274256 WNITE - CITV CLERK COURCIl ���U ����
PINK - FINANCE G I TY OF SA I NT PA U L
CANARV - DEPARTMENT
BLUE - MAVOR File NO•
, Council Resolution
;
Presented By
Referred To Committee: Date
Out of Committee By Date
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Saint Paul is responsible for providing
policy guidance in the annual preparation of the Capital Improvement
Budget; and
WHEREAS, interested citizens, meeting as a subcommittee of the 1979 Capital
Improvement Budget Process Ad Hoc Evaluation Comnittee, and the Capital
Allocation Comnittee of the Planning Cortmission have reviewed and refined
the policies adopted by City Council on January 4, 1979, as "Saint Paul .
Capital Allocation Policies: 1980"; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Comnission has reviewed, approved and recomnended
revisions to the policies for guiding capital allocation, as set forth in
"Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policies: 1981-1985"; and
WHEREAS, the Finance Committee of City Council has reviewed on January 7, 1980,
the recomnended revisions; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby adopts the ,
attached report, "Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policies: 1981-1985", for use I
in the Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget P�ocess during 1980 and ,
directs its distribution to the Neighborhood Contact List, the Long-Range '
Capital Improvement Budget Committee and its task forces, the Saint Paul
Planning Comnission and appropriate City staff persons.
� f
,
i
—
COUNCILMEN Requested by Department of: P�d1111111g d11d �
Yeas Nays ` I
����'� � Economic Development, Planning Division �
�n In Favor ,�
Hunt �
Levine __�___ Against BY
Maddox J. B. GA Y STOUT, Director
Showalter
�� �aN � o �98� Form Ap roved b City At rney
Adopted ouncil• Date �I
Ce ied Pass y C c.il Secretary BY '
i
t�pprov by 1�lavor: e �_�'� � 19vo Ap by Mayor f r mis n to Council i
B _ — By
F r� � :. �y .:;� '��.;.'1
Fu�;�i��i_� �,v�'��: 1 . I
i
, ��� ,` 7 - ' �
. .
��" ' CITY OF S�,I1�'T PALTL
,.
!�3;- OFFICE OF TIiE �I?iYOB
'ift L �� " �'r'c.:<;�::'e�
��' �
f4ia' `�'�`�. -.�.;.4�af�
�
-�° 347 CITY 73ALi,
GEORGE I..\TI�IE$ SAL\'T pALTL,�lI.�PTESOTA a510�
M.1]OR (612) 298-4323 '
December 31, 1979
President Joanne Showalter and
Members of the Saint Paul City Council
Re: "Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policy 1981-1985"
You received on December 28 copies of the Planning Commission's
recommendations regarding policies for guiding development of the
1981 Capital Improvement Budget and Program. I am sure that you
join me in Commending the Commission and the Planning Division
staff for their thoughtful work in revising and improving last
year' s policies. The product of that work is a brace of policies,
which, with very few exeptions, I heartily recommend for your
adoption. I believe that our City is fortunate to have a citizen-
based ' capital budge_�ing process whose overall guidance is so
concisely yet thoroughly stated. �
As you might expect, it is those "few exeptions" to which I now
direct my coimt►ents.
As a matter of principle, I believe capital allocation policy in �
our environment should provide guidance; I belive that budget-
setting should flow from that guidance, but that budgets should
not be set in advance of our citizen-based process of review. In
other words, 2 believe that policy should indicate what is and is
not acceptable, what is and is not to be encouraged. I think
dollar amounts within those parameters should be a product of the
Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process (UCIPBP) .
This permits all needs to be reviewed, and priorities to be estab-
lished based on those- needs, within the framework of adopted policy.
. Consistent with these .principles,� I recoaanenct that City Council
not establish minimum funding levels for projects or programs as
a matter of policy. In keeping with this position, I propose the
following changes in the document transmitted to you by the Planning
Commission (additions are underlined, deletions are dasi�ee� thrat�g�i) :
Page 20 of the document:
� Page 2
P5: NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AREA IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
. �
The Neighborhood Commercial Area Improvement Program she�t�d-
�e-fnne�ee�-et-e�p�e���ete��-��98;988-€e� is authorized for the
1981 Capital Improvement Budget. The selection of neighbor-
hood commercial areas eligible for public improvements will
.be made according to the Neighborhood Commercial Area Improve-
ment Guidelines adopted by the Saint Paul City Council on
November 8, 1979 as Council File Number 274002.
P6: RESIDENTIAL STREET PAVING PROGRAM
Given the positive impact residential street paving can have
on stabilizing and maintaining residential areas of the City,
the e�t�-����-�t��i�-tl�e-p�eg�ex�-et-a-a�a�xleue-e�-��.-9-�����c�-
}�er-yee�r Residential Street Paving Program is authorized for .
continued funding in the 1981 Capital Improvement Budget.
Page 21 of the document: �
P11: ECONOMIC BASE �EVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY FUND �
For the purpose of securing significant increases in the City's
- property tax and permanent employment bases, �t-�s-e�es�re��e-
te-l��e�get-�ggre��atete��-��86;999-�n-e-re9e��e--fein�� a reserve
fund is authorized for the 1981 Capital Improvement Budget and
Program to be called the "Economic Base Development Opportunity
Fund. " This fund will finance public incentives for new
private development or redevelopment opportunities which present
themselves outside the annual Unified Capital Improvement Pro-
gram and Budget Process (UCIPBP) cycle. Normally, all capital
improvements are budgeted and programmed during the annual
UCIPBP. However, it would be -appropriate to have a limited
amount of money available to permit short notice financing of
public improvements as incentives to private development.
Proposals for use of the Economic Base Development Opportunity
Fund will be required to meet the following conditions:
�=a. Each proposal must meet the leveraging and return on
investment requirements stated in Capital Allocation Policy
ID16.
b. Each proposal must be reviewed by the Planning Commission
for consistency with City plans and policies.
' c. Each proposal must be reviewed by the CIB Committee and
the advice of the Committee must be noted in the resolution
brought to City Council authorizing use of monies from the
fund.
. •
i ~ ' Page 3
d. Each proposal �must require immediate appropriation of
funds in order to assure timely implementation. (The
CIB Committee will recommend that proposals with an
implementation schedule that permits review through the
annual UCIPBP be reviewed as part of the next annual
UCIPBP cycle. )
I recognize that you are under an extremely difficult time con-
straint with respect to review and adoption of these policies.
� The Finance, Manangement and Personnel Committee is scheduled to
make its recommendations on "Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policy
1981-1985" January 7. I would be happy to discuss my proposed
changes with the Committee at that time if it would be hel�pful. In
the meantime, Gregory Haupt of my staff is at your disposal for
review of ox briefing on these policies.
Happy New Year to each of you.
Sincerely .
O 1�
Nfay
GL:dw �
•- iJ J.w _C Ll.L.� l..).t]..l:.1 i. .A. f l L� .�.�
. .f,�':-_-�'�� . . � oa:��:����c^.��: o_ ���r.��: c:�r_�- c:o�f��.Tr.. .
: !'!;- ��'�::���:'� - .
�, 'i�:� ;: ,=t f:;�f ' .
`;;-•��' ` �:,-: D��° : January 7, 1980
'��`- -->��
C � ��j �i; l i I � � � i i� � � I �
. . � -
i O : �c►inr °uut Ciiy CounciI � '`=
�i; Q �'�Ij = C O t1i'3 ii3[�1'G'� O�INANCE, MANAGEMENT AND PERSONNEL -
RUBY HUNT�; chai�men, mc�:es the �ot t�:�inc�
report on C.F. � [� OrcJinance -
. . � . . �7) Q Reso�e;'rion . • • �
. . . . [� O�h er � � - .
� . � - � � . �
i � �jL�' ;- . - - .
The Finance Committee, at i�s_meeting of January 7, 1980, recommended approval of '
the following: � . . . � �
1 . � Resolution �^egr.ading titles of Attorney I and II. (10484-RH) . . -
' 2. Resolution cE�anging class, specs and grade of ticense� Inves.tigator in the .
' Technical Group �3.L} of �Civil Service Rules �"rom its present specs and Grade .
�Grade 32) to Grade 34. (10495-RH). . .
� 3. Resolution establishi�ng title of Jet Sewer Cle�ner Operator in Section 3.G� � '
�Labor-Maintenance, Ungraded) � and also establishing class specs for ti.tle. (10494=RH
i � .
� ' 4.' Resolution .establishing rate of pay for new title.of Jet Sew�r .Cleaner Operator.
� � (10493-RH�. �
! � - R i ' - St. Paul Ca Ttal Allocation Policies .1981-1985. (10534-RH) . - �
' . 5. eSbfiu�ion � p _
6. Resolution a rovin ` allocation of s ecific funds for several Citfzen Participation
PP 9 P
" districts. ' ' � " " . ' . ' •
. 7. Resolution transferring line items for multi-famil'y rehab and .South of Front �
- projects. �
8. Resolution appointing�Theodore Collins, Ronald Smith, Robert White and Patrick
0'Neill as special counsel to represent Richard Rowan, Dave Weida, James Fecl�y and�
John Voita in defense of lawsuit commenced by Joseph Carchedi , City License Inspecti
Referred back to City Council with no action since Council disposed of this matter
on January 3, 1980.
FL�f t S��'Eti�l�: FI.C:):: C:11\l 1':1Ci.L, �:!�\:=5►f:t 5:
. '•i ....r
� ������ .
. SAINT PAUL
CAPITAL ALL4CATION POLICY
1981-1985 - .
,
�...
DIVISION OF PLANNlNG
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF SAfNT PAUL .
' SAINT PAUL CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICY: 1981-1985
APPROVED BY THE SAINT PAUL PLANNING COMMISSION:
Resolution Number 79-91
December 28, 1979
APPROVED AS :AMENDED BY THE FINANCE, MANAGEMENT
AND PERSONNEL COMMITTEE:
January 7, 1980
ADOPTED BY THE SAINT PAUL CITY COUNCIL:
DIVISION OF PLAN�ING
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
1101 CITY HALL ANNEX
25 WEST FOURTH STREET
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.0 INTRODUCTION
. CAPITAL IM ROVE EN S AND HE BUDGE
1.2 POLICY OVERVIEW Z
2.0 U�DERLYING RATIONALE 4
FOR SAINT PAUL'S CAPITAL
ALLOCATIONS POLICIES
2.1 GOALS AND PRINCIPLES 4
2.2 TYPES OF CAPITAL PROJECTS 5
2.3 TMPLEMENTATIDN OF GOALS AND PRINCIPLES 6
3.0 THE POLICIES
3.1 STRATEGY POLICIES
3.2 IMPLEMENTATION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES 19
3.3 PROJECT POLICIES
3.4 BUDGET POLICIES 22
4.0 POLICY IMPLEMENTATION 26
CREDITS
�
FIGURES TITLE PAGE
FIGURE 1 : TYPES OF CAPITAL PROJECTS 5
FIGURE 2: RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY CATEGORIES AND OBJECTIVES 10
FIGURE 3: PRIORITY AREAS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD BETTERMENT 11
FIGURE 4: POLICY MONITORING AND IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY
ii
1 .0 INTRODUCTION
"Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policy: 1981-1985" is the
City's fourth set of capital allocation policies. Each
year, the policies are reviewed and revisions which re-
f]ect the City's current goals , objectives , and limitations
are made. The policies are then forw arded to City Council
for its review and adoption.
The policies in this report will be used during the 1980
- Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process
(UCIPBP) to develop a capital improvement budget for 1981
and a program of tentative cor►mitments for 1982 through
1985. Individuals and groups that will use the policies
to prepare or to evaluate proposals include neighborhood
organizations, district councils, city operating depart-
ments, the Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) Comnittee and
its Task Forces, the Planning Commission, the Mayor and
City Council .
l .l CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Saint Paul s annual budget is divided into two documents:
AND THE CITY SUDGET an operating budget and a capital improvement budget.
Although the two budgets are developed through separate
processes, they are interrelated.
The operating budget covers "costs associated with governing
the city and providing services . These services range from
police and fire protection to libraries and park programs.
Approximately 80% of the City's revenue support these
services by paying for staff, maintenance of equipment and
buildings, necessary supplies , utilities, and other ongoing
expenses . These annual operating expenses generally fall
� into one of three categories:
- costs associated with continuing existing City services;
- costs associated with providing new or expanded City
services; and
- costs associated with operating or maintaining a new
physical asset.
