The URL can be used to link to this page

272326 WMITE - CITV CLERK �+�j PINK - FINANCE � }y C I TY OF SA I NT PA U L � � �• l.=.�r �'� Council � s? CANARY - DEPARTMENT COCI�rIUCI� l. File NO. � �>+ BLUE - MAVOR Development) . , . �ouncil Resolution ,; Presented By _ +�-' G��-Z �,�/c.�//�"� ✓ Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary to provide annual guidance in the nreparation of the recommended Capital Improvement Budget used to finance city development; and WHER�AS, interested citizens meeting as a subcommittee of the 1978 Unified Capital Improvement Budget Process Ad Hoc Evaluation Committee and the Steering Corr�nittee of the Planning Commission have reviewed and refined the policies previously adopted by City Council as "Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policies: 1979, 1980, 1981 ;" and WHERtAS, the Planning Corrn�nission has reviewed, approved and recommended revisions to the policies for guiding capital allocations, aS set forth in "Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policies: 1980;" and WHERtAS, the Finance Committee of City Council nas reviewed the recommended revisions; and now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, -that the City Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby adopt the revisions set forth in the attached report, "Saint Paul Capitai Allocation Policies: 1980" for use in the Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process during 1979. COUNCILMEN Yeas Nays Requested by Department of: �. Community Development Hozza —� �n Favor Hunt �� i�e _�___ Against BY 104adt�ex Showalter Tedesco JAN 4 Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by C ouncil: Date �� Certified Passed by Council Secretary � � '��/ y� � � f�1 d by Mavor: ate � � 2 ��` Appr ed by Mayor for Subm' i to Council g _ By pt�ts�tEa JAN � 41979 _;;�.,;;:� �?. lyix t- �'• � �� ;� CITY OF SAINT PAUL �" w- .--r INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM A� � i , �3 C �. �-,��,r. DATE: December 22, 1978 ,�„ �;:;;e�:;:;,6 T0: Neighborhood Contact List City Department Heads FROM: James J. Bellus� SUBJECT: Recorr�nended Revisions to Capital Allocation Policies City Council will be reviewing the Planning Commission's recorr�nendations . for revisions to St. Paul 's Capital Allocation Policies on Thursday, January 4, 1979, at 10:00 A.M. in City Council Chambers. The revisions recomnended by the Planning Commission are essentially the same as those distributed on November 20, 1978 with the announcement of the public meeting to hear input. The only additional modifications which were made are: 1 . Add to Policy A the phrase "especially in those areas where significant private investment is not currently occurring." 2. Include the years 1980 and 1981 in Policy R where they had previously been recommended for deletion. Copies of the policies adopted by City Council and relevant background information will be distributed in January. Should you wish an additional copy of the recommended policies at the present time, please call Tamsen Aichinger of rrly staff at 298-4507. JJB/TA/cc cc: J. Connelly G. Haupt W. Patton ��a .. �.�ISS Z'3_OSs�\I31 `'Irl't'd Z.�IL•'S `u00T:i KI.�3�13S "i`i�.'I-i ,r.l_':; ay�, aa�.�.e �i�.un �epua6e <<�uno a uo a�e d a �apa�' ay� �.o �.s� � 4� P L q �ou Plno4s Z# Pup L# su�a�.I '4�b ��pnue� •epua6e� L��uno� ay� u�o - pa�e�d aq o� �C�<<od uo��e�oLLtf Lp��d�� a4� �o ��noaddr papuaaYUUO�ab •£ •anaasaa �C�ua6u��.uo� 6L6 L a4� �a� a��.�.0 �.u�e�dwo� pue uo��pwao�.uI a4� o� Z6�b`9Z$ Pue �oa�uo� au�u�� . � ay�. o� g£8`6Z$ 6u�aaa�.suea�. uo��.n�osaa ay�. �o ��enoadde �papuawwo�aa 'Z � •s�.y6�a uewnH �o �.uaur�apdaQ ay�. o�. anaasaa �f�ua6u��.uo� 6L6 L ay� wo.��. 5ti6`66$ 6u�aaa�.suea�. uo��n�osaa ay�. .�o ��noaddp papuaua�uo�ab •� � _ . :uo��.�e 6u�MOltod ay�. �oo� g�� g� ,�aquia�ap �.0 6u��.aa� passa�a� s�.� �.e aa��u�uo� a�ueu�� ayl � = ��E� .� - aa u sp � . . -_ � uo�J�n�osay �X (Z) a�unuip�p Q -� �� uo l�odaa 6u��.�o� lo} ay.} sa��w `u�w�io �` 1Nf1N Jl8(lb �l l3NNOSb3d aNtf 1N3W39tfNtfW `3�NdN�� 0 r a��-��"�.�.I�� ; [� Q �� - . �r�uno� 1��.�� npd �.utoS � O .L �� :� a � � � � � ��.� �� E�� a � 8L61 ` lZ aaqwa�aa - a �p o �'�� ''�.. � .;::�' ; lf ; �. ' ' . , , a ; , � �.:. : •„ '; :,, '��ZJ�L.GJ �_�:,J ;•I;?:L ,�?O :IvT:T,�TO \!. `";;�:.. . /,:, � 9:;�f,l�� -:, ;��.,� �s�.�:�� ,�,�:.x F.-�-; .�_c� .��i�_�-� .� � ..:� :.j.� ro N J N F� N ►+ J W �J rI l!� V1 �i 6] Q p �✓ � . , . w � � N � N (p J N N N A tf� r w � a V1 lJ @ � N A f� N UI Ul fA iJ! Ul U1 N M �A n� 7. C� � �A � � � � �i 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 k 1 �G O � �O J O� O� W W J O� 01 01 U1 �_�L1 � ,p W ln �P - N � N pp J 0� U� .P O IT F+ O O �. ( � � A J � w `.>> �{ �{y+ Ul x 0 µ K � N f�J � P� 'M1C� fD M�p.- K1 1+ W N 7 x O � � . � £ < fJ 'G � 1+!'� ~1� � �O (aD CY M N � W O . . ME F' ff F�- l7 O fD O x � �a a G 41 .l N Y A � � � .. � y.�,. rt � F-' O F+ H fD W (D (D Y- 5' �O rt O [9 O Y- N ff ¢ rt� M W C' � � K fJ µ N E G N X N M � R �'1p.� . . R � � Rf O. y d H W W Z � 7 t' [r O H W 9 R1 r"� 7 ��.,K UI tt N M W F-� O M 'p F� 1+M K O � . h�j f�J f�D W W O x �,��,' • • � N fn r�t � W 'Y � W H M � Q � _ . x G I�D I�-� � N N t'� f* R •� rb �O . Y H W W A � . ro ~ O w rp� � � �iDp t� N . .7 � M fl n � � � ~ froD < � `J F�+. W ►.' I~+ M � t�D W 41 K � � . fo W c► �0 Cµ F� N O 1 ri O �• --�Wq �1 ry 7 O ? y O W 'J rt 7 r� � � � A (D N .7 Y- . . . � �C M � �' g � � .'�`1 � N �C C� ff f'►��O 1�-� frtD . � �p �D y � a K m � a w o a �`� n . . � R M c�t n F~�- R 7 r ro o M tu w a 7 r C � . � N N .�i O K � � a �o m m � MN � . � 'n fWD }�'� . O � r�'1 � b- 'd, v ~ . . a a � w n g .e a. n o � m ° '° � a ro w o . �° �+ y � m n t� � m `� � � . � H M � ��j � � � . . C � � � N �' � � � � R y .' � � � � . 7� K . � � i fr . p J. n� W tn U� tn � � C O N � � 0� � � 0 �t � �µ � � . . p p �p O O � N O � D� N W O O � P� F O N O I H � N' rt M 0 o F. o o rn o r r r o °o r ►-� oo N o � � t+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 o ro ro ro ro ro �d H �o 0 0 o u o o �' ro o � a ww a w w a � o ro � � d 'a � 3 � � � � � � � � K � � � o � � t a o n w � co r � t n ° � � � o ►' � A� �o • p 4 Y o a, o �, K � K � 0 0 0 ° o ro � � G � � � � . 3 y r w r � N N �' � � o p� 1-+ W W A � Y-' A O �] �A O tll U1 O� OD O� N . , � N J O O V� O V� O W C1 O N O O O� lf� O � � Y, p o 0 o O o 0 o tn o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o H � p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r 'd M � A � - O d lJl1 VI O� � �3 tNJ l~D b . . � N O Vt 1!� O lA O 6n O �O . Il ° °o 0 0 0 °o o °o W ° o 00 0 0 0 0 0 N � . . . O O` O � J J � � O � � O (7� O O O tF� aD . r m 0 0 °o o °o °o �' w ro rt O O O • O N O p�p p ?`,�, . � O O O N y , . 1 � O O O O. O O � n`� . O 00 . .. �'1 . 1•,1 �� w ro •� rt �tn A F' N � � Y O � O O O � 0 N - OD O 0 W N � o 0 0 °o o ° n' � �1 F+ F+ O� �! W W •1-+ F+ N � . �O 01 J W W �P Y-' A �p p - Q O N � l0 fD � , w w � N w � ~ cfDO r°r o tr� � � 8' x °�' a x° A fn � n u� v, �o � � n � x� 0 0 •• rt o i � i � � � � � � � i (a G A' co w a A .� .i in w W. �c r v� 3 'q H W yN O w 0� 1-� U� J O Ut � . �r I� � O � � M ' � Y W tr m �' ~ w � ro .c y a � c x o° w x a r K � o � < �D �{ G b� � m rc K �p � r m M r � . . � � . . n r� � w r � n � � n a � k r � 1+� G � N K+ < r < � N w rt � w � � � m �n � � a n � � a o � � n � c�r b °' a r°s n n a £ ro � � � � �D t+ K x w o � w y a x ro m � o ►at � r � E w � �°u g X � � � • �° � � �x W � rt w `� w o a �d i � �° r°a o � � vro w w � W on � X . �o w m � w Y M � 7 m tJ rs ' . IaD N µ ' Iw+- N �rt7 A � (CD fn � W . . a a � ��„ ��,, f�D f~D O W � M� N �7 rt O f<D roiyD �"� � ��7 � . . FQ� � W Q� � '�,' p � .'O7 !S . - � - . E cµi b r � a � Yp, . � � .. µ f�D � p W . µ W � 7 R � � M X � � � p . M i. y � a µ � . ►�- yx �-+ :n c) 7� �• W z o� a w r r nr r y .,� a H A . � N C w n� w �o N n► w � tn �o � o p ro � o . � � N A O 61 J .P O.. O � O W �{ „� W L1 o 0 0 o w io 0 0 0 o v+ �m., p' a a � . t�f o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N rr ►-� � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � � r Y � . LN*1 F,, M C � y o ro .. J 1 1 1 1 o1 O O W O W K µ � O • - O O O O O 1 O O O O O p K � R p t~O . O O O O o O ��„ K � - � . y w N W G a � . H . � �O� N A . 1-' � . r . O W O� N fD N A 1-� N O F+ A O W � � � . � � � O J N i O M � O O 1 A O O Ut O O O O� A 1� O �4 O O O - 1� �p O O O O O � � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v H � � O� � � � j+ �A � . . . .. N � � �P F+ F+ N p ,'! �''�p � . � � - O v •N O O N O l�/� � v N O 7 O �O . m � � -O V w .� O O O O O O {,,i p O W p 0 0 0 • o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � b � b � Gf J ►� K N � (�D K � . � O t�p O O N O N M ~p A �D K7 .O V+ ln O O O Cn � O � � � Fr N � . °o °o °o o °o 0 0° w °o � o. 0 0 0 0 0 0 • o w o � 7 � � . N � 0 . ':�.J , CD N ln O N N ro '�T , M . tt K � O � O `v 'w O O � ' � � � � � . ?�TV � O O��A O O fr � � O N p. - . �� O O ' O �O K O � . � n E - rt w O � • . � W W A � O C� W I �O N � W ~ O O in ln: O pO . w t� lo . O O � O�� .O � � . O O : O� O O . , 7 � Y � � � � � �, � � I� ' : ao ao o m � �o i., r Fa . � �� ['l !1f f0 fA V} �' xL'� � . . . O . . N W W tli �! � ��"� . J F� O N V ' � � y n r�r � rt rt n M cmo .�'r � n r fEJ � u�i 7 r�i � £7 %* 7 E� G � g 3 � an o m � �r} x u�i x ro x 3+ 7 .n X � rp� a � � R7 y 7 � � � r�S � b' y M 3 JC � W � � `� y`C � `t ^C N K �C t� rt � 3 tt '" C x ft S f�D x w x �'Nt x � tn. �C � . F'' 7 F+• 1.. N F�• f,, Y• � ] .y . . . O r a r O r� � r y f. N � . M F+ v 1-� M W � !D 1� G F• Y' h• � . rS a F' µ ] � w � � m � 3 N � M � ryr w ' �q �' . . . � . r�O o r h7 H ►� N O � O y S � h. G� r{ p w � M v� y � � � � . . . 9 � n. E a v�e �c � '° m ,�, . K � K (�p V � . � - � � H � ~ c � G � � � . p . f'' �, E � � � , . n � � o ; • � K � a x .ye . . A A � N � � . � � 0 0 o p � r � � H � M m O . - O O O O ywj O U� y . � o o �' m Q. r m � . O � O O O O� O O� K ~ � ~ r - O O O O � w° '° Y � � �" � o 'o N W t0 N b � � K d o u w i r � � +� "" � O O � . O O . O O F'.O frtD Ai tD � `t � m � � r � ° r�r K � a o � n � � a � y .�.' :" �_''`-..�► -o rn N r �... r F,, m � . � N o cr °o 0 o c�i .�i ✓y' a° o � °o °o °i o 0 0 : y �O fi1 � � 0 . � O p O p � p . H � . �=�� . A yi � ro �.. K � N O O N O N . O '� �O b . . . �p Cr O O O O O O J p F � n � 0 0 0 0 o v, o , a � o { ,� w o ) r 's� w � J O ln r � Y o�r ° o O ° o o � o � F' � y�.7 0 0 o n o � o, � � P� � t�� , o � r ti o a _° �o � L7. O N N � N O �7i � • O CL rr O � G , ' w w ~' �- ro - � � A N N N. O 9�J � o t� O � O � � '� O . � . O W N 0 o v o ^� 0 0 0 � � . Ut ll� fT l!� N lJ1 lf� O1 � . . . . a� m o m � �o w r � � � � . N I' M (A tif � �� O � N W W IJ1 �1 I . . �1 N O N � � � � � y V -y . y y r► rt N A rr K c► m Ai O O . . � r Nd �y7 W �� £� � 7 �� O. M � Q M �7 rt rT M R K. cf c1' °C $ fi � � N� "'J frD{ J' N "J M � S� �' M 'J [y'� 0� . . � � 7 7 E � K y l7 y M � X f�D � � .�..� m � H� o�i � �� 7 � m� � K � t � � rt � c x rr x � �^ N x rt x u� ro N• 7 N• r- N F^ r• w rr O � O r 7 r o r rt N H r r� 0 7 � � M F+ N F+ M W (D F-• C H Y !-� !S P. p a° � V� w � � � m n � n a �a � � X �G � �� ro v� � � � 'q+ � , � r a a n ro � � � � G � � a � �°�' v uyi � � E . a � � � K n � � K � � � � H 3 ~ H rr � • �y � . . . rO v, � � ►' . . t' E � � .L1 y c " '� � � � 3 � � � n �. � rt� yr O .b W H E rr H � A A .A . N � ,`f rt 7' K � �� O`� Z O O O N J �' J 'J y h� K N O 0 N "{ °o o° °o °p w °o ��" r �m � o a � � d �m o 0 0 °o °o 0 o K ~ � < r � n � � M y w � z N ' 1 �J � � � o 'ro � � N � n C y � O '0 �' K ta] 3 p � o � w i r � i n w a 'e � � ' � V o °o o° �o o �o �o °' ►[ 3 K � � _X �/ ° ° ° ° t'- � ro 1O 0 3 � g � � y c „ � � 3 a � y � N N � (�ji N ..7 N O N O c� r � �A �1 N O N O O O � � V1 v�!_1 � O O � O O O � � � . � . � �T O � O O .p O O O . . � . � � � � W W o A o�� ° � � ,a o 0 0 � o 0 0 0 � .,1 Z � p p yO °o o° o °o N �,Q . 0 o a . o � ,.! - a o � ` A W � �.. ro ° o � £ °o �� V y O O O R O � y O O O � K O a � � � r; � s � �' � :� -,� � %� t N � � 0 �� zaay 7 r� m �� N :�' o � � � a- � L , � c r- V,! `"' :" a n � y � � N N D O • W O � ,J o o . � o ~N O o0 0o v � � Op o o � O . , � x . .. .� .. � ,,. � �+ r ►+ r r .►+ F+ ✓ O 3 O n lA 7 � � CWi a y o � �: � V' u �0 �i C� . � y .i J J v _ 3 r+... f] V ..'� N J w N .^�. V' .b J 's �O � R O r . :r � rw ;n tn � rn �: O � - � . � .. � C1 ^S < S f' R fr < G !+ . R _ � � 7 : m �- �- ��tn r� a� .� r .. ,.. � ,., r. �,,, ... 0 O � < rr3 3 O � � K ' • � � � •• •• � "� O J 'Y C :I :1 O O� 0� 7 p! W t7' �� Y� Ll� N > > u N N ' 17 77 • � 't �i � rr r- � � R 3 W .d N �.0 C+ r rr p � G t� A CJ 7 a fD tJ r. r O O� M n� .�.. � O tn a �! fJ 7 oi � 9 n y R s :.. m _ o o.� r� � � � � . � . o c p a c� r+ o � � c 0 r o ? > a o n � v�l .� o o �, � �, � � ,,, + _ t + .- � n w3 O • � C� H G O tn O O 7 p V n: rn: r0 n Gfi �7 � �R � O "- 7 O. N C ON-►+ R O O O O J O O � O O NO � a0 01 � � = w fJ C' u R 't rr O rr ID 01 t- ►+ r+ ►+ r � G►+ R tr 7C P0. O K d LL N �. N � W N Vmi W is - ? A O � � n r o t O d r- .. n ... U+ p•• v .i , � � . . � . C . O Cf�S �: W R 7 W G C� � F+ y er � G ^C d i0 Vl fG fr W �r ID tJ� W �I F+ O ►� O ►� tf� r �tn F+ tn r� O r� t r N O N R ^ L� . R n � fl < G S Oi •• 7 O� tn� O� p� Q. p. S K7G fJ tD p � O �t O W Ct.� O W O W ��py O� Oy O� O OJ N G� �,� `C T O R 7 O r �'+� 07 ►t V� �1 .1 �I �t �t �! .i J :n N � �El � : R d Q 3 7 � M+ O � ►A�-f� Oai r O tn tn N 6n tn tn . tn. tn O C ^ 0 b'd Q N 9 � rr d 3 O O O C O Q O O O 1 C C. p I,�n . . . � � � - d3 �c m O O a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r � � 7 R t0 O 6 O 7 � y� r O O O O O O O . O O � O 1+ �h 7 c N � r r+ • X Q G 7 ;U C n� IJ� G� . N M a � Oi � O b ►�-� f0 7 n c° ra* `o c� a� �n �n u+ u� a � g y _ G d 3 fD W C fT� M 7 w O� r+ N �O 'J� V� �I N N tD �1 R 3 • . r O .^.. G ►n M ^J O f►O O� Cf O W �i J N J O ,T C�, � r�(y � ►n ff O O ��C � 1 O u� O v� V� O r O� � C� W r�{ pt N f; ^ Cf 6 O N �p M A. I . 1 � 1 � 1 � 1 . 1 . 1 � 1 . 1 � 1 . A ►^� � � 7 3 W O rr0 Gp 00 WO WO W O u0 WO WO � a0 AO a0 a0 ? A R f� < � � - ►+ rq O O � O � O � p � O � O � � � o � O � O � O � O r O �C d O C G r r� > 7 .t O p O Ki O 31 O O� O 0� O �O O u� Q O+G w O N O � • � g� � 7 0� P' t� K G N O.C. Q V� m J T N� N 4 W �' 0� 'O n^1 �+ Q N CJ R C fA N V1 h� O� N W ts U1 �I V7 tJ� M-' W O � ►' O.� 7 ? CO � W ` N � N . N � N � ►+ . r+ . Y+ . Y . F-� . ►+ Vµ b G �7 �: `G ub O U�O O O� C� O� O� O� O� O� O� O� O�� O� M t,! y � ►n•• � n �J � A R � C C O W O W O N O ►+ O J O 10 O 9 O J .O 0� O N� O N W O R fi n n' fl Cl`C O O ►'�►'Rrt O �I ON O ►� Or ph+ O ►�' ON O W O V+ O v 00 W 7 • O . ►- � ^C - C r* a N N N �p p N '+ u�. ,e. � : a vi O G d ' 7 r 1+- 7 'L N � �C .1 ft tr . . . . . . . . . � . •A R W'O W f� d 01 O O O O O O O O O O O W w N O ifl �� .O M'� �O 3 7 O O O O O O O O O O O tA M ►' � r R 7 r�C E ~ �A.-�d�d.. O o � O O o D o O O O o ►+ trJ � • r� . . �C�+. 7 07 F��-d�O af� h+ � i � yi° n � � o'. o ' r .� m o 0 0 o a i ."• '+ � a ^n � n � .i A .n a . . . . . . . o o g � '`� �i -t �t .� n rr rt w vi r.n u+ ►- r a �o o i.� � .i r�••p. `7 - 3 v � >O ta W rr 5 7�n w O � o N U � O n� a ►+ .� b . � 7 *n �F r 'C1 tr t� N v W CD W td id W t.r O J �! O a y � � K } . Ot] r� O (J O�n7 t� �F� t� 1 � t� t � r� 1 1 . 1 . }. 'l!0+ �t n fD 'Lf ►S f]� 1 p� O N O ►+ O O O O O O O O N O �+ - o a o m c� a o m w � o- o - o 0 0 0 o a o o - o . ►i R t O. •+ .0� G N►+ AO tD 'J �00 O W O w0 O � O tn0 . .70 ln0 � � � fr r!' 7 R �'1 C' � 3 li� 1 t0 � 'V Fr N is O V N a 1+ a 7 n T N C rt O. rT� J N N J t.i V �1 �1 m v v ^7 S�C� 2 ' G R r'O ►rt'�� O E� O J O O O r+ O r� • • � � � � p D'C W Q � S � ft N �O O� O O OO O O O r � O� O O OO O �. O O�1 o O � W IL =�T r � C f) [*v.O fi l'! N N E R m N tT� ln N tf� tn tn� tJ� � ln W `C � 7 �+ �'t ,^, fD �n 0 ►{ O L�' 0 N . O O O O � O O O � O O N fJ N �"R d 7 H (� 0 fd V+ O � O O Q O O� O O O Vi Iy v� o ew � �om 3 K � mo 0 0 0 0 �O o o� o 0 0 o r m » m � r n r�i� rw+a u r $ °o o °o o� o o °o c °o °o g } n°' ' A °� .°a � cA � � • mM W 7 3 t* C� d➢i G.G W 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 t � O � ►•`C � � ff J Q M-(f 19 .D V. N a W W W Y� lJ� v ' . .] p � O n � �o r► O O �o o ►+ O� a a � v� o r �.r ni n y � 9 � 7 ��YY ►+ O m OD � U� J V O - Y� '�J is .q Z � f� q N R' fr 0 M O C! � A t0 6� tJ a .fa. N O d N N O E�si C" � R7 7 rJ fD �C O ►q►�G N �I p O tT� l7� N O � N N O .y� �'`G ►f �O N /+W O N O O O O iJ� O IJ� N p . t� < to rn F - Y+tn fD O O O O O O O p O O O -� �� 7 C W w� � �N� p1 - N N N N N N N IJ N N � N .Q Ct 3 p; A n G 7 < � < N J T N ft a a ia y� y� � p� � � � v pO �p c `Q N 3 r*rr Q ►-o �o o� u�c v� m �c W o� O a � a N y O 3 H O. •+ O� ►�f?r t O ��5 W �O t0 �N N 0� F• O � O Iv O� W . � H r S H � . n A 7 d Q O h�(� < � w � a N r p� a {ll � y� u � o a t.i 7 > �p ►'7 'O O A f� N N 0� . !+ N O {t� l� N � {7� �t N O � � � �j �C a ►^� 3 'C3 � W Oi b' � t/1 N N N �I N N !l� �I � O O y� O 0 G a �'� � M C tn G fJ O tn Y� N� tn ln O � O N O O 2 !A 7 C • 7 X�Uf r+ y �p f..O O O � G O O O O O O O p v ,n p � . G ft f0 rs Or -� � � rC r n rr'v n a..a � S� ro < � O rr An� . M v W G n .G+� 7 7 • G ro � . I:0 '7'O Q O�% C N N N N N N N N N N N I K� � �y :J S C CJ F-� �� +t �! �I J �1 +I J �t �7 �I � . Q.7 fD lJ R N �'3 Y C O. O� C� 'J� J �J �7 CD � b ' � �O �0 C n ►++r r'q O J M ►t 0� fD • . • . w . � . . . . . O � p O. O W O� O W J O W �1 J p C3i G �y p ►�Ul G ►n� � R7 fp . 1-� A � N O� O .a .ry. N !.� O r' R [7 p 1+-S f�N►+ '* O N O 7 O t^d R1 wi O� tn d W N F� O ^p r 7 � �O n N J Q fD O�f GL � � p O :� 7 A.� p a.7f~..y. m 7 G b. M ^J O�O N � F+ •'' � . C..C•- R u .e tv G W C+ ►� O C h l7� O J N O!R-O�i W O � '�.f K1 � U �O U' p ' 3 7 f� T f! 9 K tn O O N �O �O O F+ N W � O� p .'�. . W M G ii . 2 O� q ►� W O a N�� Q� �. O� W l.� O G N � I7 (� ~ J:1 J R � O' � � � '� f* tJ t� G J fn P� O 7 R 0 �1 � fD fT Ct 7 O � � �l S n A A A i 11 W W W W W. �' r 1 L r `G lD G R � W W �� G „�+, � � C7 � N R N 7 N W N f O �C �1 Cl y1 � W C N � tC � �t N� � W ►� d ' f3 1f N �.t � N N 3 fD p � . � O a ~ Y• C �C N i � [�j G r r. n f�7 :�u J a W r �t O . ^J J Y �' f* � 7 �' . S C YJ "' (I .."�f� N W N .t �:J .1 ? 4� tp� N � r � � � . C!� CJ J O f' N .7 � . . . . . . � 'v f7 L^ K n � J < D. N V �- O O O O O O O O a O N Q 7 `�� . -� " n ^ �1 ^ O O O O O O O � O .�.7 p W � � i� f3D '� C R '!JJ'�l�4 . � . 7c ^ ��1�a� l*G � n n �< : ,.y � � ., t' o � 7 C _+ 7 [" ^ O C ' N t/� tt1 C� fi� � �! �I Q� m N :� r . � " . �O N G� � V� r v� � :o �, �,, � �� pT abpa � . CAPITAL ALIACATION POLICY -- RECOMMENDED REVISIONS U Bond Financing: 1. The City will issue $6,500,000 in Capital Improvement Bonds in 1980. When preparing the tentative Capital Improvement Program, �the maximum amount of Capital Improvement Bonding and tax increment bonding for financing future Xears' projects should not exceed $7,500,000 in 1981, $8,000,000 in 1982 and $8,500,000 in 1983. 2. �;"!!.`-E�t*�-W3��-399tSC-��;69�;A89-�n-water-po��ntien-a3�ateatent-beads-�r�-�989-to- � f�nar►ee-the-eeeend-pknse-ef-the-�he�nes-�a�e-seWer-pra3eet. Assuming the City receives a grant for the second phase of the Thomas-Dale sewer project and issues in 1979 the necessary Water Pollution Abatement Bonds to match the grant, the maximum amount of WPA bonds to be issued in 1980 for the third phase of the Thomas-Dale sewer project and storm water ponding projects is $4,301,000. When preparing the tentative Capital Improvement Program, the maximum amount of WPA bonds to be issued in 1981 for the fourth phase of the Thomas-Dale sewer project and storm water ponding projects should not exceed $3,520,000. After the completion of the Thomas-Dale sewer project, it is the City's intention to finance sewer projects with fund sources other than Water Pollution Abatement Bonds. ^ 3. The City doe5 not intend to issue tax levy=supported bonds in 1980 for the residential or commercial rehaYiilitation program, parking facilities, or � urban renewal. At this time there is no anticipated need to sell rehab bonds in the future years of the tentative Capital Improvement Program. 4. If tax increment bond-funded projects are developed, they must meet requirements of Policy V "Tax Increment Financing Policy" before City Council will consider issuing bonds. � �� s`� ,� .� � H 1/4/79 � SAINT PA�JL CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICY �,►- �^� � 1980 �u �.:;.Es;� .6 .��,A� r �,� °`��, � �� . �.. - �r% ' � _ e. . :� � � ��aa� ��. � � ��w � ��`�� a � � �m�k 'Y. �� +�„ . � � � � �� f� � � �� x� � � . �§� ��. �� fr�� t .. z & �'� �a� �av�� `+4'w m� � :�� d ..�� ' _ '�ar � �g � �� ,Pa :��,r,..er�. � . .FA_ DIVISION OF PLANNING DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SAINT PAUL GLOSSARY . Ava orem taxes: roperty or rea estate tax pa ase on t e va ue o t e property. Bon : n nterest- ear ng cert cate of n e te ness. Bond funds: Dollars obtained through sale of bonds. Cap ta : n accumu at on o goo s or money. Capital allocation: Assignment of available capitai to uses, either by function (e.g., streets, sewers) or by geographical area. Capital expenditure: Actual spending of capital for pro�ects. Capital improvement: A durable asset purchased with capital. Capital improvements are significant, one time undertakings often paid for by borrowing. Capital Improvement Budget (CIB): A listing of capital expenditures for the coming year. In St. Paul, the City Council appropriates money for capital improvements by adopting the Capital Improvement Budget. Capital Improvement Program (CIP): A listing of tentative comnitments for capital expenditures for the years (usually four years) following the Capital Improvement Budget year. In St. Paul, the CIP is an identification by the Planning Comnission of direction and projects to be pursued. Each year previous Planning Comnission CIP recommendations are considered, affirnied or modified, and implemented through adoption by City Council of a Capital Improvement Budget. CIB Comnittee: See St. Paul Long-Range Capital Improvement Budget Comnittee betow. Cortmunity Development Block Grant (CDBG): Monies made available annually to St. Paul by HUD through provisions of the Housing and Comnunity Development Acts of 1974 and 1977. Cortmunity Development (Block Grant) Program: Refers to bath Federal and local activities connected with implementation of the Housin9 and Comnunity Development Acts of 1974 and 1977. Cnnmunity Devetopment Division: The division of St. Paul's Department of Planning and Economic Development (DPED) with responsibility for overseeing and evaluating use of CDBG monies. Comnunity Development Plan: See Three-Year Cortmunity Development Plan. County Aid: An annual grant from Ramsey County to compensate St. Paul for maintaining, constructing and reconstructing certain county-designated roads in St. Paul De t servi ce: nnua or sem -annua payment o nterest an repa,yrtient o pr nc pa on a oan. ty � of St. Paul debt service is primarily for bonds. Department of Finance and Management Services (DfMS): One of six departments of St. Paul city government. Department of Planning and Economic Development (DPED): The newest department of St. Paul city government. Comprised of the Planning Division, Economic Development Division, Comnunity Development Division, and Renewal Division. Downtown People Mover (DPM): A fixed-guideway automatic public transit system under study for downtown St. Paul. E Ent t ement grant: at port on o mon es to w c a c ty s ent t e y ormu a, as oppose to a discretionary grant made at the discretion of the Secretary of HUD. G enera ob gat on on • cert cate o n e te ness ssue an so y a c y o genera e cap a . A general obligation bond is normally repaid from a levy on property. Its debt service has first rights on any city revenues, and is therefore said to be backed by the "fuli faith and credit" of the municipality. (See revenue bond, below). ent e reatment rea : spec e area w t n t e y o a nt au w c as een � identified by the appropriate district council or neighborhood group, the Planning Comnission, and the City Council for the purpose of encouraging property owners to rehabilitate their properties and to bring substantial improvement to the area in accordance with an approved ITA plan. Continued on back cover city of saint paul planning commission resolution file number 7847 �' te flarpmhPr $, 1978 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul is charged with responsibility for development and review of policy to guide the annual Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process (UCIPBP); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the policies adopted as part of "Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policy: 1979, 1980, 1981" and revised them as indicated in the attached copy; NOW BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that the Planning Comnission approves the policies entitled "Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policies : 1980", as revised, and directs transmittal to the Mayor and City Council , along with relevant background information, for review and adoption. moved by McDonel l _ seconded by Panaal in fav�or- against o SAINT PAUL CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICY: 1980 APPROVED BY THE SAINT PAUL PLANNIPJG COMMISSION: DECEMBER 4, 1978 RESOCUTION NUMBER 78-47 ADOPTED BY THE SAINT PAUL CITY COUNCIL: DIVISION OF PLANNING DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 421 WABASHA STREET SAINT PAUL, F1INNESOTA 55102 TABLE OF CONTENTS � 1 .0 SAINT PAUL CAPITAL � ALLOCATION POLICY: 1980 1 1 .1 DEFINITIONS AND TERMS 1 1 .2 THE POLICIES 3 .0 THE UNDERLYING RATIONALE 13 FOR SAINT PAUL CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICY 2. GOALS AND PRINCIPLES 2.2 I�PLEMENTATION OF GOALS AND PRINCIPLES: 3 IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES 2.3 IMPLEMENTATION OF GOALS AND PRINCIPLES: PRIORITY AREAS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT .4 IMPLEMENTATION OF GOALS AND PRINCIPLES: THE CITY 'S ROLE IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT . IMPLEMENTAT ON F G ALS ND PRINCI LES: CITYWIDE BALANCE 3.0 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL PERSPECTIVE 3.1 TYPES OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS 23 3.2 FISCAL CONSTRAINTS APPENDICES .0 UNIFIED CAPITAL 3 IMPROUEMENT PROGRAM AND BUDGET PROCESS (UCIPBP) 5.0 POLICY IMPLEMENTATION 6.0 CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED 1 79 BUDGETS AND TENTATIVE FOUR- YEAR PROGRAMS 6.1 CAPITAL I�MPRO EMENT BONDS 38 EN . TER P LLUTION BATEMENT BONDS 42 7.0 RESOURCES FOR FURTHER 43 INFORMATION CREDITS 44 GLOSSARY Inside Covers ii LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE TITLE 1 15 Typical Municipal Capital Projects 2 17 • Housing Condition/Income Map 3 24 Types of Capital Funds and Their Uses 4 32 The Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process for the City of Saint Paul 5 33 1978/1979 Calendar for the Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process 6 35 Policy Monitoring and Implementation Responsibility iii � _ 1 .0 SAINT PAUL CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICY: 1980 The City of St. Paul 's annual capital improvement budget and program is the result of a year-long process called the Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process or UCIPBP. A set of capital allocation policies, adopted by the St. Paul City Council , are used to guide the recommendations and final decisions made through this process. I� 1978, twenty-two policies were adopted by City Council for a three-year period: 1979, 1980, and 1981 . In adopting policies for three years , it was understood that there would be an annual review �o that appropriate revisions could be made. The policies which will be used in 1979 (resulting in a budget and program for 1980) and a brief explanation of key terms follow. The full document includes additional chapters which present supporting information. l.l DEFINITIONS AND TERMS The policies are divided into three categories: strategy policies, implementation and development policies , and budget and finance policies. Each category reflects a separate level of policy. Strategy policies set general direction for St. Paul. Their rationale is based on citywide goals and a strategy for reaching these goals adopted by City Council for the three-year period. Implementation and development policies focus more specifically on the kinds of capital projects that will be encouraged or discouraged given the limited resources available to St. Paul for capital improvements. Budget and finance policies address the various sources of funds available to St. Paul for capital improvements, when they will be used, and conditions that must be met in order to use them. � 1 .1.1 TYPES OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Three terms which differentiate between broad types of capital projects are used throughout the policies. These terms are: service system, system support and subsidy. 1 Most capital improvements fit into the service system category. Service systems include the following subsystems: - Transportation: roads, bridges, curbing, sidewalks, lighting, signals, signs, skyways, parking - Waste S stem: sanitary sewers, solid waste faci ities, recycling facilities - Water System-Supply and Removal : supply distribution, storm sewers, ponds - Safety: police stations , fire stations - Leisure/Education/Culture/Environment: parks, parkways, p aygrounds, recreation centers, libraries, cultural centers , museums, trees, special use facilities System support activities improve the ability of the city to deliver services. Examples of system support projects include: - headquarters and administrative offices - training or educational facilities - repair and maintenance facilities - storage facilities - communications facilities - The final category, subsidy, reflects assistance given to individuals or businesses as incentive for capital improvements. Subsidey allocations include: - loans - grants - acquisition and/or clearance 2 1 .1 .2 PRIORITY AREAS Some of the policies refer to different types of residential areas within St. Paul . The classification of areas is based on the median income of each census tract in comparison with the median income of the SMSA* and the condition of the area as indicated in St. Paul 's "Residential Improvement Strategy" . The result is as follows: Residential Improvement Category Conservation Improvement Median Income I & II I & II Improvement III Less than 65% of SMSA Other A Improvement III 65-79% of SMSA Other B Improvement III' 80% or more of SMSA Other C Improvement III *Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area as defined by the U. S. Department of the Census. The policies also refer to "neighborhood revitalization". This means coordination of a number of improvements in a residential area in order to stimulate private investment and, as a result, halt deterioration. Neighborhoods suitable for such an effort are most likely to be found within "A", "B", or Improvement III areas . 1 .2 THE POLICIES 1 .2.1 STRATEGY POLICIES A It would be desirable for the City to take neighborhood revitalization action aimed specifically at those areas of deteriorated housing with the greatest potential for attracting private reinvestment, especially in those areas where significant private reinvestment is not currently occurring. B New allocation of both subsidy capital and capital for service systems improvements in support of residential and neighborhood improvement should follow this dis- tribution: 3 % of Total Recommended Residential % of Subsidy Area Blocks Capital A, B & Improvement III 30% 70-75% All Other 70q 25-30% C 1 .New service system capital improvements for neigh- borhood betterment should support neighborhood revitalization action aimed at those areas of deteriorated housing with the greatest potential for attracting private reinvestment (for example, Identified Treatment Areas). 