;.E-�;onal proper�y: for a par�:, if the Par�:s and P.ecreation Plan `ca11s for it, and othe��ise for housing or mixed uses. 4. The Dis�rict 5 Plan makes no recommendation regarding reuse af the Gillette site_ 5. Other land use effects are unknown or ���ould be limited. Recommended Action . � Staff recommends that tne Planning Commission adopt this report and forward it to . the hiayor, City Council , and Capital Improvemen� Committee far. their consideration. . .;- . . . . . . / •'� 'vv 179406 ' _ . .� _. _ _ _ ._ _ __ _- -- _. -..__ , �`���� VYH17E — CITV CLERK � � �y �1Y'a.✓ � ,��" f'�NK — FINANCE (j I TY U F �A I �rT ��A LS I� Council C<.��AitY — DEPAitTMENT File NO. E1LUE -- MAYOR �o��cil .�es�l�t�on � - Presentei] f3y Re�erred To _ Committee: Date Out of Committee By — .- Date A RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO TNTERIM FUNDING OF GILLETTE HOSPITAI, DEMOLTTION (EXCEPT WEST WING) RESOLVED, by the Council of the C9.ty of Saint Paul, upon recommendation of the Mayor and with the advice of the Long-Range Capital Improvement Budget Coznmittee, that ��he 1979 Capital Improvement Budget, as heretofore adopted and amended by this Council, is hereby further amended in the following particulars: Amendments Capital Improve�;;ent Bond Funding FROM TO - Paqe 35 R-35 Downt�wn People Mover 96079-001 179,500 � None C-XX Gillette De..�olition ����� -DDL" 179,500 • Appropriation Analysis Current Amenc?ed � Appropriation Change Appropriation R-35 DPM 96079-001 750,500 -179,500 571,OOQ Gillette Aemolition -0- +179,500 179,500 and, be it, . ._ _. _ . __ ___ __ _ . __ _ _ � ' • - -- _ �����{'� W�+iY� — c�rv c�er+!c VfNK - FINANCE / � ` -CANAfZy - DEPARTMENT . ■, T•TV O�+ ` A T 1�7T ��L�TT T Council E�L:JF_ ._ MAYOF2 . \ 1 1 1 �.J�� 1 1♦ A l} 1� File � N0. Co���c�� �e��l�t���'l Presented F3y ___ Referred To _ Committee: Date Out of Committee By__ Date -- -- . .� FURTHER Rc.SOLVED, that such amendment transferring funds � from the Downtown People Mover project account is intended to be temporary, the identified $179,500 to be restored to the Downtown People Mover account by resolution of this Council transferring that amount from the 1980 u����-�--r�a� Debt - Capital Improvement Fund at such time as the Debt - Capital IMprovement Fund attains a balance . of $179,500. ' . �. . 'Th�St. Pau1 �.o;:g-Zange Capital Z:.�provement 1�3ud.ga; Co rnictee ze�cia�� thi�request on � (,-2�IQ) 1r1"lL.i�t� �'�/�'-��'and reco�a�etzds _ �' on � s.���a: � -�—� Da2a:�� !l�,_��� • APPROVED AS TO FUNDTNG: APPROVED: �� T �G�'��� , � Bernard J: Carlson Ri.chard E. Schroeder Director of Finance Budget Director . , : .; ' ` ` � ' . �:t,,;���� _ L���' 4'°"Aa:� . . CITY OF SAINT Pl�UL INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM ���,��� d �.'r-_ � { T�: Mark Senn FROM: Richard Schroeder DATE: September 3, 1980 SUBJECT: Financing of Gillette Hospital Demolition and Related Costs [.F •� Please be informed that the Council resolution pertaining to interim funding of Gillette Hospital demolition is currently �in the review process and is anticipated for City Council action late th_is September. The CIB Committee at their August 14, 1980 meeting chose � not to make any funding recommendation until after the Planning Commission recommendation on use of the site is known. The Planning Commission made their recommendtion on �ugust 22, 1980. (See attached. ) The CIB Committee will consider