The capital improvement budget funds physical improvements.
A capital improvement is usually a one-time expense re-
quired 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 additional City facilities; and
- expenditures for providing incentives to the private
sector to develop or redevelop assets which are not
owned by the City.
Although the two budgets are developed separately, it is
important to recognize the interrelationships between the
two. When the City constructs a new facility, the
operating budget must be able to cover the cost of main-
taining 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 af rehabilitation or replacement will be
required, affecting the capital improvement budget.
.2 POLICY OVERVIEW Legit�mate capita improvement nee s invar�ably excee
. the amaunt 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 determing the relative
priority of proposed projects and focusing capital ex-
penditures is required.
� The Capital Allocatfon Policies provide this focus and
direction by coordinating goals , plans and priority state-
ments into a set of policies specifically designed to
guide the capital improvement budgeting process.
A general framework for the policies is presented in
Chapter 2.0. This framework includes goals, overriding
principles and other supporting information for the
policies themselves.
The policies are found in Chapter 3.0, divided into four
sections: strategy policies, implementation and develop-
ment -policies , project policies , and budget policies.
Each palicy section provides a different 1eve1 of
direction for the capital inprovement budgeting process.
The strategy policies set general direction for the City's
capital improvement allocations based an the goals and
principles.
The implementation and development policies identify
charac�eristics which are important in evaluating capital
improvement proposals . The rating sheet developed by the
Capital Improvement Budget Comnittee for use by its Task
Force is directly related ta the implementation and
development policies.
The project policies focus more specifically on types of
projects that will be encouraged or discouraged. In some
cases , conditions for funding particular projects or types
of projects are indicated. In others , corr�nitment to
certain types of projects is identified.
2
The last policy section, the budget policies, addresses
the various sources of funds available to Saint Paul for
capital improvements. These policies identify condition�
which must be met in order to use the source of funds.
A final chapter addresses responsibility for monitoring
the policies. While 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
impiementation of the 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 reflected in varying degrees
throughout the policy document.
Z. GOALS AND PRINCIPLES For t e past severa years , two goa s have formed the
basis for many of Saint Paul 's activities , including
decisions on capita1 improvement expenditures. Adopted
� . by City Council and identified by Mayor Latimer as major
objectives of his administration, they are: �
- to strengthen the City's neighborhoods in order
to make them better places to live; and
- to strengthen the City's economic base in order
to provide jobs and services needed by residents
of the City.
During 1979, a third major goal emerged for the City.
This goal will also serve as a basis for the City's
capital improvement expenditure decisions:
- to consider energy use in all the City's activities
and to increase energy efficiency whenever possible.
However, capital funds are limited and needs are great.
As a result, the goals are supplemented by three general
principles which reflect the City's responsibilities and
opportunities. These principies are:
- � Criti�al needs which Gre necessary to protect basie
life, health, or public safety take precedence over
all other capital improvements.
- The City's primary responsibility is the provisian of
basic services . A steady corrmitment of capital improve-
ment 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. At the same time, some funds should
be made available to prevent deterioration and blight in
sound areas of the City and to meet the need for improve-
-ments which benefit the City as a whole.
4
2.2 TYPES OF CAPITAL Throughout t e po icies , capita improvement projects are
PROJECTS 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 SYSTEM
Transportation: roads, bridges, curbs, sidewalks , lights
signals, signs, skyway bridges, parking
facilities •
: Waste Removal : sanitary sewers , storm sewers, ponding
areas, solid waste facilities, recycling
facilities �
Water Supply: supply distribution system
Public Safety: police and fire stations
Leisure/Culture/Environment/Education: parks , parkways,
playgrounds , recreation centers, libraries
cultural facilities, trees , special use
facilities
Social Care: health centers , multi-service centers
SUPPORT SYSTEM
Administrative offices Training and educational facilities
Storage facilities Repair and maintenance facilities
Communication facilities
SUBSIDIES
Loans Grants/Matching Funds Acquisition/Cleararic����
The first two categories cover most of the City's capital
facilities . The service system is the largest of the
categories and capital improvements to the elements of
the various subs.ystems are a substantial responsibility
of the ci ty. .
5
The support system, 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 develo�ment or
redevelopment of physical assets which are not owned or
operated by the City. Housing and commercial reha�ilitation
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 IMPLEMENTATION OF n order to trans ate the goals and principles into
GOALS AND PRINCIPLES policies , concepts must be defined and priorities clarified.
The following sections present terms, definitions , and
rationales which are are important to an understanding of
the policies.
BALANCE AMONG OAL$ AND PR NCIPLES
The City of Saint Paul is committed to economic develapment,
� neighborhood betterment, and encouraging efficient energy
use. At the same time, its first responsibility is main-
taining basic levels of service. Fulfillment of this
� responsibility requires a steady commitment of capital
improvement funds for rehabilitating, replacing, and , in �
some cases , addang to City serv�ce and support system
facilities.
Still , capital needs which meet this responsibility exceed
avai]able resources. In order to choose among equally
worthwhile projects , impact on the City's goals comes into
consideration. Thus , several ends can be addressed with
one action.
• In order to help assure balance among goals and principles ,
policy guidelin2s 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 , limits to
the proportion of funds that should be spent in any one
area of the City are established to avoid excessive geo-
graphir. concentration of improvements .
6
These guidelines are supplemented by priorities for basic
sys�ems, economic development, neighborhood betterment
housing and energy efficiency. In combination, the policies
form the basis for Saint Paul 's capital allocation strategy.
PRIORITIES FOR BASIC SYSTEMS
There are many amenities that the City of Saint Paul could
offer. However, the desirability of new facilities must
be weighed against operating and maintenance costs . In
addition, adding new facilities may excessively divert
resources from necessary rehabilitation or replacement of
existing facilities which are physically deteriorated or
outmoded.
In some situations, additional facilities may be justified.
At the same time, it is important to keep a focus on the
rehabilitation and replacement of existing capital faeili-
ties. In the face of rising costs and decreasing resources,
the policies reflect the need for capital improvements to
the City's existing service and support systems by giving
these improvements priority consideration.
PRIORITIES FOR EC NOMIC DEUELOPMENT
7he 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 ser-
vices can be maintained without substantial increases in
� ..,
� - taxes. Specific ways to do this inc�ude broadening the
City's industrial base; strengthening the downtown;
strengthening neighborhood commercial areas; and promating
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 acyuisition or preparation, tax abatement
or special types of financing; and the use of municipal
pnlice powers , legislative authority, persuasive powers,
and technica1 assistance to neutralize stumbling blocks
to development.
Many of these tools are used by the City, the Port Authority,
and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Often, capital
expenditures are not required. However, when they are,
prinrities are established as a basis for selecting pro,jects.
7
In order to assure that projects oriented specifically
toward promoting economic development address the City' s
goals, special consideration is given to projects whlch
increase the number of jobs available to City residents.
In addition, projects are evaluated against leveraging
and return on investment guidelines to help assure that
the level o� private investment and the increase in
taxes which will result from City involvement justify
the expenditure.
The Capital Allocation Policies also establish priorities
for capital expenditures among competing downtown,
industrial , and neighborhood comnercial development needs.
For the past sev�ral years, emphasis has been placed on
neighborhood commercial areas , particularly projects which
complement neighborhood revftalization.
The reason for this emphasis is twofold. First,
industrial development has traditionally been the respon- .
sibility of the Saint Paul Port Authority. 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
Mayor (through the Oivision of Economic Development of the
Department of Planning and �Economic Development).
Downtown development and redevelopment is a key part of
Saint Paul 's economic health. However, downto4an develop-
ment is occurring at a rapid pace and, as developer
. activity increases, fewer incentives are required to
n - . - ��a�ntain the momentum. Ir. addi ��on, the City �s en�ourag- �
ing less reliance on general obligation bonds and
encouraging the use of other types of funding to leverage
private investment, permitting more attention to other
areas of the City.
Service system improvements are required in the downtowri
as in other areas of the City. Projects which will increase
the number of jobs or which meet leveraging and return un
investment guidelines and conform with the City's Econorr�ic
Deve�lo ment Strate may be funded, depending on the +
availabi ity 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
revitalization projects possible, some priorities must be
es�ablished. Generally, assistance should go to those
areas where there will be the greatest impact. Therefore,
in addition to considering the merits of each proposal ,
8
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.
RIORITIES FOR NEIGHBORHOOD BETTERMENT
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 to maintain them.
Providing the resources necessary to maintain private
property is the responsibility of individual property
owners. The City is responsible for maintaining the
service system elements it owns and operates .
However, 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 rein-
vestment and effecting measurable neighborhood improvement.
Second1y, a stea�y commitment of municipal resources should
be made available to other areas of the City to pre�ent
deterioration and to maintain their stability.
The greatest opportunity for effecting measurable improvement
is like1y 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 �f the metropolitan area. Those census tracts
where the median family income is less than 80% of the
metropolitan area are identified as low and moderate income
and, potentially, will require assistance.
Housing condition is based on the Residential Improvement
Strategy adopted by the City in 1977. The Resid�ntial
Improvement Strategy categorizes the C�ty's residential
areas on the asis of housing condition and establishe�
objectives for each area.
9
FIGURE 2 RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY CATEGORIES AND OBJECTIVES
- ,
� of Structures
Needing Major % of Structures
Repair or Needing Minor
Beyond Repair Repairs Objectives
Conservation I 4 or less 4 or less Surveillance
Conservation II 4 or less 5 to 19 Intensive
. Maintenance
Improvement I 5 to 19 20 to 81 Rehabilitation
Improvement II 20 to 39 80 or less Rehabilitation
and Neighborhood
Improvement
Improvement III 40 or more 80 or less Major Neighborhood
Improvement
;s;,x
Based on this information, �two broad types of areas are
identified. The priority areas for neighborhood betterment
are those areas which are low or moderate income and are
classified as Improvernent I or II. In addition, all
Improvement III areas are included in the priority classi-
fication. The map on page 11 gives a general indication
- . of these arPas of the City.
The Capital Allocation Policies establish guidelines to
preserve a balanced approach .for neighborhood betterment.
The policies also place emphasis on "neighborhood revitali-
zation", or a coordinated 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 improve-
ments would not only stablize that area, but also
provide �mpetus for improvements in the surrounding
bl ocks.
In Saint Paul , these areas are called "Identified
Treatment Areas" or ITA's . They are selected according
to guidelines adopted by City Council and, once selected,
receive special consideration for capital expenditure
al]ocations within the priority areas . In addition ,
Neighborhood Housing Service (NHS) areas are recognized
by the City as neighborhood revitalization.
10
FIGURE 3 PRIORITY AREAS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEP1ENTS*
—� —
I �;
� 304 �.. 306 .\ � 307.01 30702 ,
� ,� ( ; 303 �� 305 � �
301 ���� � �
ao2 (l �1_ ��":"::::,:;�:;I �s��—
�� ......;::;;; 3ti =
;:.�.::;::. �- '`3:..:::::.`•:�s:�>:. �
�`�:':`;: � �::. -::�`?`i::i � 3t0 's
�__;:;:-,-���•>:�i:�>it;`>" �1 309
�"'��__�J i�:::::::::::::>:•r:>:•>:' :fi�, x•>: .:•�'•.�
� '<i�:.+ �����
cI
�
�:�
L ??�j
:.�:�'�"�"';^��_.,-'?? ii$C
:;i�i�'' :i:'s�`r.:;:'''' :: 318 02�
'.319 I� t�i5i;i:i:;, �+S •:;:i ::v.,,y,, ( _ ;
�V• t
- � � :�'S<iti:iii::i}:�?;�
_ i:;::::::?:;: �'>��3;::`�%::�: 314 . •.:,:.k'4' .
�' �_ ;'.`�',- ..i.. '�''••`� .,;: :..� �'�.,t,'.ti�'-?,.c�. ;%y���.
. i.�.,��,.::�• :.,� _ ..+. 1
i "'�:i:-`=-_.k .. ::s: 318.01
_... ..y;`• .�i�;.:�::� �
:.:�:�r:� '�:�:�
...