2•Furthermore, first priority for service system improvements outside of areas chosen for neighbor- hood revitalization should be in areas where the poor condition of service systems can be demonstrated to be depressing resale value of property or de- terring maintenance investment of owners. D 1. New allocations by the City of Saint Paul of both subsidy capital and capital for service system improvements in direct support of economic develop- ment should emphasize complementing residential revitalization (including District 77) as first consideration. 2. Second consideration for city capital allocations in direct support of economic development should be for other commercial or retail reuse or revitalization, including the downtown. E (Not used) F In order to assure a balanced approach to annual capital allocation, total budget allocations and tentative program commitments for new projects, excluding special grants, costs born by other units of government or the private sector and assessments which are for a particular project, should approach the following proportions: q of Total Category Available Neighborhood Improvement 25-35% Economic Development 20-30% Citywide Service Systems Improvement 35-45% Support System Development 5-10% 4 G Not more than 20% of the monies budgeted each year, excluding special grants, costs born by other units of government or the private sector and assessments which are for a particular project, should be for projects in any one district. LE EN N N ENT LICIE H� The funding needs of capital improvement projects which have received previous budget appropriations for construction plans, acquisition and/or construction phases, normally have priority over new projects. I Generally, the City's service system will not be expanded. 1. Within service system categories, rehabilitation of the city's existing facilities takes priority over the addition of facilities to the service system, except where economy or efficiency factors or planning considerations indicate that such rehabil- itation is inadvisable. 2. Replacement of existing city service system facilities takes priority over additions to the city's system. 3. Additions to the city's service system take last priority un1ess the addition brings the area where it is located up to a standard of service which has been officially adopted by the city as part of a plan for the specific service system and budget policy does not limit such funding. In such cases, the addition of service system components has the same priority as replacement of existing service systems. J Generally, the City will budget acquisition funding for new pro�ects under the following conditions: 1. Acquisition related to pr�vate development or reuse: (housing or economic development) : a. If there is a responsible developer with financing comnitments in hand; and b. If the proposed reuse is in conformance with adopted city plans. 5 2.Acquisition related to public development or reuse: a. If right-of-way or easements for service systems are deemed necessary; or b. If there are opportunities to complete parkland assembly where parcels have been previously identified for conversion to park use when they become available; or c. If the property being acquired has tax exempt status and the proposed use has been clearly identified and is consistent with adopted City plans, policies, and priorities for capital expenditure; or d• If opportunities for special grant funding exist. K Allocation of capital funds for economic development proposals will be based on the merits of each proposal and upon its ability to leverage private investment dollars and obtain a return of increased property taxes in accordance with the identified leverage and return on investment guidelines. 1 .LEVERAGE GUIDELINES: Normal leveraging is 1 :6. In ot er wor s, eac ollar the city provides for a particular pro�ect should mean six capital dollars committed by the developer. For example, the City would normally anticipate providing no more than $60,000 in public improvements to service systems or in subsidy to a pro�ect valued at $360,000. This ratio may go as low as 1 :3 if a given project will have a major impact on a public goal . Examples of such potentially worthwhile projects include: a.Projects directly associated with neighborhood revitalization efforts; b.Projects which generate additional (not displace- ment) employment within St. Paul ; and c.Projects whose principal ob�ective is resource con- servation or the development of alternative energy sources. 2.�ETURN ON INVESTMENT GUIDELINES: Normal return on nvestment s n ot er words, the city expects to realize a direct return of 12� property taxes for its participation in an economic development project. If $75,000 in public improvements are provided, tax receipts from the project should be $9,000 per year more than they were before develop- ment. 6 This return on investment may go as low as 4� if a given project will have a major impact on a public goal . Examples of such potentially worthwhile pro- jects are given in 1 , above. However, at a minimum, the tax ield from a roject s ou cover the cost of any ad tional municipa services required. � L Tax abatement is discouraged as a development incentive. However, it may be used to support projects that • explicitly serve a public purpose. If used, abated valuation in any year of the abatement period should not be lower than the valuation of land and improve- ments before the project is started increased at a 6% rate compounded annually over the term of abatement. M The selection of Identified Treatment Areas for neigh- borhood revitalization will be made according to the ITA guidelines adopted by the St. Paul City Council as File Number 271322 on June 27, 1978. (Copies may be obtained by calling 298-5586. ) N (Reserved for commercial revitalization policy. ) 0 If the Downtown People Mover (DPM) is implemented, not more than $6.0 million in City Capital Improvement Bonds will be appropriated as cash to meet the 10% City match which will be required by the federal grant. P Diseased shade tree removal as a special allocation will be concluded with the 1980 capital improvement budget. Reforestation should continue at at least 5,000 trees per year throughout the 1980-1984 Capital Improvement Program. 1Q Conditions for City participation in funding skyways : 1 .Funds will be budgeted only for skyway bridges that are part of a firm package for development or redevelopment of the benefitting buildings; 2,Normally, the City will fund only a portion of skyway bridge construction. The developers and/or property owners of benefitting buildings shall fund the entire cost of skyway system construct�on within their buildings; 3,The City will not participate in funding the operation or maintenance of a skyway system unless the City is the owner or developer of a benefitted building. 7 2Q The City will consider budgeting funds for a site pr�paration fund under the following conditions : 1. Funding is bud eted on a yearly basis with an initial allocation of �50,000; 2.7he fund will only be used to prepare tax-forfeited sites owned by the City or scattered si`�es formerTy acquired by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for clearance; 3•Site preparation will be undertaken only if a developer has committed to buying the specific parcel once it is prepared; and 4.No administra��:�� or operating cost� are paid from the fund. �.2.3 BUDGET POLICIES� ��~ R Given �he City`s fiscai constra�;,i,s it is desirahl� :to allocate municipal capitai to projects in 1480 and 1981 which will not result jn a net increase in City operating and maintenance responsibilities. At a minimum, this means that: 1 .Essential facilities which can be financed and operated by the City and another agency will 6e given a high priority if they can be constru,cted and operated at less cost than separate facilities. 2,Generally, there wi11 be no allocation of Eapital for purchase or construction of facilities for human services programs which are no� oper�ted b� �,he City or for rehabilitation of human services fa�i�i- ties which are not owned by the City in 1980, and 1981 . As an exception, those citywide facilit;ies specifically provided for in NUD regulati.otis, as� eiigible for Community Development B�ock,,:Grant�_funds � may be considered. No CDBG monies will be,app.rq-, ,� priate� to finance annual operation and main�enance of human service facilities in 1980 and 19�1 . 3 ,New swimming pools will not be cons9dered for funding in 1980 and 1981 . ,,�,E, S The City wi11 annually budget for each pro��c�, �b�� .-v only the estimated amount of money which .ca� rea�ona�iy be expeCted to be expended within the budg�� yea�.�: 7he capital 9mprovement program will identif�r.fugds required to complete the financing of a pro�ect ;j� P �,, future years. This tentative commitment is sub3ect to , � adoption by City Council of a Capital Improvement Budget appropriation for the project. T Determination of which fund source 9s most appropriate _ for financing each of the City's budget priorities will be made as follows: 1 .A11 street improvement projects on Municipal State Aid, County Aid, or Minnesota Trunk Highway routes will be considered for funding primarily with monies allocated to the city specifically for those routes. 2.Capital improvements which are eligible for metro- politan, State or Federal programs or private grants should be so financed. CDBG and CIB monies may be used to provide local matching funds, if appropriate. 3,Capital improvements which could be financed with specific bonding authority may be so reco�nended if City Council has indicated its intention to utilize such authority; 4,Capital improvements and programs eligible for CDBG funding will be so funded; and S,Capital improvement which cannot be financed with monies governed by paragraphs (1) through (4) will be considered for CIB bond funding. U Bond financing: 1,The C9ty will issue $6,500,000 in Capital Improve- ment Bonds in 1980. 2 ,The City w111 issue $4,002,000 in water pollution abatement bonds in 1980 to finance the second phase of the Thomas-Dale sewer project. 3,The City does not intend to issue tax levy-supported bonds in 1980 for the residential or comnercial rehabilitation program, parking facilities, or urban renewal . ' 4, If tax increment bond-funded pro�ects are developed, they must meet requirements of Policy V "Tax Increment Financing Policy" before City Council will consider issuing bonds. , 9 ,. _ . • . �. ... �...,..,,,��;,,..,.� ,, .. 1� �arc incremen� fin�n�i�g: i`��v�nue �wo��ctioh�s tay �6n��ll�ai��i �i+��9�IC �w�t= ��c�ibn� f�r �11 ta� ��m�n� p�e��s��§ §i�e�r�� a►r��1y��d �iy a �r�i vat� ��r��i e1 E��1�� r�e��h�+� �it�n a 6dnd co►1"sul�eht. ��b�� 5t�wvi Ee ��d�n �dntl �a�� '�d��d§s l�� §��=� ��r a11 t�x increm��t �ro�ee�s a�il� �� a1� fi��ti bon� prtic�eeds fib� na moi�e �iran tfie �ii�4� ��r�� ✓�a�4 nfi pwo�ect #mplemen�a�i�iti wf�eh n�i �a� 9i4�� b�' o�her^ pro�ect r�vettues e��e g�ne��e�d: 3,O�her Costs F�fnd�+d F'rom Bond �aYe �'��-��: k��'� cd�ts rel�tjng to an� t�x iirc��Y�e�� a�� 4�a�� be �'�ii��d with boi�8 pfibe�eds arrcf ��d�(�� i'� �ustification i�fi �eacli p�tr�6�a�. '��§� ��5 ��r�$t�� but are not l��n�ted ta�: d�Sic�tt; a��a��o'� a�� relocation, co�§tru�titm bbrt� co��'��t�,� 1�6�R� courlsel , fir��i��ial cons�t��a�i� a�r�# ��a��' �f�: �,,�C�ti�i�i�Ft§ tb be ��lfirtlet� 1��'� ta�C �� d'�a� f�ha�lcin�: �,t�ie�re tnta�� be a �leati� ��a��r� b'i� �� r'�s��; b,Al l state requlremeirtS rrrust �� et; c,The, proSpective developer must �ta�r� �`fn��f��g� �v�i 1�bl e; arid d T�iiere.miast be a �vrit��. �� a�ik� �i d�+��v�, the ci� �nd an in'�'�1°��'d �ubtf� .a��'i��-��: '�I� Y Y contract must id�n�i�y!�,�mb'1�g� �'�iji+�i� �f�i! � es��piates for.�trt �n�7`�i'p�a��"�a �� rx'�'I?�� ff6 � devel opment estima`��s �ar a'�iiu�l',o�'a�t�i�� a� � !�uit�tenanc��ts .�ssbci�t�'d=�'i't�f�� 17� A�o�e�t� �a�<,v��'o is r�s'pbnsfiCYl�` i�6'� r�i��j+ �i d� �hese �ost�. 5;��'' of�� '�T� � �'- p��r�� 1� .��b'�� i� ��6��4R� !^1,�,��,�►�' �� . �n��j��1{*� ��t� � �� '�� '�d �t��.es s��Y .��.��e��,�� r. �t� 8�8�� +�� ;��f�is. �d�ra��,fi�� .in �� I�t��$ ��i� ��§§ @��_ * o ��se�r��fia�e� ,�f` �` �C��yf �b�'� � §8��@� �§ ��°�r'�n�� .4��;;�� .8� �� ii�� # �'i nance an� M�n$��n�rt� �e�v�C��S: 10 W 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 as Council F91e 272145 adopted November 30, 1978. Monies used to provide commercial rehabilitation loans shall be recycled to administer the program and provide new loans as the original loans are repaid. 11 2.0 THE UNDERLYING RATIONALE FOR SAINT PAUL CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICY Adopting a capital improvement budget is one of the �os t important actions taken by city government. Capital expenditures can have a significant effect on the development or redevelopment of a city and its neighborhoods. At the same time, legitimate capital improvement needs invariably exceed the money available to address them. If a capital budget is going to meet the greatest needs and have the most benefit for the �ity as a whole, a method for determining the relative priority of projects is required. Policies based on the goals and objectives of a city help meet this requirement. 2.1 GOALS AND PRINCIPLES Two broad objectives form the basis for many of St. Paul 's activities, including its capital expenditures. City Council has adopted them as goals and Mayor Latimer identified them as major objectives of his administration. They are: 1 .To strengthen the city's neighborhoods in order to make them better places to live; and 2.To strengthen the city's economic base in order to provide jobs and services needed by residents of the city. In addition, because capital improvement funds are limited and because needs are great, the goals are supplemented by three principles which relate specifically to capital allocations: 1 .Critical needs which affect the basic protection of life, health, or public safety take precedence over all other capital expenditures; 2.Capital expenditures should be channeled to those areas where there is the greatest opportunity for stimulating private reinvestment and effecting measurable neighbor- hood or economic improvement; and 3.Some capital funds should be made available to prevent deterioration and blight in sound areas of the city and to meet the need for improvements which benefit the city as a whole. 2.2 IMPLEMENTATION OF GOALS In order to translate the goals and principles into AND PRINCIPLES: IMPROVEMENT policies, the various types of projects which are typically ACTIVITIES funded by the City as capital .improvements are divided into three broad categories: improvements to service systems, improvements to facilities which support the ability of local government to offer services efficiently and effective- ly, and subsidies for improvements to privately awned property. 13 These three broad categories and examples of each .are listed in Figure 1 . The subsidy and system support categories are fairly limited. The service system category is the largest of the three and is divided • into subsystems. The advantage of listing typical activities in this manner is that it helps separate projects that are directed toward individual or neighborhood needs from those that serve a larger part of the comnunity or the comnunity as a whole. Based on this differentiation, the policy statements can identify appropriate activities more concisely. 2.3 IMPLEMENTATION OF GOALS The second step in translating the goals and principles AND PRINCIPLES: PRIORITY into policies is identification of those areas of the AREAS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD city where there is the greatest opportunity to stimulate IMPROVEMENT private reinvestment and effect measurable neighborhood improvement. The role city government is able to play must also be identified if policy is to provide �irection. Many qualities contribute to strong, stable neighborhoods. If the physical aspects are to enhance the stability of a neighborhood, an adequate and steady level of time and money is required. Providing these resources for main- taining individual properties is the responsibility of the owner. The City has responsibility for providing adequate resources to those service systems which it owns and operates. However, in some cases property owners have been unable to maintain their properties. Because the strength of a city's neighborhoods and housing stock affects the strength of the city as a whole, municipal assistance to individual structures or areas which show some deterioration may be justified. 2.3.1 HOUSING CONDITION/INCOME MAP Given these premises, two factors are used to identify those areas of the city that meet the intent of the goals and principles: income and the condition of the housing stock. As a measure of income, the median family income of each census tract is compared with the median family income of the SMSA (Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area) and divided into three categories: areas where the median family income of the census tract is less than 65% of the SMSA median family income, areas where it is between 65� and 80% of the SMSA median family income, and areas where it is 80% or more of the SMSA median family income. This 14 measure is the same as that required for expenditure of Community Development Block Grant funds which must be used primarily to benefit low and moderate income people. Housing condition is based on St. Paul 's "Residential Improvement Strategy". The "Residential Improvement Strategy" , adopted as part of the city's comprehensive plan in 1976, analyzes and classifies residential areas of the city into five categories based on the percentage of structures on each block which need major or minor repairs . In addition to classifying areas, the "Residential Improvement Strategy" establishes objectives for each type of area and describes programs and activities which could be used to conserve areas of sound housing (conservation areas) , rehabilitate areas of lightly deteriorated housing (Improvement I and II areas) , and redevelop areas of badly deteriorated housing (Improvement III areas) . � of Structures Needing Major % of Structures Repair or Needing Minor Beyond Repair Repairs Objectives Conservation I 4 or less 4 or less Surveillance Conservation II 4 or less 5 to 19 Intensive Maintenance Improvement I 5 to 19 20 to 81 Rehabilitation Improvement II 20 to 39 80 or less Rehabilitation and Neighbor- hood Improve- ment Improvement III 40 or more 80 or less Major Neighbor- hood Improve- ment The "Residential Improvement Strategy" reflects the position of St. Paul government that the City' s capital allocation decisions are important tactical moves for conserving and maintaining the city's housing stock and that municipal capital decisions can make a difference in neighborhood confidence. The result of combining these two factors is a housing conditi�n/income map. The map shows where residential improvements are most needed and where public assistance may be necessary as impetus for either stabilization or turnaround. 16 PRIMARY BENEFIT FIGURE 1 : TYPICAL MUNICIPAL CAPITAL PROJECTS Indi- Neigh- City- vidual borhood wide SUBSIDY Loans � Grants � Acquisition/clearance � SUPPORT Administration, training, repair and maintenance, data processing, storage and corr�nunications facilities � SERVICE Trans ortation S stem roads , br�dges, curb ng, sidewalks, lighting, signals, signage, skyways, parki ng � � Waste S stem san tary sewers, so19d waste facilities, recycling facilities � � �Wa�� _ter S�stem Supply dTTstribution, storm sewers, ponds • � �Safet.Y po�ce stations, fire stations • Leisure/Education/Culture/Environment parks, parkways, p aygrounds, recreation centers, librar9es, cultural centers, museums, trees, special use facilities � Social Care mu ti-service centers, day care centers, residential care facilities, health centers � 15 . 3oa ..�os 303 •• 305 `.�:�:+:�:'?� 307.01 307.02 301 - ':..••:•::;':•:: - 302 ��t � •P�•� �'��:��: ::�ifi:i��''- ; ;309 :;',',�.,�i;%.: g g 3 319 .�� .;f 318.02 4 �314;:�: ..,,�� - <�3�F:%:;::•`:: '`'�'�:.��:'r; ..�:.. •:>:•:r;, 3 2a�:�: •:r.. :`.#'22 i::.�`��C3i�:; .... ��': ;��;:'•: w •,,,, . ::::.. ::. •. ........ .:::::•::::. . ,.,.... W .... :::::::;: ...o . ::: >:•: ::::::::. , • .o- �•.. 332 ��•::' 329 ..... 330 = ...... �`2 �':�::�45 346 347 ::�,. .:336 � °. ::��::: 344 348 ....... ..... ... •:•:::::: ........ .; . ..:.. 342 � „o, �`•:��:�::;: _ ...... ....... '�•ik'E� .;::::•:.}:'•i:.... . ...... ... . ., � 349 ' . . 352 :: 35��" 356 .. 351 '357 ''.''�� '�60 361 :::;r::�:�:�r�::�: ii�:i::�: a� �o,�o 362 363 364 ; '''��5"''::;;:;�:% '�:�,�„��,.�,�,' �i;�ss J361 .. , 374 _ -- Ex• �_ o �_ ::<� �f � 375 �367 � � I 376.01 �z. 3�s.o2 HOUSING CONDITION/INCOME MAP* INCOME OF EACH CENSUS TRACT AS PERCENTAGE OF ESTIMATED 1977 SMSA MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME � o��E,. IMPROVEMENT I & II '"" A - � 64� 6 65-79q C � ? 80% IMPROVEMENT III � � 79q - ? 80� *Residential Improvenent Strategy classification combined with the estimated 1977 median family income of each census tract as a percentage of the estimated 1977 SMSA median family income. 2.3.2 CLASSIFICATI N F PRIORITY AREAS Assistance should go to areas where there is the greatest opportunity for strengthening and stabilizing the neigh- borhood. Two types of areas where municipal investment is likely to have the greatest impact can be identified. The first of these are called "fringe° areas . Fringe areas are characterized by housing that is basically sound but in need of some repairs . While some private resources are available, they usually are not sufficient to stabilize the area and preserve the housing stock. Fringe areas are defined as lightly or moderately deterio- rated areas where most of the residents have a median family income which is less than 80� of the SMSA median family income. These areas are labeled "A" and "B" on the map. Ar.eas labeled "C" are similar in housing condition and also require attention , but the higher level of private resources mean that a lower level of public incentives should be required. Identification of the second type of area is more complex. Throughout St. Paul there are areas where the housing is deteriorated but also quite substantial . Concentrated attention to these areas would serve to improve the irrr�nnediate neighborhood and provide impetus for improve- ments in surrounding blocks. Very often residents of these areas are low or moderate income. In order to bring about improvement, a large corr�nitment of public resources may be necessary. However, once initiated, private investment is likely to take over and provide the resources necessary for stabilizing the neighborhood over the long term. Such a commitment is referred to as "neighborhood revitalization. " Neighbor- hood revitalization implies a concentration of capital improvements , along with other types of city services, in a relatively small area as a means for inducing and securing private investment in the area. Neither the "Residential Improvement Strategy" nor the map identify specific areas' which would be suitable for neighborhood revitalization. Given the corr�nitment of time and money required of the City and the neighborhood, it is appropriate that areas be selected carefully and that activities be carefully planned by residents them- selves. Generally, these areas will be located within "A" , "B", or Improvement III areas and will meet the criteria adopted by City Council for the Identified Treatment Area Program. 18 Other geographical areas also require attention. However, they_ do not represent similar opportunities for improve- ment based on public incentives because they are either sound or, if deteriorated, would require extensive public expenditure for acquisition, clearance, and redevelopment before they could be made attractive for private invest- ment. Given very limited resources, it was decided that for the near future St. Paul 's primary efforts should be focused in those areas where significant improvement will not require large-scale redevelopment and on completing existing redevelopment projects. `L.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF GOALS The intent of economic development activity is twofold: AN D PRINCIPLES: THE CITY'S to increase the number of jobs and income for city resi- ROLE IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT dents and to expand the city's tax base so that reliance on any one source is minimized. Specific steps to bring about these changes include broadening the city's industrial base; strengthening the downtown as a retail , commercial, convention and industrial center; strengthening community commercial and retail centers; and promoting local neighborhood economic development opportunities. Public economic development activities in St. Paul consist of a wide range of activities and incentives. They include public improvements to support development; subsidy in the form of land acquisition or preparation, tax abatement, or special types of financing assistance; and the use of municipal police powers, legislative authority, persuasive pawers and technical assistance to neutralize stumbling blocks to development. These economic development tools are used by the City of St. Paul and the Port Authority of St. Paul to achieve shared economic development objectives. These objectives are set by the City Council which approves Port Authority bond issues and has two positions on the Authority Board. Economic development actions of the Port Authority are overseen and coordinated with those of the city by the P1ayor through the Division of Economic Development of the Department of Planning and Economic Dev�lopment. In the past, the Port Authority has addressed itself principally to industrial park development with some ex- ceptions (assistance to United Hospitals, Inc. , Control Data Corporation, and the Amtrak Station). The City, on the other hand, has strongly promoted and assisted downtown and neighborhood economic development. Recently, the Port Authority has taken a somewhat larger role in downtown development. 19 Expanding the Port Authority's role in downtown redevelop- ment could be consistent with City Council economic development strategy and objectives. With policy guidance and planning from the City, the Authority could undertake the acquisition, clearance, and preparation of land when there is developer comnitment and generate capital for development of such land through sale of� revenue bonds. This would reduce the need for city capital generated through sale of general obligation bonds. It is the City's intention to finance revitalization of downtown with less reliance on general obligation bonds while pursuing other forms of public financing to leverage private funds. It would also permit St. Paul to expand its economic development activities in areas other than downtown. Economic development strategy for St. Paul must carry commitment to a continuing level of downtown revitalization. However, the City should geographically broaden its economic stimulation and development efforts to place gradually increasing emphasis on use of its funds for development projects which: (1 ) more closely ally with neighborhood revitalizat9on; and (2) promote reuse or revitalization of existing comnercial or retai.l areas. Certain types of projects in downtown will continue to require initial investment from the City to improve their redevelopment potential. For example, service systems improvements which cannot reasonably be made part of a redevelopment project would continue to be made by the City. But, as the downtown attracts more developer activity, less municipal subsidy capital should be needed to maintain reinvestment momentum. If the Port Authority is to continue to expand its role in dawntown redevelopment, an overall economic develop- ment strategy must be developed by City Council and followed by both the City and the Port Authority. Some city financing tools , particularly those not available to the Port Authority, may have to be used for project preparation in downtown redevelopment. Tax increment financing and development district bonding could also be pressed into service for funding proposals under some circumstances. But the Port Authority's revenue bonding capability would provide most future funding for both industrial development and downtown redevelopment. 20 2.5 IMPLEMENTATION OF Both•of St. Pau s goa s must e pursued if t e city is GOALS AND PRINCIPLES: to remain a good place to live. There must also be CITYWIDE BALANCE balance among geographical areas of the city. While priorities must be set, each area of St. Paul is depend- ent on other areas and priorities must not lead to concentration in one or two areas while the rest of the city is neglected. Citywide needs must also be addressed so that improvements which benefit a part of the city rest on a sound base. This means that facilities which allow efficient delivery of city services must be adequate. It also means that service system improvements which serve the city as a whole must be adequate if the more localized parts are to be effective. As an example, it would not be appropriate for St. Paul to improve streets which serve residents of a small area and neglect the major streets which lead to that neighborhood as well as a number of other neighborhoods. As a result, four categories of benefit must be addressed: - Neighborhood improvement - Economic development - Citywide service systems , and - Su�port systems. In order to achieve balance between geographic areas of the city and between levels of benefit, guidelines for the proportion of available resources which should go to different areas and different levels are set. The guidelines reflect St. Paul 's rationale for capital expenditure supplemented by an analysis of past budgets and the knowledge gained through each annual budget process. In this way, the City 's goals can be addressed as well as changing needs and situations within the city. 21 3.0 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL PERSPECTIVE St. Paul 's annual budget has two major sections : an operating budget and a capital improvement budget. Although treated separately, each of these two budgets can have an impact on the other. As a result, the relationships between the two must be considered as part of sound budgeting practice. Most of the income received by a city is used to support the operation of city services and maintenance of the equipment and buildings required by these services. Salaries, fringe benefits, supplies, utility costs, and routine maintenance are all part of the operating budget. Usually an operating expense will fall into one of the following three categories: l.operating and maintenance expenses to continue existing government services which are provided directly or under contract; 2.operating and maintenance expenses for new or expanded services; or 3.operating and maintenance expenses associated with additional public facilities . Capital improvements are long-term, physical improvements. Typically, a capital improvement is a one-time expendi- ture with a life expectancy of at least three years. Capital expenditures also fall into one of three categories: l.the cost of significantly upgrading or replacing an outmoded municipal facility; 2.the cost of adding a new municipal facility; or 3.the cost of providing incentives to the private sector to encourage physical improvements or development. 