the m,atter again at their September 11, 1980 mee�?ng. It is ant�cipated tha-t the Finance Committee will cor_s�der the fundir.e resolution the week of September 23 and `hat the resolution will be on the September 30, 1980 Cou_ncil agenda. riark, the payment of existing demolition and maintenance related costs is moot, because no matter how City Council decides to reuse the land (housing vs park) we are liable for aIl existing costs. The current financing plan for the payment assumes the Gillette site will be used as a public park and thus debt capital monies will be used for acquisition and demolition costs and future grants and bonding will be � used for construction of �public improvements. If negative recommendations regarding proposed park use were made by both the Planning Cor�unission and the CIB Committee and they were enough to change City Council' s reuse proposal to housing, then it would be reasonable to assume that the demolition and maintenance costs would be finally .financed by the HRA Tax Levy Fund. Based on the above, please now pay the demolition contractor payments for his legally contracted work. Permanent financing ��ill be known when Council adopts a financing plan late this month or early this October. , RS/lm cc: Mayor Latimer George McMahon Tom PZeyer Greg Blees � ��� ,�;;��=`� �'IT� �3�;'' ��L�:�;'"n �..�,TJ'�. . '•"/ ` ll.�.�` 0�.��.''-.�v��.r �..T{ Z''L�{2!: �ir�� Ci�'l��{�i7.x. . � �� �. � f` ;(�`.,�'__�-�=1�`:::1 ����' �� S_;:. �;j�,:::. f 1 ` il n� •i1 . , :� � ::��:-��_:� \ Da�e : October 9, 1980 �' ��, ���_.. ��:��:�� . G � �'a� �'i�� � f T� � � � �' C� �� � _ ? 0 : �oint P��ai Ci�� ��u�ci� � "�: � �RO �I � COi�l�il'��'�� ��1 FINANCE, MANAGEMENT & PERSONNEL . George McMahon ; �hoi�mun, makES the folta��ting � reporf on C. F. � 4r-dinance . . (2) �x� �4esotufion . - � . - • � Oiher : - � ���.,.E : . - - - _ &t its meeting of Qctober . 9, 1980, the Finance Committee recommended approval of the following: � - . 1. Resolution revising Saint Paul' s Rehab Grant Guidelines to be consistent with the State ' s. � .. _ 2.. Resolutior� approving. financing for Gillette: Ho`spital demolition � � - from the Dowritown People Mover project. � _ . C�TY rI�1LL SE�'E:vTH FLOO2 5:111T PAIfI., Di€\�LSOTeS, S�f42 . 4� .._r 'J . . . . � r . . � ,,� �%�� ��NC� .. � , ;;�^!� ,..."��,�i��R ��� �;�Y `���`'T* °'L''°- ����`` ' �CITY OF SAI PAUL _=;� . _� ;--.,, '� �= DEPARTMEN OF FINANCE AND MANAGEMENT S VICES ;' iu�iiiii �� ;,�� A�� = DIVISION OF ACC ��'4i��. ���� �.`��` ,m,�„,,,,,� 34 City Hall ' GEORGE LATIMER /Saint Paul, Minn MAYOR t= jY,' -;= /'C � � gO — O E(, ,� �� � � � � 'JED �, . ,,,,, .. _. �. `+ !�t��;. M E M 0 R A N D U M MAYOR'S QF.�,�CF / T0: Gre upt FR� Bob Lang ��� �`-" " � � DATE: September 18, 1980 RE: Draft Council Resolution - financing Gillette Demolition from Downtown Pem�ple Mover project R35. � r,_,,, ,/�., , ;" � ' �� !J �- ,r.�r Suggested clarifications ` � " ` `��0�`/`��� page 1 - project �� and CIB Bond Fund ��' for"Gillette Demolition - 179,500". ,/ page 2 - . . . . transferring that amount from "Debt - Capital Improvement Fund; at such time as the Fund attains a balance of $179,500". This proposed Council Resolution was very confusing to Robert Trudeau, so we collaborated in the suggested clarifications. r� / `- C�- ' �- ,, / RGL/mt �-,�,c '"G � _ , ;i ,� � . �%' ,?S � � . �, ���,�° `, , � , � ��,- � ��,." - � � . _ _,._ � � J �o