€:�.. .�:<: �:::::::�:::�::::: ��
:::�'�`:azt� ��-_::.` ,,...:sr.:;,,;�;.: . ,..:�:..t.. ` �
� �.�:::•: 322I 323 i 324 � w� 331 I -- - -1_-� _�—'------
�...:;; � � .. .
- � t:>:�s�:� `:� � �::�:�:......•'•;;>., f ::r�:�_•:::�<'__
�_� �•,;:::, :. F=-°::—_;:;:�.::.-�;�:::':;:'•��,.�`,>.:=:i j;:3..'�.....: ::.i� 329 =t--r•
. .R.. 332 I ;- tii�-<•'r.�:'��::'•:'•i�:�:•':�•�:`•?ii2%;`;?. ::•:;:;:: �:>'i::•:•. 330;3`_;...�..� i.
� o•::•:::.;:•::::•::::::.:� :;r' • :<�,� I 345 � 346 347 �
�s .... �---- .. . • .. .. �
..:a,•..•.%s•;:�:�:'•�'� ��g ..
�==�:::>:;;::>:''� ;:�- � y;;
�t:`:"':���'�:;:;:; r�' .. ... ~�336 ��v�'3'37 � � f
333 �:�` F_.z:'«�:'3:c' ••x` ,%�: 344•� _
348 . .:: '�?,`{;�"!�::;r /,.•�. � �. " ----- ----
-E':::'' �: ;:�' i _�� -�=----
_ r...,.._ _:, i:3i3Bi:`_':::��?::9 • 3a2 _,i�-
-�-- � _ F::::�::>::;:��.. ��,� y.�- __
-'�::�`��:�����. 1 :::� :.�:�:::�;'�"ss�����:.::; �
350 I � �;::. '�r�;,•':;:� :�:.":;:'-:* :✓.:.>'� �
'.•i i;�.:..;;:. �" ��
� 353 ,,.• . ��`'���>�.:..', /� ,
349 �---- .. 356 3���`:'*�'3$�`.i• f
� � 352 __f��';1'."'. .:,•.2y•. �Y. , �`
, � I �__�__ .� i ,v;F:
,I 35t � � 357 �'`� �S / �` 36t I
r--�--�`-�--- ---�----t- --T— � ;;.r •�. � � � i
i. � � � i I :::�,f,',..t9.'�.�'..'�.c�,'��#i�� i .-� >....>:>::. -�o.
` i G:�i;, '
Fz � � � � :::;::::>:�,i� �f-:�:�:<•`::.>;37�s:;':.:`•>:::�:�::: :
! 362 �� 363 i 364 -� 365 ;i �i , 368 � ' � / . � � � � � '
� , , " ;
�
� i �' 36ti "� � � $�£��• �,"r 374
, .
_.. ..' .� ti-' �. 361 �� .... ..Y r,, i •:: .:: `
.
.
! i I
I '
,
� .... , ,. , _ __ . _ .. _ ._ ___ . . ,
t —_ _.. _-- �---.� .� i
r - - , ;
;, - ; �.. :
� � 375 j 367 �•\ '
i � ` . , I
. �\ . + . ,` ' . . � i.
i� , ' 1� , � � 1
..,� .. „ __ _" �' �� .
.376.�� I� � \ . .
!' , 3�so� y'� : Low and Moderate Income ` �
, � Improvements I and II Areas '��,
- :�� --
�Y�r'������ Improvement I I I Areas ..
r::,}:::::: �) . .. . ..
.,. ���..�.=�..�°,
*Residential Improvement Strategy classification of hous-
ing condition combined with the estimated 1977 median
family income of each census tract as a percentage ��f
the e�timated 1977 SMSA median family income.
il
One other type of area deserves mention. These are areas
which would require extensive public expenditure for wide-
spread acquisition 'and clearance before they would be
attractive for private reinvestment. Because these areas
would place a large burd�n 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 ass�'stance is encouraged.
� PRIORITIES FOR NOUSING AND ENERGY
The strategy section of the Capital Allocatian Policies
recognizes two additional areas which require special
consideration: housing and energy. Both are extremely
important to the City.
Although not a goal in and of itself, the availability
and type of housing has an effect on the neighborhood
. stability, economic development and energy consumption.
The Capital Allocation policies recognize this relation-
ship and include special consideration for projects which
will encourage the development of certain types of howsing.
These needs (rental housing, low cost housing for families ,
and alternatives to singie family housing) are based on
three considerations : a limited supply of land, spiraling
costs , and energy considerations.
Capital improvement budget priarities for energy efficiency
place an emphasis on existing facilities rather than new
activities . Although any new structure should be as energy
er�icien� as possibley our biggest challenge �•ail� be
assuring the most efficient use of energy with the City
we already have.
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 , developm�nt or redevelopment which encourages
high density use of public transportation lines or en-
courages alternatives to the automobile (particularly when
there are no passengers) wi11 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.
12.
� 3.0 THE PQLICIES
3.1 S�RaTEGY POLICIES The Strategy Po icies set genera irection or the City s
capital improvement expenditures within the framework of
the goals and principles. These policies are monitored
by the Planning Commission. The CIB Comnittee also moni-
tors Policies S1 , S2 and S6 which relate to the proposed
budget rather than to individual projects.
S1 : BALANCED GOALS
In order to assure a balanced approach to annual capital
. allocation, total budget allocations and tentative program
commitments for new projects should refiect the following
proportions:
_C�at�e or� � of Total New Allocations
Neigh orb— hood Improvement 25-350
Economic Development 20-30q
Citywide Service System
Improvement 35-45�
Support System Development 5-10%
Special grants , costs borne by other units of government
or the private sector, and assessments for the particular _
project will be excluded from this calculation. Special
grants will be monitored over time and taken into con-
sideration in determining the appropriate proportions .
during annual policy review.
S2: GEOGRAPNICAL DISTRIBUTION
Not more than 15% of the monies budgeted each year should
, . be.for projects in any one district. Special grants , , .
costs borne by other units of �government or the private
sector, and assessments for a particular project wi11 be
excluded from this calculation. The annual budgets should
be monitored over time to assure that the needs of all
areas of the City are being addressed.
S3: BASIC SYSTEMS
It is esira e for the City to address rehabilitation, or
rep]acement ifi necessary, of its capital facilities on a
system�tic basis. As a result, rehabilitation or replace-
ment of a service and support system will be given special
consideration if the Department's long-range capital
program indicates the need for the improvement during
the current time-frame.
S4: ECON0�IIC DEVELOPMENT
Tn ord�r to take advantage of opportunities to stimulate
privaiA investment and effect measurable economic improve-
ment, special consideration should be given to those
economic development projects which complement neighborhvod
revitaiization or wi �l create new jobs within the City of
Saint Paul .
�j
. . . . � .. . . . . _. .. . . .. . . .. . . . �
S5: NEIGHBORHOOD BETTERMENT
In order to take advantage of opportunities to stimulate
private investment and effect measurable neighborhood
improvement, special consideration should be given to
projects which support neighborhood betterment in areas ,
which have been recognized for concentrated neighborhood
revitalization. These areas include Identified Treat-
ment Areas a�d Neighborhood Housing Service Areas.
S6• BALRNCEO NEIGHBORNOOD BETTERMENT
� n or er to assure a ba ance approach toward neighborhood
betterment, new allocations of capital for subsidies and
service system improvements should follow this distribu-
tion:
q of Total Recor�nended � of
Area Residential Service/Subsidy
Blocks Capital
Low/Moderate income Areas
which are Improvement I 30� 60-75�
or IT; All Improvement III
Areas. � �
All Conservation I and
II Areas; Improvement I � 70% 25-40�
and II Areas which are
not Low/Moderate •Income
g7; HQUSING ALTERNATIVES
Given the: shortage of housing and limited land for new
development, special consideration will be given to
projects which will encourage the availability of rental
housing, publicly assisted housing for families, and
alternatives to traditional single family housing.
S8: ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Given the need for energy efficiency, special consideration
will be given to projects which will encourage efficient
energy use in existing buildings, high density use on
public transportation lines, or alternativ�s to single
passeng�r automobile use. New construction which is con-
sistent with City plans , policies and priorities will be
given special consideration if State building code e�ergy
requirements are exceeded and renewable energy sources
are used.
14
3.2 IMPLEMENTATION AND The Implementafiian and D�velopment Policies identify
DEVELOPMENT POLICIES criteria which are important cons�derations in se�lecting
capital improvements. Most of these policies are stated
in terms of "priorities" or °considerations" reflecting
their use as evaluation criteria. These policies are
monitored by the CIB Comnittee through its Task Force
Project Rating Sheet.
ID1 : SOURCES OF INPUT
T e prior�ties recorrmended by the following groups will �
be taken into consideration:
a. The recognized neighborhood organization in the
affected area
b. The City operating department that will operate
and maintain the proposed project
c. The Planning Commission
ID2: CONFORMANCE WITH CITY PLANS
Proposals selected for funding must conform with all
adopted City plans as determined by the Planning
Commi ss.i on.
ID3: CAPITAL ALLOCATION STRATEGY POLICIES
The Planning Corrmission 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 project will be used will be taken
into consideration. This means that:
a. The larger the population served, the greater the
consideration that should be given to the project.
b. The longer the life expectancy of the project, the
greater the consideration that should be given to
the project.
c. Projects which can be used year-round will be given
greater consideration than those which can only be
used seasonal1y.
ID5: JOINT USE
EssentiaT facilities which can be financed and operated
by the City and another agency will be given special cot►-
siderat�on if:
a. they can be constructed and operated efficiently and
effectively at less cost than separate facilities.
b . they are consistent with City plans , policies and
j�riorities :
�z.
ID6: DUPLICATION OF SERVICES
Projects which duplicate existing public or private
services generally available to the same population
should not be funded.
ID7: CONTINUATION` PROJECTS �
The fun ing needs o capital improvement projects which
received a prior budget appropriation for construction
plans or a construc�ion phase normally have priority over
new projects and annual programs. Preliminary design and
acquisition constitute a prior appropriation only if
phased funding for construction plans and/or construction
phases have been approved and included in the capital
improvement program of tentative future commitments.
ID8: SERVICE AND SUPPORT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
Maintaining basic City services sha be a high priority.
This means that, in evaluating the merits of each proposal :
a. Rehabilitation, or replacement if rehabilitation is
not feasible, of obsolete City facilities which are
required to maintain tfie basic level of service for
the service or support .system is first priority.
b. Additions to existing facilities and construction of
new facilities which will bring an area up to a level
of service adopted in a city plan specifically for
that service or support system is second priority if
policy does not prohibit such funding.
c. Additions to existing City facilities and new City
faci;ities �v��ich are not specified in a Ci�i.y 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 IMPROVEMEN7S
Subsidy al ocations should be directly related to the
goais and objectives of the City. This means that:
a. Subsidy allocations which are directly related to
concentrated neighborhood or comnercial revitalizatian
areas will be given first consideration.
b: Subsidy allocations which will primarily benefit low
or moderate income people in other areas of the City
or will directly result in development or redevelop-
ment will be given second consideration.
c. Other subsidy allocations wiil be given last
consideration.
16
ID10: ACQUISITION
Acquisition is not encouraged. However, projects which �
involve acquisition may be given the same priority as
projects which do not involve acquisition if:
a. The acquisition is related ta public development or
reuse and:
1 ) right-of-way or easements are necessary;
2)- the parcel(s) have been previously identified
for conversion to park use if they become
available;
3) the parcel(s) have tax exempt status and a use
which is consistent with City plans , policies,
and priorities has been clearly identified; or
� 4) special grant funding has been cor�nitted.
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 t—Fiat
development will occur.
IDII : PROGRAMMING AND PHASING
Pro�ects shou d be a equately programned and phased. '
This means that:
a. Projects which are justified by City plans, policies,
and priorities and are coordinated with other improve-
ments, 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,
comp1eting 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 capita1 improvement program and
will constitute a tentative comnitment subject to City
Council adoption of a budget appropriation for the
project.
ID12: PUBLIC ENVIRONM�NT AND HISTQRIC PRESERVATION
Projects which can be justified in terms of the City's plar►s
priorities and policies and will preserve or enhance Sair7t
Paul 's naturai environment or preserve structures or sites
which the City Council has determined to be historically
significant, will be encourayed. Conversely, projects
which will negatively impact on the environment or histor�i•
preservation will be discouraged. 7he natural environment
includes air� and water quality and noise levels.