3. 1 TYPES OF CAPITAL There are a number of types of funds available to St. Paul IMPROVEMENT FUNDS for capital improvements. These include bonds, grants and aids from other levels of government, and local funds supported by property taxes, user charges or assessments. In addition, the costs of some projects are shared with other units of government and occasionally a private business or foundation will give the city a grant for a specific project. The allowable uses of the fund sources can vary considerably. Limitations on the use may relate to the purpose of the project (to benefit low and moderate income people, for example) , the type of project (streets, sewers) , specific locations (MSA streets or County Aid streets), or a 23 FIGURE 3: TYPES OF CAP�TAL FUNDS AND THEIR USES FUND TYPE NSE Bonds Capital Improvement Bonds Any capttal expenditure. Capital Improvement Bond funds are dollars (Chapter 234, Laws of borrowed by the city which are repaid from a levy on property. Minnesota, 1976) Auto Parking Facilities Act Parking facilities. Parking Facilities eond funds are general (Minnesota Statute 459.14) obligation bonds exclusively for acquisition of land or construction of automobile parking places, They are repald through levies, assess- ments, or revenue of the facility. Tax Increment Bonds Economic deve1opment. Tax Increment Bond funds are dollars borrowed to finance redevetopment of specified parcels of 1and. These bonds ape repaid through lncreased property taxes resulting from redevelop- ment of the parcels, Developmemt District Bonds Economic development. Development Distrlct Bond funds are dollars borrowed to finance redevelopment of a specified tract of land designated as a development distrlct. These bonds are repaid through increased property taxes resulting from redevelopment in the district. Water Pollution Abatement Pollution control through construction of sewage and storniwater Bonds (Minnesota Statute facilities. General obligation bonds repaid from a levy on property. 115.41) Revenue Bonds My capital profect which will generate revenue. Citv of Sa1nt Paul: Revenue bonds issued by the city are repaid solely from revenues generated through the facility constructed with bond proceeds. For example, in 1980 the city wi11 consider issuing sewer revenue bonds to construct a storm sewer which removes lake water oyerflow from the sewage system. The bonds will be repaid from savings realized through reduced sewage treatment costs. Port Authorit of Saint Paul: The Port Authority may issue revenue on s repa so ey rom revenues generated by facilities constructed with bond proceeds. Authority revenue bonds are sold to construct industrial facilities or comnercial developments. Federal Aid ' Housing and Comnunity Comnunity development and housing pro�ects which benefit lower income Development Act Block Grant people, eliminate siums and bli ht, or meet an urgent need (Comnunity Development Block Grant Program�. The entitlement grant was authorized by Congress in 1974 and reenacted in modified form in 1977. Urban Oevelopment Action Economic development and facilities revitalization. Supplemental Grant (UDAG) program to the Comnunity Development Block Grant Program. Economic Development Economic revitalization. Posslble use of these funds is for financing Assistance Grant construction of the Civic Center Theater and Exhibition Hail. Land and Water Conservation Acquisition and development of local parks and recreation facilities. Funds (LAWCON) Administered by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. Urban Mass Transportation Downtown People Mover Feasibility Study. If the feasibility study Adminlstratlon (UMTA) proves out, UMTA will fund 80� of construction. Demonstration Grant Great River Road Gra�t Development of the Great River Road along the Mississippi River. The (Surface Transportation US Department of Transportation program is administered by the Act of 1978) Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). Construction Grants and Construction of wastewater treatment fac111ties, including sewers. This Loan Program (Clean US F�vironmental Protection Agency program is administered in Minnesota Water Act of �971) by the Minnesota Pollutlon Control Agency (MPCA). Interstate Turnback Construction of lnterstate highway substitution transportation profects. Funds Grant A Federal Highway Administration program funded through the Federal Aid Highway Act and administered by MnDOT. i _ __ 24 FUND TYPE IJSE State Assistance Municipal State Aid (MSA) Repair/construction/maintenance of MSA roads and bridges. Minnesota Department of Repair/reconstruction of state highways and bridges in St. Paul. No Transportation (MnDOT) transfer of funds involved; all contracts are let and administered by MnDOT. Shade Tree Grants Removal of diseased shade trees and reforestation. Legislative Comnission on Acquisition and development of local parks and recreation facilities. Minnesota Resources Grants Administered by State Planning. Metro A�ency Assistance Metropolitan Transit Downtown Peopte Mover Feasibility Study. MTC, using State Legislature Comnission (MTC) Grant authorized funds, will assume 10% of the cost of the study (and of the project, if feasible). Metropolitan Parks and Open Renovation/development of regional park and open space areas in St. Paul. Space Comnission Grant Metropolitan Waste Control Construction of wastewater treatment facilities. Seven-county bonding Comnission (M41CC) Grant authority is utilized to match state and federal funding available for sewer and treatment plant projects in the metro area. County Assistance County Aid Repair/construction/maintenance on County State Aid (CSA) system roads and bridges and county roads. City Funds Public Imprnvement Aid (PIA) Streets, sidewalks, alleys. PIA dollars are local property tax monies. Sewer Repair Fund Unforeseen sewer repair. Sewer repair dollars are local monies generated through user charges inctuded in each water bill. Assessments Certain capital improvements wholly or partially funded through charges to benefitting property owners. General Fund Monies Any capital improvement, as determined appropriate by City Council. Miscellaneous Railroad funding Agreements Improvements to railroad crossings and development of railroad-owned land as joint city-railroad projects. 25 specific project (Urban Mass Transportation Administration Demons trati on Gran t). The budgetary implications of fund sources also vary. Bonds are a form of indebtedness and must be repaid by the City. Depending on the type of bond, citywide property taxes, property taxes resulting from the project, assess- ments, or revenue from the project may be used to pay off this debt. Grants and aids from, other levels of government generally do not require repayment. Some grants do require that the City match the amount of the grant with a specific percentage of the total cost of the project or projects. Finally, some local funds are routinely set aside from property taxes or user charges to be used for capital improvements to specific service systems. � 3.2 FISCAL CONSTRAINTS In addition to the limited uses of some fund sources, the capital improvements which can be undertaken by St. Paul are limited, quite simply, by the amount of money which is available. The yearly requests for capital improve- ments far exceed the dollars available to finance them. Several factors serve to compound the limits faced by St. Paul. The first of these is, of course, rapidly increasing costs which are not matched by increasing revenues. This affects all of the City's budget and makes it all the more important that the impact of a capital improvement on the operating budget be seriously consider- ed. The second factor is increased reliance of the City on grants and aids from other levels of government. Between 1970 and 1976 St. Paul 's total revenues rose from $126.2 million to $213.8 million. But property tax revenues collected by the City were actually less in 1976 than in 1970. Grants and aids, on the other hand, have been increasing both in dollars and as a percentage of St. Paul 's total revenues. Grants and aids are welcomed by St. Paul as a means for providing local improvements and services without in- creasing reliance on property or real estate taxes. These . funds also help free money with fewer constraints to meet important needs. It is important to remember, though, that capital allocations must reflect the mandated purpose of the funds. Conversely, the third limitat�on faced by St. Paul is decreasing aid. A major source funding for capital projects has been the federal Community Development Block Grant program. These funds are being severely curtailed and, in 26 1980, St. Paul anticipates receiving approximately half of what it did during the first three years of the program. St. Paul 's annual entitlement during 1975, 1976 and 1977 was $18,835,000. Its 1980 entitlement is pro- jected to be approximately $9.7 million. The final constraint faced annually is the commitment by the City to complete ongoing projects before new projects are initiated. When this commitment is combined with a decreasing budget and increasing costs, the ability of the City to initiate new projects is very limited. For example, the tentative program comrnitments approved as part of the 1979 capital improvement budget for Community Development Block Grant funds totalled $9.6 million, - leaving less than $100,000 of the anticipated $9.7 million entitlement for new projects. The tentative commitments for capital improvement bonds exceed $6.0 million and St. Paul 's bonding limit is set at $6.5 million. Although both the commitments and the revenue projections are tentative, these figures give a sense of the difficult decisions which must be faced annually. 27 � APPENDICES . UN TED C T L EN AND BUDGET PROCESS . C ENT I N . E 37 AND TENTATIVE FOUR YEAR PROGRAMS . U ES NE R 29 � � 4.0 UNIFIED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND BUDGET PROCESS (UCIPBP) Review of adopted policies is only the first step in St. Paul 's annual Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process (UCIPBP). Once the policies have been reviewed and appropriate revisions adopted by City Council , proposals for capital improvements are submitted and an extensive review process begins. The UCIPBP w as originally established as a method for allocating capital improvement bond funds. The process has been enlarged over the years to include all federal , state and local funds for capital expenditures. The various bodies with responsibility for reviewing the proposals and making recomnendations represent all areas of the city and a wide range of expertise and knowledge. The primary review body is the St. Paul Long-Range Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) Comnittee. Three task forces assist the CIB Committee by reviewing proposals thoroughly and ranking them on the basis of a pre-determined rating sheet. The CIB Cor�nittee then incorporates the recomnenda- tions of the Task Forces into an annual budget and submits a formal recor�nendation to the Mayor and City Council. In addition to the CIB Committee and the task forces, proposals are reviewed by dis trict councils or neighbor- hood organizations, city operating departments, and the St. Paul Planning Comnission. The input from these groups is incorporated into the rating sheet which helps assure that all considerations are adequately reflected. The complete process, beginning with the development of policies through final adoption of the annual budget by Ci ty Counci 1 , i s di agrarr�ned in Fi gure 4. Fi gure 5 pre- sents the 1979 UCIPBP calendar which will result in a capital improvement budget for 1980. 31 FIGURE 4 Tt� UNIFIED CAPITAL INPROVEF7ENT PROGRAM AND BUDGET PROCESS FOR THE CITY OF :;AIN'P PAUL Procaas Staps � CITY STAFF AND INTERESTED CITI2ENS INTERESTED ORGANIZATIONS PLAMJING COUNCIL Recoma�endation COMMISSION NAYOR �� STAFF ot Gasls and 1. Planninq Division 1. Dietrict Councils Policier for 2. Mayor's Office-Bu�iget Seceion 2. Dietrict Orqanizations Capital Rasource 3. Community Development Diviaion 3. Others on tha E.N.S. Allocatlun 4. Ad Hoc Citizen Committee 5. Council Seaff Adoption uf Goale and Policizs for CITY COUNCIL Capical Resource ' Allocatlon CZTI2EN ORGANIZATIONS ::ITY OPERATING DEPAR'_"MENTS OTHER AGENCIES Projects L. District Councils 1. Fire 1. Quaei-City Agencies Identified 2. Citizen Groups 2. Police A. Port Authotity on "?reliounary 3. Business Organizations 3. Public Works B. School Diatrict Ldentification 4. Community Services C. Board of Water Coaunissioners Furm" S. Finance i Planagement Svca. D. Civic Center Authority 6. Planninq & Economic Dev. 2. Governmental Units A. Metropolitan Council B. Netro Wante Control Commission C. Metro Tcansit Commission D. County of Ftamsey E. Minneaota Highway Department 3. Private Aqencies OFFICE OF CITY PIANNING Planniny, Policy 1. City Planners and Timing �2. Operating Departmenis s Conilicts Agencies :dentified 3. Project Coordinatore 4. Council Staff Pro7ect Phayinq and Costinq OPERATZNG DEPARTMENTS Requesting Entity Determines Whether to Sub- CITI2EN ORGANI2ATIONS OPERATINC DEPARTMENTS OTHER AGENCIES mit Formal Fund- ing Request Fun3i,ig Raquests BUDGET DIRECTOR Focmally Submitted PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF ANALYSIS DISTRICT COUNCIL COUIJCZL STAFF Project A) Comprehensive Plan 1. Planning Division A) District Prioritie Analysis B) Capital Allocation Policies 2. Mayor's Office-Budget Sect. B) Project Comments C) Recommended Program 3. Community Development Div. 4. Property Manaqement Div. A) Eliqibility 6 Feasibility Recommendations Transmitted BUDGET DIRECTOR Die�;ribute Requests [o Appropriate IB COM�7ITTEE Task Force Review Projects. COMMUNITY FACILITIES STREETS 6 [TfILITIES RESIDENTIAL S £CONOMIC .TOUr Si[es. TASK FORCE TASK FORCE DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE District 6 Seaff Presentations. 1. Rep. Erom 17 districts 1. Rep. from 17 districts 1. Rep. from 17 c9istricts �� Plnq. Cooan. Recom. 2. CIB Committee Members 2. CIB Committee Members 2. CIB Commit�ee Members Dist. ^o�ncil Priorities Priority Rate Projects. Determine Funding Priorities 6 Recom. Fotmulate Recommended � Budqe[ 6 Program Using Task Force Priorities CI3 COlflAITTEE 6 Recommenda�ions Revie�.r CIB Committee Recommended Budget 6 DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS COUNCIL ST.AFF Identify Disayreements .:onsidez CIB Committee , Recommended Budyet & Program S Dpt. Directors' Recom. MAY�R to Determine Mayor's Ptoposed Budget Consider Recommenda- tions of the Mayoc s the CIB Cwnmittee & CITY COUt�CIL Adopt Capital Improve- ment Budget 3 2 O`fice oi tne Mayor Bu3qet Section-A/1Si78 FIGURE 5 1978/1979 CALENOAR FOR TNE ONIFIED C.11I'ITAL IMYROVEl�N1' PEtOf'+RJ1M 6 HUDGET PpOCESS , (Used for det�zmining th� 1980 Capital Improvsarnt Budget) ppOPTION OF CAALS AND POLICIES FOR CAYITAL ALLOCATION Tentative Date 1) Interested citizens and City staff begin to review and evaluate last year's overall October 23, 1978 development strateqiee and budget policies by 2) Intarested citizens and City etaff draft multi-year overall development etrategies and budget policies for all capital resourcee available to address Saint Paul's capi.tal need�. This draft will be distributad to districts through the Early Notification System (ENS) by Novembez 17 3) 3teeriny Comnittae of the Ylanning Comoission holds a public meeting on the pcopused overall development straceqiea and budqet policiae by December 4 3) elanning Commission recommends overall development strateqie9 a.nd budqet policies by December 22 S) City Council's Finance, Management and Personnel Cou+mittae reviews recownended overall development strataqies and budget policies by January 8, 1979 b) City Council adopts Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policies (overall development strateqies and budget policies) by January 11 7) Adopted Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policiee diatributed through the Early Notification System (ENS) by January 19 PROGRAMMING AND BUDGETING PROCESS ACTIVZTIES 8) Departments and organizations identify projecta on "Preliminary Identification Furm" (blue form) by February 19 5) Encities requestinq project funding meet with appropriate City staff, includinq operating departments, planners and project coozdinators to identify: Februnry 26 to March 2 a. Planning conflicts b. Timing conElicts � c. Capital allocation policies conflicts d. Cost estimates 1. Capital: Design, acquisition, construction, etc. 2. Mnual operating costs 3. Effect on revenues 10) Final submission date for formally submitting project funding requests to the Fiayor's Office - Budqet Section, Room 367, on the "Unified Capital Project Re- que9t Form" (whlte fOrm). March 30 11) Planning Commission review to determine requested project's conformance with the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan and adopted capital allocation policies. April 9 to May 11 12) CIB Task Force Budget Priorities and Recommendations. Includes review of last year's Capital Iaprovement Budget and current capital allocation policies, bus tour, presentations by various citizen orqanizations and operatinq de- pactments, rzview of PLanning Commission reco�nendations and Distzict Council priorities, staf: analysis and project rating. March 19 to June 15 13) CIB Cortunittee fundinq priorities and project recommendations to the Mayor and City Council after r��viewing task foree recoimnendationa and holdinq a public June 18 to July 6 hearing. 14) Departmant Directors' recommenda[ions to Mayor. July 16 to July 20 15) Mayor holds Public Hearing on budget recomnendations betveen July 16 and July 20 16) Mayoz determines his budqet priorities and recommendations by July 24 17) Ma�or's Proposed Capital Improvement Budget and Program preparation (typing, pzinting, coLlating and binding). July 30 to August 10 18) Mayor transmits ?roposed CIB to City Council by (Ordinance 916306) Auqust 14 19) City Council (Finance, Management and Personnel Committee) Public Neazing between August�'to September 21 20) City Council adopts 1980 Capital Improvement Budget by September 27 21) Tax Levy Resolution adopted by (requirement by State lav) OcGOber 9 22) Grant applications are prepared by January 15, 1980 ANNUAL PROCESS EVALqATION: UdIFIED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND BUDGET PROCESS 23) Ad Hoc Co�nittee (Interested representatives from City Council, CZB Committee, CIB Task Forces, Planning Commission, District Councils and City staff). October 1 to Uctober 30, 19'> a. Task Force Raiinq Sheet b. Task Force and CIB Co�nittee Structure c. Performance Monitoring and Evaluation d. Capital Allocation Policies CZTI2EN :�IONITORING AND EVxLOATION PAOCESS Continuous 33 Mayor'� Office - Budqet Section CNB:nlg Auqust 15, 1978 • 5.0 POLICY IMPLEMENTATION The effectiveness of policy depends entirely on whether or not pro�ects and the capital improvement budget as a whole conform with the policies . City Council estab- lishes the policies and has responsibility for adopting the annual capital improvement budget. Thus, final responsibility and authority for implementing policy rests with City Council . During the review process, responsibility for monitoring the policies is shared by the CIB Committee, the Planning Commission and the Budget Section of the Mayor's Office. Figure 6 indicates where the responsibility for moni- toring the implementation of each policy lies in the project review and budget recommendation process . FIGURE 6: POLICY MONITORING AND IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY Planning CIE Mayor's Office Commission Committee Bud et Section N °' A •r U B* g* •r O C °- D (E - not used) � F* F* � G* G* � +� N �, H °1 I-o •� c � � f0 •r � o K oa � •r +' +' M M � � � � N N �' 0* 0 � � p* P r N E N � � 0 2Q* 2Q � a, '� R '�' S r -� o T,t �a � U a� �F-� U V N � � r6 W "O C �•r C� L.I_ * Policies which relate to the budget as a whole rather than individual projects 35 6.0 CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED 1979 BUDGET AND TENTATIVE FOUR-YEAR PROGRAMS 6.1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS 6.2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS 6.3 WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT BONDS 37 '� � $ 8 g. � o $ . �m �; o 0 o g o � ca ao �n .°r a �°n a "+ � 8 0 8 00 °g p N p O O O O y r1 � 1` � . .1 V v1 O M a �^ 'g °o °o °o °o °o �° �„�„� r r N N N 1A a N 0 � O O O O O O O � w ,n o „� o vi u; o a �� n � � I� N �O � M ,,� a « a o 0 o g o o S 8 ° o a $ o g o 0 0 � r. �I vi �o 0 0 �i o �m o � ui o o r N � v°, �o ao �o u, �n o �' .°�+ v r� m .+ � � M �n �n r .+ �'+ � � � � � O n M � O O O O � � � M� g a b b b � b o � a ° � �.�i a � � � a a � � a � '� � � � � �' � � �' � o `� a �' a o a a a o 0 0 0 ' � 8 �, 8 .� .� o g .� .� .� o � g g ,� S o H Y � '� O O q O O A � � � � � � �o �I �C . �p tiC . oC �C � . . � H V � F � ,r'� � �C �C � u�i �S �! � a '� a d �` � � N F � � U 3 � N p O � y.� M N � ; pr � � � V p � Mp� fA �i � L� y u M 'O � !� �N � 0 � � a a .� U A Or+ •• � q M O r � A 6�i Vl ti � .°� C v� °i � � �a .°'. � u ..Ni u .+ t+ y ° ..mi �a�r u d� >+ v�'i a' a � � � "'� oy+ �, a � N J�.' O� y O V M W O +� i�7 � C � � J� e�-1 +CI > 0 O +i � U M 1 O O �.4 > tT i� . � � �' D � f+ 0 � u w c e a '� o� °� `� � oa � o o� � g a � $ a m N � '� '" c". a .'a � � � y y $ '' u� v► a � + � � � � " E' "' � x ..� i@r � a�p+ a+ • '� o y °' � � .+ � 4 a � y � p e }- �1 v�i .��1 O d7 O � G+ F �> 01 m � O Mo � � b� A +4+�i O W a+ � O ftl.� � ��y O 'C b � � •.� a�ae ma � �t7 � 4 PG � O C � bQ1 � W O�i U O � P� � Pai P4 PG U N U' ��-1 � i4 tQ ►7 . �--� + J � 1� � � � o o .i �n O v �n �o n ao en �o r v �o � �n �D �o �o r � r+ �o �o � o� �n �n � v� rf v H � i � i i i � i � � � � � � � � � � 7. U Vf N N N y y y �1 y y U U U U N U Q U .— ° � �n v � .i �n v N fV N n m �n �n .a �n v, a r+ ao a� ao r �n vi n r e� r � cv .-� n � rv �p a 38 oti Ibp� �, �p � A m O� W O� N N W W J J + W J W W � � w ' � A l^ N O h+ �0 O� O � � m N N N N IJ T N J OD O �O m 'b 'r W �^ � N (7 '° � T 'P '° '? �n n n h W N u, 'P '� '� '° 'P 'P 'P '° 'P $ 'P I�� 3 p� p� r �n u� v� o • e a � r �0 3 r+ O u ♦ O� T N • V� J m • m m N � Y ♦ O N � Y O C Y PI Z H� � g � � � � � � � �' � � �sa�■ � � �`�rrO �� y " � � � �� " �� ° a N Y i f1 w 7 �'1 n S > � r^j O � O O � f � � � W�1I�� M N^ A �� I� q ��1 p��r � O ~ M r M � G > nC�d w �a r�'► ` � , r �n Y`� � rff rf1 r M 11° n�y n �w w 'e "C o v � r O .�- A �f � '�. � n � � �tn�� 41 M � A �� ~ C r ..�w ^ 7 n 0 Z° 7 r � ; ^ � g ^ g r � � -, � ,; �,� � � � � 3.;:� � • � � � o�' � 3 c p �� + o o " � p � ��c m < p � � � � �° � � M � r� �O � � � A � h � v ►, � "�� 5 r� iw n � O r R M z O O M �O e� � y � M �M < M � � b a �a n E� � �� n tl� n� � �o � � o � ~ Z ~ � � � E �'�� ' � h� � � � : � ti72 �` � i W p 5 � � :� � � � � ��ip O� � � � � � � n �vq� ,~g n � O ' g � "o �° q � 0 � � ' � w y � a �' 1 �� M. ' O D � � R R � M V � M � � �.V R � ° � � � � � a M � � � a� � � � ' � Z s a �, � a t o � ; �. � �' ° �* � ^ � n T C 2 �, t n p o P � u � � � • O O O � r� �+ -�j N � i I� � n y K � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �' � �' � � � 8 0 ~ $ ^ � ` r '° °�' .. �T �i r � r � � � � � � C t� i � � 5 0 �o �o a ro v �o o a a =r M n Z a � o � � ,� ,� w � � $ $ $ � $ $ N m �s � g � a � 5 g Q � ^ Q 4 4 Q $ $ � C i $ i C 6 � C 0 C C o � �," m K o ss Rn �ry n M � � �/ J . C C � � � n r `� � � N. 1+ lpl� pW 1-' W I� N N W l/�� V1 J lJ� F' �D GGGp�ryppp � O � r N� W S �O ♦ W O O p O v O u� O Y� O O O O � �n t�i� � J O � � A S 8 0 � � � � 8 � � 8 � � � � g � � g 8 o d o o �� .. �o .-. 'O v .� .-. ... �O M � '+ Y • N p.. f.l N W V� J � O i � m O O J� N O h' J O P+ l!� ln a �n o g o $ � o u� o �n g o 0 0 �c � � g o g 2S 2S � 0 2S o �i °o °o o ° �� 0 0 0 0 0 � g � �- �u� � _ -- �. _ " ,., H W N M+ �p N .-. N W N� O J F+ O p r J P �-' v O � ^, � b G � O O S O O V� O � J O O � `� m < � a O O O O O o O O O O o S 0 r�~ �dp 'O � � � 'O� V. �+ N pN Yp �p I+ J • Y lp/� OO J h+'',pQC4/ n �n O O O O O �n O v� O O � N�H . � a 8 � � � � 8 8 � 8 8 g °� -- N :: � N . � $ � �'yr°p�a � O O O O O �n O �/+ O O O (m O W�% 7 O S O S O O O J O O O 1 6£ �O O� J W W 1� �+ � �O O � . 6 � &� D J M q � : i r �o ry � �: � � ? � ? ? � s° �r ? ? � ? ,� � � O W � J O� ►N+ tr J � O tn � �1 IM � � � � � � � _ � �� " � � � � � a► �y � � y E � � � � : � N n b' � � ? y �e a i y � r � � � � � s ,� � � � w � .� � � z � � � � � � � s � � � � � � � ,� � � � � � �a � � � � � ' � � � � � � � g � � � � � � � � � � w 8 � r � ,� � � � � � 2 ' � � � � � h � M � � F� y M � K • �p Wy1 �p f p 1r r n y ('� N + O O J ► O S m O W I�� M� tf C � � � � � 8 � � � � � 8 � s r � y� � � r p J 1 1 1 1 1 O S W � W �� $ 4 4 4 4 4 $ $ $ � 8 �� " � v $ e � � C � a� r ► r 8 J N 1 O � �► O O 1 � O O 11� O � � � � � 8 8 Q � ~ � � � 4 � � � � � � ` � � � a � � 8 v � O O � O V� � J N � �'' � � g 8 � � � � � � � � � � m d h+ � jJ • • N O� W � N r r �O O O b $ - N M � g � � � � � � � � ~S � 5 � � « � 0 RI I.i u� M ►. � �O � s � � o o a m � � x� S 8 0 8 g � � � Na �s " � r r w rr O > m W � 7 � ��yO O W O� p M 1�-p� Q O N uWi O O 7 •O p p R w � 8 . O O O O C O :f r ��yy lti �p Ipq M 1�0 W 10 N O O 0� ►� J �g � �w � �(") � � W W-� � A A �f !P �I n � n � �� hw+ F~+ N O O J U � � N ---' ►� � 70 N N�►-� �-+ ---I �0 �tl A � 'V fD 7r 7�"�--1 —I S �.� � QnD � � � � � " " � � � : � �� ,� �,� � � a Q+ O+ fD � C7 lD � � � � � � - n � � � A �� ' A fD�G �G � fD O 1 ,q r ro o n r r► n a � � � m� � a � � �h � � � �° gA rpM '�" � � � � � �& � � 01 W �A O� � 'Z N M� dl M !f � � M • 4 .�� ly ..+. ff M I+� n X kf 1+. cn� � aacAi+ o � � $ � $ '' � � �µ � g a a rr � �-�-r c.r � � � w � r $ o �r • � N 1/f -+.�1 -+• 5 11 fD O C O � �r a � � '� D �v � }y � � fD w w 7 7 3 3 f'f C1 U1�C1 N � W e� �/ M O 4 � „' � $ � � � 7 � � �C'1' e't fD A A ,q ,o O+ O O 3 e�r � N w y (i -+�.P W fD � � � � � � O ?'S < q m � •°• a q (� fD � rr M 1� o � � - � � � b �. � � w a � � � � p � C � � � � � � r � � n O i p � O� O J p O O O� O r I;� � � y � bi N p p �0 ' °o °o °o � °o °c °o Z5 °o � K � � � s � °� M �i � C ° ` r ro � n � � � i � � � � � � � h w � �e . � Q 4 4 Q 4 Q ° Y 4 p � ; M � � � � xd � o � M � 0 et* .S � n a � ,� � � N nr r rr N $ � g uNi o o a �r � a w u� , r r � ►+� 2 9 � o t� o o O� v� .� o 0 o r O � J 7 1 ,. �-; • o 0 0 0 o A o a o g g 8 g S � `°` � *-' , °o 0 0 0 o qF a S o 0 0 0 0 0 0 � 0 � � � b �-' °o � °o N °o °o oa � �� v ta . . � � � p r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 �► � O O °o °o o °o °o °o °o o a O O � � 64 ,. �O r r� R1 ,�...a M n OOOO�GO � O O A lJ� O O N� ~��p d �O O CJ7 O O O J O N O O OD � O M � v V V v v d� �� p � p O O O O a~ O O O O O O � O O O O O O � N � '°S .r o .o i^�i+ o o ~' � '-<i O O� A N O O �� O W O p� O O O O O O N (�p M O O O � O O y O O �� O N F-' �y J �' ,U N W V1 1-� �{] � O Q� A tn � .? �C'p� CJ W � IJ _� 'l Ql 0 O U ' ��, ~ . W N X O '� `� iJ � � _ i� O ) O O O GV • 00 � ai b �O w r W �n t` t�► � t� t� � 01 J F'' O � N � W N � � R �R � N ^ R � � � � � � � �' . K �5 ?�' • �' �� ,� � � � o p� � � �p �' �,� � � � � s /r Mi �C ��ti �`i `C O M � r A m � i► ~ M � h M� � W � � ar �l�r+ vq MF~+ � � � y y N � � Z �'� � � � �� . � M � n �� m � � � v: � � � � 3 M � n� � h � m � � z ti � W N r � Z „ � v N M s n H- H a �' � � g � s W s � � � �' � � � b b b � g � o ►b+ I~ G C r A A �M r � 0 W 0� � �y M @�9 d o � w i � i � h � � v � � � � � Q � p " � & � r ti K $ � a � � G a N N ~ ~ ~ I F• � .1 1/� O N O O O � � O O O � � � g � � g o 0 o r ► �.+ ,d r b8 O O N O 01 O O � O O �p O �G J O � O O O O C u� O �' � O O O A W b W i► J '.1 F+ r O 1•+ O r � O �� O O � fE O ~ A O O S M O �' � < � � � ro r m r M O O O ��Oppp O p. U N N O N O C� n O ' m c � w w ro 11 N �n A O N N �.� �ro O O N � � £ N O O iD c> J � � G 'y O O � • 7.0 RESOURCES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION The following city offices can proVfde additional infor- mation on specific elements of the Unified Capital Improvement Programming and Budgeting Process. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Division of Plannin 298-4151 �Tanning ommission policy development and review of proposals - capital allocation policies - Three-Year Community Development and Housing Plan - comprehensive plan segments - capital improvement program Divisi�n of Corrmunit Develo ment 298-5586 - e g e actvtes - Three-Year Community Development and Housing Plan - Community Development Program Budget - grants and aids - citizen participation processes - program monitoring and evaluation MAYOR'S OFFICE Budget Section 298-4323 - Annual UCIPBP and schedule - Mayor`s budget review and recommendations - CIB Committee and Task Forces - Annual budget and program - Capital improvement fund sources - Capital improvement proposal forms - Technical assistance for developing proposals In addition, the agendas for full City Council meetings and Committee meetings to review, obtain public input or take action on recommendations for policy revisions or budget recommendations can be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, 298-4231 . 43 CREDITS • PLANNING COMMISSION **Martha Norton, Chairman Jeff Levy *Liz Anderson *David G. McDonell *James Bryan Jean McGinley *Carolyn Cochrane George McMahon Thomas P. Fitzgibbon, Jr. *Jane A. Nelson Sam Grais *Joseph Pangal *Rev. Glen Hanggi Gayle W. Surrnners Sister Alberta Huber Janabelle Taylor David M. Hyduke Adolf T. Tobler Nelsene Karns Robert F. Van Hoef *Steering Comnittee and Special Policy Review Members **Chairman, Steering Comnittee ADMINISTRATION AND James J. Bellus , Planning Administrator POLICY DIRECTION William Q. Patton, Comnunity Development Administrator Ken Dzugan, Principal Planner AD HOC CITIZENS COMMITTEE John uge George Hrynewych Merrill Robinson RESEARCH AND PLANNING Tamsen Aichinger, Planner Gregory Blees, Budget Analyst Gregory Haupt, Budget Analyst 44 GLOSSARY (continued from front cover) J o nt-use ac ty: ac ty operate an or ma nta ned y the c ty w t one or more other public or private agencies (for example, Independent School District N625, Ramsey County, Port Authority, United Way, Wilder Foundation.) L everag ng: n genera , use o non-equ ty cap ta to ncrease return to equ ty. n mun c pa government, refers to use of municipal capital as an inducement to comnitment of private sector capital in a development pro3ect. Mn c pa cap ta : ap ta mon es appropr ate y ty Counc n t e ap ta mprovement u get. Municipal State Aid (MSA): State gasoline tax (principatly) dollars returned to a municipality as a grant for use in maintenance and construction/reconstruction of certatn state-designated roads (catled the "MSA routes"). Po cy: gu e ne or ru e nten e to eterm ne or a n eterm n ng ec s ons. Private sector: The non-governmental portian of the econort�y. "Private sector" and "public sector" are the two general divisions of all ecanomic activity and decision-making. eturn on nvestment : e ers to t e pro t on an nvestment. or examp e, t e return on nvestment Rin a standard savings account is about 5%. Revenue bond: A certificate of indebtedness whose debt service is.only from revenues of the facility constructed with the bond funds. Unlike general obligation bonds (see above), revenue bonds cannot legally become a liability of the property tax base. T ax a atement: e act or pract ce o m t ng t e uture amount o rea estate tax to e pa on a property. Occasionally used by municipal legislatures as an incentive for development characterized by some public benefit. Three-Year Comnunity Development Plan: A plan required by NUD as part of St. Paul's Year V (1979) Cortmunity Development Block Grant Application. The plan must identify St. Paul's major comnunity development needs and specify St. Paul's strategy for meeting them with CDBG and other funds over the period 1979 through 1981. UB : ee n e ap ta mprovement rogram an u get rocess. Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process (UCIPBP): The formal process used by the City of St. Paul annually to arrtve at a Capital Improvement Budget and a Capital Improvement Program. � SAINZ PAtlL � ' � � 7-Z 3 �-� CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICY 1980 a � E � � ��-.�.-' /�i�l�c�� C'��°y � e�'� � �-a �' � � e� � ,�� . .e.�e . �a�� ..a �� :�� , � �� ,�`�� ,,��,i�� :� �� '� �� t �� ;� �� , % ,� � °�� ,� ��;'��' ��"�� ;. �,�s � �., �� . Am aE�S:M�y�. ... �.e�'.... peak'.r �� .......... .. .... DIVISION OF PLANNING DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SAINT PAUL GLOSSARY Ava orem taxe : roperty or rea estate tax pa ase on t e va ue o t e property. BBon : nterest ear ng cert cate o n e te ness. / Bond funds: Dollars btained through sale of bonds. � �� Cap ta : n accumu a o o goo s or money. � Capital allocation: Assign nt of available capital to uses, either by function (e.g., stre�s, sewe or by geographical area. Capital expenditure: Actual s nding of capital for profects. "� Capital improvement: A durable a et purchased with capital. Capltal improvements are�'significant, one time un rtakings often paid for by borrowing. Capital Improvement Budget (CIB): A isting of capital expenditures for the coming year. In St. Paul, the ty Council appropriates money for capital im�Y�ovements by adopting the Cap tal Improvement Budget. j F Capital Irt�provement Program (CIP): A lis ing of tentative cortmitments for caplt� expenditures for the years (usually ur years) following the Capital Imp vement Budget year. In St. Paul, the CIP s an identification by the Planniqg Cortmission of direction and project to be pursued. Each year previ s Planning Comnission CIP recommendations ar considered, affirnied or modif ed, and implemented through adoption by Cit Council of a Capital Improv nt Budget. CIB Committee: See St. Paul Long-Range Capital I rover�nt Budget Comnit ee below. Comnunity Development Block Grant (COBG): Monies e available annual y to St. Paul by HUD through provisions of the Hou ng and Community Development Acts of 1974 and 1977. �� Comnunity Development (Block Grant) Program: Refers to oth Federa and local activities connected with implementation of the Housing nd Co nity Development Acts of 1974 and 1911. Cnmmunity Development Division: The division of St. Paul's p rtment of Planning and Economic Development (DPED) with responsibility or overseeing and evaluating use of CDBG monies. Comnunity Devetopment Plan: See Three-Year Cortmunity Devel pment lan. County Aid: An annual grant from Ramsey County to compen te St. Pa 1 for maintaining, constructing and reconstructing certain county esignated r ds in St. Paul De t servi ce: nnua or sem -annua payment o nter t an repayment o r nc pa on a oan. ty � of St. Paul debt service is pr marily for bonds. Department of Finance and Management Services (DFMS : One of six department of St. Paul city government. Department of Planning and Economic Development ( PED): The newest department St. Paul city government. Comprised of he Planning Division, Economic evelopment Division, Comnunity DeveloPment Div sion, and Renewal Division. Downtown People Mover (DPM): A fixed-guideway utomatic public transit system under study for downtown St. Paul. E Ent t ement grant: at port on o mo es to w c a c ty s ent e y ormu a, s oppose to a discretionary g ant made at the discretion of the Secretary o HUD. ,`` G nera o gat on on • cert cate o n e te ness ssue an so y a c y o genera cap a . A general obligat n Dond is normatly repaid from a levy on property. > Its debt service has irst rights on any city revenues, and is therefore s�id to be backed b the "full faith and credit" of the municipality. (See rev�ue bond, below�. `j ent e reatment rea : spec e area w t n t e y o a nt au w c as een � identified by the appropriate district council or neighborhood group, the �` Planning Comnission, and the City Council for the purpose of encouraging prnperty owners to rehabilitate their properties and to bring substantial improvement to the area in accordance with an approved ITA plan. Continued on back cover city of saint paul planning commission resolution � file number 7847 date �. WHEREAS, the Planning Commi ion of the City of int Paul is charged with responsibility for deve pment and review policy to guide the annual Unified Capital Improv ent Program and udget Process (UCIPBP); and WHEREAS, the Planning Corrunission as reviewe the policies adopted as part of "Saint Paul Capital Alloc ion Poli y: 1979, 1980, 1981 " and revised them as indicated in the a tached opy; NOW BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that t e P1 nning Comnission approves the policies entitled "Saint Paul Cap ta Allocation Policies: 1980", as revised, and directs transmittal to he Mayor and City Council , along with relevant background informa 'on, for review and adoption. moved by�. McDonell _ $�'a'�d �/ _ Pan4a1 _ in fav�or- against- SAINT PAUL CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICY: 1980 APPROVED BY THE SAINT PAUL PLANNING COMMISSION: DECEMBER 4, 1978 RESOCUTION NUMBER 78-47 DOPTED BY THE SAINT PAUL CITY COUNCIL: DIVISION OF PLANNING DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 421 WABASHA STREET SAINT PAUL, N1INNESOTA 55102 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 .0 SAINT PAUL CAPITAL - ALLOCATION POLICY: 1980 1 1 .1 DEFINITIONS AND TERMS 1 .2 THE POLICIES 3 .0 THE UNDERLYING RATIONALE 13 FOR SAINT PAUL CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICY 2. GOAL AND PRINCIPLES 2.2 IMPLE NTATION OF GO S AND PRINCIPLES: 3 IMPROV ENT ACTIVIT S 2.3 IMPLEME ATION OF ALS AND PRINCIPLES: PRIORITY REAS FO NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT . IMPLEMENTA ION OF GOALS AND PRINCIPLES: THE CITY 'S OLE N ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT . MPLEMEN ATI G LS ND PRINCIPLES: CITYWIDE BALA 3.0 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL PERSPECTIVE 3.1 TYPES OF C PITAL IMP VEMENT FUNDS 23 3.2 FISCAL CO STRAINTS APPENDICES .0 UNIFIED CAPITAL 3 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND ' BUDGET PROCESS (UCIPBP) 5.0 POLICY IMPLEMENTATION 6.0 CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED 1 79 BUDGETS AND TENTATIVE FOUR- YEAR PROGRAMS 6.1 CA IT L I�MPRO E ENT BONDS 38 E .3 W E P LLUTION ABATEMENT BONDS 42 7.0 RESOURCES FOR FURTHER 43 INFORMATION CREDITS 44 GLOSSARY Inside Covers ii LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE TITLE 1 15 Typical Municipal Capital Projects 2 17 • Housing Condition/Income Map 3 24 Types of Capital Funds and Their Uses 4 32 Th Unified Capital Improvement Program an Budget Process for the City of Sai t Paul 5 33 1978/19 9 Calendar for the Unified Capi 1 Improve nt Program and Budget Proces 6 35 Policy Moni oring and Implementatio Responsibil ty iii 1.0 SAINT PAUL CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICY: 1980 The City of St. Paul 's annual capital improvement budget and program is the result of a year-long process called the Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process or UCIPBP. A set of capital allocation policies, adopted by the St. Paul City Council , are used to gu' e the recor�nendations and final decisions made throu this process. I� 1978, twenty-two policies were adopted by C'ty Council for a three-year period: 1979, 1980, and 19 . In dopting policies for three years , it was u derstood that ere would be an annual review so ±hat a ropriate r isions could be made. The olicies which will be used in 197 (resulting in a budg t and program for 1980) and a br ef explanation of key t ms follow. The full documen includes additional chapte which present supporting ' formation. 1.1 DEFINITIONS AND TERMS The polic'es are divided into ree categories: strategy policies, 'mplementation and velopment policies , and budget and inance policies. Each category reflects a separate le 1 of policy. Strategy poli 'es set ge ral direction for St. Paul. Their rational is base on citywide goals and a strategy for reaching the e goa adopted by City Council for the three-year perio Implementation and evelopment policies focus more specifically on e inds of capital projects that will be encouraged or dis uraged given the limited resources available to S . Paul or capital improvements. Budget and f nance polic'es address the various sources of funds a ilable to St. Paul for capital improvements, when they will be used, an conditions that must be met in order to use them. � ,. 1 .1, � TYPES OF CAPITAL IMPROV ENTS Th ee terms which differentiate between broad types of c pital projects are used throu out the policies. hese terms are: service system, system support and subsidy. 1 � �. Most capital improvements fit into the service system category. Service systems include the following s ubsystems: - Transportation: roads, bridges, curbing, sidewalks, lighting, signals, signs, skyways, parking ; - Was�te --S��s-tem: sanitary sewers, solid was e aci itTT' ies, recycling facilities - ater S stem-Su 1 and Removal : sup ly d tribution, storm sewers, ponds - Safe : police stations , fire st tions - Leisur Education/Culture/Envir nment: parks, parkway p aygrounds, recrea on centers, libraries cultural centers, useums, trees, special us facilities System support acti ities impro the ability of the city to deliver services. Examples f system support projects include: - headquarters and a i strative offices - training or educatio 1 facilities - repair and maintenan facilities - storage facilities - communications fac litie � The final category, su sidy, refl ts assistance given to individuals or bus ' esses as in ntive for capital improvements. Subsi y allocations 'nclude: - loans - grants - acquisition nd/or clearance , 2 1 .1 .2 PRIORITY AREAS Some of the policies refer to different types of residential areas within St. Paul . The classifi tion of areas is based on the median income of each cen us tract in comparison with the median income of the S A* and the condition of the area as indicated in St. Pa 's "Residential Improvement Strategy" . The r ult is as follows: Residential Im rovement Ca e or Conservation Improvem t Median Income I & II I & Improvement III ess than 65% o SMSA Other A Improvement III 65- % of SMSA Other B Improvement III' 80% or re of SMSA Other C Improvement III *Standard Met opolitan Statistical Area as defined by the U. S. Depa tment f the Census. The policies als r er to "neighborhood revitalization". This means coor inati n of a number of improvements in a residential ar a in or r to stimulate private investment and, as a res lt, halt terioration. Neighborhoods suitable for such an effo t are most likely to be found within "A" "B", or Improv ent III areas . 1 .2 THE POLICIES 1 .2.1 S TEGY POLICIES A It uld be desirable for th City to take neighborhood re italization action aimed s cifically at those areas o deteriorated housing with t greatest potential for ttracting private reinvestment, especially in those areas where significant private investment is not currently occurring. New allocation of both subsidy capit 1 and capital for service systems improvements in suppo t of residential and neighborhood improvement should fo low this dis- ' tribution: 3 � of Total Recommended Residential % of Subsidy Area Blocks Capital A, B & Improvement III 30% 70-75% All Other 70q 25-30% C 1 .New service system capital improvements f neigh- borhood betterment should support neighb rhood revitalization action aimed at those ar as of deteriorated housing with the greates potential for attracting private reinvestment (for example, dentified Treatment Areas). 2•Fu thermore, first priority for s rvice system imp vements outside of areas c sen for neighbor- hood evitalization should be ' areas where the poor c ndition of service sys ms can be demonstrated to be d ressing resale valu of property or de- terring intenance investm t of owners. D 1.PJew alloca 'ons by the Ci y of Saint Paul of both subsidy capi al and capi al for service system improvements 'n direct upport of economic develop- ment should em asize omplementing residential revitalization 'nclu ing District 17) as first consideration. 2. Second considerati for city capital allocations in direct support of c omic development should be for other commercial r re ail reuse or revitalization, including the d ntown. E (Not used) F In order to as ure a balanced pproach to annual capital alloc tion, total budge allocations and tentative pr gram commitments fo new projects, excluding s cial grants, costs b rn by other units of governm t or the private secto and assessments which are or a particular project, should approach the follo ing proportions: % of tal Cate or Availa le Neighborhood Improvement 25-35% Economic Development 20-30� Citywide Service Systems Improvement 35-45% Support System Development 5-10% 4 G Not more than 20% of the monies budgeted each ar, excluding special grants, costs born by othe units of government or the private sector and asses ents which are for a particular project, shou1d be r projects in any one district. . . E N I N N EL EN LICIE H The f�anding needs of capital i rovement projects which have received previous dget appropriations for construction plans, acquisit'on and/or construction phases, normally have prior ty over new projects. . I nerally, the City's se vice system will not be ex anded. 1. Wi in service sys em categories, rehabilitation of the ity's exist' g facilities takes priority over the a dition of acilities to the service system, except here e onomy or efficiency factors or plannin con derations indicate that such rehabil- itation i ' advisable. 2, Replacem t f existing city service system facilit' s ta es priority over additions to the city's system 3, Add' ions to the ity's service system take last pr'ority unless t addition brings the area where i is located up to a standard of service which has een officially adop ed by the city as part of a plan for the specific serv'ce system and budget policy does not limit suc� fu ding. In such cases, the addition of service sys m components has the same priority as replacement o existing service systems. J Generally, the City will budg t acquisition fund�ng for new projects under the fol wing conditions: 1. Acquisition related to prfivate evelopment or reuse: (housing or economic development : a. If there is a responsible develop r with financing comnitments in hand; and b. If the proposed reuse is in conform ce with adopted city plans. 5 2.Acquisition related to public development or reuse: a. If right-of-way or easements for service systems are deemed necessary; or b. If there are opportunities to complete parkland assembly where parcels have been ��eviously identified for conversion to par use when they ecome available; or c. the property being acquired as tax exempt st us and the proposed use s been clearly iden ified and is consisten with adopted City plans, policies, and prior ies for capital expendi ure; or --d=If oppor nities for sp cial grant funding exist. K Allocation of c pital fun for economic development proposals will b based the merits of each proposal and upon its abil y to everage private investment dollars and obtain r urn of increased property taxes in accordance h the identified leverage and return on investment uidelines. 1.LEVERAGE GUIDELI S: ormal leveraging is 1 :6. In ot er wor s, ea olla the city provides for a particular pro ct shoul mean six capital dollars committed by e develope . For example, the City would normall anticipate oviding no more than $60,000 in p blic improveme s to service systems or in subsi y to a pro�ect va ued at $360,000. This rati may go as low as l : if a given project will hav a major impact on a pu lic goal . Examples of such otentially worthwhile pr 'ects include: a.Proj ts directly associated with eighborhood revi alization efforts; b.Pro'ects which generate additional ot displace- men ) employment within St. Paul ; an c.Pr jects whose principal objective is resource con- se vation or the development of altern tive energy s rces. 2.RET RN ON INVESTMENT GUIDELINES: Normal re urn on in estment is o, n ot er words, the cit expects to realize a direct return of 12� property ta es fo its participation in an economic developm t pro ect. If $75,000 jn public improvements ar provided, tax receipts from the project should e $9,000 per year more than they were before develop- ment. 6 This return on investment may go as low as 4� ' a given project will have a ma�or impact on a lic goal . Examples of such potentially worth le pro- jects are given in 1, above. However, at a minimum, the tax ield rom a roject s ou cover the cost of an ad t na mun c a services requ red. Tax abatement is discouraged as development incentive. However, it may be used to supp t projects that plicitly serve a pu61ic purp se. If used, abated v luation in any year of the batement period should no be lower than the valua on of 1and and jmprove- ment before the pro�ect 1 started increased at a 6� rate ompounded annualYy ver the term of abatement. M The sel tion of Ident fied Treatment Areas for neigh- borhood vitalizati will be made according to the ITA guidel nes adop d by the St. Paul City Council as File Num r 271 22 on June 27, 1978. (Copies may be obtained c ling 298-5586.) N (Reserved for r�nercial rev�talization policy. ) 0 If the Down wn P ple Mover (OPM) is implemented, not more than .0 mil on in C�ty Capital Improvement Bonds wil be appro iated as cash to meet the 10% City ma h which will be required by the federal grant. P Disea ed shade tree re val as a special allocation will e concluded with t e 1980 capital improvement bu et. Reforestation sh ld contjnue at at least , 5 00 trees per year throu out the 1980-1984 Capital provement Program. 1Q Conditions for City participat on in funding skyways : l .Funds will be budgeted only fo skyway bridges that are part of a firm package for velopment or redevelopment of the benefitting uildings; �� 2,Normally, the City will fund only a ortion of skyway ! bridge construction. The developers nd/or property owners of benefltting buildings shall und the entire cost of skyway system construction with n their buildings; 3,The City will not participate in funding t e operation or maintenance of a skyway system unless the City is the owner or developer of a benefitted building. 7 2Q The City will consider budgeting funds �or a site preparation fund under the following c nditions : 1. Funding is bud eted on a yearly b is with an initial allocation of �50,000; 2.The fund will only be used to repare tax-forfeited sites owned by the City or s ttered sites formerly acquired by the Housing and edevelopment Authority or clearance; 3•Si e preparation will be undertaken only if a dev oper has committed ta buying the specific parce once it is prep red; and 4.No admi istrative or perating costs are paid from the fund. .2.3 BUDGET P LI ES R Given the City' f scal constraints it is desirable to allocate municip capital to projects in 1980 and 1981 which will not r s lt in a net increase in City operating and m int nance responsibilities. At a minimum, this ans at: 1 ,Essential f cilities hich can be financed and operated b the City a d another agency will be given a h gh priority i they can be constructed and operated at less cost th separate facilities. 2,General y, there will be n allocation of capital for pu chase or construction f facilities for human services programs which re not operated by the City or for rehabilitation of h man services facili- tie which are not owned by the ity in 1980 and 198 , As an exception, those cit ide facilities sp ifically provided for in HUD re ulations as el gible for Comnunity Development B ock Grant funds m y be considered. No CDBG monies wi 1 be appro- iated to finance annual operatlon an maintenance f human service facilities in 1980 and 981 . ,New swimming pools will not be considered or funding in 1980 and 1981 . S The City will annually budget for each project ase only the estimated amount of money which can rea nably be expected to be expended within the budget year. The capital improvement program w111 identify funds required to complete the financing of a pro�ect in future years. This tentative commitment is subject to 8 adop�ion by City Council of a Capital Improvement Budget approprtation for the pro�ect. T Determindtion of which fund source is most dppropriate for financing each of the City's budget priori es w111 be made as follows: 1 ,A11 street improvement pro�ects on Muni p�l State Aid, County Aid, or Minnesota Trunk H hway routes will be considered for funding prim ily wlth monies allocated to the city specificelly or those routes. .Capital improvements which are igible for metro- olitan, State or Federal prog ms or priv�te grants s ould be so financed. CDBG d CIB monies may be us d to provide local matchi g funds, if appropriate. 3,Cap1 1 improvements whic could be financed with speci c bonding authori may be so recomnended if City Co cil has indica ed its lntentlon to utllize such aut rity; 4,Capital imp vement and programs eligible for CDBG funding wi11 e so funded; and 5,Capital improv nt which cannot be financed with monies governe b paragraphs (1) through (4) will be considere for 6 bond funding. U Bond financi : 1.The City will issue $6, 0,000 in Capital Irr�rove- ment 6 ds in 1980. 2 ,The ity will issue $4,002, 0 in water pollution ab ement bonds in 1980 to fi ance the second phase o the Thomas-Dale sewer pro�e . ,The City does not intend to issue tax levy-supported bonds in 1980 for the residential comnercial rehab911tation program, parking fac ities, or urban renewal. 4, If tax increment bond-funded pro�ects a developed, they must meet requirements of Policy V ' ax Increment Financing Policy" before C1ty Co cil will consider issuing bonds. 9 V Tax increment financing: 1.Revenue Projections by Consultant: Revenue pro- jections for ull tax increment proposals should be analyzed by a private financial consultant rather � than a bond consultant. j ,Debt Service From Bond Sale Proc eds: Debt service for all tax increment projects ill be paid from nd proceeds for no more than the fjrst three years o roject implementation wh no tax increments or oth pro�ect revenues are nerated. 3,Other osts Funded From B d Sale Proceeds : All costs r lating to any ta increment proposals should be funde with bond pro eds and included in the justificat'on of each p oposal . These costs include, but are not li�mited to design, acquisition and relocation, nstruct on, bond consultant, bond counsel , finan ial c nsultant and staff time. 4,Conditions to be filled for tax increment bond financing: a,There must be cl r statement of public purpose; b,All state req irement must be met; c,The prospec ve develope must have financing available; rid d,There mus be a written cont ct among the developer, the city nd any involved pub c authorities. The contract must identify, among o her things, estimat s for all anticipated co s related to the develop ent estimates for annual o erating and mainte ance costs associated with t completed proje , and who is responsible for eting each of th se costs. 5, Use of tax increment bond sale proceeds in ccordance with ritten financial plan: Tax increment nd moni.e shall be expended only in accordance wi h the term identified in the financial plan, unless ther- wise provided for by City Council resolution as rec ended by the director of the Department of Fin nce and Management Services. 10 . � .� , � W City bond monies and CDBG monies used to prov de residential rehabilitation loans shall be r ycled, as the original loans are repaid, accordin to the guidelines adopted by the Saint Paul City ouncil as Council File 272145 adopted November 30, 978. Monies used to provide commercial rehabilitati n loans shall be recycled to administer the program nd provide new `' ans as the original loans are repai . � / � � � � , t , /� �� 11 2.0 THE UNDERLYING RATIONALE FOR SAINT PAUL CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICY Adopting a capital improvement budget is one of the �nos t important actions taken by city government. Capital expenditures can have a significant effect the development or redevelopment of a city and it neighborhoods. At the same time, legitimate ca tal improvement needs invariably exceed the money vailable to address them. If a capital budget is going to meet the eatest needs and have the most benefit for the city a a whole, a method for determining the relative pri rity of projects is required. Policies based on the g ls and objectives of a city help meet this requirement 2.1 GOALS AND PRINCIPLES o broad objectives form the ba s for many of St. Pa 1 's activities, including it capital expenditures. Cit Council has adopted them s goals and Mayor Latimer iden ified them as major obj tives of his administration. They re: 1.To st engthen the city' neighborhoods in order to make them bet er places to li e; and 2.To stre then the ci 's economic base in order to provide jo and serv' es needed by residents of the city. In addition, ecaus capital improvement funds are limited and b aus needs are great, the goals are supplemented b t ree principles which relate specifically to capital allo tions: 1 .Critical nee s ich affect the basic protection of life, health, or p lic s fety take precedence over all other capital exp ditures- 2.Capital penditure should be channeled to those areas where ther is the gre test opportunity for stimulating private r investment an effecting measurable neighbor- hood or conomic improve ent; and 3.Some apital funds shou d be made available to prevent deteri ration and blight i sound areas of the city and to me t the need for improv ments which benefit the city as a whole. 2.2 IMPLEMENTATION OF GOALS In order to translate the goals nd principles into AND PRINCIPLES: IMPROVEMENT p licies, the various types of p jects which are typically ACTIVITIES f nded by the City as capital .imp vements are divided into hree broad categories : improvemen s to service systems, improvements to facilities which sup rt the ability of local government to offer services ef 'ciently and effective- ly, and subsidies for improvements to pi�ivately owned property. 13 These three broad categories and examples of each .are listed in Figure 1 . The subsidy and system support categories are fairly limited. The service system ategory is the largest of the three and is divided • i to s ubsys tems. The dvantage of listing typical ac vities in this manne is that it helps separate p jects that are direct toward individual or nei borhood needs from those t t serve a larger part the comnunity or the community as a whole. Based o this differentiation, the policy tatements can ide ify appropriate activities more concise 2.3 IMPLEMENTATION OF GOALS The second step 'n transl ing the goals and principles AND PRINCIPLES: PRIORITY into policies is 'dentif'cation of those areas of the AREAS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD �ity where there i the reatest opportunity to stimulate IMPROVEMENT private reinvestmen a effect measurable neighborhood improvement. The rol city government is able to play must also be identifi if policy is to provide �irection. Many qualities cont ibut to strong, stable neighborhoods. If the physical as cts ar to enhance the stability of a neighborhood, a adequat and steady level of time and money is require . Providin these resources for main- taining individu 1 properties 's the responsibility of the owner. The City has respon ibility for providing adequate resou ces to those ser 'ce systems which it owns and operates. Nowever, in ome cases property own rs have been unable to maintain their properties. Becau e the strength of a city's n ighborhoods and housing st k affects the strength the city as a whole, munic al assistance to indivi ual structures or areas which how some deterior tion may be justified. 2.3.1 OUSING CONDITION/INCOME MAP Given these premises, two factors are used t identify thos areas of the city that meet the intent f the goals and rinciples: income and the condition of t e housing sto k. As a measure of income, the median family income f each c nsus tract is compared with the median family i ome of t e SMSA (Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area) d divided into three categories: areas where the med an family income of the census tract is less than 65% o the SMSA median family income, areas where it is between '65% and 80� of the SMSA median family income, and areas where it is 80� or more of the SMSA median family income. This 14 r PRIMARY BENEFIT FIGURE 1 : TYP CAL MUNICIPAL, CAPI L PROJECTS Indi- Neigh- Ci - vidual borhood de SUBSIDY Loans • Grants • Acquisition/clearance SUPPORT Administration, training, r pair and maintenance, data proces ing, storage and comnunications facilities , • \ SERVICE �Tr�ans�ortation S stem roads, br dges, curb ng, sidewalks , lighting, signals, signage, skyways, parking � � Waste System sanitary sewers, solid waste facilities, recycling facilities � � Water S stem Supp y d stribution, storm sewers, pond • • �Saf�e�t.� pof�ce stations , fire stations • Leisure/Education/Culture/Environ nt �� parks, parkways, p aygrounds, re eation centers, � libraries, cultural centers, mus ums, trees, special use facilities �� ,, ,� Social Care � mu ti-servi ce centers, day re centers, residential care facilitie , health �`�� centers � � , 15 measure is the same as that required for expenditure of Corrununity Development Block Grant funds which must be used primarily to benefit low and moderate income people. ousing condition is based on St. Paul 's "Residential provement Strategy". The "Residential Improvement S ategy" , adopted as part of the city's compr,,ehensive pla in 1976, analy�zes and classifies reside ial areas of t e city into five categories based on e percentage of st uctures on each block which need m ar or minor repair . In addition to classifying ar as, the � "Reside tial Improvement Strategy" es blishes objectives for each ype of area and describes rograms and activitie which could be used to nserve areas of sound housi g (conservation areas , rehabilitate areas of lightly teriorated housing Improvement I and II areas) , and r develop areas of adly deteriorated housing (Improvement I areas) . % of Stru ures eeding ajor % of Structures R air r Needing Minor Be on Re air Repairs Objectives Conservation I 4 less 4 or less Surveillance Conservation II or ss 5 to 19 Intensive Maintenance Improvement I 5 to 19 20 to 81 Rehabilitation Improvement I 20 to 39 80 or less Rehabilitation and Neighbor- hood Improve- ment Improve nt III 40 or more 80 or less Major Neighbor- hood Improve- ment The Residential Improvement Strategy ' reflects the position of t. Paul government that the City' s capital allocation d isions are important tactical moves or conserving and intaining the city's housing stock an that municipal apital decisions can make a difference i neighborhood confidence. The result of combining these two factors i a housing conditi�n/income map. The map shows where r sidential improvements are most needed and where publi assistance may be necessary as impetus for either stabil ation or turnaround. 