17
ID13: ENERGY
The impact of all City pr�jects on nonrenewable energy
supplies will be considered . In evaluating the merits
of each proposal :
a. Projects which will significantiy reduce energy
use wil] be given a high priority;
b. Projects which wi11 significantly increase energy
consumption will be given a low priority.
ID14: IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET
It �s esirab e to a ocate City capital to projects
which wi1T not result in a net increase in operating
and maintenance expenses. At a minimum, this means that
in evaluating the merits of each proposal :
a. Projects which wi11 result in a significant �
decrease in operating and maintenance expenses �
will be given a high priority.
b. Projects which will result in significant increase
in City operating and maintenance costs will be
given low priority.
ID15: IMPACT ON CITY REVENUES
' It �s desirable to al ]ocate City capital to projects which
will not reduce revenue ta 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 r.e�luce reven��a to the City G�tz11 be
given a low priority
ID16: PRIVATE INVESTMENT
Capita �mprovement proposals which leverage 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: hlinimum leveraging is normally
:6 each dol ar should leverage at least 6 private
dollars) . This ratio may be as low as 1 :3 if the
t . project is directly associa�ed with concentrated
neighborhood revitalization efforts, if the project
will result in additional permanent jobs within
St. Pau1 , or if the project is directly related to
conservation of nonrenAwable energy resources or
development of energy alternatives.
b. RE7UR�a ON INVESTMtN7: The City's annual return in the
form of property taxes should be, at a minimum, 12q
unl�ss 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 .
18
ID17: GRANTS
Special consideration should be given to capital requests
which will be used as a match for a grant from another
unit of government or the private sector if the proposed
project is consistent with adopted City plans , policies,
and is a priority of the City.
3.3 PROJECT POLICIES T e Pro�ect Po �cies ocus more speci �ca y on types of
projects that will be encouraged or discouraged for the
next budget (1981) and/or program of tentative corm�itments
(1982-1985) . In some cases, funding limits or criteria
for funding are established. The CIB Committee monitors
these policies with the assistance of the Budget Section
or the Planning Commission in certain cases.
P1: DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER
� If the City proceeds with the Downtown People Mover not
more than $6.0 million in Capital Improvement Bonds will
be programmed to meet the costs of the project.
P2: TREES
Di es ased shade tree removal will no longer receive a
special capital allocation. Reforestation should continue
at approximately 5,000 trees per year through 1984.
P3: CITY FUNDING OF SKYWAYS
a. Funds will not be budgeted for skyways unless the
skyway is of public benefit and part of a firm
package for development or redevelopment of the
benefitting buildings.
b. Normally, the City will fund no more than 5�q of
� skyway bridge construction. The developers and/or
property owners of benefitting buildings shall fund
the entire cost of skyway construction within their
buildings.
c. The City will not provide funds for the operation or
maintenance of skyways unless the City is the owner/
operator of a benefitted building.
d. Proposed skyways must be in conformance with the
guidelines adopted by the Saint Paul City Council
. on as Council File Number
to be considered for funding. .
P4: IDENTIFIED TREATMENT AREAS
No new IdentTfied Treatment Areas ( ITA's) will be initiated
during 1981 unless an existing ITA is discontinued 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
Julv 27 , 1978 , as Council File Number 271322.
19
P5: NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
The Neighborhood Co►r�iercial Area Impravement Program is
authorized for the 1981 Capital Improvement Budget. The
selection of neighborhood commercial areas eligible for
public improvements will be made according to the Neighbor-
. hood Corrmercial Area Improvement Program Guidelines adopted
by the Saint Paul City Council on Novemb�r 8 , 1979, as
Council File Number 274002.
P6: RESIDENTIAL STREET PAVING PROGRAM
Given the posit�ve impact resicTential street paving can
have on stabilizing and maintaining residential areas of
the City, Residential Street Paving Program is authorized
for continued funding in the 1981 Capital Impravement
Budget.
P7: SITE PREPARATION FUND
The City wi 1 consider budgeting funds for a site preparation
fund under the following conditions:
a. The fund will only be used to prepare tax-forfeited
sites owned by the City or formerly acquired by the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority for clearance.
b. Site preparation will be undertaken only if there is
a firm proposal from a developer for purchasing the
parcel once it is prepared.
c. Administrative and operating costs are not paid from
the fund.
d. Initial funding does not exceed $50,000.
P8: NEW FACILITIES
Given the City' s fiscal constraints, certain types of
L • projects will not be init-iated in 1981. These projects
include:
a. Facilities to house programs or services which are
nat operated by the City; and
b. Facilities to house or provide new services operated
or maintained by the City which are not identified
as a priority need in a City plan , incl.uding swimning
pool s'.
P9: ANNUAL PROGRAMS
Annua pragrams must have clear eligibility criteria
' available for review and consistent with applicable city
plans and capital allocation policies if they are to be
considered for funding. An annual program is a lump sum
allocation to an operating department or agency. The
funds are allocated to specific activities by the depart-
ment or agency as eligible uses arise.
P10: TAX ABATEMENT
Tax abatement is discouraged as a development incentive.
?n
P11 : ECONOMIC BASE DEVELOPMEN7 OPPORTUNITY FUND
For the purpose of securing significant increases in the
City's property tax and permanent employment bases , a
reserve fund is authorized for the 1981 Capital Improve-
ment Budget and Program to be called the "Economic Base
Development Opportunity Fund." This fund will finance
public incentives for new private development or
redevelopment opportunities which present themselves
outside the annual Unified Capital Improvement Program
and Budget Process (UCIPBP) cycle. Normally , all capital
improvements are budgeted and programmed during the annual
UCIPBP. However, it would be appropriate to have a limited
amount of money available to permit short notice financing
of publ9c improvements as incentives to private development.
Proposals for use of the Economic Base Development
Opportunity Fund will be required to meet the following
conditions:
a. Each proposal must meet the leveraging and return on
investment requirements stated in Capital Allocation
Policy I016.
b. Each proposal must be reviewed by the Planning
Commission for consistency with City plans and
policies.
c. Each proposa1 must be reviewed by the CIB Cor�mittee
and the advice of the Comnittee must be noted in the
resolution brought to City Council authorizing use
of monies from the fund.
d. Each proposal must require immediate appropriation of
� � .� , <<, . -, funds in order �o assu�e timely impiementation. (The _
CIB Comnittee will recommend that proposals with an
implementation schedule that permits review through
the annual UCIPBP be reviewed as part of the next
annual UCIPBP cycle.)
P12: ENERGY RETROFIT �
The City wi consider an annual program to retrofit City-
� owned buildings with energy-saving features during 1981-1985. �
P13: CAPITAL MAINTENANCE '
An annua program to address capital maintenance of City- ;
owned buildings is authorized for the 1981 budget and 1982-
1985 program of tentative commitments. Capital maintenance '
is the replacement, renovation, remodeling and/or retro-
fitting of the structural parts and/or service system
components of a building made necessary by obsolescence,
wear beyond economic repair or catastrophic damage resulting
from the acts of man or nature. A building's structural
parts are its footings , foundation walls , beams, joists ,
columns , load bearing walls , exterior facade, floors , ceilings,
roof and roofings. A building 's service system components
are its plumbing, electrical distribution , communications ,
heating, ventilation and air conditioning svstems.
21 _ _ - -
The annual Capital Maintenance Program funding request is
to be submitted to the Budget Section for inclusion in
the annual Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget
Process (UCIPBP) by the Division of Property Management
in accordance generally with provisions of 5.02(2)(b) and
57.06 of the Saint Paul , Minnesota Administrative Code.
(To support the annuaZ UCIPBP funding reqv.est, the
Division of Property Management is to soZicit capitaZ
maintenance project proposals from the directors of the
operating departments of city gover�rvnent. However, the
aZZocation to each department of any CapitaZ Maintenance
Program funds appropriated by City CounciZ in cu�t adopted
CapitaZ Improvement Budget wiZZ be a �joint deeision by
the directors of the operating departments meeting as a
group under the coordinatian and u�ith the advice of the
Division of Propertx� Management. The Maz�or wiZZ imple-
ment this decision as he sees fit through the introduction
in Citz� Couneil of an appropr�ia�e resolution enzonerating
the pro�jects to be ineZuded in the program.)
3.4 BUDGET AND FINANCE ?he Budget and Finance Po icies identify the var�ous
POLICIES sources of funds available _for capital improvements and
conditions which must be met in order to use them. The
Budget Section of the Mayor's Office is responsible for
developing these policies and the CIB Corrmittee and the
Budget Section of the P�layor's Office monitor these
policies.
s Bl : FUND SQURCES
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 under the City's
Special Assessment Policy, adopted on December 21 ,
1976 as Council Fi1e No. 268302, will be so assessed.
b. All street improvement projects on Municipal State
Aid, County Aid, or Minnesota Trunk Highway routes
will be considered for funds primarily with monies
allocated to the city specifically for those routes.
c. Capital improvements which are 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.
22
d. Capital improvements which could be financed with
specific banding authority may be so recommended
if Gity Council has indicated its intention to
utilize such authority. Capital improvements which
can be funded with revenue bonds will be so funded.
e. Capital improvements and programs eligible for CDBG
funding will be so funded; and
f. Capital �improvements which cannot be financed with
monies governed by paragraphs (a) through (e) will
be considered for Capital Improvement Bond funding.
B2: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM
Projects proposed for funding through the CDBG Program
must meet federal regulations for both eligibility and
fundability. Essentially, this means that: •
a. Only projects which serve low and moderate income
people or eliminate slums and blight can be con-
sidered.
b. At least 80% of the total CDBG dollars allocated ta
projects must serve low and moderate income people
and be located in census tracts which meet the
Department of Housing and Urban Development's
definition of low or moderate income. Specific
emphasis should be placed on the Identified Treat-
ment Areas.
c. The remainder of the funds allocated to projects
may address slums and blight not directly
benefitting �ow or moderate income �eople.
B3: BOND FINANCING
a. The total amount of general obligation bonds issued
by the City should not exceed an annual average of
$10.5 million for the years 1981-1985. Capital
Improvement Bonds , Water Pollution Abatement Bonds ,
and Tax Increment General Obligation Bonds which are
issued in 198T will reflect this �10.5 million
floating average identified in the City's debt
policy.
b. The City will issue no more than $7.0 million in
Capital Improvement Bonds in 1981 . When preparing
the tentative Capital Improvement Program, th� sum
of Gapital Improvement Bonding and Tax Increment
Genera7 Obligation Bonding for financing future
years ' projects should not exceed $7,000,000 in 1982,
$7,000,000 in 1933, $7,000,000 in 1984, and $7,000,000
in 1985. It is anticipated that the remaining general
obligation bonding autharity will be used for Water
Pollutior� Abatement Sonds for the Thomas-Da1e Sewer.
23
c. Because of the unanticipated high cost of Phases I
and II of the St. Anthony Hill Sewer Rehabilitation
P.roject (Thomas-Dale Sewer) , alternatives to the
Phase III deep tunnel will be examined and evaluated
before the City undertakes preparation of detailed
construction plans for Phase III (Western Avenue
Tunnel);
(The Z978 cost estimates for the Thomas-DaZe Seraer �
Pro,ject pro�eeted a totaZ cost of $Z6 million to be
spread over a four-year period - Z979 thraugh Z982.
Hatvever, actuaZ bids for Phase I canstruetion ex-
, eeeded the Z978 eost estimate by 40%. Without
ud�justircg for infZation, this brings the totaZ
estimated eost of the pro�ject to $24 million in Z979
dollar vaZues. Excessive costs for sewer tzazneling
mandate reconsideration of design aZtex�natives for
the secand haZf of the pro�ect.J
d. The City does not intend to issue in 1981 general
obligation bonds for new project commitments under
special state authorizations for the Cit�'s resi-
dential or commercial rehabilitation programs,
parking faeilities, or urban renewal . City Council
initially approved a budget of $925,000 in Automabile
Parking Facilities Act general obligation bonding for
the Highland Parking Ramp. If the general obligation
bonds are not issued in 1980, they may be considered
for issuance in 1981 if revenue bonds cannot legally
be used to finance the project and if the project is
still supported<-by the Niahland Business Corrmunity.
e. The use of revenue bonds ta finance public improvement
commitments for economic development projects is pre-
ferred over the use of the City's general obligation �
bond financing. While Port Authority revenue bond
financing is a highly desired method of financing
economic development incentives, the City may consider
using tax increment bonding or City revenue bonding
in 1981 for the following projects:
1) Block C; Minnesota Mutual Life Skyway Bridge ($650,OQ0)
2) Previous corranitted 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 ($3,OOO,UOD)
4 Highland Parking Ramp i� legally possible ($i ,700,0UU)
5 Mortgage Revenue Bonding for Housing Program
6) Construction of sewer projects that eliminate treatme►it
costs for storm water when the annual treatment cost
amounts exceed debt service on bonds issued to finance
construction of new sewers.
24
f. Projects proposed for funding with tax increment bonds
(whether general obligation or revenue) must meet th�
requirements of Policy B4 before City Council will
consider issuing bonds.
B4: TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
a. Revenue Projections by Consultant: Revenue projections
for all tax increment proposals should be analyzed by
an outside financial consultant rather than a bond
consultant.
b. Debt Service From Bond Sale ProcQeds: Debt service
for all tax increment projects will be paid from bond
proceeds for no more than the first three years of
project implementation when no tax increments or other
project revenues are generated. .
c. Other Costs Funded from Bond Sales Proceeds: A11 costs
relating to any tax increment proposals should be
funded with bond proceeds and included in the justifi-
cation of each proposal . These costs include, but are
not limited to: design, acquisition and relocation,
construction, bond cons��ltant, bond counsel , financial
consultant and staff time.
d. All State requirements as set forth in Minnesota Statutes
must be met.
B5: REHABILITATION LOAN FUNDS
� - ' City bond monies and CDBG monies` used to provide residential
rehabilitation loans shall be recycled, as the original
loans are repaid according to the guidelines adopted by the
Saint Paul City Council . Monies used to provide commercial
rehabilitation loans shall be recycled to administer the
program and provide new loans as the original loans are
repaid.
25
4.0 POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
Saint Paul 's Capital Allocation Policies will be effective
only �f they are carefully monitored. While City Council
has final responsibility and authority for implementing
the policies , monitoring must occur throughout the pro-
posal review and budget preparation process.
Monitoring responsibility is assigned to three group�:
the Planning Commission, the CIB Comnittee, and the dudget
Section of the Mayor's .Office. In some instances , the
responsibility is shared. In others , input from others
may be required, but the responsibility for assuring
implementation falls to one of these three groups.
Figure 4 indicates where responsibility for monitoring
implementation of each policy rests in the project review
and budget preparation process.
FIGURE 4: POLICY MONITORING AND IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY
Planning CIB Mayor's Office
Comnission Cormittee Budget Section
Strategy
Policies All S1 , S2, S6 --- "
(S1-S8)
Implementa-
tion and
Development ID2; I�3 All ---
Policies
(ID1-ID17)
Project P1 through P3,
Policies P4, P5, P9 All P6 through P8,
(P1-P13) P10 through P13
Budget _
Policies --- B1 through 64 All
(B1-65)
26
CREDITS
PLANNING COMMISSION Thomas Fitzg�bbon , Chairman Dav�d Lanegran
Liz Anderson Joseph Levy
Clark Armstead *David McDonell
*James Bryan **Jane Nelson
*Carolyn Cochrane *Martha Norton
Sam Grais *Joseph Pangal
*Rev. Glen Hanggi Gayle Surrmers
Sr. Alberta Huber Janabelle Taylor
*David Hyduke Adolf Tobler
Nelsene Karns Robert Van Haef
*Capital Allocations Committee -
**Comnittee Chair
ADMINISTRATION Gary Stout, Director, DPED
AND POLICY James J. Bellus, Planning Administrator
DIRECTION Ed Warn, Principal Planner
AQ HOC CITIZEN Toni Baker
ADVISORY SUB- Fran Boyden
COMMITTEE Betty McLaughlin
Joseph Pangal
Amos Roos
�RESEARCH AND Tamsen Aichinger, Planner
PLANNING Gregory Blees, Budget Analyst �
Gregory Haupt , Budget Analyst
.,
.
y ` ��'��d.,��
SAINT PAUL :
,
,
CAPITAL ALL�CATlON P4L��Y
1981-1985 - �
_ . _ w_._ __ -- _--.- . __ --_ . _ .. _ .
: � �� . . .
,
DIVISION OF PLANNING
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF SAINT PAUL .
SAINT PAUL CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICY: 1981-1985
APPROVEO BY THE SAINT PAUL PLANNING COMMISSION:
Resolution Number 79-91
December 28, 1979
APPROVED AS AMENDED BY THE FINANCE, MANAGEMENT '
AND PERSONNEL COMMITTEE:
January 7, 1980
ADOPTED BY THE SAINT PAUL CITY COUNCIL:
DIVISION OF PLANNING
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
1101 CTTY HALL ANNEX
25 WEST FOURTH STREET
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.0 INTRODUCTION
. CAPITAL IM R VE ENTS AND HE C BUDGE
1 .2 POLICY OVERVIEW 2
, �
.0 UPIDERLYING RATIONALE 4
FOR SAINT PAUL'S CAPITAL
ALLOCATIONS POLICIES
2.1 GOALS AND PRINCIPLES 4
2.2 TYPES OF CAPITAL PROJECTS 5
2.3 IMPLEMENTATION OF GOALS AND PRINCIPLES 6
3.0 HE POLICIES �
3.1 STRATEGY POLICIES
3.2 IMPLEMENTATION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES 15
3.3 PRCJECT POLICIES 19
3.4 BUDGET POLICIES 22
4.0 POLICY IMPLEMENTATION - 26
CREDITS
i
FIGURES TITLE PAGE
FIGURE 1 : TYPES OF CAPITAL PROJECTS 5
FIGURE 2: RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY CATEGORIES AND OBJECTIVES 10
FIGURE 3: PRIORITY AREAS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD BETTERMENT 11
FIGURE 4: POLICY MONITORING AND IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY
ii
1 .0 INTRODUCTION
"Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policy: 1981-1985" is the
City's fourth set of capital allocation policies. Each
year, the policies are reviewed and revisions which re-
flect the City's current goals , abjectives , and limitations
are made. The policies are then forw arded to City Council
for its review and adoption .
The policies' in this report will be used during the 1980
Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process
(UCIPBP) to develop a capital improvement budget for 1981
and a program of tentative corrmitments for 1982 through
. 1985. Individuals and groups that will use the policies
to prepare or to evaluate proposals include neighborhood
organizations, district councils, city operating depart-
ments, the Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) Committee and
its Task Forces , the Planning Comnission, the Mayor and
City Council .
l .l CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Saint Paul s annual budget is divided into two documents: �
AND THE CITY BUDGET an operating budget and a capital improvement budget.
Although the two budgets are developed through separate
processes, they are interrelated.
The operating budget covers 'costs associated with governing
the city and providing services . These services range from
police and fire protection to libraries and park programs.
Approximately 80% of the City's revenue support these
services by paying for staff, maintenance of equipment and
buildings, necessary supplies , utilities, and other ongoing
_ expenses . These annual operating expenses generally fall
into one of three categories:
- costs associated with continuing existing City services;
- costs associated with providing new or expanded City
services; and
- costs associated with operating or maintaining a new
physical asset.
The capital improvement budget funds physical improvements.
A capital improvement is usually a one-time expense re-
quired to upgrade or add to the physical assets {land and
buildings) of the City. Capital improvement expenditures
can aiso be divided into three generai categories:
- expenditures for rehabilitating or replacing obsolete
City facilities;
- expenditures for building additional City facilities; and
- expenditures for providing incentives to the private
sector to develop or redevelop assets which are not
ownec� by the City.
Although the two budgets are developed separately, it is
important to recognize the interrelationships between the
two. When the City constructs a new facility, the
operating budget must be able to cover the cost of main-
taining 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.
.2 POLICY OVERVIEW Legitimate capita improvement nee s invariably excee
. 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 determing the relative
priority of proposed projects and focusing capital ex-
penditures is required.
The Capital Allocation Policies provide this focus and
direction by coordinating goals, plans and priarity state-
ments 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, ouerriding
principles and other supporting information for the
policies themselves.
The policies are found in Chapter 3.0, divided into four
sections: strategy policies, implementation and develop-
ment policies , project policies , and bud�et policies.
Each policy section provides a different 7eve1 of
direction for the capital inprovement budgeting process.
The strategy policies set general direction for the City's
capital improvement allocations based on the goals and
principles .
The implementation and development policies identify
charac�ertstics which are important in evaluating capital
improvement proposals . The rating sheet developed by the
Capital Improvement Budget Committee for use by its Task
Force is directly related to the implementation and
development policies.
The project policies focus more specifically on types of
projects that will be encouraged or discouraged. In some
cases , conditions for funding particular projects or types
of projects are indicated. In others , commitment to
certain types of projects is identified.
2
The last policy section, the budget policies, addresses
the various sources of funds available to Saint Pau1 far
capital improvements, These policies identify conditions
which must be met in order to use the source of funds.
A final chapter addresses responsibility for monitoring
the policies. While City Council has final responsibility
for adopting the capital improvement budget, the Planning
Commission, the CIB Committee, and the Budget Section of
the Mayor's Office share responsibility for monitoring
implementation of the policies during the budget review
process .
3
2.0 UNOERLYING RATIONALE FOR SAINT PAUL'S '
CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICIES
Saint Paul 's Capital Allocation PolicTes are based on
goals and principles established by the City. These
goals and principles are reflected in varying degrees
throughout the policy document.
2. GOALS AND PRINCIPLES For the past severa years , two goa s ave formed t e
basis for many of Saint Paul 's activities , including
� decisions on capital improvement expenditures. Adopted
. � .: `�-by City Council and identified by Mayor Latimer as major
objectives of his administration, they are:
- to strengthen the City's neighborhoods in order
to make them better places to live; and
� - to strengthen the City's economic base in order
to provide jobs and services needed by residents
of the City.
During 1979, a third major goal emerged for the City.
This goal will also serve as a basis for the City's
capital improvement expenditure decisions:
- to consider energy use in all the City's activities
and to increase energy efficiency whenever possible.
However, capital funds at�e limited and needs are great.
As a result, the goals are supplemented by three general
principles which reflect the City's responsibilities and
opportunities. These principles are:
- - �rit;�.al needs �rhich a�e nece�sary to protect bas�c
life, health, or public safety take precedence over
all other capital improvements.
- The City's primary responsibility is the provisian of
basic services. A steady commitment of capital improve-
ment funds is required to maintain the efficiency and
effectiveness of these basic service systems.
- When choices exist, the �bility of a capital improvement
to stimulate private investment and effect measurabie
neighborhood or economic improvement should be taken
into consideration. At the same time, some funds should
be made available to prevent deterioration and blight in
sound areas of the City and to meet the need for improv�-
ments which benefit the City as a whole.
4
2.2 7YPES OF CAPITAL Throughout the po icies , capita improvement projects are
PKOJEC7S 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 SYSTEM
� � Transportation: roads, bridges, curbs, sidewalks , lights
signals, signs, skyway bridges, parking
facilities �
: Waste Removal : sanitary sewers , storm sewers; ponding
areas, solid waste facilities, recycling
facilities
Water Supply: supply distribution system �
Public Safety: police and fire stations
Leisure/Culture/Environment/Education: parks , parkways,
playgrounds, recreation centers, libraries '
cultural facilities, trees , special use
facilities
Social Care; health centers , multi-service centers
SUPPOR? SYSTEM
Administrative offices Training and educational facilities '�
Storage facilities Repair and maintenance facilities I
Communication facilities '
SUBSIDIES
Loans Grants/hlatching Funds Acquisition/Clearanc� ; ,
�..� �
The first two categories cover most of the City's capital
facilities . The service system is the largest of the
categories and capital improvements to the elements of
the various subsystems are a substantial responsibiiity
of the cit.y. ,
5
� The support system, 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 commercial rehabilitat7�n
loans and grants, acquisition of substandard structures , and
matching funds to develop parks or playgrounds which are ��ot
part of the City's park system are all examples of subsid�es.
2.3 IMPLEMENTATION OF In order to translate the yoals and principles into
GOALS AND PRINCIPLES policies , concepts must be defined and priorities clarified.