16 . 304 .;,::306 301 - 303 • 305 307.01 307.02 30 � :::�`;: �� •:�3?FE:��'`�:. :`•:309 '''�:':: g 319 .��. 318.02 .314:`::�•; •`:�:.;•.,. ,o� ., � �a� . - 't�„�,,.:.' '':'�:�:.v sz��:� ? i,��,i2L ?:3��s: :�:'3�f�:�: .... 332 329 ,330 � ,,,,, �:�•`:�?3.5 346 347 ' 336 � °"'' � 348 :�:�,3,,s�3,.:.::�:�r::; :: 344 �:�: �+ 342 ^�� . ��:',.�. �;;�::�: - �'349�:; ....... ��352 35��'�'� 356 . ::::•:. �„ - 351 357 :?;:i>' �' �''360 .�O 36 362 363 3 364 ; '36�S`�'W':':':�:�'� ��:3�:.� ' ..•�6 J361 374 _ .'i ;� \ •.•.•...367 � \ 375 \ � 376.01 �: � s�s.oz HOUSING CONDITION/ N E MAP* INCOME OF EACH CENSUS TRA AS P CENTAGE OF ESTIMATED 1977 MSA MED N FAMILY INCOME � ��E. IMPROVEMENT I II '"" A � < 64 B - - -79� C �' � 80% IMPROVE ENT III � � 79� ? 80°6 *Residential Improvement Strategy classifica ion combined with the estimated 1977 median family income of each census tract as a percentage of the estimate 1977 SMSA median family income. . ` , 2.3.2 CLASSIFICATI N F PRIORITY ARE S Assistance should go to areas where there is the eatest portunity for strengthening and stabilizing th neigh- b hood. Two types of areas where municipal in estment is ikely to have the greatest impact can be i entified. The irst of these are called "fringe" areas Fringe reas are characterized by housing at is basically sound bu in need of some repairs. While some private resources are available, they usually ar not sufficient to stabili e the area and preserve the ousing stock. Fringe area are defined as lightly or moderately deterio- rated areas ere most of the reside s F�ave a median family income hich is less than 80% of the SMSA median family income. These areas are lab led "A" and "B" on the map. Areas abeled "C" are si ilar in housing condition and als require attent on , but the higher level of private r sources mean hat a lawer level of public incentives s ould be req ired. Identification of the econd ype of area is more complex. Throughout St. Paul th e ar areas where the housing is deteriorated but also qu'te substantial . Concentrated attention to these areas uld serve to improve the irr�nediate neighborhood an rovide impetus for improve- ments in surrounding blo s Very often residents of these areas are low or der te income. In order to bring abo improv ent, a large corrnnitment of public resources y be neces ary. Nowever, once initiated, private i vestment is ikely to take over and provide the resour s necessary fo stabilizing the neighborhood over he long term. S ch a cormnitment is referred to as "n ighborhood revital ation. " Neighbor- hood revitalizat on implies a concent tion of capital improvements , ong with other types o city services, in a relativel small area as a means f inducing and securing priv te investment in the area. Neither th "Residential Improvement Strate " nor the map ident' y specific areas which would be s itable for neighbor od revitalization. Given the cormm ment of time an money required of the City and the ne'ghborhood, it is ppropriate that areas be selected caref ly and that ctivities be carefully planned by residen them- selv s. Generally, these areas will be located 'thin "A" "B", or Improvement III areas and will meet e crit ria adopted by City Council for the Identifi Treatment Area Program. 18 \ �� Other geographical areas also require attention. owever, they_ do not represent similar opportunities for i prove- ment based on public incentives because they ar either sound or, if deteriorated, would require exten ve public expenditure for acquisition, clearance, and r development before they could be made attractive for pri ate invest- �ment. Given very limited resources, it was decided that � the near future St. Paul 's primary eff rts should be f used in those areas where significant mprovement will not�require large-scale redevelopment a on completing exis�ing redevelopment projects. , �, � E 2.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF GOALS The inten of economic developmen activity is twofold: AN D PRINCIPLES: THE CITY'S to increas the number of jobs a d income for city resi- RULE IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT dents and t expand the city's ax base so that reliance on any one s rce is minimize . Specific steps to bring about these c nges include roadening the city's industrial base• strengthen ng the down town as a retail , commercial, conve tion and ndustrial center; strengthening community commerc'al and etail centers; and promoting local neighborhood con mic development opportunities. Public economic deve pment activities in St. Paul consist of a wide range of ct'vities and incentives . They include public improvemen to upport development; subsidy in the form of land ac isition r preparation, tax abatement, or special typ of finan 'ng assistance; and the use of municipal pol ' e powers, le islative authority, persuasive powers and t chnical assista ce to neutralize stu�ling blocks to velopment. These e nomic development tool are used by the City of St. Pa and the Port Authority f St. Paul to achieve shar economic development objec 'ves. These objectives are et by the City Council which a roves Port Authority bo d issues and has two positions on the Authority Board. onomic development actions of the P t Authority are overseen and coordinated with those of he city by the P1ayor through the Division of Economic D �elopment of the Department of Planning and Economic Dev�lo�ment. In the past, the Port Authority has addresse itself principally to industrial park development wit some ex- ceptions (assistance to United Hospitals, Inc. , �ntrol Data Corporation, and the Amtrak Station). The City, on the other hand, has strongly promoted and assisted downtown and neighborhood economic development. Recently, the Port Authority has taken a somewhat larger role in downtown development. 19 Expanding the Port Authority's role in down n redevelop- � ment could be consistent with City Council conomic deve�opment strategy and objectives. Wit policy guidance and planning from the City, the Authorit could undertake the acquisition, clearance, and prepara ion of land when there is developer commitment and gen ate pital for development of such land rough sale of� re enue bonds. This ould reduce the need for cit capital generated throug sale of general obligatio bonds. It is the City's tention to finance revi lization of downtown with less reliance on general o igation bonds while pursuing o er forms of public inancing to leverage private fun . It would also ermit St. Paul to expand its economic evelopment acti ities in areas other than dawntown. Eco mic developm nt strategy for St. Paul must carry comm ment to a ontinuing level of downtown revitalization. owever, e City should geographically broaden its econom stim ation and development efforts to place gradually i cre ing emphasis on use of its funds for development r jects which: (1 ) more closely ally with neighborhood evitalization; and (2) promote reuse or revitalizatio f existing comnercial or retail areas. Certain types of pr 'ects in owntown will continue to require initial inv stment fro the City to improve their redevelopmen potential. or example, service systems improveme ts which canno reasonably be made part of a redeve opment project w ld continue to be made by the Cit . But, as the down own attracts more developer acti 'ty, less municipal s bsidy capital should be needed to intain reinvestment mo ntum. If the Port uthority is to continue to xpand its role in downtown edevelopment, an overall eco omic develop- ment strat y must be developed by City Co ncil and followed b both the City and the Port Auth rity. Some city fina cing tools, particularly those not available to the P t Authority, may have to be used fo project preparat on in dawntown redevelopment. Tax in ement financi g and development district bonding coul also be pressed into service for funding proposals under ome circums ances. But the P�rt Authority's revenue onding capabil ty would provide most future funding for b th industrial development and downtown redevelopment. 20 2.5 IMPLEMENTATI N OF Both•of St. Pau s goa s must be pursued if the city is GOALS ANO PRINCIP ES: to remain a good place to live. There must also be CITYWIDE BALANCE balance among geographical areas of the city. Wh' e priorities must be set, each area of St. Paul i depend- ent on other areas and priorities must not le to concentration in one or two areas while the est of the city is neglected. Citywide needs must also be addressed s that improvements which benefit a part of the city rest n a sound base. This means that facilities which all efficient delivery of city services must be adequate. also means that service system improvements which serve t city as a whole must be adeq ate if the more localized pa s are to be effective. As n example, it would not be app priate for St. Paul to im rove streets which serve resi nts of a small area and neglect the major streets which ead to that neighborh od as well as a number of other n ighborhoods. As a res t, four categor'es of benefit must be addressed: - Nei hborhood im rovement - Econ mic devel pment - City 'de servi ce systems , and - Su�por sys ms. In order to achi balance between geographic areas of the city and bet n levels of benefit, guidelines for the proportion f ailable resources which should go to different area and ifferent levels are set. The guidelines r lect S Paul 's rationale for capital expenditure upplement d by an analysis of past budgets and the kn ledge gaine through each annual budget process. In this way, t e City's goals can be addressed as well s changing needs nd situations within the city. ; � 21 3.0 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL PERSPECTIVE St. Paul 's annual budget has two major sectio . an operating budget and a capital improvement dget. Although treated separately, each of these wo budgets can have an impact on the other. As a re ult, the relationships between the two must be co sidered as part of sound budgeting practice. Most of the income received by a city is used to support the operation of city services and intenance of the equipment and buildings required by these services. laries, fringe benefits, supplie , utility costs, and ro tine maintenance are all part f the operating budget. Usu ly an operating expense wil fall into one of the follo ing three categories: l.opera ing and maintenance e enses to continue existing overnment services hich are provided directly o under contract; 2.operating nd maintenanc expenses for new or expanded services; or 3.operating and ain ten ce expenses associated with additional publi faci ties . Capital improvement re long-term, physical improvements. Typically, a capita improvement is a one-time expendi- ture with a life e e tancy of at least three years. Capital expenditu s a o fall into one of three categories: l.the cost of s 'gnificant upgrading or replacing an outmoded munic' al facilit • 2.the cost o adding a new m icipal facility; or 3.the cost of providing in.centi es to the private sector to encour ge physical improvemen s or development. 3. 1 TYPES OF CAPITAL There re a number of types of funds available to St. Paul IMPROVEMENT FUNDS for apital improvements. These incl de bonds, grants and aids from other levels of governme t, and local funds s ported by property taxes, user charg or assessments. addition, the costs of some projects a e shared with other units of government and occasionally a private business or foundation will give the city a rant for a specific project. The allowable uses of the fund sources can vary considerably. / Limitations on the use may relate to the purpose of the project (to benefit low and moderate income peopl for ! example), the type of project (streets, sewers) , s cific locations (MSA streets or County Aid streets), or a 23 FIGURE 3: TYPES OF CAPITAL FUNDS AND THEjR USES FUND TYPE ` dSE Bonds Capital Improvement Bonds Any capital expenditure. Capltal Improvement Bond funds re dollars (Chapter 234, Laws of borrowed by the city which are repald from a levy on pr erty. Minnesota, 1976) Auto Parking Factllties Act Parking facilities. Parking Facilities Bond funds e general (Minnesota Statute 459.14) obligation bonds exclusively for acquisition of la d or construction of automobile parking places, They are repaid t ugh levies, assess- ments, or revenue of the facility. Tax Increment Bonds conomic deveiopment. Tax Increment Bond fu s are dotlars borrowed t finanee redevelopment of speclfied parce of land. These bonds a re aid through increased property taxe resulting from redevelop- men o� the parcels, Developmemt District Bonds Econo ic development. Development Dis ict Bond funds are dollars borrow to finance redevelopment of specified tract of land designa d as a development distrlct These bonds are repaid through increase property taxes resulting om redevelopment in the district. Water Pollution Abatement Pollution ntrol through constr tion of sewage and storn�water Bonds (Minnesota Statute fac111ties, General obligation onds repaid from a levy on property. 115.41) Revenue Bonds My capital pr ect which wi generete revenue. i of Saint Pa : Reven bonds issued by the city are repaid solely from revenues gene ated t ough the facility constructed with bond proceeds. For exa le, n 1980 the city wili consider issuing sewer revenue bonds to con Lr ct a storm sewer which removes lake water oVerflow from the sew e system, The bonds will be repaid from savings reallzed thro reduced sewage treatment costs. , Port Authorit of int ul: The Port Authority may issue revenue on s repa so ey rom re enues generated by facilities constructed with bond procee . Author ty revenue bonds are sold to construct industrial faci ties or co ercial developments. Federal Aid - Housing and Community Comnunity d elopment and housin pro�ects which benefit lower income Development Act Block Grant people, el inate slums and bligh or meet an urgent need (Community Devetopme Block Grant Program). he entitlement grant was authorized by Cong s in 1974 and reenacted i modified form in 1977. Urban Development Action Econom development and facilities r itallzation. Supplemental Grant (UDAG) progr to the Comnunity Development B ck Grant Program. Economic Development Eco mic revitalization. Possible use o these funds is for financing Assistance Grant co truction of the Civic Center Theater a d Exhibition Hall. Land and Water Conservation quisition and development of local parks a d recreation facilities. Funds (LAWCON) dminlstered by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreat on. Urban piass Transportation Downtown People Mover Feasibility Study. If th feasibility study Administration (UMTA) proves out, UMTA wilt fund 80% of construction. Demonstration Grant Great River Road Grant Development of the Great River Road along the Missi ippi River. The (Surface Transportation US Department of Transportation program is administe d by the Act of 1978) Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). Construction Grants and Construction of wastewater treatment facilities, lnclud g sewers. This Loan Program (Clean US F�vironmental Protection Agency program is adminlster 1n Minnesota Water Act of 1917) by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Interstate Turnback Construction of interstate highway substitution transportat n profects. Funds Grant A Federal Highway Administration program funded through the deral Aid Highway Act and administered by MnDOT. IL...._._.. . _. _ . ..--- ------. .. ... ._._-__-- ------. . 24 FUND TYPE USE State Assistance Municip State Aid (MSA) Repair/construction/maintenance of MSA roads and bridges. Minnesota epartment of Repair/reconstruction of state highways and bridges in S . Paul. No Transportat n (MnDOT) transfer of funds involved; all contracts are 1et and ministered by MnDOT. Shade Tree Gran Removal of diseased shade trees and reforestation. Le9islative Cortmis on on Acquisition and development of local parks and r ereation facilities. Minnesota Resources ants Administered by State Planning. Metro Agency Assistance Metropolitan Transit Downtown People Mover Feasibility Study. C, using State Legislature Cortmission (MTC) Grant authorized funds, will assume 10% of the st of the study (and of the project, if feasible). Metropolitan Parks and Open enovation/development of regional par and open space areas in St. Paul. Space Cortmission Grant Metropolitan Waste Control Con ruction of wastewater treatme facilities. Seven-county bonding Comnission (MWCC) Grant autho ity is utilized to match st e and federal funding available for sewer d treatment plant projec in the metro area. County Assistance County Aid Repair/cons ruction/mainten ce on County State Aid (CSA) system roads and bridges d county roa . Ci ty Funds Public Improvement Aid (PIA) Streets, sidewal , al ys. PIA dollars are local property tax monies. Sewer Repair Fund Unforeseen sewer re r. Sewer repair dollars are local monies generated through user charge ncluded in each water bill. Assessments Certain capital i rove nts wholly or partially funded through charges to benefitting p perty ners. General Fund Monies Any capital im vement, a determined appropriate by City Council. Miscellaneous Railroad Funding Agreements Improvemen s to railroad crossin and development of railroad-owned land as j int city-railroad proJe s. 1 25 specific project (Urban Mass Transportation Administration Demonstration Grant). The budgetary implications of fund sources also vary. Bonds are a form of indebtedness and must be repaid by he City. Depending on the type of bond, citywide property xes, property taxes resulting from the pro' , assess- m ts, or revenue from the project may be u ed t pay off thi debt. � Grants and aids from, other levels of go ernment generally do not equire repayment. Some grants do require that the City tch the amount of the gran with a specific percentage of the total cost of the roject or projects. Finally, so local funds are routi ely set aside from property taxe or user charges to e used for capital improvements t specific service ystems. 3.2 FISCAL CONSTRAINTS In addition to� the imited use of some fund sources, the capital improvements which ca be undertaken by St. Paul are limited, quite si ly, b the amount of money which is available. The yea y r quests for capital improve- ments far exceed the dol a available to finance them. Several factors serve to pound the limits faced by St. Paul. The first of he is, of course, rapidly increasing costs which re n matched by increasing revenues. This affect all o the City's budget and makes it all the more impor ant that he impact of a capital improvement on the o rating bu et be seriously consider- ed. The second factor s increased reli nce of the City on grants and aids f om other levels o government. Between 1970 and 1976 St. Paul 's total revenu s rose from $126.2 million to $213. million. But proper tax revenues collected by th City were actually les in 1976 than in 1970. Grants a d aids, on the other han have been increasing bo in dollars and as a perc tage of St. Paul 's t al revenues. Grants and aids are welcomed by St. Paul as means for provi ing local improvements and services without in- creasing eliance on property or real estate t xes. These , funds al o help free money with fewer constrain s to meet importa t needs. It is important to remember, ough, that c ital allocations must reflect the mandat purpose of the funds. Conv sely, the third limitat�an faced by St. Paul 's decr asing aid. A major source funding for capital rojects has een the federal Community Development Block Grant pro ram. These funds are being severely curtailed and, in 26 ' 1980, St. Paul anticipates receiving approximately half of what it did during the first three years of the program. St. Paul 's annual entitlement during 1 75, 1976 and 1977 was $18,835,000. Its 1980 entitlemen is pro- , � jected to be approximately $9.7 million. The final constraint faced annually is th cor�nitment by the City to complete ongoing projects b ore new projects re initiated. When this commitment i corr�ined with a creasing budget and increasing cos , the ability of th City to initiate new projects i very limited. For exa le, the tentative program co itments approved as part f the 1979 capital improve nt budget for Community Devel ment Block Grant funds t alled $9.6 million, leavin less than $100,000 of e anticipated $9.7 million ntitlement for new p ojects. The tentative commitmen s for capital impr vement bonds exceed $6.0 million an St. Paul 's bon ng limit is set at $6.5 million. Although bo h the commitm ts and the revenue projections are tentativ , these fig res give a sense of the difficult decisions whi h must be faced annually. \ `,` 27 , APPENDICES l i . UN T ED L N �_ AND BUDGET PROCESS ! . EN I N . E 37 AN TENTATIVE FOUR YEAR PROGRA . U S E � % r � � , , i � / / , / � � � , i / ; , � � � 29 ` , 4.0 UNIFIED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND BUDGET PROCESS (UCIPBP) \ � Review of adopted policies is only the fir t step in St. Paul 's annual Unified Capital Improv ent Program and Budget Process (UCIPBP). Once the olicies have been reviewed and appropriate revision adopted by City Council , proposals for capital improv ments are submitted and an extensive review process begi s. The UCIPBP w as originally establis ed as a method for llocating capital improvement bo funds. The process h been enlarged over the years o include all federal , st te and local funds for capit expenditures. The var us bodies with responsibi ty for reviewing the prop als and making recommen tions represent all areas of th city and a wide range of expertise and knowledge. The pri ry review body is he St. Paul Long-Range Capital Improvem t Budget (CIB) mnittee. Three task forces assist th CIB Committee y reviewing proposals thoroughly and rankin them on the asis of a pre-determined rating sheet. The IB Commit e then incorporates the recomnenda- tions of the ask For s into an annual budget and submits a formal reco endat' n to the Mayor and City Council. In addition to t e IB Committee and the task forces, proposals are rev' ed by district councils or neighbor- hood organization city operating departments, and the St. Paul Plannin C mnission. The input from these groups is incor orat into the rating sheet which helps assure that al consi rations are adequately reflected. The complete process, be inning with the development of policies th ough final a ption of the annual budget by Ci ty Counc' , is diagrarrane in Fi gure 4. Fi gure 5 pre- sents the 979 UCIPBP calen ar which will result in a capital ' provement budget f r 1980. � � 31 F I G URE 4 TF� UNIFIED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND BUDGET PRIX;ESS FOR TNE CITY OF SAZNT PAUL � PcOCOa• Ste�s CITY STAFF AND INTERESTED CITIZENS INTERESTED ORGANIZAT20NS PLANNING COUNCIL Wcomiendation CONMISSION MAYOR .� STAFF o! Caels and 1. Planning Division 1. Diatrict Councils Policie� for 2. Mayoc's Office-eudget Section 2. District Organizations Capital Reaource 3. Community Development Diviaiort 3. Others on the E.N.S. Allocatiun 4. Ad Hoc Citizen Committee 5. Council StaPf Adoption of Goale and Policizs for CITY COUNCI Capical Resource ' allocation CITIZ£N ORGANIZATIOD ::ITY OPERATING DEPAR'"MENTS OTNER AGENCIES Projeccs 1. District louncils 1. Fire 1. Quasi-City Aqen ea I3entified 2. Citizen Gzoupa 2. Police A. Port Author y on "2reliminary 3. Business Orqanizations 3. Public Works B. School Dis ict Ide�itiPication 4. Community Services C. Board oE ter Coaunissioners Furm" 5. Finance i Manaqement Svca. D. Civic Ce er Authority 6. Planning & Economic Dev. 2. Government Units A. Metropo iGan Council � B. Metro aste Control Commission C. Metro Transi[ Cortunission D. Coun y of Ramsey E. Min esota Highway Department 3. Priva e Aqencies OFFICE OF C Y PIANNING Planniny, Policy 1. City Plann s and ^iminq 2. Operating De rtments s :�nilicts Agenciea Identified 3. Project Coordin tors 4. Council StafE Pro)ect Pl�asing an3 Costing OPERATING DEPARTMENTS Requesting Hntity � Determines Whether to Sub- CITIZEN ORGANI2ATIONS OPERATING DEPARTMENTS OTHER AGENCIES mit Formal Fund- inq Reqvest Fun3iuq Rayuests BUDGET DIRECTOR Formally Submitted PLANNING COMMISSION STA£F ANALYSSS ISTRICT COUNCIL COCRJCIL STAFF Pro7ect A) Comprehensive Plan 1. Planning Div' ion A) istiict Prioritie Analysis B) Capital Allocation Policies 2. Mayor's Off' e-Budget Sect. B) ojeci Comments � C) Recommended Program 3. Co�unity D velopment Div. 4. Property nagement Div. A) Eligib lity & Feasibility Recommendations Transmitted BUDGET DI CTOR Diah�ribute Requests to Ap�ropriate IB CO ITTEE Task Force Review Projects. COMMUNITY FACILITIES STREETS b UTILITIES RESIDENTIAL ECONOMIC .TOUr Sites. TASK FORCE TASK FORCE DEVELOPMENT T K FORCE District 6 Staff Presentations. 1. Rep. from 17 districts 1. Rep. from 17 distzicts 1. Rep. from 1 8istricts �' Ping. Comm. Recom. 2. CIB Committee Members 2. CIB Committee Members 2. CIB Committee mbers Dist. �ouncil Priorities Priority Rate Projects. Determine Funding Priorities & Recom. Focmulate Recommended Budqec 6 Program Using Task Force Priorities CIH COMMITTEE 6 Recommendations Revie+ CIB Committee Recommended Budge[ 6 DEPAATMENT DIRECTORS COUNCIL ST.4FF Identify Disayreements Consider CIB Committee • Kecommended Budyet s Pzogram S Dpt. Directors' Recom. MAY�R to Determine Mayoc's Proposed Budget Consider Recommenda- tions of the Mayoc 6 the CIB Committee & CITY COUtJr.IL Adopt Capi[al Improve- �� ment Budget O.`fice of tne Nayor Budget Section-8/15i7A FIGURE 5 1978/1979 CALENWIR FOA TNE UNIPIED CAPITAL IMPAOVEI�NT FAOQtIIM 6 BWGET pPOCESS � (Used for dat�smininq Ch� 1980 Capital Improvsmsnt Budgst) pDOPTION OF GOA AND POLICIES FOR CAPITAL ALLOCATION Tantativa Daca 1) Interested ci izena and City atalf beqin to rsview and evaluata last year'e overall Octobor 23, 1978 ' dzvelopment s ategiee and budget policias by 2) Intaresced citi ns and City etaff draft m�lti-year overall development strategies and budget polic e9 for all capital reeourcea available to address Saint Paul's capital needa. hie draft will be distributad to districta through the Early November 17 Notifica[ion Syste (ENS) by 3) eteeriny Cortmittee che 2lanning Co�ission holds a public meeting on the December pcopused overall dev opment strateyies and budget policiea by �) elanning Commission re ommends overall development stratagies and budget policias by Dece r 22 S) City Council's Finance, nagement and Personnel Committae reviews recou�ended overall Ja uary 8, 1979 development strategies an budqet policies by 6) City Council adopts Saint ul Capital Allocation Policies (overall development ,7anuary 11 strategies and budget policl s) by 7) Adopted Saint Paul Capital All cation Policies dlstributed through the Early January 19 Notification 5yetem (ENS) by PROG24MMING AND BUDGETING PROCESS ACTI TIES 8) Departments and organizacions identi pzojects on "Preliminary Identiflcation £ebruary 19 Fo=m" (blue focm) by 9) Entities requestinq projec[ funding meet with appropriate City staff, includ' g operatinq departments, planners and proje t coordinators to identify: February 26 to March 2 a. Planning conflicts b. Timing conflicte c. Capital allocation policies conflicts d. Cost estimates 1. Capital: Design, acquisition, constr tion, etc. 2. Annual operating costs 3. Effect on revenues 101 Final submission date for formally submitting pro eci funding req sts to the 4layor's �ffice - Bu3get Section, Aoom 367, on the Unified Capit Project Re- �rch 30 quest Foxm" (whlte form)• 11) Planning Commission review to decermine requested pro ect's c nformance vith the Saint 2au1 Comprehensive Plan and adopted capital lloca ion policies. April 9 to May 11 12) CIB Task Force Budget Priorities and Recommendations. c udes review of last year's Capital Improvement Budget and current capit allocation policies, bus tour, prasentations by various citizen orqanization d operatinq de- partments, review of Planning Commission recommendatio a District Council March 19 to June 15 priorities, staE: analysis and project rating. 13) CIB Cocmnittee fundinq priorities and project recomm datione o the Mayor and City Council after r,avieaing task force teco�nenda ions and ho dinq a public June 18 to July 6 hearing. 141 Department Directors' recommendations to Mayor. July 16 to July 20 15) Mayor nolds P�.iblic Hearing on budget zecomne ations between July 16 and July 20 16) Mayor determines his budqet priorities and ecommendations by July 24 171 Ma/or's Proposed Capital Improvement Bud t and Program preparation (typ�nq, July 30 to August 10 printing, collating and binding). 18) Mayor transmits Proposed CIB to City ouncil by (Ordinance k16306) August 14 19) City Council (Finance, Management a d Personnel Cormnittee) Public Hearing bet en August<'to September 21 20) City Council adopts 1980 Capital provemant Budget by September 27 21) Tax Levy Resolution adopted by requirement by State law) October 9 22) Grant applications are prepar by January 15, 1980 ANNUAL PROCESS EVAL�lATION: UJIF-ED CAPITAL IN�ROVEMENT PROGRAM AND BUDGET PROCE55 231 Ad Hoc Cow�ittee (Interes�ed represen[atives from City Council, CZB Committee, CIB Task Forces, Planning Commission, District Councils and City staff). ctober 1 to Uctober 30, 19"%! \ a. Task Force Ratinq Sheet b. Task Fozce and CIB Coemnittee Structoze ' c. Performance Monitoring and Evaluation � d. Capital Allocation Policies r_ZTIZEN tAONITORING AND EVF.LUATION PROCESS Continuous 33 Mayor'� Office - Budqet Section GNB:nlg August 15, 19�8 ' 5.0 POLICY IMPLEMENTATION The effectiveness of policy depends entirely on whether or not projects and the capital improvemen budget as a whole conform with the policies . City Co cil estab- � lishes the policies and has responsibili for adoptinq the annual capital improvement budget. hus, final ��, responsibility and authority for imple nting policy �� rests with City Council . \ � During the review process, responsi lity for monitoring the policies is shared by the CIB mmittee, the Planning Commission and the Budget Section f the Mayor's Office. Figure 6 indicates where the res nsibility for moni- toring the implementation of ea policy lies in the project review and budget reco endation process . IGURE 6: POLICY MONITORING ND IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY Planning E Mayor's Office Commission Co ittee Bud et Section � �°' A .� B* g* •r r- O °- D E - not used) a� F* F* � G* G* +� N �, H � I -`� •r � C U f� •r c o K oa � •r +� +' M M � � N N � o �* � a� r * p r N (� II. � ��1 H o 2Q* 2Q � v ,� < R •�- S r -o o T* �� U +� U V N C W �rO Tf C �•r [O LJ_. * Policies which relate to the budget as a�hole rather than individual projects '� 35 'S � g 8 g. g o 0 �� `° � �' � $ " a r+ o p oa g aev $ o °o °o °o �° m ^ ^ ° � g N a �+ $ o° °o °o o °o °o �.� � r � N N U1 M N a O �1 O O O O O � O � QQQ�1 � � ' � U1 M � � O � � �N � a � a ^' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o g $ o 00 00 0 e °o 0 0 °o °o °o o �°n °o g o o � o 0 0 � � � o vi �o 0 o c�; o ao � $ ui o ui o o r �v �n �o ao �o �n �n o n v � + � � •� �o ,a �n �n r .a � �$ � 0 a a a+ a"'� � $ °o .