The following sections present terms, definitions , and
rationales which are are important to an understandTnq of
the policies.
BAL NCE AMONG GOALS AND PRINC PLES "�
The City of Saint Paul is committed to econonzic development,
neighborhood betterment , and encouraging efficient energy
use. At the same time, its first responsibility is main-
taining basic levels of service. Fulfillment of this
responsibility requires a steady commitment of capital
improvement funds for rehabilitating, replacing, and , in �
some cases , adding to City service and support system
facilities.
Still , capital needs which meet this responsibility exceed
available resources. In order ta choose among egually
worthwhile projects , impact on the City's goals comes into
consideration. Thus , several ends can be addressed with
one action.
In order to help assure balance among goals and principles ,
policy guidelines establish the relative proportion of
funds that should address each of four areas : citywide
service system improvements , service system or subsidy
projects in support of economic development, service system
or subsidy projects in support of neighborhood betterment,
and support system improvements. In addition, limits to
the proportion of funds that should be spent in any one
area of the City are established to avoid excessive geo-
graphic concentration of improvements.
6
These guidelines are supplemented by priorities for basic
systems, economic development, neighborhood betterment
housing and energy efficiency. In combination, the policies
form the basis for Saint Paul 's capital allocation strategy.
PRIORITIES FOR BASIC SYSTEMS
;
There are many amenities that the City of Saint Paul could
offer. However, the desirability of new facilities must
be weighed against operating and maintenance costs . In
addition, adding new facilities may exeessively divert
resources from necessary rehabilitation or replacement of
existing facilities which are physical1y deteriorated or
outmoded.
In some situations, additional facilities may be justified.
At the same time, it is important to keep a focus on the
rehabilitation and replacement of existing capital facili-
ties. In the face of rising costs and decreasing resources,
the policies reflect the need for capital improvements to
the City's existing service and support systems by giving
these improvements priority consideration.
PRIORITIES FOR EC NOMIC DEVELOPMENT
7he 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 ser-
vices can be maintained without substantial increases in
� taxes. Speeific ways to do thi� include broadsning 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.
Many of these tools are used by the City, the Port Ruthority,
and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Often, capital
expenditures are nat required. However, when they are,
priorities are established as a basis for selecting project�.
7
In order to assure that projects oriented specifically
toward promoting economic development address the City' s
goals , special consideration is given to projects which
increase the number of jobs available to City residents.
In addition , projects are evaluated against leveraging
and return on investment guidelines to help assure that
the level of private investment and the increase in
taxes which will result from City involvement justify
the expenditure.
The Capital Allocation Policies also establish priorities
for capital expenditures among competing downtown,
industrial , and neighborhood comnercial develapment needs .
For the past several years, emphasis has been placed on
neighborhood commercial areas , particularly projects which
complemen� neighborhood revitalization.
The reason for this emphasis is twofold. First,
industrial development has traditionally been the respon-
sibility of the Saint Paul Port Authority. 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
Mayor (through the Division of Economic Development of the
Department of Planning and Economic Development).
Downtown development and redevelopment is a key part of
Saint Paul 's economic health. However, downtown develop-
ment is occurring at a rapid pace and, as developer
� ac�ivity increases, fewer incentives are required to
' . �aintain the momentum. In addi�ion, the City �€s en�ourag-
ing less reliance on gene�al obligation bonds and
encouraging the use of other types of funding to leverage
private investment, permitting more attention ta other
areas of the City.
Service system improvements are required in the downtowr►
as in other area� 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 Ecano�ric
Deve�lo ment Strate� may be funded , depending on the
avaiTabi it'f—y of resources . However, as the downtown
attracts developer activity, fewer incentives in the forri�
of special consideration should be required.
Secondly, among the many neighborhood commercial
revitalization projects possible, some priorities -must be
established . Generally, assistance should go to those
areas where there will be the greatest impact. Therefore�
in addition ta considering the merits of each proposal ,
8
the relationship to concentrated neighborhood
revitalization is taken into consideration. 7his
approach helps coordinate improvements by focusing
on specific areas rather than scattering small scale
improvements throughout the City.
1 .
PR ORITIES FOR NEIGHBORHOOD BETTERMENT
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 to maintain them.
Providing the resources necessary to maintain private
- • property is the responsibility of individual property
owners. The City is responsible for maintaining the
service system e7ements it owns and operates.
However, 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 rein-
vestment and effecting measurable neighborhood improvement.
Second1y, a steady commitment of municipal resources should
be made avail able to other areas of the City to prevent
deterioration and to maintain their stability.
The greatest opportunity for effecting measurable improvement
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 �f the metropolitan area. Those census tracts
where the median family income is less than 80% of the
metropolitan area are identified as low and moderate income
and , potentially, will require assistance.
Housing condition is based on the Residential Improvement .
Strategy adopted by the City in 1977. The Residential
Improvement Strat� categorizes the City's residential
areas on t e basis of housing condition and establishes
object;ves fior each area.
9
FIGURE 2 RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY CATEGORIES AND OBJECTIVES
� of Structures
Needing Major � of Structures
Repair or Needing Minor
Beyond Repair Repairs Objectives
Conservation I 4 or less 4 or less Surveillanee
Conservation II 4 or less 5 to 19 Intensive
. Maintenanc�
Improvement I 5 to 19 20 to 81 Rehabilitation
Improvement II 20 to 39 80 or less Rehabilitation
and Meighborhood
Improvement
Improvement III 40 or more 80 or less Major Neighborhood
Improvement
Based on this information, two broad types of areas are
identified. 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 classi-
fication. The map on page 11 gives a general indication
of these areas of the City.
The Capital Allocation Policies establish guidelines to
preserve a balanced approach for neighborhood betterment.
The policies also place emphasis on "neighborhood revitali-
zation", or a coordinated approach for neighborhood
improvement in a concentrated area.
The reason for concentrating investments is to take
advantage of limited resources. Withfn the priority
areas , there are pockets where concentrated improve-
ments would not only stablize that area, but also
provide impetus for improvements in the surrounding
bl ocks.
In Saint Paul , these areas are called "Identified
Treatment Areas" or ITA's . They are selected according
to guidelines adopted by City Counci) and, once selected,
receive special consideration for capital expenditure
allocations within the priority areas. In addition,
Neighborhood Housing Service (NNS) areas are recognized
by the City as neighborhood revitalfzation.
10
FIGURE 3 PRIORITY AREAS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEP1ENTS*
_ -- —r —
� �304 306 �
( r 303 ' �`'� 305 - � 30Z01 � 30Z02 .
301 ;
( ' �'`�� ��,�(����
302 � 1,� / ::;::;:;;::;::. s� ' 31t '
�' ! y ;,3:�: :�i'i:i:?•': ' 3t0 � t �
- 309
rri:}jr:�:
....4::'•>
�
I
w.�•.�
�j .�
L �t;`:}j:ji;;'.}:?';f;...;??C`:;.�c
i
?::��:.
:��.�?::��.�v:}i}::��'
..
.:.....:..:.......:.
.................... .
............. ......
. �:�:'l.
:31 f
:..�t' :::���"' 3t802�
9
:i•ti?2..•:�•::
R+.
� •
i':i:;c�::•::•::•:>'',,•
.... :•::•:::. .�:::::o;:•
:::: ::
— i::>:r�c;:>::�:::::::.,............. ..
:;�:;� >:•,:�:,,:::•::•:>;::
.:.
.:�: . •,. •::::.. .�....::::•::::;" •
..:,• .
,. .
- >�: 3�a•.,...
•:::::: :::::::.�:....
........ . ::::•::.
•.�. ::::::::::•• —__,��.::�:�.�:: •;:•:::<.::�: � :.;�:::� ...:. ...,,.. �',g:,;,
:.��.3�•� . :;.:.
"�'�e"r:_ .��' �• ...:�.`�£''::::t{ {::�: 'yS: r '��`��''`''''�:��.::•::•:: 318.01
�. :;. :::.�:.�:::. ......
:::t•::•::.;••: ...,,,. ::�:.�..... • . �
::�� • ...:. . ., ::•:i��i;�
�::�:: azi.. T 324 � {;� _ ��:�:: :.,,�:` ��'�:.��...:�:, �� �:.::.::•:;.::::...�: . -- --
♦v �;.Y r i
� ... r+ . :::: �.r_ _�._ _1�_�
.. I � I .. __�.__._'. _T_"__
:."`:•`� 322� 323
� . �:•::%>•... � `1;:::2?:.>r�v' 331 �.;�'�`-•s..:.:•;•:x
�•� .. 1.=::':.-'�:._,.'•<•:-„'.":::%:32,�`,>.�:-:;:?;�:.�? ' .329 I �'�_ '
332 -� I I'::::i;�532'��'ii:•'•::i::{� : • :.f�: ' , 33a.'•;:�.
q �� :.- o-:•>:•::x<::•::::::::.;. �.�;1::•..;:. ���:�,
` ,l..�J.�--- �•r'• .�•..., 2��� 345 � 346 � 347 (
��s�..��•:,,c• �78 ' �'� ''�i:;:;;:<;.:�.
-�L' . '' ? ti>%'M��� � /� / '3.:::::>'�• 1 � I
�:;r:;::; ��:�i:�:::;:,:;.;:;;::4 336 �c'P� y \ ::�'.
3r�r.•.•......•f � • 344 <'� ' �
��i:: .,.,� . :..::::.. . �''�37 �,� _ % '-�: 1 _
:.•:.�::
; ...;
::::.,..
:.::•.;.;:
•:::�.•
333 :.:;•;;:;.:'•
,. .
348 ::•::.:..:�:• � " ------ --- ---�-
�..:..�:<: i<::::�. , � �- `�� �
� -- .._._ �=.,. �::���ff'��' sa2 }_--__ i�,--
�'_�_�•__�•�..�;:'''..
. f,f�" •.. .>;';:'::•" ;� � i
� 3so.•. 1 ts>:::::>�'��>..::��`�,:»:;:<:� �:.,. .
.::� I ...:. .,;,�:�:�:::�::::�..:�:::::::.::�: i
��=:. �
�:::�� ��.. ;
" 349 � ---i 352 i 353 356 :.3�J�':.:,:r;:... .t,�.�� ,y. .\
�-- ---.�^•.::•:�:'ti�....;' �• •��. �' .\ i
� 351 � I � 357 t:•:::�,:;�;:::::.rr>,:%�' .;, � ; .
�f � � �y � �'�" /� y' � 36� ;
r- -.L••T_.- -----+— - - .. ��60 � ,., r. .:...� �I .
, --r---�- 7� �'!/
� � � i ; � f �" ,>:>:::�:�� ;'�
I � �:::`�s�/ ��t :��:��
; ::.: i� .:.... f�'k � �_ � ,
a.:;:>'r• ,,1 r`�:�:�;:�>;i�.:.::�::i::':�:�:::�:z;:::::,
� 362 :i 303 � 364 'I 365 .� .I .I 368 '.i � •>::;;;;:;.. � __
1 ; � , � � ,
� � � � ;� 36ti '� a � y 3�4,.� '��� 374
.
� , i , ,
' i
36t
.�..._ � _,.
, �
I r—- _--. .. ._. . � , _ .,...__ .__ , _. .
, h-�...... .
.._�. , ___._... __--"- -- ---
r=----� � � ��-. .
�� � ; ,
�: ,� �is ' ; ss�
': �, i �`, , .�
��' � `.,� �� r". � ; �
�_.___ �'. ,,�
; 376.01 � �
� �� :��so2 y� � : Low and Moderate Income ` �
, � Improvements I and II Areas ����,
, ..� ._.
' " �r�•�•••••���� Improvement III Areas ..
NI ... .� �...��
*Hesidential Improvement Strategy classification of hous-
ing condition combined with the estimated 1977 median
family income of each census tract as a percentage �?f
the estimated 1977 SMSA median family income.
11
One other type of area deserves mention. These are areas
which would require extensive public expenditure for wide-
spread acquisition and clearance before they would be
attractive for private reinvestment. Because these areas
would place a large burden on City resources , they are not
given a strong emphasis. Rather, a balance between sound
areas of the City and areas which require a more moderate
level of assistance is encouraged.
PRIORITIES FOR HOUSING AND ENERGY �'
The strategy section of the Capital Allocation Folici��
recognizes two additional areas which require special
consideration: housing and energy. Both are extremely
important to the City.
Although not a goal in and of itseTf, the availability
and type of housing has an effect on the neighborhood
stability, economic development and energy consumption.
The Capital Allocation policies recognize this relation-
ship and include special consideration for projects which
will encourage the �evelopment of certain types of hausing.
These needs (rental housing, low cost housing for families, �
and alternatives to single family housing) are based on
three considerations : a limited supply of land, spiraling
costs , and energy considerations.
Capital improvement budget priorities for energy efficiency
place an emphasis on existing facilities rather than new
activities . Although any new structure should be as energy
e�iicient as poss�tble, our biggest challenge �yill be
assuring the most efficient use of energy with the City
we already have.
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 of public transportation lines or en-
courages alternatives to the automobile (particularly wher�
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.
12
3.0 THE POLICIES
3.1 STRATEGY POLICIES ?he Strategy Po icies set genera irection or the City s
capital improvement expenditures within the framework of
the goals and principles. These policies are monitored
by the Planning Commission. The CIB Comnittee also moni-
tors Policies S1 , S2 and S6 which relate to the proposed
budget rather than to individual projects .
� i � �
S1 : BALANCED GOALS
In order to assure a balanced approach to annual capital
. allocation, total budget allacations and tentative program
comrnitments for new projects should reflect the following
proportions:
Category % of Total New A1locations
Neighborhood Improvement 5-35
Economic Development 20-30�
Citywide Service System
Improvement 35-45%
Support System Development 5-10%
Special grants , costs borne by other units of government
or the private sector, and assessments for the particular _�
project will be excluded from this calcuiation. Special
grants will be monitored over time and taken into con-
sideration in determining the appropriate proportions
during annual policy review. �
S2: GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION
Not more than 15% of the monies budgeted eaeh year should
, . be for proj_ects: in any one district.: Special grants,
costs borne by other units of government or the private
sector, and assessments for a particular praject will be
excluded from this calculatian. The annual budgets should
be monitored over time to assure that the needs of all
areas of the City are being addressed.
S3: BASIC SYSTEMS
It is�es ab�le for the City to address rehabilitation, or
replacement if necessary, of its capital facilities on a
systematic basis . As a result, rehabilitation or replace-
ment of a service and support system will be given special
consideration if the Department's long-range capital
program indicates the need for the improvement during
the current time-frame.
S4: ECO�dUMIC DEVELOPMENT
In ordEr to take advantage of opportunTties to stimulate
private investrrent and effect measurable economic improve-
ment, special consideration shoc�ld be given to those
economic development projec�s which complement neighborhoud
revita�ization or wiTl create new jobs within the City of
Saint Paul .
� j
S5: NEIGNBORHOOD BETTERMENT
In order to take advantage of opportunities to stimulate
private investment and effect measurable neighborhood
improvement, special consideration should be given to
projects which support neighborhood betterment in areas .
which have been recognized for concentrated neighborhood
revitalization. These areas include Identified Treat-
ment Areas and Neighborhood Housing Service Areas.
S6: BALRNCED NEIGHBORHOOD BETTERMENT
n or er to assure a ba ance approach toward neiqhborhood
betterment, new allocations af capital for subsidies and
service system improvements shauld follaw this distribu-
tian:
� of Total Recor�nended % o�
Area Residential Service/Subsidy
Blocks Capital
Low/Moderate Income Areas
which are Improvement I 30� 60-75%
or II; All Improvement III
Areas. -
All Conservation I and
II Areas; Improvement I 70I 25-40�
and II Areas which are
not Low/Moderate Income
g7; HOUSING ALTERNATIVES
Given th� shortage of housing and lamited land for new
development, special consideration wi11 be given to
projects which will encourage the availability of rental
housing, publicly assisted housing for families, and
alternatives to traditiona] single family housing.
S8: ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Given the need for energy efficiency, special cansideration
will be given to projects whieh will encourage efficient
energy use in existing buildings, high density use on
public transportation lines, or alternatives to single
passenger automobile use. New construction which is con-
sistent with City plans , policies and priorities will be
given special consideration if State building code energy
. requirements are exceeded and renewable energy sources
are used.
14
3.2 IMPLEMENTATION AND The Implementation and Qevelopment Policies identify
OEVELOPMENT POLICIES criteria which are important considerations in selecting
capital improvements. Most of thes� policies are stated
in terms of "priorities" or "considerations" reflecting
their use as evaluation criteria. These policies are
monitored by the CIB Comnittee through its Task Force
Project Rating Sheet.
;
;
IDI : SOURCES OF INPUT
� e priorities recorrmended by the following groups will �
be taken into consideration:
a. The recognized neighborhood organization in the
affected area
b. The City operating department that will operate
and maintain the proposed project
c. The Planning Comnission
ID2: CONFORMANCE WITH CITY PLANS
Proposals selected for funding r�ust conform with all
adopted City plans as determined by the Planning
Commission.
ID3: CAPITAL ALLOCATION STRATEGY POLICIES
The Planning Comnission wil.l 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 project will be used will be taken
into consideration. This means that:
a. The larger the population served, the greater the
consideration that should be given to the project..
b. 7he longer the life expectancy of the project, the
greater the consideratian 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.
ID5: JOINT USE
Essentia� facilities which can be financed and operated
by the City and another agency will be given special cur�-
sideration if:
a. they can be constructed and operated efficiently and
effectively at less cost than separate facilities.
b . they are consistent with City plans , policies and
prioritie� :
1:�
;
ID6: DUPLICATION OF SERVICES
Projects which duplicate existing public or private
services generally available to the same population
should not be funded.
ID7: CONTINUATION PROJECTS
The unding needs of capital improvement projects which
received a prior budget appropriation for construction
plans or a construction phase normally have priority over
new projects and annual programs. Preliminary design and
acquisition constitute a prior appropriation only if
phased funding for construction plans and/or construction
phases have been approved and included in the capital
improvement program of tentative future commitments.
ID8: S�RVICE ANQ SUPPORT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
Maintaining basic City services sha be a high priority.
This means that, in evaluating the merits af each proposal :
a. Rehabilitation, or replacement if re�abilitation is �
not feasible, afi obsolete City facilities which are
required to maintain the basic level of service for
the service or support �ystem is first priority.
b. Additions to existing facilities and construction af
new facilities which will brfng an area up to a level
of service adopted in a city plan specifically for
that service ar support system is second priority if
policy does not prohibit such funding.
c. Additions to existing City facilities and new City
faciTyties °�hich are not speeified in a Ci �y plan are
last priority.
d. Allocations for impravements to facilities which will
not be owned or operated by the City will be treated
as subsidy allocations .
ID9: OTHER IMPROVEMENTS
Subsidy allocations should be directly related to the
goals and objectives of the City. This means that:
a. Subsidy al1ocations which are directly related to
concentrated neighborhood or conmercial revitalzzation
areas wil7 be given first consideration.
b.�- Subsidy ailocations which will primarily benefit iow
or moderate income people in other areas of the City
or will directly result in development or redevelop-
ment will be given second consideration.
c. Other subsidy allocations wi11 be given last
cons;deration.
16
ID10: ACQUISITION
Acquisition is not encouraged. Hawever, projects which
involve acquisition may be given the same priority as
projects which do not involve acquisition if:
a. The acquisition is related to public-development or
reuse and:
1 ) right-of-way or easements are necessary;
2) the parcel(s) have been previously identified
for conversion to park use if they become
available;
3) the parcel(s) have tax exempt status and a use
which is consistent with City plans , policies,
and priorities has been clearly identified; or
� 4) special grant funding has been co�nitted.
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 t�iat
development will occur.
ID11 : PROGRAMMING AND PNASING
Projects shou d be a equately prograrrmed and phased.
This means that:
a. Projects which are justified by City plans, policies,
and priorities and are coordinated with other improve-
ments , at a cost saYing to the City, will be encour.aged.
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 shouid
be idertified in the capita1 improvement program and
will constitute a tentative comnitment subject to Cit1�
Council adoption of a budget appropriation for th�
project.
ID12: PUBLIC ENVIRONMENT AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Projects which can be justified in terms of the City's p'lans
priorities and policies and will preserve or enhance Sair7t
Paul 's natural environment or preserve structures or sites
which the City Council has determined to be historically
significar�t, will be encouraged. Conversely, projects
which will nega*ively impact on the environment or historii•
preservation a�ill be discouraged. The natural environment
inclucles air and water quality and noise levels.
17
;
ID13: E�ERGY
The impact of all City projects on nonrenewable energy
supplies will be considered. In evaluating the merits
of each proposal :
a. Pro�ects which �i11 significantly reduce energy
use will be given a high priority;
b. Projects which will significantly increase energy
consumption wi1] be given a low priority,
ID14: IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET
It �s desirab e to a ocate City capital to proj ects
which wi17 not resu7t in a net increase in operating
and maintenance expenses. At a minimum, this means that
in evaluating the merits of each proposal :
a. Projects which will resu]t in a significant
decrease in operating and maintenance expenses �
will be given a high priority.
b. Projects which will resu]t in significant increase
in City operating and maintenance costs will be
given low priority.
ID15: IMPACT ON CITY REVENUES
It is desirable to allocate City 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 reciuce •reven��;� to the City �:�;ll be
given a low priority
ID16: PRIVA7E INVESTMENT
apita improvement proposals which leverage private
investment will be given special consideration. In
addition, projects designed specifically as incentives
to prTVate development or redevelopment should meet the
following guidelines:
a. LEVERAGE GUIDELINES: Minimum leveraging is normally
:6 each do1 ar 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 effarts, 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 af energy alternattves.
b. RE7URN ON INVESTMENT: The City's annual return in the
forn of property taxes should be, at a minimum, 12�
ur�less the project is directly associated with the
projects listed in a) above. In no ins�ance may tax
yielci be less than the cost of additional services
required.
18
ID17: GRANTS
Special consideration should be given to capital requests
which will be used as a match for a grant from another .
unit of government or the private sector if the proposed
project is consistent with adopted City plans , policies,
and is a priority of the City.
3.3 PROJECT POLICIES T e Pro�ec� Po �cies ocus more spec> >ca y on types o
. projects that will be encouraged or discouraged for the
next budget (1981 ) and/or program of tentative comnitments
(1982-1985) . In some cases, funding limits or criteria
for funding are established. The CIS Committee monitors
these policies with the assistance of the Budget Section
or the Planning Commission in certain cases.
. P1 : DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER
- If the City proceeds with the Downtown People Mover not
more than $6.0 million in Capital Improvement Bonds will
be programmed to meet the costs of the project.
P2: TREES
Di es ased shade tree removal will no longer receive a �
special capital allocation. Reforestation should continue
at approximately 5,000 trees per year through 1984.
P3: CITY FUNDING OF SKYWAYS
a. Funds will not be budgeted for skyways unless the �
skyway is of public benefit and part of a firm
package for development or redevelopment of the
benefitting buildings.
b. Normally, the City will fund no more than 5�% of
skyway bri�ge construction: The developers and/or
property owners of benefitting buildings shall fund
the entire cost of skyway construction within their
buildings.
c. The City will not provide funds for the operation or
maintenance of skyways unless the City is the owner/
operator of a benefitted buiiding.
d. Proposed skyways must be in conformance with the
guidelines adopted by the Saint Paul City Council
on as Council File Number
to be considered for funding. _
P4: IDENTIFIED TREATP�ENT AREAS
No new Identified Treatment Areas (ITA's) will be initiated
during 1981 unless an existing ITA is discontinued and funds
are available to initiate a new ITA. Should this occur,
selection of a new ITA will be made in accordance with the
guidelines adopted by the Saint Paul City Council on
July 27, 1978, as Council File Number 271322.
19
P5: NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
The Neighborhood Cor�nercial Area Improvement Program is
authorized for the 1981 Capital Improvement Budget. The
selection of neighborhood commercial areas eligible for
public improvements will be made according to the Neighbor-
. hood Corrmercial Area Improvement Program �uidelines adopted
by the Saint Paul City Council on November 8 , 1979, as
Council File Number 274002.
P6: RESIDENTIAL STREET PAVING PROGRAM
G�ven the posit.�ve �mpact resiTential street paving can
have on stabilizing and maintaini�g residential areas of
the City , Residential Street Paving Program is authorized
for continued funding in the 1981 Capital Improvement
Budget.