°� °o o� �^ ° °� a ° s a°� � a M '" � a � '� a a 7 a '� a N b � a � N � � � p� p� p� E Q. M M� N M G ~ � M N F M M �d o a a a a a a o 0 r''ai i�+ � .�I $ .��p S .r A g g a � � o � g � a $o °o � .,� '�tl p 7a �R 7a 7 p e�i r o E V 14 F � �E �i �C � � � �t � a � V u�i n .a O� � � � uf V �. � N ri 4) U 3 � � M � 9 � � M M �7 ; M @ 11 tT +1 N M� � JJ 'C C CI R U b � �.di Q� b I b N M y � � a rn � � � � � o :°, m � „ � � � g n & � a �; v -- '' o � b � � �a '' � � � '� a+ � '" � .°�� a3+ � i, va.i a a � � -+ � � � .� �, .� u .� x m a� a � � •� a o 'q �:+ u w° U o o -.°i "a o+ v .°i � �' .�e o :+ o z �i rn ,i w � .� a ,r i+ . �S � � > ti, N m v .°, `� � ..�i ° � a a a � � o° .°. � g a m � � �' � `� �' a a � ° T y y Z a � x o •°r .•�i a x Z � ° �+ o a�+ a a � � .a .1 w r si m ►�� y � � � W 7 i ��y Q w m a 1 ,.b i .b i E' 4 y �pp a a+ W u a+ �e ■ M xtl M U�! u �p C 'O M a �0 � b� � �y N } m ++ 8 W O ai O� �c +� dl 01 O M � ►� �s ,� � � M � �y O � �� . a My ma � � C7 � � a � � [� 1paq � 0. di U O � W W W i 4 P G U N U' r7 � SC dl �-7 . h-� J M � � • � o o .r �n o v �n �o n m �+ �o n a �o v* �n �o �o �o n M �, �o �o r a� �n u► a �n r� v �,, i i � � i i i i � � i � � � i � i � ,'i� U y Uf tn Vl t!1 y N V1 N N U U G U N U Q U � P1 1fl V M ri IA Q N fV N P m Ifl tfl .� 1A 1+1 �tl 1�1 CD � CD 1� U1 U1 f� P 1�1 P .-1 N .-1 N 1� N �p a 38 6.0 CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED 1 9 BUDGET AND TENTATIVE FOUR-YEAR PROGR 6.1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT B DS 6.2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BL K GRANT FUNDS 6.3 WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT B�(IDS � � � .� � � � � 37 oti b �, �p m A � T W O� N N W W d J A l.r J W W � W ' J A I Y N O " �0 O� O • � m N N N N N T N J OD O �O m 'b 7� W 'n N n � "f f I 1� �j 1 j� f1 N N 41 N 1 1 1 �1 1 "f "1 �1 � 1 1 p O tl� A r �+ W IN N J J � � " N U� V� A ♦ Y ► ► ✓ �O I��O 3 r-� O u Y O� O� N � IA J m m N m '+ • O N 17 Y � C > Z H� Z r r�j �p pr� n �!+ �i � M � � � � M M O y• N• fp/1 yp �r� -� o ■ » µ fl A �i�KM f1 : N N M � � � 1� rt h�A tC1 O N OV � 1� �,, � ra ' � � � �� S� �' �t�'•' � � �y�' » �� s '� ' � ° � $ { � � ~� � � i p �a O i O r r� n r�w m M � C x � A 6 � . p � NrNr rOi h ip f1 8 p a 'i M ►� �O � 'O � N V M F^Y I gN M y p r ~ I� � C N AI I� AI I� � o �' � � q e� � . � � � �� ,y. $ �, �! � �s ��s ~ �T� ��° �5 � � � �� o � ' n $ $t n • rK- Y ; «1 :% ,�p "� ,�r 6n6 � • n � e� o s n � $ � o � � �e � E ,� � � _ � : a � � �9 � � � �, � � � " � er� Z < � $ � � � � � � � r�,�� < � a,� c �� bz � � � • � :�:� —, � � M a �+ a C � � Z�'k'�w � `' °n � N 3 � � � � � W � � � � � �8 , � ��s,� � �� ,� ° � � ��p � � � o � o � � ;� � � � -b � : N a a � � ° � � � , o $ � � � ,� � � ,. � � � ..� w. n M r p w � wn � ° � � � � a � C o � 3� " � � ' ,, z 6 2 �, �F 9 t o ., : �� n ■ � � n � C � u � s n p O O� � W � �O � a O S O � V' � � �+ 7' K y � ► I� d y � p Y a v� ►' � � � 8 O � � � � � � � � ti � ti � � � � � � € s o < „ p r .�- n .. ,7y ,7> r� r ►� r r+ ►� r r r r � � r � D 7 '0 '11 7 'tl R! '1f 'O 'O 'O 'O ~ N i � 5 � , � � S E E � � � � $ ,s" $ � $ $ N m � r � o � o � . . o q � " Q 4 4 4 $ $ � C 6 $ C C � 5 0 C C o °g �" m " � � � ° o R n .. ry ry M • � h � w C C � � � a ° ^ h, n ,2� � r� �+ �pn wi �, y r N w� w u' �n .i in r ao C O p� y. � W O �p ♦ W p � O O J O � O N O O O O � U V� JO � A . . • � � � � � � � � � 8 � � � � � g 8 0 � o o ,.� ,�< p 8 8 0 � .. � � 'o �Q r F' • N r N .� N W N� J J l/� � 1-�O(1 c � o g °o g � o � + � g o o °o � !- �o 0 ,'o � $ g o° g 25 ZS o 0 2S g c� °o o ' o � �� 0 0 0 0 n L H M � _" �O n A .-. .� .. ... .� M W N !p+ IJ � N l/� O � N O� ��Qp CI G v� O O O O O V� O u� O O O J �O p�p G y� �M � O O O O O O O O � O p A O •►' 8 O a d � ' � $ � b� � V� '+ N N I+ �p N .. N � N� � M' C p N � n tNi� S O O O v� O � O O � N N H � � 8 � � 8 � 8 8 0 8 8 S a� S 8 y� N _ �. � . :� $ � •- o`� r � a o �^ �o�p v�i o o O O o v� o �+ o o O Im O � O O O O O O O J O p O �W �X 7 � d 6£ 10 IT J W W ► ►W+ ► 10 O � � C � � � � � � R � ., � ..�� ~ b o � ? ? � 'N° �' ? � o ? �S a � � � � , � "' � � � � � '` A � " � r � a� � � � r� � � � : ~ � �' ' �• ! ` ! � � � t� � � � � ^ ss � � b b : � �° � � ,� ��p �_+ � r � � �, � � � �C 7 h � iA A �' � '� '� � � '� � � � � � w � '4 � � Y � � r � �d � � � �� 9 � � � � . $ � g � � �. � n � � � � h � � 8 � 1� �p � � M D ` � � � R R � � � h � M 'i • 1�+� H H O' r y� K � O� � �p {.� r r �Np F+ r yf r A N � O W J � O O m O W (�� ►� 'J � � � � � 8 � � � � 8 � � r � � � � Q 4 Q Q � S w �3 W �' � � � � 8 �"� " � � � � '� C � o� r ► r 8 J N 1 O ` � O O 1 INi O O N� O � �� 8 8 Y � � � � 4 � � � � � ` � � � a �. � � b 8 N � p t~i� O 1�i� � ~ � O h � J N � N a � g g � � � � � � � � � � m J � � N � 8 W p� � . F' ►p+ N�p \ O tn � O O S N O p • . � � � � � � h � � ~a � 5�f � � N A O ao w, in o �. « ro N R � O w A Q• p . M � 8 J W �7 O � � � O O O O S N g � N� �S " S r w r• tt O 7 o� w � 7 � 4 G U twi� O O � �� S 0o OO o0 C O �, .� ' Y 4V � � O 0 1N0 b W F�+ W in �' � �' � � � rn J ►+ O U N I� W r1 � � � �f'� � N ^ f�f � � • � � � r � �' . �' �� ' . ��' ,� � � R o � � � � �i � h � � o r ��s �e ��e � �e ��e o M � r K m n � � n m u, ro C ►�o N � � r�i�� i � � s� r�+ � � p � v� � � � �� a �� • ; •.� �� ' o0 � � M A D �� r � m � � � --: � � � 7 m � � - � p Z � � � W ►r r t�g O � Z N � � N M 1�+ M s y � � � N � � � �i O O N J ~ �I 7 �1 li �oa O W O 1J� I��t � p ��f Z P Q� O M A � � � S § � o � ~ � < " n n �►+ r o b 5 0 N W 10 N � N b tsr ~ � O �O W o n+ o �1 ~ Ii d O O O ' � ' ' h ~ � � � 7 � W a � � 5 a N .�i tNi� O a'' ~ �' c �' N O O I� � � . C �' O O O O � M • �'ytl 8 F+ N A ►+ F" F+ O N O O W O p p �� O O O �p J pO O � O O O O ln O �' � O O A W � a o v°� u�i � ''� r• o o r � ° �o'g ' °o °o g � °o A ti o �°o < A 0 m ro r �.., r� 00 $ o r o o �o'g O N � N � r. c a o • m c � . W .o �n A 11 � O N N �, �b � �� rp m O O o rtD c i J T � J b H G. _7 n i E �� p Ipp � b W 10 N O O O� 1-�+ d 14) �A � �n � � A n A 7� � �j 'f 1 � � I� W w� IW+ F~+ N O O J ~ � w � J � � IV � ~ .� � �. p¢ p 7G N ��--� �-+ —I 'd ►b+ r R O R � � ro �•—I -� ? `.�� nn � � � � 6� " � � � � . � � � � �,� Tw � � ��G �G � � O � $ � w � � � � • �V A � i� µ� � a n V � g � � a ti � � � � � � � � X � c�► � � � 9 g C � � a+ oo v�c�i o�+ � « ro h � µ µ g � ii� � ro �i �, •° r ro w �� cn c°� c°� nfD► c. a o � � S � '� `' � � �� ' � a a rr � �rr c� � � � m � " " o� o � � � � e � � � � ,� a � � b �t C1 U7�C. VI � �, � � C M O � p � X 6 �4 a o o � � ° � � w � � '° rr r �o y �y � �? W f�D fD rp m r C � � �-S < A � a a ca � � ►` ' �1 � `° r� � � a a " � � � � � � � fD C � � � A tN � �. E � Q. � _ �c C O� � W v O W p F+ Fr I� � �{ � O 0� � O O� o �I p O O O� O �'' S O � y f) , c �' � � � roM vM M " o $ g � o g °o g °o � a � � ry M „ i O v' �"' C 1 6 � � b � � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 h r' � r O � � � 4 4 4 4 4 ° 4 4 R � ,� � � r � � � a � O � x M �o c� �, � p .MQ O+ N N n e�p � N � O ! O N� O O O� W J A W UI . F+ 1-' � �'� � 9 � O o O N O O O� U� �1 O O O N O M�' �O v . �`--! � O 1 O O � O O � � O S O O ' S O H �C �. L, o 0 0 o g � o S o 0 0 0 0 o a 0 � r p p� �o �W O A O N O O � J �� d � �� °o o °o °o °o °o ° °o ° n � � o 0 0 0 0 0 °o o a O O � � � � �O ►+ r „A -�� n� w u+ r O OOOtGO a o o N °o °o � a�o� c OO�O o° o o° p ~ a~ v t0 O O C1V O o � o 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O � n� �• ro� rt .i O ��c ni w v+ r�Op c O W O N O O C7 O H N N N O O O O O O , �p N O O O � O O p, O O O t0 N F-' 'p M � '-' u rv i.. �+ r O 9 � O O� A V� 7 O �L•'O :> w O f.� O � Q� O M . O O ' c� r� � W N x O D _ u O 'J � � � O (J �7 , 7.0 RESOURCES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION The following city offices can provfde addi onal infor- mation on specific elements of the Unified Capital Improvement Programrning and Budgeting Pro ess. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEV LOPMENT Division of Plannin 298-4151 - anning ommission policy develop ent and review of proposals - capital allocation policies - Three-Year Community Developmen and Housing Plan - comprehensive plan segments - capital improvement program visi�n of Communit Develo nt 298-5586 - g e act v ties - ree-Year Community Devel pment and Housing Plan - Co unity Development Pr ram Budget - gra s and aids - citi n participation p ocesses - progra monitoring an evaluation MAYOR'S OF CE Budget Sectio 298-4323 - Annual UCIPBP n schedule - Mayor`s budget eview and recommendations - CIB Committee n Task Forces - Annual budget and rogram - Capital impr vement fund sources - Capital imp vement oposal forms - Technical sistance r developing proposals In additio the agendas fo full City Council meetings and Coa�mit ee meetings to re iew, obtain public input or take acti on recomnendation for policy revisions or budget re ommendations can be o tained from the City Clerk's ffice, 298-4231 . , 1 \ 43 1 CREDITS PLANNING COMMISSION **Mart a Norton, Chairman e Levy *Liz Anderson *David G. McDonell *James Bryan J�an McGinley *Carolyn Cochrane eorge McMahon Thomas P. Fitzgibbon, Jr. Jane A. Nelson Sam Grais *Joseph Pangal *Rev. Glen Hanggi Gayle W. Summers Sister Alberta Huber Janabelle Taylor David M. Hyduke Adolf T. Tobler elsene Karns Robert F. Van Hoef *Steeri g Comn' tee and Special Policy Review embe **Chairman, teering Comnittee ADMINISTRATION AND James . Be lus, Planning Administrator POLICY DIRECTION Willi m Q. P tton, Comnunity Development Administrator Ken zugan, P incipal Planner AD HOC CITIZENS COMMITTEE n Auge eorge Hrynewych Merrill Robinson RESEARCH AND PLANNING Tamsen Aichinger, Pla ner Gregory Blees, Budget alyst Gregory Haupt, Budget alyst 44 GLOSSARY (continued from front cover) J o nt-use ac ty: ac ty operate an or ma nta ned by the c ty with one or more other pubtic or private agencies (for example, Independent School District N625, Ramsey County, Port Authority, United Way, Wilder Foundation.) everag ng: n genera , use o non-equ ty cap ta to ncrease return to equ ty. n mun c pa Lgovernment, refers to e of municipal capital as an inducement to commitment of private sector capit in a development profect. Mun c pa cap ta : ap ta mon es appropr ate y ty ounc n t e ap ta mprovement Bu get. Municipal State Aid (MSA): State gasoline tax (prin pally) dollars returned to a municipality as a grant for use in maintenance nd construction/reconstruction of certain state-designated roads (called t e "MSA routes"). Po cy: gu e ne or ru e nten e to eterm ne or a n eterm n ng ec s ons. Private sector: The non-governmental portion of the economy "Private sector" and "public sector" are the two general divisions of all e onomic activity and decision-making. eturn on nvestmen e ers to t e pro t on an nvestment. or examp e, t e return on nv stment R �in a standard savings account is about 5% Revenue bond: A certificate of indebtedness whose debt service i oniy from revenues of th facility constructed with the bond funds. Unlike ge ral obligation bonds ( ee above), revenue bonds cannot legally become a liabil ty of the property ta base. T ax a atement: e act or pract ce o m t ng t e uture amount o ea estate tax e pa on a property. Occasionally used by municipal legis atures as an centive for development characterized by some public benefi Three-Vear Comnunity Development Plan: A plan required by HUD as part o St. Pa 's Year V (1979) Cortmunity Development Block Grant Appiication. T plan ust identify St. Paul's ma�or community development needs and s ecif St. Paul's strategy for meeting them with CDBG and other funds over the p tod 1979 through 1981. UB : ee n e ap ta mprovement rogram an u get rocess. Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process (UCIPBP): The f rmal rocess used by the City of St. Paul annually to arrive at a Capit Impro ement Budget and a Capital Improvement Program. ' � �- � 7�3�G a��„Y a� ' CITY OF SAINT PAUL � � DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT � :: ,. DIVISION Of PLANNING i°o �� . 421 Wabasha Street,Saint Paul,Minnesota,55102 ..• 612-298-4151 George Latimer Mayor MEMORANDUM DATE: January 22, 1979 T0: Mike Sirian City Clerk's Office FROM: Tamsen Aichinger � SUBJECT: "Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policies: 1980" A copy of the capital allocation policies and supporting information adopted by City Council is attached for the official record. The document includes amendments to policies R and U adopted by Council at the time the entire document was adopted on January 4, 1979. It also includes an amendment to policy U adopted by Council at its January 16 meeting. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 6224. TA/cc Attach. 1 G � � ��-�� SAINT PA�1L ' GAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICY 1980 � � � � a � � �� e�.��" �'�'"�� %t�$z�� ° e � . .,. �� `& �a��._ .e � �� y�� a 9 � �� @�9 e � e ... � � � � ,e, e ,, e .� ° e�� ° �.... e , � ,.�,e , , e e.t �� p � �. . e � � � � � � � ' ' � DIVISION OF PLANNING DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT , CITY OF SAINT PAUL GLOSSARY � -- r rt . � Ava orem taxes: roperty or rea estate tax pa based on the va ue • the ' �'e y �'� ond: n nterest- ear ng cert icate o inde te ness. � Bond funds: Dollars obtained through sale of bonds. 'J"�� apita : n accumu at on o goo s or money. � Lapital allocation: Assignment of available capital to uses, either by function (e.g., streets, sewers) or by geograpfiical area. Capital expenditure: Actual spending of capital for projects. � Capital improvement: A durable asset purchased with capital. Capital improvements are significant, , one time undertakings often paid for by borrowing. Capital Improvement Budget (CTB): A listing of capital expenditures for the coming year. In � St. Paul, the City Council appropriates money for capital improvements by adopting the Capital Improvement Budget. Capital Improvement Program (CIP): A listing of tentative cortmitments for capital expenditures for the years (usually four years) following the Capital Improvement Budget year. � In St. Paul, the CIP is an identification by the Planning Comn9ssion of direction and projects to be pursued. Each year previous PTanning Cortmission CIP reco�nendations are considered, affirnied or modified, and implemented through adoption by City Council of a Capital Improvement Budget. CIB Committee: See St. Paul Long-Range Capital Improvement Budget Committee below. � Comnunity Development Block Grant (CDBG): Monies made available annually to St. Paul by HUD through provisions of the Housing and Cortmunity Development Acts of 1974 and 1977. � Cortmunity Development (Block Grant) Program: Refers to both Federal and local activities connected with implementation of the Housing and Cortmunity Development Acts of 1974 and 1977. Community Development Division: The division of St. Paul's Department of Pla�ning and Economic � Development (OPED) with responsibility for overseeing and evaluating use of CDBG monies. Community Development Plan: See Three-Year Comnunity Development Plan. County Aid: An annual grant from Ramsey County to compensate St. Paul for maintaining, constructing � and reconstructing certain county-designated roads in St. Paul —`D De t service: nnua or sem -annua payment o interest an repayment o pr nc pa on a oan. City � of St. Paul debt service is primarily for bonds. Department of Finance And Management Services (DfMS): One of six departments of St. Paul city government. Department of Planning and Economic DevelopmenC (DPED): The newest department of St. Paul city � government. Comprised of the Plan�ing Division, Economic Development Division, Comnunity Development Division, and Renewal Division. Downtown People Mover (DPM): A fixed-guideway automatic public transit system under study for � downtown St. Paul. � r nt t ement grant: at port on o C B mon es to w c a c ty s ent t e y ormu a, as oppose C to a dSscretionary grant made at the discretion of the Secretary of HUD. — � —�� Genera ob gat on on : cert cate o n e te ness ssue an so y a c ty o genera e cap a . A general obligation bond is normally repaid from a levy on property. Its debt service has first rights on any city revenues, and is therefore said to , be backed by the "full faith and credit" of the municipality. (See revenue bond, below). -- ent e r�atment rea : spec e area w t n t e y o a n au w c as een � � identified by the appropriate distN ct council or neighborhood group, the � Planning Comnission, and the City Council for the purpose of encouraging property owners to rehabilitate their properties and to bring substanttal improvement to the area in accordance wtth an approved ITA plan. Continued on back cover � � � SAINT PAUL CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICY: 1980 � � - � APPROVED BY THE SAINT PAUL PLANNING COMMISSION: � � DECEMBER 4, 1978 RESOLUTION NUMBER 78-47 � �; ADOPTED BY THE SAINT PAUL CITY COUNCIL: JANUARY 4, 1979 COUNCIL FILE 272326 � � . � � � � � � � � � . � DIVISION OF PLANNING DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 1202 CITY HALL ANNEX � 25 WEST FOURTH STREET SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 � TABLE OF CONTENTS � � 1 .0 SAINT PAUL CAPITAL � � ALLOCATION POLICY: 1980 � 1 .1 DEFINITIONS AND TERMS 1 � 1 .2 THE POLICIES 3 .0 THE UNDERLYING RATIONALE 13 � FOR SAINT PAUL CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICY � 2.1 GOALS AND PRINCIPLES � 2.2 INIPLEMENTATION OF GOALS AND PRINCIPLES: 3 IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES � 2.3 IMPLEMENTATION OF GOALS AND PRINCIPLES: PRIORITY AREAS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT 2.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF GOALS ND PRINCIPLES: THE CITY 'S ROLE IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ;� . IMPLEMENTATION OF GOALS AND PRINCIPLES: CITYWIDE BALANCE 3.0 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES IN � FISCAL PERSPECTIVE � 3. TY�ES �F CA�ITAL IM�R�VEMENT FUNDS 23 3.2 FISCAL CONSTRAINTS � APPENDICES 4.0 UNIFIED CAPITAL 3 � IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND BUDGET PROCESS (UCIPBP) � 5.0 POLICY IMPLEMENTATION 6.0 CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED 1 79 � BUDGETS AND TENTATIVE FOUR- YEAR PROGRAMS 6.1 CA ITAL IMPRO EMENT BONDS 38 � . W TER P LLUTI N BATEMENT BONDS 42 � 7.0 RESOURCES FOR FURTHER 43 INFORMATION � CREDITS 44 GLOSSARY Inside Covers � ii � � LI�T OF FIGURES � � FIGURE TITLE PAGE 1 15 Typical Municipal Capital Projects 2 17 Housing Condition/Income Map � 3 24 Types of Capital Funds and Their Uses 4 32 The Unified Capital Improvement Program �+ and Budget Process for the City of Saint Paul � 5 33 1978/1979 Calendar for the Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process � 35 Policy Monitoring and Implementation � Responsibility � � � � � � � � � � � iii � � 1.0 SAIf�i PAUL CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICY: 1980 � The City af St. Paul 's annual capital improvement ;� budget and program is the result of a year-long process called the Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process or UCIPBP. A set of capital allocation policies, � adopted by the St. Paul City Council , are used to guide the recommendations and final decisions made through this process. � I� 1978, twenty-two policies were adopted by City Council for a three-year period: 1979, 1980, and 1981 . In adopting policies for three years , it was understood that � there would be an annual review s� �hat appropriate revisions could be made. � The policies which will be used in 1979 (resulting in a budget and program for 1980) and a brief explanation of � key terms follow. The full document includes additional chapters which present supporting information. � •..� . 1 . 1 DEFIPJITIONS AND TERMS The policies are divided into three categories: strategy �., policies, implementation and development policies , and budget and finance policies. Each category reflects a separate level of policy. � Strategy policies set general direction for St. Paul. . Their rationale is based on citywide goals and a strategy for reaching these goals adopted by City Council for the � three-year period. Implementation and development policies focus more � specifically on the kinds of capital projects that will � be encouraged or discouraged given the limited resources available to St. Paul for capital improvements. � Budget and finance policies address the various sources of funds available to St. Paul for capital improvements, when they will be used, and conditions that must be met � in order to use them. ' 1 .1 .1 TYPES OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS �{' Three terms which differentiate between broad types of capital projects are used throughout the policies . These terms are: service system, system support and � subsidy. � � � 1 �� I� Most capital improvements fit into the service system � category. Service systems include the following sub- systems: - Trans ortation: roads brid es curbin �' P � 9 � 9� ' sidewalks , lighting, signals , signs, skyways, parking, automated transit systems � - 4Jaste System: sanitary sewers , solid waste facilities , recycling facilities � - Water System-Supply and Removal : supply distribution , storm sewers , ponds - Safet : police stations, fire stations � -� - Leisure/Education/Culture/Environment: � parks, parkways, p aygrounds, recreation centers , libraries , cultural centers, museums, trees , special use facilities � - Social Care: multi-service centers, day care �w centers , residential care facilities, health centers � System support activities improve the ability of the city to deliver services. Examples of system support � projects include: = headquarters and administrative offices � - training or educational facilities repair and maintenance facilities - storage facilities - communications facilities � The final category, subsidy, reflects assistance given to individuals or businesses as incentive for capital � improvements. Subsidy allocations include: - loans - grants � - acquisition and/or clearance � �� 2 � r� � � �s :� 1 .1 .2 PRIORITY AREAS Some of the policies refer to different types of residential areas within St. Paul . The classification of � areas is based on the median income of each census tract - in comparison with the median income of the SMSA* and the condition of the area as indicated in St. Paul 's � "Residential Improvement Strategy" . The result is as follows: � Residential Improvement Category Conservation Improvement , . Median Income I & II I & II Improvement III � Less than 65% of SMSA Other A Improvement III ,' 65-79% of - SMSA Other B Ir�provement III � �0% or more � of SMSA Other C Improvement III � *Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area as defined by the U. S. Department of the Census. � � The policies also refer to "neighborhood revitalization". � This means coordination of a number of improvements in a �- residential area in order to stimulate private investment and, as a result, halt deterioration. Neighborhoods suitable for such an effort are most likely to be found �,, within "A" , "B", or Improvement III areas . � 1 .2 THE POLICIES 1 .2.1 STRATEGY POLICIES A It would be desirable for the City to take neighborhood revitalization action aimed specifically at those areas � of deteriorated housing with the greatest potential for attracting private reinvestment,- especially in those areas where significant private reinvestment is not �` currently occurring. B New allocation of both subsidy capital and capital for service systems improvements in support of residential � and neighborhood improvement should follow this dis- tribution: � � 3 � i � � � � of Total Recommended Residential % of Subsidy - Area Blocks Capital � A, B & Improvement III 30% 70-75� All Other 70� 25-30% � C 1 .New service system capital improvements for neigh- � borhood betterment should support neighborhood revitaiization action aimed at those areas of = deteriorated housing with the greatest potential for attracting private reinvestment (for example, � Identified Treatment Areas). 2•Furthermore, first priority for service system � improvements outside of areas chosen for neighbor- hood revitalization should be in areas where the poor condition of service systems can be demonstrated � to be depressing resale value of property or de- terring maintenance investment by owners. - D 1.New allocations by the City of Saint Paul of both subsidy capital and capital for service system , improvements in direct support of economic develop- ment should emphasize complementing residential revitalization (including District 17) as first � consideration. 2• Second consideration for city capital allocations in � direct support of economic development should be for -- other commercial or retail reuse or revitalization, including the downtown. � E (Not used) � F In order to assure a balanced approach to annual � capital allocation, total budget allocations and �' tentative program commitments for new projects, �-- excluding special grants, costs born by other units � of government or the private sector and assessments which are for a particular project, should approach the following proportions: � � of Total Category Available Neighborhood Improvement 25-35� � Economic Development 20-30% Citywide Service � � Systems Improvement 35-45% Support System Development 5-10% 1 � , 4 � � � � C Not more than 20% of the monies budgeted each year, excluding special grants , costs born by other units of government or the private sector and assessments which are for a particular project, should be for � projects in any one district. � 1 .2.2 IMPLEMEN�f�T'ION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES H The funding needs of capital improvement projects which have received previous budget appropriations � for construction plans, acquisition and/or construction phases narmally have priority over new projects. I Generally, the City's service system will not be � expanded. l .Within service system categories, rehabilitation of � the City's existing facilities takes priority over the addition of facilities to the service system, except where economy or efficiency factors or planning �� considerations indicate that such rehabilitation is inadvisable. 2.Replacement of existing city service system facilities Itakes priority over additions to the city's system. � 3.Additions to the city's service system take last � � priority unless the addition brings the area where it is located up to a standard of service which has been - officially adopted by the city as part of a plan for � the specific service system and budget policy does not limit such funding. In such cases, the addition � of service system components has the same priority as replacement of existing service system components . � J Generally, the City will cansider budgeting acquisition funding for new projects under the following conditions : � 1 .Acquisition related to private development or reuse: (housing or economic development) : �, a. If there is a responsible developer with - financing commitments in hand; and _ b.If the proposed reuse is in conformance , with adopted city plans. � � � 5 ,� � � 2:Acquisition related to public development or reuse: � a. If right-of-way or easements for service systems are deemed necessary; or � b. If there are opportunities to complete parkland assembly where parcels have been previously identified for conversion to park use when they .� become available; or , c. If the property being acquired has tax exempt status and the proposed use has been clearly identified and is consistent with adopted City � plans, policies, and priorities for capital � expenditure; or d. If opportunities for special grant funding exist. — K Allocation of ca ital funds for economic development � P proposals will be based on the merits of each proposal _ and upon its ability to leverage private investment � dollars and obtain a return of increased property taxes in accordance with the identified leverage and return on investment guidelines. 1 .LEVERAGE GUIDELINES: Normal leveraging is 1 :6. In � ot er wor s , eac ollar the city provides for a particular pro�ect should mean six capital dollars committed b the develo er. For exam le, the- City � Y P P would normally anticipate providing no more than $60,000 in public improvements to service systems � or in subsidy to a project valued at $360,000. This ratio may go as low as 1 :3 if a given project � will have a major impact on a public goal . Examples , of such potentially worthwhile projects include: � a.Projects directly associated with neighborhood � revitalization efforts ; b.Projects which generate additional (not displace- ment) employment within St. Paul ; and ,� c.Prajects whose principal objective is resource con- servation or the development of alternative energy sources. �� 2.RETURN ON INVESTMENT GUIDELINES: Normal return on - nvestment s o. n ot er words, the city expects to realize a direct return of 12% property taxes � for its participation in an economic development _ project. If $75,000 in public improvements are provided, tax receipts from the project should be �� $9,000 per year more than they were before develop- '�� ment. `" � 6 � � ' � r i m ma a 1 a 4 if a This eturn on nvest ent y go s ow s % _ given project will have a major impact on a public � goal . Examples of such potentially worthwhile pro- _ jects are given in 1, above. � However, at a minimum, the tax ield from a roject s ou cover the cost of any add t onal municipa services required. � L Tax abatement is discouraged as a development incentive. _ However, it may be used to support projects that explicitly serve a public purpose. If used, abated � valuation in any year of the abatement period should not be lower than the valuation of land and improve- ments before the pro�ect is started increased at a 6% � rate compounded annually over the term of abatement. M The selection of Identified Treatment Areas for neigh- borhood revitalization wjll be made according to the � ITA guidelines adopted by the St. Paul City Council as File Number 271322 on June 27, 1978. (Copies may be obtained by calling 298-5586. ) � N (Reserved for corr�nercial revitalization policy. ) 0 If the Downtown People Mover (DPM) is implemented, not � more than $6.0 million in City Capital Improvement - Bonds will be appropriated as cash to meet the 10% City match which will be required by the federal grant. � P Diseased shade tree removal as a special allocation will be concluded with the 1980 capital improvement � budget. Reforestation should continue at at least 5,000 trees per year throughout the 1980-1984 Capital � Improvement Program. � 1Q Conditions for City participation in funding skyways : 1 ,Funds will be budgeted only for skyway bridges that ■ are part of a firm package for development or j redevelopment of the benefitting buildings ; � 2,Normally, the City will fund only a portion of skyway bridge construction. The developers and/or property owners of benefitting buildings shall fund the entire cost of skyway system construction within their � buildings; 3,The City will not participate in funding the operation or maintenance of a skyway system unless � the City is the owner or developer of a benefitted building. � � � � 2Q The City will consider budgeting funds for a site � preparation fund under the following conditions : 1. Funding is bud eted on a yearly basis with an initial � allocation of �50,000; 2.The fund will only be used to prepare tax-forfeited , sites owned by the City or scattered sites formerly � � acquired by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for clearance; 3.Site preparation will be undertaken only if a � developer has committed to buying the specific parcel once it is prepared; and � 4.No administrative or operating costs are paid from the fund. � 2.2.3 BUDGET P U C ES R Given the City`s fiscal constraints it is desirable to allocate municipal capital to projects in 1980 ,, which will not result in a net increase in City operatjng and maintenance responsibilities. At a � minimum, this means that: 1 .Essehtial facilities which can be financed and operated by the City and another agency will be given a high priority if they can be constructed and � operated at less cost than separate facilities. _ 2.Generally, there will be no allocation of capital j, for purchase or construction of facilities for human services programs which are not operated � by the City or for rehabilitation of human services facilities which are not owned by the City in 1980. - As an exception, those citywide facilities specifi- cally provided for in HUD regulations as eligible � for Community Development Block Grant funds may be _ considered. No CDBG monies will be appropriated to finance annual, operation and maintenance of human � service facilities in 1980. 