P7: SITE PREPARATION FUND
The City wi 1 consider budgeting funds for a site preparatinn
fund under the follawing 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 Authority for clearance.
b. Site preparation will be undertaken only if there is
a firm proposal from a developer for purchasing the
parcel once it is prepared.
c. Administrative and operating costs are not paid from
the fund.
d. Initial funding does not exceed $50,000.
P8: NEW FACILITIES
Given the City's fiscal constraints, certain types of
projects will not he initiated in 1981 . These projects
include:
a. Facilities to house programs or services which are
not operated by the City; and
b. Facilities to house or provide new services operated
or maintained by the City which are not identified
as a priority need in a City plan, including swimming
pools.
P9: ANNUA� PROGRAMS
Annua programs must have clear eligibility criteria
" available for review and consistent with applicable city
plans and capital allocation policies if they are to be
considered for funding. An annual program is a lump sum
allocation to an operating department or agency. The
funds are allocated to specific activities by the depart-
ment or agency as eligible uses arise.
P10: TAX ABATEMENT
Tax abatement is discouraged as a development incentive.
?n
P11 : ECONOMIC BASE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY FUND
For the purpose of securing significant increases in the
City's property tax and permanent employment bases , a
reserve fund is authorized for the 1981 Capital Improve-
ment Budget and Program to be called the "Economic Base -
Development Opportunity Fund." This fund will finance
. public incentives for new private development or
redevelopment opportunities which present themselves
outside the annual Unified Capital Improvement Program
and Budget Process (UCIPBP) cycle. Normally, all capital
improvements are budgeted and programmed during the annual
UCIPBP. However, it would be appropriate to have a limited
amount of money available to permit short notice financing
of public improvements as incentives to private development.
Proposals for use of the Economic Base Development
Opportunity Fund will be required to meet the following
conditions:
a. Each proposal must meet the leveraging and return on
investment requirements stated in Capital Allocation
Policy ID16.
b. Each proposal must be reviewed by the Planning
Commission for consistency with City plans and
policies.
c. Each proposal must be reviewed by the CIB Corrmittee
and the advice of the Comnittee must be noted in the
reso1ution brought to City Council authorizing use
of monies from the fund.
d. Each proposal must require immediate appropriation of
. � . � .. .. . _ funds in order. �to assure timely implementation. .. (The _
CIB Corrmittee will recomnend that proposals with an
implementation schedule that permits review through
the annual UCIPBP be reviewed as part of the next
annual UCIPBP cycle.)
P12: ENERGY RETROFIT
The C�ty w-T consider an annual program to retrofit City-
owned buildings with energy-saving features during 1981-1985.
P13: CAPITAL MAINTENANCE
An annua program to address capital maintenance of City-
owned buildings is authorized for the 1981 budget and 1982-
1985 program of tentative commitments. Capital maintenance
is the replacement, renovation , remodeling and/or retro-
fitting of the structural parts and/or service system
components of a building made necessary by obsolescence,
wear beyond economic repair or catastrophic damage resulting
from the acts of man or nature. A building's structural
parts are its footings , foundation walls , beams, joists ,
columns , load bearing walls , exterior facade, floors , ceilings,
roof and roofings. A building `s service system cornponents
are �ts plumbing, electrical distributlon, communications ,
heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems.
_ 21
The annual Capital Maintenance Program funding request is
to be submitted to the Budget Section for inclusion in
the annual Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget
Process (UCIPBP) by the Division of Property Management
in accordance generally with provisions of 5.02(2}(b) and
57.06 of the Saint Paul , Minnesota Administrative Code.
;
(To support the annuaZ UCIPBP funding request, the
Division of Property Management is to soZieit eapitaZ
maintenanee pro�ject proposats from the directors of the .
operating departments of cit�,� gouernment. Hacaeuer, the
aZZocation to eaeh department of any CcnaitaZ Maintenance
Program funds appropriated by City Coun�iZ in an adopted
CapitaZ Improvement Bud.get zviZZ be a �oint deeision by
the directors of the operating departments meeting as a
group under the coor+dinatian cmd u�ith thc advice of the
Division of Property Mana,qement. The Mayor �viZZ imple-
ment this deeision as he sees fit through the introduetion
in City CounciZ of an appropriate resolution enzmeerating
the projects to be incZuded in the program.I
3.4 BUDGET AND FiNANCE The Bu get and Finance Policies identify ti�e var�ous
POLICIES sources of funds available for capital improvements and
conditions which must be met in order to use them. The
Budget Section of the Mayor's Office is responsible for
developing these policies and the CIB Corrmittee and the
Budget Section of the Mayor's Office monitor these �
policies.
� � : :; , � �1 : Ft!ND SOURCES r
Determination of which fund source is most apprapriate
for financing each of the City`s budget priorities will
be made as follows: .
a. Projects subject to assessment under the City`s
Special Assessment Po1icy, adopted on December 2t ,
1976 as Council File No. 268302, will be so assessed.
b. All street improvement projects on MunicipaT 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 metro-
politan , State or Federal programs or private grants
shou1d be so financed. CDSG and CIB monies may be
used to provide local matching funds , if appropriate.
22
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. Capital improvements which
can be funded with revenue bonds will be so funded.
e. Capital improvements and programs eligible for CDBG
funding will be so funded; and
,
f. Capital improvements which cannot be financed with
monies governed by paragraphs (a) through (e) will
be considered for Capital Improvement Band funding.
62: COMMUNIIY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PRQGRAM
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 ineome
people or eliminate slums and blight can be con-
sidered.
b. At least 80% of the total CDBG dollars allocated to
projects must serve low and moderate income people
and be located in census tracts which meet the
Department of Housing and Urban Development's
definition of low or moderate income. Specific
emphasis should be placed on the Identified Treat-
ment Areas .
c. The remainder of the funds allocated to prajects �
may address slums and blight not directly
benefit��ng -��w or moderate income people.
63: BOND FINANCING
a. The total amount of general obligation bonds issued
by the City should not exceed an annual average of
$10.5 million for the years 1981-1985. Capital
Improvement Bonds , Water Po�lution Abatement Bonds ,
and Tax Increment General Obligation Bonds which are ,
issued in 198T will reflect this �10.5 million '
floating average identified in the City's debt
policy.
b. The City will issue no more than $7.0 miliion in
Capital Improvement Bonds in 1981 . When preparing
the tentative Capital Improvement Program, the sum
of Capital Improvement Bonding and Tax Increment
General Obligation Bonding for financing future
years ' projects should not exceed $7,000,000 in 1982,
$7,000,000 in 19�3, $7,000,000 in 1984, and $Z,000,000
in 1985. It is anticipat�d that the remaining general
obligation bonding autharity will be used for Water
Pollution Abatement 8onds for the Thomas-Dale Sewer.
23
�
c. Because of the unanticipated high cost of Phases I
and II of the St. Anthony Hill Sewer Rehabilitation
Project (Thomas-Dale Sewer) , alternatives to the
Phase III deep tunnel will be examined and evaluated
before the City undertakes preparatian of detailed
construction plans for Phase III (Western Avenue
Tunnel).
. (The Z978 eost estimates for the �`homas-DaZe Ser,ler ��
Pro�ect pro�eeted a totaZ cost of $Z6 rrrillion to be
spread over a four-z�ear period - Z979 through 2982.
HaP.�ever, actuaZ bids for Phase I eonstruetion ex-
ceeded the Z978 cost estimate by 40%. Without
ad�justing for infZation, this brings the totaZ
estimczted cost of the project to $24 million in Z979
dollar vaZues. Excesszve costs for sewer t�eling
mandate reconsideration of design aZterrtatives for
the second haZf of the project.)
d. The City does not intend to issue in 1981 general
obligation bonds for new project co�nitments under
special state authorizations for the City's resi-
dential or commercial rehabilitation programs,
parking facilities , or urban renewal . City Council
initially approved a bu�get of $925,OQ0 in Automobile
Parking Facjlities Act general obligatian bonding for
the Highland Parking Ramp. If the general obligation
bonds are not issued in 1980, they may be considered
for issuance in 1981 if revenue bonds cannot legally
be us�d to finance the praject and if the project is
-- ---_ --- .s-t-�-1 i supPorted by:t�e-,-H#�1:and Bus i ness Comnuni t3r. - _
e. The use of revenue bonds to finance public improvement
corr�nitments for economic development projects is pre-
ferred over the use of the City's general obligation
bond financing. While Port Authority revenue bond
financing is a highly desired method of financing
economic development incentives, the City may consider
using tax increment bonding or City revenue bonding
in 1981 for the following projects:
1) Block C; Minnesota Mutual Life Skyway Bridge ($65G�000)
2) Previous corrrnitted R-20, R-37 and KDP projects under
w cantract with HUD for which Urban Renewal General
Obligation Bond funding was anticipated.
3) Harkins Bowling Alley Site Parking Ramp ($3,OOO,UUU}
4 Highland Parking Ramp if legally possible ($1 ,700,OOU)
5; Mortgage Revenue Bonding for Housing Program
6) Construction of sewer projects that elfminate treatmerit
costs for storm water when the annual treatment cost
amounts exceed debt service on bonds issued to finance
construction of new sewers.
24
f. Projects proposed for funding with tax increment bords
(whether general obligation or revenue) must meet the
requirements of Policy B4 before City Council will
consider issuing bonds.
64: TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
a. Revenue Projections 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 ProcQeds: Debt service
for all tax increment projects will be paid from bond
proceeds for no more than the first three years of
project implementation when no tax increments or other
project revenues are generated.
c. Other Costs Funded from Bond Sales Proceeds: All costs
relating to any tax increment proposals should be
funded with bond proceeds and included in the justifi-
cation 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.
d. All State requirements as set forth in Minnesota Statutes
must be met.
65: REHABILITATION LOAN FUNDS
�.� City bond monie� and' CDBG monies used to provide residential
rehabilitation loans shall be recycled, as the original '
loans are repaid according to the guidelines adopted by the
Saint Paul City Council . Monies used to provide corr�nnercial
rehabilitation loans shall be recycled to administer the !
program and provide new loans as the original loans are
repaid.
25
4.0 POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
Saint Paul 's Capital Allocation Policies will be effective
only if they are carefully monitored. While City Council
has final responsibility and authority far implementing
the policies , monitoring must occur throughout the pro-
posal review and budget preparation process.
Monitoring responsibility is assigned to three groups :
the Planning Cor�nission, the CIB Comnittee, and the Budget
Section of the Mayor's .Offfce. In some instances, the
responsibility is shared. In others , input from others
may be required, but the responsibility for assuring
implementation falls to one of these three groups.
Figure 4 indicates where responsibility for monitoring
implementation of each policy rests in the project review
and budget preparation process.
FIGURE 4: POLICY MONITORING AND IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY
Planning CIB Mayor's Office
CoRmission Comnittee Budget Section
Strategy
Policies All S1 , S2, S6 ---
(S1-SS)
Implementa-
tion and
- Oevelopment ID2, IQ3 Al1 _ --
Policies
(ID1-ID17} �
Project P1 through P3,
Policies P4, P5, P9 All P6 through P8,
(P1-P13) P10 through P13
Budget _
Policies --- B1 through B4 A11
(B1-65)
26
CREDITS
PLANNING COMMISSION Thomas Fitzgibbon, Chairman Davi Lanegran
Liz Anderson Joseph Levy
Clark Armstead *David McDonel_1
*James Bryan � **Jane Nelson
*Carolyn Cochrane *Martha Norton
Sam Grais *Joseph Pangal
*Rev. Glen Hanggi Gayle Sumners
Sr. Alberta Huber Janabelle Taylor
*David Hyduke Adolf Tobler
Nelsene Karns Robert Van Hoef
*Capital Allocations Comnittee � �
**Comnittee Chair
ADMINISTRATION Gary Stout, Director, DPED
AND POLICY James J. Bellus, Planning Administrator
DIRECTION Ed Warn, Principal Planner
AD HOC CITIZEN Toni Baker �
ADVISORY SUB- Fran Boyden
COMiNITTEE Betty McLaughlin
Joseph Pangal
Amos Roos
RESEARCH AND Tamsen Aichinger, Planner �
PLANNING Gregory Blees, Budget Ana7yst �
Gregory Haupt, Budget Analyst