3,New sw�rruning pools will not be considered for funding i n 1�980. j S The City will annually budget for each project phase only the estimated amount of money which can reasonably be expected to be expended within the budget year. , The capital improvement program will identify funds � required to complete the financing of a pro�ect in � future years. This tentative comm9tment is subject to 8 � � , � adoption by City Council of a C�pital Improvement Budget appropriation for �he project. � T Determination of which fund source is most appropriate for financing each of the City's budget priorities will � be made as follows: 1 .A11 street improvement projects on Municipal State Aid, County Aid, or Minnesota Trunk Highway routes � will be considered for funding primarily with monies allocated to the city specifically for those routes. 2.Capital improvements which are eligible for metro- � politan, State or Federal programs or private grants should be so financed. CDBG and CIB monies may be used to provide local ma+ching funds,. if appropriate. � 3,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; ; 4.Capital improvements and programs eligible for CDBG funding will be so funded; and 5,Capital improvement which cannot be financed with � monies governed by paragraphs (1 ) through (4) will be considered for CIB bond funding. � U Bond Financing: 1.The City will issue $6,500,000 in Capital Improvement � Bonds in 1980. When preparing the tentative Capital Improvement Program, the maximum amount of Capital Improvement Bonding and tax increment bonding for � financing future years' projects should not exceed � $7,500,000 in 1981 , $8,000,000 in 1982 and $8,500,000 in 1983. � 2.Assuming the City receives a grant for the second phase of the Thomas-Dale sewer project and issues in 1979 the necessary Water Pollution Abatement Bonds to match the grant, the maximum amount of WPA bonds '� to be issued in 1980 for the third phase of the Thomas-Dale sewer project and storm water ponding � projects is $4,301 ,000. When preparing the tenta- � tive Capital Improvement Program, the maximum amount of WPA bonds to be issued in 1981 for the fourth � phase of the Thomas-Dale sewer project and storm � water ponding projects should not exceed $3,520,000. � � 9 � after the completion of the Thorr�s-Dale sewer project, it is the City's intention to finance sewer projects � with fund sources other than Water Pollution Abate- ment Bonds. � 3.The City does not intenG te issue tax levy-supported � bonds in 1980 for the residential or commercial re- - habilitation program, parking facilities, or urban renewal. At this time there is no anticipated need � to sell tax levy-supported bonds for the residential _ rehabilitation program for the years 19E1 and 1982. _ 4. If tax increment bond-funded projects are developed, � they must meet requirements of Policy V "Tax Increment Financing Policy" before City Council will consider � issuing bonds. 1f Tax increment financing: i.Revenue Projections by Consultant: Revenue pro,ectiors � for all tax increment proposals should be analyzed by a private financial consultant rather than a bond � consultant. 2.Debt Service From Bond Sale Proceeds : Debt service , for all tax increment projects will be paid from bond proceeds for no more than the first three years of project implementation when no tax increm�snt� or _ cther project revenues are generated. � 3.Other Costs Funded From Bond Sale Proceeds: All c:osts relating to any tax increment proposals should be � funded with bond proceeds and included in the justi- fication 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. 4.Conditions to be fulfilled for tax increment bond � financing: _ a.There must be a clear statement of public purpose; � b.All state requirements must be met; c.The prospective developer must have financing � available; and d.There must be a written contract among the developer, � the city and any involved public authorities. The contract must identify, among other things, esti- mates for all� anticipated cos ts related to the � development estimates for annual operating and maintenance costs associated with the completed project, and who is responsible for meeting each of these cos ts. � � 10 � � � 5.Use of tax increment bond sale proceeds in accordance with written financial plan: Tax increment bond � monies shall be expended only in accordance with the �terms identified in the financial plan, unless other- wise provided for by City Council resolution as recommended by the director of the Department of � Finance and Management Services. W City bond monies and CDBG monies used to provide � residential rehabilitation loans shall be recycled, as the original loans are repaid, according to the guide- lines adopted by the Saint Paul City Council as Council File 272145 adopted November 30, 1978. Monies used to f provide commercial rehabilitation loans shall be re- cycled to administer the program and provide new loans as the original loans are repaid. � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 11 � � 'L.0 THE UNDERLYING RATIONALE FOR SAINT PAUL � CAPITAL ALLOCATION POLICY � Adopting a capital improvement budget is one of the mos t i rriportant acti ons taken by ci ty government. Capital expenditures can have a significant effect on � the development or redevelopment of a city and its neighborhoods. At the same time, legitimate capital improvement needs invariably exceed the money available � to address them. If a capital budget is going to meet the greatest needs and have the most benefit for the city as a whole, a � method for determining the relative priority of projects is required. Policies based on the goals and objectives of a city help meet this requirement. � 2.1 GOALS AND PRINCIPLES Two broad objectives form the basis for many of St. Paul 's activities, including its capital expenditures. � City Council has adopted them as goals and Mayor Latimer identified them as major objectives of his administration. They are: � l.To strengthen the city's neighborhoods in order to make them better places to live; and � 2.To strengthen the city's economic base in order to provi de j obs and servi ces needed by resi dents of the ci ty. In addition, because capital improvement funds are � limited and because needs are great, the goals are supplemented by three principles which relate specifically to capital allocations: � 1 .Critical needs which affect the basic protection of life, health, or public safety take precedence over all other capital expenditures; � 2.Capital expenditures should be channeled to those areas where there is the .greatest opportunity for stimulating � private reinvestment and effecting measurable neighbor- � hood or economic improvement; and 3.Sorr� capital funds should be made available to prevent deterioration and blight in sound areas of the city and � to meet the need for improvements which benefit the city as a whole. � 2.2 IMPLEMENTATION OF GOALS In order to translate the goals and principles into AND PRIPdCIPLES: IMPROVEMENT policies, the various types of projects which are typically ACTIVITIES funded by the City as capital improvements are divided into �, three broad categories: improvements to service systems, improvements to facilities which support the ability of local government to offer services efficiently and effective- 1 ly, and subsidies for improvements to privately awned property. '� 13 � These three broad categories and examples of each are � listed in Figure 1 . The subsidy and system support categories are fairly limited. The service system � category is the largest of the three and is divided into subsystems. The advantage of listing typical activities in this � manner is that it helps separate projects that are directed toward individual or neighborhood needs from those that serve a larger part of the comnunity or the � community as a whole. Based on this differentiation, the policy statements can identify appropriate activities more concisely. � 2.3 IMPLEMENTATION OF GOALS The second step in translating the goals and principles AND PRINCIPLES: PRIORITY into policies is identification of those areas of the � AREAS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD city where there is the greatest opportunity to stimulate IMPROVEMENT private reinvestment and effect measurable neighborhood improvement. The role city government is able to play � must also be identified if policy is to provide uirECtion. Many qualities contribute to strong, stable neighborhoods. � If the physical aspects are to enhance the stability of a neighborhood, an adequate and steady level of time and money is required. Providing these resources for main- taining individual properties is the responsibility of � the owner. The City has responsibility for providing adequate resources to those service systems which it owns and operates. � Nowever, in some cases property owners have been unable to maintain their properties. Because the strength of � a city's neighborhoods and housing stock affects the strength of the city as a whole, municipal assistance to individual structures or areas which show some deterioration may be justified. � 2.3. 1 HOUSING CONDITION/INCOME MAP � Given these premises, two factors are used to identify those areas of the city that meet the intent of the goals and principles: income and the condition of the housing � stock. As a measure of income, the median family income of each census tract is compared with the median family income of � the SMSA (Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area) and divided into three categories: areas where the median • family income of the census tract is less than 65% of the � SMSA median family income, areas where it is between 65% and 80% of the SN�A median family income, and areas where it is 80% or more of the SMSA median family income. This � 14 � � � PRIMARY BENEFIT � FIGURE 1 : TYPICAL MUNICIPAL , CAPITAL PROJECTS Indi- Neigh- City- vidual borhood wide � SUBSIDY �� Loans • Grants • Acquisition/clearance • � � SUPPORT � Administration, training, repair and maintenance, data processing, storage and communications � facilities • � SERVICE Trans ortation S stem roads, br dges, curb ng, sidewalks, � lighting, signals, signage, skyways, parking • • Waste System � ' sanitary sewers, solid waste facilities, recycling facilities • • � Water S stem Supp y distribution, storm sewers, ponds • • � Safet p� stations , fire stations • Leisure/Education/Culture/Environment � parks, parkways, p aygroun s, recreation centers, libraries, cultural centers, museums, trees, special use facilities • � Social Care muft�i -service centers, day care centers, � residential care facilities, health centers • � � � 15 � measure is the same as that required for expenditure of � Con�munity Development alock Grant funds which must be used primarily to benefit low and moderate income people. � Housing condition is based on St. Paul 's "Residential Improvement Strategy". The "Residential Improvement � Strategy" , adopted as part of the city's comprehensive plan in 1976, analy�z�s and classifies residential areas of the city into five categories based on the percentage of structures on each block which need major or minor �` repairs . In addition to classifying areas, the "Residential Improvement Strategy" establishes objectives for each type of area and describes programs and � activities which could be used to conserve areas of sound housing (conservation areas) , rehabilitate areas of lightly deteriorated housing (Improvement I and II areas) , and redevelop areas of badly deteriorated housina � (Improvement III areas) . q 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 1 Maintenance Improvement I 5 to 19 20 to 81 Rehabilitati� Improvement II ZO to 39 80 or less Rehabilitation and Neighbor- hood Ir!prove-� ment Improvement III 40 or more 80 or less Major Neiqhb� hood Improve men t The "Residential Improvement Strategy" reflects the position � of St. Paul government that the City' s capital allocation decisions are important tactical moves for conserving and maintaining the city's housing stock and that municipal � capital decisions can make a difference in neighborhood confidence. The result of combining these two factors is a housing � condition/income map. The map shows where residential improvements are most needed and where public assistance � may be necessary as impetus for either stabilization or turnaround. � 16 � � 304 ,-,,,306 � 307.01 307 02 301 303 305 302 ",.• ;::::�:2�i .::°.�.,.,�..,�.�3i;:`•::`• € �?i309 : :�:'';�Ek:`•: p � 319 �' � 318.02 �;314;:: � � ��..��f:'�::•`:�i;:;�:;. . `'``'�.33�t�.�,�,:8t:;�? - ti '�`f' 32` } !��i � :�:��'.'�� .... ��: !<:;. .�. �:::` ..... � 332 :329 3 30.•. • ..... :;:;�i4.� 346 347 " 336 � °"`. s 348 . :�::,,�3�':::;�ir .;:: - 344 � � '�,b,:`. . �+ 342 g �,..„ �:��:� :2�i�•`•:: '��:?ii:: • .�,. ::349�. ....... :�352 3�� 356.. .. � - 351 357 '�'�`��. ..o,. :;''360 361 .:.�� j�,. o;� �;o `°"`oqo 6 3 3 364 `�6'�� 362 5�� 'i,r,�.,�,��i. � - - .: �.�6 361 �~'';.' ,��'-. 374 ��., V m � I: .......••367 � 375 �� I 376.01� l: / s�s.o2 HOUSING CONDITION/INCOME MAP* � INCOME OF EACH CENSUS TRACT AS PERCENTAGE OF ESTIMATED 1977 SMSA MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME � o�FEEr � IMPROUEMENT I & I I "� A � � 64% � 6 65-79q C � ? 80% � IMPROVEMENT III io <_ �9� - � so� � � *Residential Improvement Strategy classification combined with the estimated 1977 median family income of each census tract as a percentage of the estimated 1977 SMSA , median family income. � � ' � � 2.3.2 CLASSIFICATION OF PRIORITY AREAS Assistance should go to areas where there is the greatest � opportunity for strengthening and stabilizing the neigh- borhood. Two types of areas where municipal investment is likely to have the greatest impact can be identified. The first of these are called "fringe" areas. � Fringe areas are characterized by housing that is basically sound but in need of some repairs . While some private � resources are available, they usually are not sufficient to stabilize the area and preserve the houSing stock. Fringe areas are defined as lightly or moderately deterio- � rated areas where most of the residents have a median family income which is less than 80% of the SMSA median family income. These areas are labeled "A" and "B" on � the map. Areas labeled "C" are similar in housing condition and also require attention , but the higher level of private resources mean that a lower level of public incentives should be required. � Identification of the second type of area is more complex. Throughout St. Paul there are areas where the housing is � deteriorated but also quite substantial . Concentrated attention to these areas would serve to improve the irrnnnediate neighborhood and provide impetus for improve- � ments in surrounding blocks. Very often residents of these areas are low or moderate income. In order to bring about improvement, a large commitment � of public resources may be necessary. However, once initiated, private investment is likely to take over and provide the resources necessary for stabilizin� the � neighborhood over the l ong term. Such a corr�ni tment is referred to as "neighborhood revitalization. " Neighbor- hood revitalization implies a concentration of capital improvements , along with other types of city services, � in a relatively small area as a means for inducing and securing private investment in the area. Neither the "Residential Improvement Strategy" nor the � map identify specific areas which would be suitable for neighborhood revitalization. Given the corrnnitment of � time and money required of the City and the neighborhood, it is appropriate that areas be selected carefully and that activities be carefully planned by residents them- selves. Generally, these areas will be located within � "A", "B", or Improvement II� areas and will meet the criteria adopted by City Council for the Identified Treatment Area Program. � � 18 � � � Other geoqraphical areas also require attention . However, � they _do not represent similar opportunities for improve- ment based on public incentives because they are either sound or, if deteriorated, would require extensive public � expenditure for acquisition, clearance, and redevelopment before they could be made attractive for private invest- ment. Given very limited resources, it was decided that for the near future St. Paul 's primary efforts should be � focused in those area� where significant improvement will not require large-scale redevelopment and on completin� existing redevelopment projects. � 2.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF GOALS The intent of economic development activity is twofold : � AN D PRINCIPLES: THE CITY'S to increase the number of jobs and income for city resi- RULE IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT dents and to expand the city's tax base so that reliance on any one source is minimized. Specific steps to bring � � about these changes include broadening the city's industrial base; strengthening the down town as a retail , commercial, convention and industrial center; strengthening � community commercial and retail centers; and promoting local neighborhood economic development opportunities. � Public economic development activities in St. Paul consist of a wide range of activities and incentives. They include public improvements to support development; subsidy in the form of land acquisition or preparation, tax abatement, � or special types of financing assistance; and the use of municipal police powers, legislative authority, persuasive powers and technical assistance to neutralize stumbling � blocks to development. These economic development tools are used by the City of � St. Paul and the Port Authority of St. Paul to achieve shared economic development objectives. These objectives are set by the City Council which approves Port Authority bond issues and has two positions on the Authority Board. � Economic development actions of the Port Authority are overseen and coordinated with those of the city by the Playor through the Division of Economic Development of the � Department of Planning and Economic Development. In the past, the Port Authority has addressed itself � principally to industrial park development with some ex- ceptions (assistance to United Hospitals, Inc. , Control Data Corporation, and the Amtrak Station). The City, on the other hand, has strongly promoted and assisted � downtown and neighborhood economic development. Recently, the Port Authority has taken a somewhat larger role in downtown development. � � 19 � Ex andin the Port Authority's role in downtown redevelop- ■ P 9 ment could be consistent with City Council economic development strategy and objectives. With policy guidance � and planning from the City, the Authority could undertake the� acquisition, clearance, and preparation of land when there is developer corr�nitment and generate � capital for development of such land through sale of revenue bonds. This would reduce the need for city capital generated � through sale of general obligation bonds: It is the City's intention to finance revitalization of downtown with less reliance on general obligation bonds while � pursuing other forms of public financing to leverage � private funds. It would also ��err�it St. Paul to expand its economic development activities in areas other than � � downtown. Economic development strategy for St. Paul must carry commitment to a continuing level of downtown revitalization. However, the City should geographically broaden its economic stimulation and development efforts � to place gradually increasing emphasis on use of its funds for development projects which: (1 ) more closely ally with neighborhood revitalization; and (2) promote � reuse or revitalization of existing comnercial or retail areas. Certain types of projects in downtown will continue to � require initial investment from the City to improve their redevelopment potential. For example, service systems improvements which cannot reasonably be made � part of a redevelopment project would continue to be made by the City. But, as the downtown attracts more developer activity, less municipal subsidy capital should � be needed to maintain reinvestment momentum. If the Port Authority is to continue to expand its role � in downtown redevelopment, an overall economic develop- ment strategy must be developed by City Council and followed by both the City and the Port A�uthority. Some city financing tools, particularly those not available � to the Port Authority, may have to be used for project preparation in downtown redevelopment. Tax increment financing and development district bondi;ng could also be � pressed into service for funding proposals under same circumstances. But the Port Authority's revenue bonding capability would provide most future funding for both industrial development and downtown redevelopment. � � � � � 20 � � 1 � 2.5 IMPLE��IENTATION OF Both -of St. Pau s goals must be pursued if the city is GOALS AND PRIP�CIPLES: to remain a good place to live. There must also be CITYWIDE BALANCE balance among geographical areas of the city. While � priorities must be set, each area of St. Paul is depend- ent on other areas and priorities must not lead to concentration in one or two areas while the rest of the � city is neglected. Citywide needs must also be addressed so that �mprovements which benefit a part of the city rest on a sound base. � This means that facilities which allow efficient delivery of city services must be adequate. It also means that service system improvements which serve �� the city as a whole must be adequate if the more localized parts are to be effective. As an example, it would not be appropriate for St. Paul to improve streets which serve � residents of a small area and neglect the major streets which lead to that neighborhood as well as a number of other neighborhoods. � As a result, four categories of benefit must be addressed: � - Neighborhood improvement - Economic development - Citywide service systems , and - Su��crt systems. � In order to achieve balance between geographic areas of the city and between levels of benefit, guidelines for � the proportion of available resources which should go to different areas and different levels are set. The guidelines reflect St. Paul 's rationale for capital , � expenditure supplemented by an analysis of past budgets and the knowledge gained through each annual budget . process. In this way, the City's goals can be addressed as well as changing needs and situations within the city. i � . I � ' � � � 21 � 3.0 CRPITAL EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL PERSPECTIVE � j St. Paul 's annual budget has two major sections : an operating budget and a capital improvement budget. Although treated separately, each of these two budgets can have an impact on the other. As a result, the ,� relationships between the two must be considered as part of sound budgeting practice. - � Most of the income received by a city is used to support the operation of city services and maintenance of the equipment and buildings required by these services. � Salaries, fringe benefits, supplies, utility costs, and routine maintenance are all part of the operating budget. Usually an operating expense will fall into one of the ( following three categories: I � � l.operating and maintenance expenses to continue existing government services which are provided � directly or under contract; 2.operating and maintenance expenses for new or expanded � services; or 3.operating and maintenance expenses associated with additional public facilities. 1 Ca ital improvements are long-term, physical improvements. P Typically, a capital improvement is a one-time expendi- � ture with a life expectancy of at least three years. Capital expenditures also fall into one of three categories: � l.the cost of significan tly upgrading or replacing an outmoded municipal facility; 2.the cost of adding a new municipal facility; or � 3.the cost of providing incentives to the private sector to encourage physical improvements or development. , 3. TYPES OF CAPITAL There are a number of types of funds available to St. Paul � IMPROVEMENT FUNDS for capital improvements. These include bonds, grants and aids from other levels of government, and local funds supported by property taxes, user charges or assessments. In addition, the costs of some projects are shared with � other units of government and occasionally a private business or foundation will give the city a grant for a specific project. � The allowable uses of the fund sources can vary considerably. Limitations on the use may relate to the purpose of the project (to benefit low and moderate income people, for � example), the type of project (streets, sewers) , specific locations (MSA streets or County Aid streets), or a i23 � FIGURE 3: TYPES OF CAPiTAL FUNDS AND THEIR USES � FUND TYPE llSE � Bonds Capital Improvement Bonds Any capital expenditure. Capital Improvement Bond funds are dollars � (Chapter 234. Laws of borrowed by the city which are repaid from a levy on property. Minnesota, 1976) Auto Parking Facilittes Act Parking facilities. Parking Facilities Bond funds are general (Minnesota Statute 459.14) obligation bonds excluslvely for acquisition of land or construction � of automobile parktng places. They are repaid through levies. assess- ments, or revenue of the facility. Tax Inc►�ement Bonds Economic deve1opment. Tax Increment Bond funds are dollars borrowed to finance redevelopment of specified parcels of 1and. These bonds � are re aid through increased property taxes resulting from redevelop- ment o� the parcels, Developmemt District Bonds Economic development. Development District Bond funds are dollars ' borrowed to finance redevelopment of a speclfied tract of land � designated as a development distrlct. These bonds are repaid through � increased property taxes resulting from redevetopment in the district. Water Pollution Abatement Pollution control through construction of sewage and storniwater Bonds (Minnesota Statute fac111ties, General obligatlon bonds repaid from a leuy on property. 115.41) � Revenue Bonds My capital pro�ect which will generate revenue. i �,itv of Saint Paul: Revenue bonds issued by the city are repaid solely from revenues generated through the facility constructed with bond � proceeds. For example, in 1980 the city will consider issuing sewer revenue bonds to construct a storm sewer which removes lake water overf�ow from the sewage system. The bonds will be repaid from savings realized through reduced sewage treatment costs. Port Authorit of Saint Paul: The Port Authority may issue revenue � on s repa so ey rom revenues generated by facilities constructed with bond proceeds. Authority revenue bonds are sold to construct industrial facilities or comnercial developments. Federal A1d � Housing and Comnunity Comnunity development and housing pro,�ects which benefit lower income Development Act Block Grant people, eliminate slums and bli ht, or meet an urgent need (Comnunity Devetopment Block Grant Program�. The entitlement grant was authorized by Congress in 1974 and reenacted in modified form in 1977. � Urben Development Actton Economic development and facilities revitalization. Supplemental Grant (UDAG) program to the Comnunity Development Block Grant Program. � Economic Development Economic revitallzation. Possible use of these funds is for financing � ' Assistance Grant construction of the Civic Center Theater and Exhibition Ha11. � Land and Water Conservation Acquisition and development of local parks and recreation facilities. Funds (LANCON) Administered by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. Urban (Aass Transportation Downtown People hbver Feasibillty Study. If the feasibility study � Administration (UMTA) pwoves out, UMTA wi11 fund 80% of construction. Demonstration Grant Great River Road Grant Development of the Great R1ver Road along the Mississippi River. The � (Surface Transportation US Department of Transportation program is administered by the Act of 1978) Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). Construction Grants and Construction of wastewater treatment facilities, including sewers. This Loan Program (Clean US F-�vironmental Protection Agency program is acbninistered in Minnesota � Mater Act of 1971) by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Interstate Turnback Construction of interstate highway substitution transportation projects. Funds Grant A Federal Highway Adminlstration program funded through the Federal A1d Highway Act and administered by MnDOT. � _ __ _. � 24 � � ' ' FUND TYPE USE State Assistance � Municipal State Aid (MSA) Repair/construction/maintenance of MSA roads and bridges. Mlnnesota Department of Repair/reconstruction of state highways and bridges in St. Paul. No Transportation (MnDOT) transfer of funds involved; all contracts are let and administered by MnDOT. � Shade Tree Grants Removal of diseased shade trees and reforestation. Legislative Commission on Acquisition and development of local parks and recreation facilities. Minnesota Resources Grants Administered by State Planning. � Metro Agency Assistance Metropolitan Transit Downtown People Mover Feasibility Study. MTC, using State Legisiature Comnission (MTC) Grant authorized funds, will assume 10% of the cost of the study (and of the � profect, if feasible). Metropolitan Parks and Open Renovation/development of regional park and open space areas in St. Paul. Space Comnission Grant � Metropolitan Waste Control Construction of wastewater treatment facilities. Seven-county bonding Cortmission (h�ICC) 6rant authority is utilized to match state and federal funding avaitable for sewer and treatment plant projects in the metro area. County Assistance � County Aid Repair/construction/maintenance on County State Aid (CSA) system roads and bridges and county roads. City Funds � Public Improvement Aid (PIA) Streets, sidewalks, alleys. PIA doltars are local property tax monies. Sewer Repair Fund Unforeseen sewer repair. Sewer repair dollars are local monies generated through user charges included in each water bill. � Assessments Certain capital improvements wholly or partially funded through charges to benefitting property owners. General Fund Monies Any capital improvement, as determined appropriate by City Council. � Miscellaneous Railroad funding Agreements Improvements to railroad crossings and development of railroad-owned land as ,joint city-railroad projects. � � � � � � � 25 � specific project (Urban Mass Transportation Administration � Demons trati on Gran t). The budgetary implications of fund sources also vary. 1 Bonds are a form of indebtedness and must be repaid by the City. Depending on the type of bond, citywide property taxes, property taxes resulting from the project, assess- � ments, or revenue from the project may be used to pay off . this debt. Grants and aids from• other levels of government generally � do not require repayment. Some grants do require that the City match the amount of the grant with a specific percentage of the total cost of the project or projects. � Finally, some local funds are routinely set aside from property taxes or user charges to be used for capital improvements to specific service systems. � , 3.2 FISCAL CONSTRAINTS In addition to the limited uses of some fund sources, the capital improvements which can be undertaken by St. Paul � are limited, quite simply, by the amount of money which is available. The yearly requests for capital improve- ments far ezceed the dollars available to finance them. � Several factors serve to compound the limits faced by St. Paul. The first of these is, of course, rapidly � increasing costs which are not matched by increasing revenues. This affects all of the City's budget and makes it all the more important that the impact of a capital � improvement on the operating budget be seriously consider- ed. The second factor is increased reliance of the City on � grants and aids from other levels of government. Between 1970 and 1976 St. Paul 's total revenues rose from $126.2 million to $213.8 million. But property tax revenues ' collected by the City were actually less in 1976 than in 1970. Grants and aids, on the other hand, have been increasing both in dollars and as a percentage of St. Paul 's total revenues. � Grants and aids are welcomed by St. Paul as a means � for providing local improvements and services without in- creasing reliance on property or real estate taxes. These funds also help free money with fewer constraints to meet � important needs. It is important to remember, though, that capital allocations must reflect the mandated purpose of the funds. � Conversely, the third limitat�an faced by St. Paul is decreasing aid. A major source funding for capital projects has been the federal Community Development Block Grant � program. These funds are being severely curtailed and, in 26 � � 1 . � 198U, St. Paul anticipates receiving approximately half of what it did during the first three years of the program. St. Paul 's annual entitlement during 1975, 1976 � and 1977 was $18,835,000. Its 1980 entitlement is pro- jected to be approximately $9.7 million. The final constraint faced annually is the commitment by � the City to complete ongoing projects before new projects are initiated. When this commitment is combined with a decreasing budget and increasing costs, the ability of ' the City to initiate new projects is very limited. For example, the tentative program corr�nitments approved as part of the 1979 capital improvement budget for Conttnunity Development Block Grant funds totalled $9.6 million, � leaving less than $100,000 of the anticipated $9.7 million entitlement for new projects. The tentative commitments for capital improvement bonds exceed $6.0 � million and St. Paul 's bonding limit is set at $6.5 million. Although both the commitments and the revenue projections are tentative, these figures give a sense of the difficult � decisions which must be faced annually. � � � , � � � � � � 27 , APPENDICES , ' . N E L AND BUDGET PROCESS � . L EN I N � . E 37 AND TENTATIVE FOUR YEAR PROGRAMS ' . C HE � � � . ■ � � , � � � � 1 - 27 r � � 4.0 UNIFIED CAPITAL IP?PRO�'EME�JT PROGRAP� AND BUDGET PROCESS (UCIPBP) � , Review cf adopted policies is only the first step in St. Paul 's annual Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process (UCIPBP). Once the policies have � been reviewed and appropriate revisions adopted by City Council , proposals for capital improvements are submitted and an extensive review process begins. , The UCIPBP was originally established as a method for allocating capital improvement bond funds. The process has been enlarged over the years to include all federal , � state and local funds for capital expenditures. The various bodies with responsibility for reviewing the proposals and making recommendations represent all areas � of the city and a wide range of expertise and knowledge. The primary review body is the St. Paul Long-Range Capital � Improvement Budget (CIB) Committee. Three task forces assist the CI8 Corr�nittee by reviewing proposals thoroughly and ranking them on the basis of a pre-determined ratin� sheet. The CIB Corr�nnittee then incorporates the recommenda- � tions of the Tas k Forces into an annual budget and submits a formal recommendation to the Mayor and City Council . � In addition to the CIB Committee and the task forces, proposals are reviewed by dis trict councils or neighbor- hood organizations, city operating departments, and the ' St. Paul Planning Comnission. The input from these groups is incorporated into the rating sheet which helps assure that all considerations are adequately reflected. � The complete process, beginning with the development of policies through final adoption of the annual budget by Ci ty Counci 1 , i s diagramned in Fi gure 4. Fi gure 5 pre- ' sents the 1979 UCIPBP calendar which will result in a capital improvement budget for 1980. , � ' � ' . 1 . 31 � � FIGURE 4 T!� UNIBIED CAPITAL IMPEbJVEMENT PROGRAN AND BUDGET PR(kESS FOR TNE CITY JP SAIN'C PAUG P[OC�ia Steve �� CITY STAFF AND INTERESTED CITI2ENS INTEREST6D ORGANIZATIONS PLANNING COUNCIL R�comew�dation �� C6lWZSSION NAYOR �• STAFF of Caals and 1. Planning Division 1. Diatrict Councils Policies Eor 2. Mayoc's Office-BUdget Seceion Z. Diatrici Orqanizatic�ns ' Capital Reaourca 3. Coemunity Developnent Division 3. Othars on the E.N.S. Allocatiun 4. Ad Hoc Citizen CoamitCQe 5. Comcil Statf adoption of Goalr and , Policits for � �� CITY COUNC;IL � Capical Resource . " Allocation CITI2EN ORGANIZATIONS ::ITY OPEIiATING DEPAR'^MENTS OTHfR AGENCIES � Pro7accs 1. Distriet Councils 1. Fire L Quasi-City Agancies Identified 1. Citizen Groupa 2. Police A. Port Authority on "?reliminary 3. Business Organizations 3. Public Works e. 3chool District .3entification 4. Comaunity Services C. Board of Water Commissioners � Furm" S. Finance & Manaqement Svca. D. Civic Center AuGhority 6. Planning & Economic Dev. 2. Governmental Units A. Metropolitan Council 8. Metro Waste Control Commission � C. Metzo Transit Coaunission � D. Coun�y of Ramsey � . E. Ninneso[a Highway Department 3. Private Aqencies - OFFICE OF CITY PIANNING PLanniny, Pollcy 1. City Planners � and 2'iminq 2. Operating Departments 6 _:�nflicts Aganciee :dentifiad 3. Project Coordinatora 4. Council Staff � Pro7ect Plianing �. an3 Costinq � OPERATING DEPARTMENTS � Requesting Entity � Determines WheCher to Sub- CITIZEN ORGANIZATIONS OPERATINC DEPARTMENTS � � � OTHER AGENCIES mlc Formal Fund- ing Request Fun9ii�g Requests BUDGET DIRECPOR � Formall/ Submitted PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF ANALYSIS DISTRICT CWNCIL COCTICIL STAFF � Project A) Comprehensive Plan 1. Planning Division A) District Prioritie Analysis B1 Capital Allocation Policies 2. Mayoz's Office-Budget Sect. BI Projeci Comments C) Recommended Program 3. Community Development Div. 4. Property Management Div. A) Eligibility 6 Feasibility � Recocnmendations Transmitted BUDGET DIRECTOR Distribute Requests ' to Appropriate CIB COFNIITTEE Task force Review Projects. COMMUNITY FACSLSTIES STREETS & UTILITIES RESIDEMPIAL 6 ECONOMIC Tour 3i[as. TASK FORCE TASK FORC£ DEVEIAPMENT TASK FORCE � District s Seaff � Pcesentations. 1. Rep. from 17 districts 1. Rep. from 17 districts 1. Rep• from 17 �9istricts Ping. Comm. ReCOm. 2. CIB Committee Members 2. CIB Committee Members 2. CIB Committee Members Dist. �ouncil Priorities Priority Rate Projects. Determine Fundinq � PrioriGies 6 Recom. Focmulate Recommended Budqec s Program Using Task Force Priorities � � CIB COlQ�fITTEE � 6 Recomnendations � Revie�.+ CIB Committee Recommended Badget 6 DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS COUNCIL STAFF I3entify Disayreements � ' Consider CIB Committee � Rerommended Budyet i Program � . S Dp�. Directors' Recom. MAY�R � to Determire Mayor's Proposed Budget . � � Consider Recoaa�enda- tions of the Mayor 6 Ghe CIB Cwnmittee 6 �ITY CGQt]rII. Adopt Capital Improve- �� ment Budgee � ofrice oc tne Nayor Budqet Section-H!1`:"8 FIGURE 5 1978/19�9 CALENDAR FOA THE tJNIFIED CAPITAL IPlPROVEI�NT PROGRAM 6 BUDGET PNOCESS � (Ussd tor d�tazmining the 1980 Capital Improvea�ent Hudget) nDOPTLON OF GOALS AND POLICIES FOR cAPITAL ALLOCATION T�ntativa Date � 1) Interested citizens and City staff begin to review and evaluata last year's overall development strateyies and budqet policies by Octobor 23, 1978 2) Lntaresced citizena and City etaPf draft multi-year overall developmant etrateqias ' and budget policiea for all capital reaources available to addrese Saint Paul's capi[al needa. This draft will be distributed to distrie[s throuqh the Early Notificacion System (ENS) by � November 17 3) 3teering Coamittee of [he Planning Comniasion holds a public meeting on the proposed overall devalopment strateyies and budqet policies bY December 4 � 41 elanning Coamission recommends overall development strateqias a.nd budget policies by December 22 5) City Council's Finance, Management and Personnel Committea reviews recomnended overall development stzaeegies and budgeC policiea by � January 8, 1979 ' 6) City Council adopts Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policiea foverall developmene strategies and budget policiesl by January 11 7) Adopted Saint Paul Capital Allocation Policiea distributed through tha Early � Notification System (ENS) by January 19 PROGEtAMMING AND BUDGETING PROI:ESS ACTIVITIES � 8) Departments and organizations identify projects on "Preliminary Identification Furm" (blue focm) by February 19 9) Entities cequestinq project funding maet with appropriate City staff, including operatinq departments, planners and project coordinntors to identify: . February 26 to March 2 � a. Planning conflicts . , b. Timing conflic[s c. Capital allocation policies conflicts d. Cost estimates 1. Capital: Desiqn, acquisitlon, conatruction, etc. 2. Mnual operaGing costs � 3. Effect on revenues 101 Final submission date for formally submitting project funding requests to the Hayor's Jf21ce - Bwiget Section, Room 367, on the "Unified Capital Project Re- quest Form" (white form). Mazch 30 � 111 Planning Commission review to determine requested project's conformance with the Saint Paul Comprehensive plan and adopted capital allocation policies. April 9 to t�tay 11 12) CIB Task Force Budget Priorities and Recoueoenda[ions. Incl�es review+ of � laet year's Capital I:nprovement Budqei and current capltal allocation policies, bus tour, presentations by various citizen orqanizatione and operatinq de- pactments, reviev of Planning Commisaion recoaaaendationa and District Council priorities, staff analysis and project rating. March 19 to June 15 13) CIB Co`mnittee fundinq priorities and project recommendations to the Mayor and � Cicy Council after r��viewinq task force reco�endations and holding a public hearing. . June 18 to July 6 14) Department Directozs' recommendations to Mayor. July 16 to .7uly 20 � 15) Mayor holds Public Hearing on budqet recommendations between July 16 and luly 20 16) Mayoz determines his budqet prioritiea and recommendationa by .7uly 24 171 Mayor's Proposed Capital Improvement Budget and Program preparation (typing, � printing, collatiny and binding). Jvly 30 to Auqust 10 . / 18) Mayor transmits Proposed CIB to City Council by (Ordlnance M16306) August 14 19) City Council (Finance, Manaqement and Personnel Co�ittee) Public Heazing between August�'to September Z1 � ?O) City Council adopts 1980 Capital Improvement Budqet by Sepr.ember 27 21) Tax Levy Resolution adopted by (requiremr.nt by State law) , October 9 � 22) Gtant applications aze pzepared by January 15, 19d0 AN:IUAL PROCESS EVALUATION: WLF2ED CAPITAL ZPSROVEMENT PROGRAM AND BUDGET PROCE55 23) Ad Hoc Coum�ittee (Interested representatives from City Council, CIH Committee, , CIB Task Forces, Planninq Commisaion, District Councils and City staff). Cctober 1 to i:ctober 30, Ld"�� a. Task Force Ratinq Sheet b. Task Fozce and CIB Co�ittee Structure c. Performance Moni[oring and evaluation d. Capital Allocation Policies � r_ITIZEN :AONITORiNG AND EV�LUATION PROCESS Continuous � Mayor•a Office - 8udqet Section �� CNB:nlq August 15, 1978 1 5.0 POLICY IMPLEMENTATION 1 The effectiveness of policy depends entirely on whether � or not pro�ect.s and the capital improvement budget as a whole conform with the policies . City Council estab- lishes the policies and has responsibility for adopting the annual capital improvement budget. Thus, final � responsibility and authority for implementing policy rests with City Council . ' During the review process, responsibility for monitorina the policies is shared by the CIB Committee, the Plannin� Commission and the Budget Section of the Mayor's Office. � Figure 6 indicates where the responsibility for moni- toring the implementation of each policy lies in the project review and budget recommendation process . � FIGURE 6: POLICY MONITORING AND IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY � Planning CIE Mayor's Office Commission Committee Bud et Section N °' A � •r c� B* g* .� o C � D � � F* (E - nF* used) L G* G* ' � � H H °' I � -� � c � � fG•r � o K oa �.� � � � h' M � a � � N N � 0 0* � � � � P* P � o �Q 2Q* 2Q � N � .� R .� C � J � �� T* �, U +-� U v N C Q)� W � � � �•r 00 Li_. * Policies which relate to the budget as a whole , rather than individual projects � 35 ' ' � NCIL ADOPTED 1979 BUDGET AND TENTATIVE FOUR-YEAR PROGRAMS 6.0 CITY COU � 6.1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS 6.2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS ' 6.3 WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT BONDS � � 1 1 1 I 1 - 1 1 1 1 t � � � � 1 � 37 � ° $ g, o °o °o � 0 �'� '° °° '^ ° v° �°n a M . , .$ °o °o °o aN � � g o0 0 �m a �; o 0 0 0 , � m � � � � N � - M a ^^ $ o° °o o °oo � , 0 0 0 0 0 0 �� ~ r N N N U1 . a N , O O � O O O � � �� vf �n O N �$ „'^,� ° � u°� �n a o v . .� �n r w �o "� M � a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , n °o °o o °o °o °o °o °o $ °o °o �o °o g °o °o 0 �° ui �c o o �v o m m o v+ o ui o o r �v � � � �°n �o ao �o �^ e��i �°n � n o v � e � m .+ �° � � aqqMM �� Mq O �� M � M y o� u�i O � o s �' � O +� O n" ~ '° e� a a a a b � a � a a b � "�' a � �Q �•�, ~ �+, d, w w w ' , �a � � � M. a g $ a °o �°o °o ° .°-� o 0 " � a "o �l �°. � ° � ti ° g � � � o �n o g m o 0 .� p C qq � � H V � F � ,� � id � � u�i � � < a � a ° r � � N � � � 3 � � N O O � � M N �+ m ' � � � H � � � C U y y � N 4 � � & � w � � � g � g ;� � .� o ' b � •• � b � g � & a �' "' y � .pi °e b °i � � o a � � u �.�i u a+ ►� � � � �a+ a�+ d� a, v�'i a' e ' � � ."�i a�+ i a � ,� � � m �n o�,a a � � a � N � � �-�i �.�i > � o u .+ u w U o o �.�i �a o� u �.[i � �' < >° � �°, Z � y w a�+ a w .� � a a � � o � mv ,V, � r�i .Ci ° r� a .ai ° .°r � g a o � �' g e a N e o� � m �+ `n y a a a� y [ n u a x � W a .°.� � o .�+ a � A � ',�° �.�i N s y N w " i� y � a a j � � � � w � u m .� � � ro� '' � � � � � w a� o � u .� m n �n s� � Q� "' � � � � N o � �.°�r �. •� m m � �'t3 � � o� � � d x°1 5 � a w u �' � a w w a� a� � N c� � � x H �� , .-, � J ~ � � � � � o o .� �n o v �n �o n m rn �o n v �o u+ �n �o �o �o r �+ �+ �o �o r o� �n �n s �n � Q � � i � i i � � i � i � i � � i � i � Z U Vl �q N fA V1 U) N N V1 N U U U U V1 V Q r"' � A1 IA Q P'/ rl IA V N fV N P m 1A If1 .i Yl M �tl Nf CO W OD 1� u1 �fl P 1� M 1� .� N .-1 N 1� N , � � , 38 . � 1 ' oti , ro � �G m P m O� W O� N N W W . N J ♦ W J W W ♦ t.i W J P I W . N O /� �O O` O • � m N N N N N O� N J W 0 �O m � T W iA N ' F N n N n f� N Yl N fn 7II A 70 711 7� "f 1 A 7� 1 � [' 3 � '� � � � 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 � I� U Q r V� 1/� V� A • A Y � F+ �O �O 3 '. O w P O� O� N • V� J a � `� � N W Y • O IJ 10 Y � C M Z ' r l4 ►� .r t/i t� [p� fff///lll yyyQ111 "1D� ""I 2 N C (1 � � /g � ^ :� �� '1!wl N �l • • 7 1� f� 1"� �Y» p � � A pi � 5 P1 N ^ ar ^� C b f� • (n m � �1 � � � ,� S �N � ii p i � • � • ^ rl � 7.0 � � G � ,. � � w � y " ' �S ' � nn � w � � 'O 6 � �' �n�u�� .°� HS n�� g � o �'o s�� n ^'µ.°" `� < � x n � a . � N � � �j b M � yi .. r � � � � ��, ��„ �n s�o � o�n � ��° n 5 � a � o o� � r � �p t r �� y � � 1� fr • A 'O 7 A 1� � MN� � ��r� W S V y� � ^�" � � ^ � � � X r � � ~' 7 N M W �G • r A rr�1 • t �1 . Sp � O ,p � � r � � � � � n() e� : • � � �1 G � n� 75 M 1� �f 7 M r+G Z � < r� 'O � 7 � 7 7 r ►� n y e i n r• N• 0 o n �o � � �y � �� ,� C �c � b � c�yp �ih °'� °�'� —1 W � � O � � � ^ (�j � � ^h G'� � � y h � ti � � ` 7 N ,}� r� W li �j ��l Y �— s r � � � �o Or� r b�f �!f O1� � � � CiS o� r n O � � � � 9 4� O �' �' � • � Y � 'O r. C7 ' N � d � � .. '° " .. „• " R a a � ° �, � o " � ° '� C C » ~ ° " 2 � � � " �� ,a .� n a $ �* � n ~ � a o n D � � � $ � a � C � s � � ° o � ' a ^ `/ n � _ ^ M � p � r C .. � -n c • W � L r Q 1� M N V� V� W � �� ;, a N � o m � u � � n � g g g i a lL' � , � y a � � � � � � s � � � � �' o �' �' � � ;� ;� � � °s o ~ � � � � � �o n 0 0 � ` � c cy � 6 r � ~ � y.7 � r, �;,, �• ►• 1- ►� r� r� r� C e [' � � 7(� r7� ! �Vy 'O 'O L 'O V 'O 'O -r �1 :C � � • �C a � Y p $ W �O � �O �G �G �O �O �O N m �p � C 'Q o � S � i � � � � � r 0 w . . o Q p � 4 4 4 4 g $ $ C � 8 C C i � 5 C C C o. g r" o K e � o � � ~ M �'1 M � r�t .�i � < � C C � �, � 6 r ~ q ^ ~ ~ ~ � N. �... 4A N �+ W �' N N W U� l/� J � "" m � � � � C {/� � m N �' • O O m IJ W �"' J A 1-' O O V� O O� O "'n � O � � u� W O �O � W O O O O � O V� O N O O O O � � �� o �o o � o o c 8 � � 8 � 25 2S 2S g � 25 go 25 �°o go o �°o �� n r �O ... ..� ... � 'tl � r F' P N p. N IJ W l!� �! J V� � M � � 0 8 o g g o � S � 8 0 0 0 � � �°o � M � mB � o o $ o g � � o o � g . � o S � ° $� � " ` - � � � � " _ ' � _ _ � _ _ " � �. � ^ M f t W N p �O N N W N� O N � 1-� O a � O O O U O �i O u� J O O J• `� m�� p p O Qp O O O O O O O O � ?' O ~$� � � � � O S O O O O O O O O � 1 t� O C 0 � � � po v .� .� .-. � ^ w� W �n o � r' ti N pN Y � � � � �� 0� �n � O O c7 ~ J ♦ O O , ^ � . p ` , O �n O �n O O O N N�� O :J V O O O O O O J '� 0 � �� m o g o °o g � g g o° g g o a �o � ^ N t- W N .-, t.. u f V J M+ �f.J. ' �n � J J J O "' N �p � O O U O O tn O �/` O O O W O% ' - r�j'- S O O O . S � O � O `-� � ' � , � 6� ' �9�O 0� J W W a i+ /� N O fn r o ' �O � • � • � � b „ g � ` : � � � � $ � � w � .. ? �' t �' ? � ? ? � � y o W O� r u� d O u�i (� � a � c � � r � > a � � " � p�' gF�yj � µ � � � � F" � �� : • IM+� �g � � � � ' �d � � ' y ! p = � 3 N t� K � � � s � � y a �e i `� � � � � � s ,� � �, � � �t i° � � .� � � r � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �. � � � � � � ■ a � � � � � � � � ■ �, � � $ � s � � �. � Q � � � F� � ~ f� 8 M ^ � � � � � � � � �, _ � � ^ $ � " � � ' µ � t A � r• !�+ ~ N n � � e' � W �p N ♦ O �I � O O � O W I�� 1+ � W N � � � � � � 8 � � � � � 8 � ; r p r{� � ' . J 1 1 1 1 1 O � W � W � $ 4 q Y 4 4 � � � � 8 �" " � � � � � � p � � o� r w f. � gW A o N • ai • r � O O Y�i O � � � � J N 1 O M ♦ O O 1 � S 8 � � � � � 4 � � � � � � ' v " � � O� yr r., � 4 8 v N O O � O N � J � � � � � g g � � � � � � � � � � ` .. " � 6f J `►" � N +y ' � • ►1 ; � C v�i t�n O O O u� O � � � � � � 8 '° � � 5 � � � M A O m N Y1 N N � �O w � • w 't p� ' � � W o o a m ` �x g S O S 8 � $ � Na �c � _ ' n r w n W tr A 9� � y O W O� P � r� M ►� p Ou�i vwi O O � �� O � O � � p � ' ? y LD �p b � �O W 10 N � O O T !+ V � ' IA � �n �I W W—' � A A fi �P 1 � � � � � N N N O O J � � � �� N -r � � �I Q� Q �1 � 7r ��"� � S � � p�py F+ µ � � f� / O r f� 11 � � � N�G � �� D 'S M �O S M� R � � � � � W� µ �� W W � -+�� 2 fD � • �i 7 r' � � ry ?� F►�+ � a a s v m v c� cu �D �G �G � cD o � � C � a � � i a � fM1 � i►��►n � N m � t'�'h � � [�D n � � � � � O� R � 1� IC ro � R N � � � r� x � Oi 0� W C) C► 3 '^S M w E R w � C b M • �+1 , �_. �� . y � � r �rp� � � � x ro r� N C'f f� � a O+ O �. "gg' �j � '� � d � � ~w n � a w c+ � �rh �-+ r, � �„' n � r � o fi A n m u' `n o� o � $ � � � � � $ ,� � � � � ' mww� � � � ! ct 01 CT7�� t/f � � � � � M O 4 c, F 7r �c'* e'h N � 5 �� y O► O O � � 't N iC 7 � � �' �o �..P W(D � � ro � � � O �A'S < � R � a �r � � � ta fD �" O o �yr � ' R 5 � M"� p A � a p� O y ' a w � ~ � � p � C � A � � yy ►+ µ A O c � � T o J p o O a O N I� � � y � 0� �^ h M "D °o °o °o $ o °o 0 25 °o � p � .�. � � r a s" ' � � " n � J „ 7 � � 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 µ O K C , � � Q 4 Q � Q ° � ° R M rp n � � � K O � x ~ � c� � „ ro � qQ 5 $q � ' � r � ni N r r► N o � g uNi O o a w .� A w tn . r+ � `� r� � 9 � o Q � n� o O o� v� �+ o 0 o r o r Z5 � 5 � o 0 0 0 0 � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ta �o< �• pO o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o y A � 0 0 0 0 � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m O �i4 � r a N W t!� A M 01 CIl� O O� A tn O O p w r O n �W O A O N O O 0 J �p b � ' m O �� o° o o °o °o °o ° o° ° n c � o * o 0 0 0 0 o a'"'' O O ' � ' 6� „ �n .� .. ro N W W-�-� � r. �p ni w tn r p p OOOOt00 � o o a U o o v� ��o "�OOCTIOO O J O N O O W m Q C p" tli H V l�O O Ol O O O O O Q � � 0 G�~ ' 000000 o c�, o O O O O O O .o r., .- ro n , .i o .o � o o ~ �� o w r° n, o o �� .�. V O !J N N M p � p _ O U p,~ O _ .� �.) O ' , `� 'O , ;. �, �. .;, � 0 9 � m i. v, , �,� � " ._ f.. ,) �l . W �X . ' ' ' �1 y� �� pb � � O Cs b � W r W . In � . Oi C1 �e , � � � ,�' . .� ►w+ p � N � � W � M . � K � e�► R A � y � OM O I'T7 � � �ef � A �M D �i K • \� ~ N ■ � � , . �M A D � + � M � M � � 7� � � O : �C �C ��C � �t y�e s M � C r► i0 my. � {{p. � � OS r► pi N '0 � M F~+ � F+ M F+ � � M~+ i� ir � � O , i V q � � � � � q � � z . �� s `�� , °n° r � r � M � � � � � � � "« � � � � � 3 � � " `" � � � � W � � � Z � � o N ' M y p S .i � • � N. 7 N� H ff � � � 8 '' ~ J � � � � � w o � � Q w �Q J ►• I�' w �' 6' � ' � � 25 °o $ 25 °o � ~ R n r C r ' ° � ' � � � a � o � w � � � � � � K � � � � � � Q � � " � � � 1 � � $ p � � � M aC N �1 � • ~ J � O N O O O �j v � _ S $ � S o 0 0 � � � � + w ro r b $ o o N o °0 -° ou m , � °o °o g �'o °o uJi °o 0 0 0 A W p 1 w A J . � a' F+ O ►+ O Y � O � O O � f~E O ~� A O O S '1 O �' ' � 7 � 'C •+ N �1 O o r O ' O � o �O'Q o a d N � o N ° a rt � � , ` ' �. ti W W 'O lL 'y �n A ' O N N �D'� � o O rD � m O _ �n O o rD c> � � o o � , 0 0 CREDITS , , PLANNING COMMISSION **Martha Norton, Chairman *Jeff Levy ' *Liz Anderson *David G. McDonell *James Bryan Jean McGinley *Carolyn Cochran� George McMahon ' Thomas P. Fitzgibbon, Jr. *Jane A. Nelson Sam Grais *Joseph Pangal *Rev. Glen Hanggi Gayle W. Summers ' Sister Alberta Huber Janabelle Taylor David M. Hyduke Adolf T. Tobler Nelsene Karns Robert F. Van Hoef � � *Steering Committee and Special Policy Revi ew Merr�ers � ** h irman Steerin Comnittee . � Ca , g ADMINISTRATION AND James J. Bellus , Planning Administrator � POLICY DIRECTION William Q. Patton, Community Development Administrator Ken Dzugan, Principal Planner ' AD HOC CITIZENS COMMITTEE John Auge , George Hrynewych Merrill Robinson RESEARCH AND PLANNING Tamsen Aichinger, Planner ' Gregory Blees, Budget Analyst Gregory Haupt, Budget Analyst ' . , ' , . � ' , 44 ' , 7.0 RESOURCES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ' ' i offi es can rovide additional infor- The following c ty c p mation on specific elements of the Unified Capital ' Improvement Programning and Budgeting Process. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ' Division of Plannin�,q 298-4151 - ann ng ommission policy development and , review of proposals - capital allocation policies - Three-Year Community Development and Housing Plan - comprehensive plan segments ' - capital improvement program Divisi�n of Comnunit Develo ment 298-5586 � - e ig e activ t es - Three-Year Cor�nunity Development and Housing Plan - Community Development Program Budget ' - grants and aids - citizen participation processes - program monitoring and evaluation ' MAYOR'S OFFICE Budget Section 298-4323 ' - Annual UCIPBP and schedule - Mayor's budget review and recomnendations ' - CIB Committee and Task Forces - Annual budget and program - Capital improvement fund sources - Capital improvement proposal forms � � - Technical assistance for developing proposals In addition, the agendas for full City Council meetings � and Co�mittee meetings to review, obtain public input or take action on recomnendations for policy revisions or budget recommendations can be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, 298-4231 . ' , � � , 43 ' .. ' GLOSSARY (continued from front cover) J o nt-use ac ty: ac ty operate and or mainta ned by the city with one or more other public or private agencies (for example, Independent School District #625, Ramsey County, Port Authority, United Way, Wilder Foundation.) ' Leveraging: n genera , use o non-equ ty capita to increase return to equ ty. n mun c pa Lgovernment, refers to use of municipal capital as an inducement to comnitment of private sector capital in a devetopment project. ' �A Mun c pa cap ta : Cap ta mon es appropriate by City Counc n t e Cap ta Improvement Budget. IYI Municipal State Aid (MSA): State gasol9ne tax (principally) dollars returned to a municipality as ' a grant for use in maintenance and construction/reconstruction of certain state-des9gnated roads (called the "MSA routes"). �y � Po cy: guide ne or ru e inten e to eterm ne or a n eterm n ng ec s�ons. ' A`� Private sector: The non-governmental portion of the economy. "Private sector" and "public sector" are the two general divisions of all economic activity and decision-making. eturn on investment : e ers to t e pro it on an nvestment. or examp e, t e return on investment ' R in a standard savings account is about 5%. Revenue bond: A certificate of indebtedness whose debt service is only from revenues of the facility constructed with the bond funds. Unlike general obligation bonds (see above), revenue bonds cannot legally become a liability of the property tax base. ' Tax a atement: T e act or pract ce o im t ng t e uture amount o rea estate tax to be pa� on a Tproperty. Occasionally used by municipal legis}atures as an incentive for development characterized by some public benefit. � Three-Year Community Development Plan: A plan required by HUD as part of St. Paul's Year V (1979) Cortmunity Development Block 6rant Application. The plan must identify St. Paul's major cortmunity development needs and specify St. Paul's strategy for meeting them with CDBG and other funds over the period 1979 through 1981. , U UCI B : See Uni ie Capita mprovement Program an Bu get rocess. Unified Capital Improvement Program and Budget Process (UCIPBP): The formal process used by the ' City of St. Paul annually to arrive at a Capital Improvement Budget and a Capital Improvement Program. ' , ' , � ' ' ' �' o � � o � .. �' � - �' m •° ax rt � m � o ro• n n H 5r rr rt w � rr � c�i � n m x o ro � ►d N °u' � • fi C� � (D M :� K t-� � O : tv N• F-' � t'h � G fD Sv t-' � F-' H t!i � N � � K � n C7 F' LL fJ � O � 1-' � R+ U� (� [� cu G �tY � F-� Cz 1�• fD � C ct �d hi K � d m � n �r ro c� N- a a o � � M iL�4 ',C ''rJ O O � >s' �C N i1+ LL � O ►�-h � fD � � � '�] N fD fh '.s` N t4 C� � '.� W � n ft �4 M Q �1 W � CJ � N a1 1 W ►�i � N � � � (�i� ►� c~i' '.�Y 1 N CY CY F'• Ct' f1' v (D� t�A � N (D �4 � tn n a, m • :� '�' p n � H 1 rr , � � � Q tD v � � � � � � ~ � � �t' C3' O � � o o p ° "' cr � (�D N � :� � � ~� � � O � O N t� H H Y � � � ¢,� Z . . � N N Z'. O O O 3i► 1-+ ►s7 . . � � � O O � � o H � � � � � � rt • � °o � o � d m . °o 0 0° ~ � � � � � m � � ' t� � � - y � O y-W N � t�t � F� w io �o cn w cr r ro 0 0 � ° � o° cNi, o° w ro ,i �r�. C C . p � ►�i K O O O O rf' N ��.1 � O O O N O ' R+�C C7 F-� [�] � + 00 tn H tn tn O O � O o cs � r °o o' � n � - � ro ►c ' N � U�i � ro n H p WO N O N � � p O ►K'i � ,. .7 � O O (D O N '..t' H T O O O O ¢ O C1+ 1-�� p\� ; . o "� z � `q u� `� ::; � o � ' � � ._�,� " , Q� r o � rn � c�u in o in N ,-�r � . � °o ,o °o N• �d m m °o °o °o rt� w K K O O O �p p � CL� N N O .. � , O" � F-' N, N l0 � � v O� � l0 O? � O' �.,; 00 N .P v . � . �P � Gl l0 a0 lp � . � � N 61 tIt �.1 Ut N (�. � O Cl O ,P W. O O O O O O O O a ?: �-1 ►-+ C� G� M C7 C7 n G7 � ►-r�- � �N . O K G'I 'd n • K G p F-' ►-� N 1-� F-� F-' F' i-' t� F-' ►-� O ►i ►G t� J l7 l7 l7 �D l� t0 �0 t0 tD �'J ,q rt� q Cn 'x1 00 00 GJ q CO �t �? �l K n W � F°- W W N N F� F-� O O l0 �.�O kp N 'J' 1j . •" /-�'`��la/�.r�Q��v.� /° C '��, �� L� G7 � C � n � �.. Q°, � � � � �: � � r 2� ►-� ro � � W �' n � N � f�J � f-' ►Y C O ii` � � O W ft O � � C/!�� R• /� O K LL /� Oy K R. ^ O ri /� N c/�r tt CL � /� O . � \�/ •! � \I '�l ♦J � �J � \J N' � y i� 0 tJ �.� 1 n H C+ e� 'd H 0r D+ 'tt r3 A� ,ti ':f Ti 3 O f7� '"' O' N CJ J�, ;T f"� i� U! 'J H �CS N Q H � U7 Q �� H CJ .`1 ft f'• p'�''� 1 F'• vJ I-�- 1 F-� VJ W 1 F-� '] F�• 1 �-+ F'• H � Di H CJ �� F-• f'• rr t7 F� rr � r `- rr v N rr �- rt r �' ft �' m c�r � � C+ P� G 9� c� C Di G C N O 1-�+ N rrct N � rt r Nr* r tor � b :� � � m r• � N• � N• o .� w o � a o N oH � � u� � an ►-� � !v � � �v � � ro � � a. � i � x � � a' �u � ro � �s �n a � � �•�s rt y r'� tt C �D W C f] � C C, C+ C ►y rt ni O 'O � C � cr tJ ct m ct tD �' (� � " •.i n H � � H fJ � H n � O K 'd N � C � f� C � W ►-� � CJ � �' y A CJ � ni � � O � H cJ � G �C1 Pi CJ' F'• � � � 0� `' ai � rt m O F~-� � c'�� r~r W o a� o m o a� o a � � � A• � �' �, �' a n �, U�i p � � �' �'' � � ,A � CQ 7a 00 OJ CD 7. p W 7.. O� J 2 `L 7. O� � � l�'J W O N� F-+ O � O O � � O O O � d O C�' Q �1' tn t1' [r ft tn rt r(�p Oi n �� N U1 y O Q (A O � Vl O O G'I tn Cn O p� lx+. N �. � 0 t�'� n O t-+� O t�'' n Q n O � ~.� p o N• o r• �• r• o � .ry � R � � � � � n a c�. �. a a H z � ro �P W ln N �P tfi .D 0� N �A ►i C � 4" . �. • � .� . .. � .. • rn cn rn � c� w c� o �n rn �o m :� � r�t r W N Q► O A O ,p. O �P tJt N 01 tt (J (D • (,) V� O W O N N N N tn �1 tn N pi ct � [�1 � . � . • � � . � � � � � � n ft '�� 0 0 0 o w o w o o a� o ,p � p, }.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � �-C � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c�. r °w r Go oD t o� o� w w •� o � �' F�-' w °� � � N H � o � � � . . . . V� cn 1 O O O tn N pp w N O� N �.+ O O O O N N O O O O �4a O �p � O O H O O .. O O O J O F-� F�+ O �1 N tn (} . . y .. . � � � � . .. ct � K Z 0 0 ¢ 0 0 O O O 0 0 O O O O 00 C OO OO O 00 O O0 O (� �J pj O O � O O O O O O O p O O O � � � �l` � < � 1+• W C7 W O N 1-' F-' O O � �D CJ � O b7 � (v m i�. H � K ro w � � ro � rrcn � o ►� �o �o zs Nrwoot� 0o m oo ao r ,w � o ,a. m r• o c.� o n � . � � tn cn o 0 o cn u� m w in n n � w i�. 00 0o NN o 00 0 �' nr �'' _� 00 00 00 o F. F.., o �* �' `° r• 00 00 00 0 00 0 � ~ � � � .� . . t.,, o f.,. �., �. O O O O O O O O O O l�J � w � �� A N T:�� N V O O � 1 1 N N b � � O ln Vt W M � � O O O � N' n 0r � O O O p p O O O � ~ ~ O O O p � '0 N n O � n R Q O �t' }'• t7 -!- i� t .� � � �' N N 1-� !-� N C C1 n � � . . �. F,, n a � o � . �-• o p: r„ ro 0� N F-' � t4 O (D M � O N N �p pp = Ut � � � �' rt F' F'- O O O O O O O O O O O p O � M � " " ►-� C� .'3 